Posted December 12, 2002

Dune Dictum

Regarding "By Way of Deception" by Justin Raimondo:

There was one line that I remember from Frank Herbert's sci-fi classic Dune: "He who can destroy thing controls it."

Given Israel's overwhelming military and nuclear strength in the Middle East it would seem by the above dictum that Israel controls the Middle East and with it the vast oil reserves it contains. The planned U.S. invasion of Iraq may in fact be an attempt to protect US oil reserves, not from the Arabs, but from Israel.

Controlling Iraq and placing troops and the assorted missile defensives into Iraq may in fact be an attempt to lessen Israel's destructive capacities in the region. The US and Israel may in fact be competitors rather than allies. While the US provides Israel with massive military aid, none of this compares to the destructive force of nuclear weapons which Israel has in vast numbers.

Of course, the US strategy is most likely to be the obvious: the US and Israel carve up the region.

~ Moses David, Australia

Declaring War

Regarding "By Way of Deception" by Justin Raimondo:

Nice article today, except for one huge error. In the next to the last paragraph you wrote, in part, "Surely there is a dangerous sort of irony in the act of declaring a war..."

Bush never asked for, nor did he receive a declaration of war from Congress. We are not at war. However, we are engaged in another one of those "police actions" that are so familiar in the post-World War II period.

A declaration of war would impose a lot of severe restrictions on the press and American people, which would be a tough sell politically. Better to do it incrementally, with the DOHS and TIA and sell it to the public under the aegis of "security."

~ Scott Parrish, Phoenix, Arizona

Fax a Letter

Regarding "J.C. Penney Catalog: Toy Soldier Commandeers Barbie's Dream House" by Eric Garris:

You may know already but I asked for JC Penny's corporate customer service fax number and it's: 972-431-9140.

I plan to fax a letter and will copy you.

~ RO, California

Scott C.

I'll bet the farm that Scott C., the wise 11-year-old, is home schooled.

~ Tony B.

Iraq Inspections

Regarding "How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them," by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot:

The facts in the article by Neil Mackay listing the chemical and biological arms the US and Britain sold to Iraq up until 1992 must be mainstreamed in all the news media! These facts are largely unknown by the American public (mostly because the administration suppresses them) and would give the public a chance to realize how their minds have been manipulated by the government into believing that Saddam is the cause of all our troubles. The brainwashing that this administration has done has been largely effective and people are totally unaware of the true facts. We did not object to the Iraqi gassing of the Kurds at the time of it's occurrence; we were supplying the chemical means that enabled Saddam to do so! However, this deplorable incident has now become part of the rhetoric used to stir up the public to support an unnecessary war! These facts must be made widely known! This war is unnecessary and will have repercussions for the US in many ways for a very long time. This is our country and we are being led into a truly unwise and uncalled for war.

~ Rosemary R., New York

AP Quote

I saw your quote [attributed to Eric Garris] in an AP article carried by ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20021210_1501.html .

Please keep it positive, brother, and be careful with your words to the press. I hope you didn't mean to disparage the October 26th protests.

Yes, they were organized by ANSWER and we do not all love ANSWER. But there was ONE message at that march: Stop the War Before It Starts. That's why 100,000 turned out in D.C. Whatever you may think of ANSWER's politics, they did a great job of organizing that protest and keeping the message focused.

Antiwar activists need to build on that achievement, not tear it down. Please help support the coming January 18th march.

~ Danny R., Washington, DC

Eric Garris replies:

I didn't say that quote at all. I have already protested to AP, since they essentially made up the quote after talking with me for 30 minutes.

When Is War Justified?

Today I heard on the news that some are calling antiwar protesters un-American. I personally do not believe that but, I would like to know when your organization feels that war is justified?

Is your feeling the same when it comes to the Israel / Palestine issues?

~ Edward M.

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

War is justified when the borders of our country are threatened. If someone threatens to bomb us or does so, that justifies retaliation. That is why we should go after terrorists who attack our country. Iraq has never attacked the US. In fact, the US gave permission to Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1990, then we turned around and invaded to retaliate. Of course, it is not mentioned that Kuwait was basically owned by the Emir. It was not any more democratic than Iraq.

We have no business involving ourselves in the internal affairs of other countries. If we target leaders who mistreat their own people, we would have to invade half the countries of the world.

We have the biggest military budget, over $400 billion dollars a year. By contrast, Russia spends $10 billion a year on military. With such a huge defense budget, why were we unable to stop a plane from hitting the Pentagon an hour and 20 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC, and 20 minutes after air traffic controllers knew the plane was headed there? Where was our air force? The answer is: our focus is on military intervention into other nations, not on actually protecting our country.

I am a Republican, and I consider myself a patriot. I think that labeling all opponents as "anti-American" indicates an inability to actually debate the issues.

Saddam

I'm one of the people who don't really care to see the country go to war with Saddam, but I believe the world will be a better place once he's gone from the scene. Let's not try to change each other's minds on this point. I am curious to know what you and your organization would say to any of the survivors of Saddam's gas attack against his own citizens, the relatives of the Kuwaitis still missing from his 1991 occupation, or any of his current citizens who are struggling to survive, yet can see the ... many palaces he has built for himself while his people are not getting help from him?

~ FA

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

I have no doubt that Saddam is a brutal man who has brutally killed many. But it is not the duty of the US (nor a good idea) to decide to overthrow the leaders of countries who abuse their own people. If we did that, we would be forever invading countries.

Handouts

I've been enjoying the recent articles on Israel from Antiwar.com. By what right do I pick on Israel? Simple I, as an American taxpayer pay for the handouts they lobby and beg for. Though in fairness, I think we should also start to focus on the second largest welfare case, Egypt.

I'm sick of my tax money going to foreign nationals. Why should my money be sent to Israel, a country with a per capita income of $20,000 (CIA World Fact Book)? Isn't 'pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps' the American way? Isn't it illegal to fund countries who use torture? Israel readily admits to using techniques defined as torture in the occupied territories.

Perhaps what worries me most about our relations with Israel is that it does nothing but buy us enemies. How many countries can I as an American not travel safely in because of our suicidal support of this nation? And don't be fooled, there are many fundamentalists who would have the US support Israel to the point of nuclear annihilation, ours, theirs, and the rest of the Middle East. Pick up a book by the likes of Hal Lindsey to see what I mean.

~ Jim Vinsel

Less-Rosy Scenario

When President Bush discusses his much-desired war against Iraq, he seems to describe an American entry into Baghdad resembling the liberation of Paris, with cheering Iraqi throngs filling the sidewalks throwing roses. Alternatively, a successful repeat of Afghanistan is suggested, with American-supported native "freedom fighters" acting as our surrogates in any risky, actual combat. Let's consider another, less-rosy but perhaps more likely scenario. Let's suppose the Iraqi military has learned that their Desert Storm strategy of protecting the desert was foolish, and instead, as they have already stated, elect to concentrate their tanks and military in the streets of Baghdad and other major cities.

The predictable result would be extended house to house fighting, resulting in some inevitable "collateral damage" - though it's hard to imagine what type of debt would require the destruction of hospitals, churches or schools as collateral. Once this occurs (and, it's not beyond Saddam to wreak such destruction himself for the purpose), any hopes for an indifferent or supportive response from Baghdad civilians would be dashed. Iraqi civilians may hate Saddam, but they will surely hate their invaders worse, particularly after having been forced to pay such a tragically high price as "collateral". Given bin Laden's demonstrated ability to escape in such confusion, there is every reason to believe that Saddam may similarly disappear.

But, it gets worse. As Saddam exits, wouldn't he then feel free to act out the skunk and unleash any chemical and biological weapons he might have? Wouldn't stretched American supply lines be ripe targets for such attacks? How soon we seem to have forgotten the many veterans who have complained of lingering health problems from the last Gulf War, the one in which we're told no such weapons were used. Imagine how much worse the effects on our brave troops if they are!

Eventually, the extended street fighting will produce an occupied Baghdad and we will install our puppet regime, which will have all the popularity of the Vichy government under Petain. We'll likely attempt some rudimentary steps toward reconstruction. We can expect, however, significant, long-term terrorist resistance, both here and abroad during our occupation. Ultimately, as losses mount, we will forced to leave, as we were in Vietnam, leaving an appointed government who can expect a fate similar to that experienced by the Shah of Iran. In the end, Iraq will be just about as friendly.

To pay for this effort, our president has suggested that Iraqi oil wells would be as available as wells outside Houston, and would serve as a potential major source of funding for the war and reconstruction efforts. But, knowing this, wouldn't Saddam prefer to destroy his own wells, as he did in Kuwait? What effect would that have on the American and world economies?

All this, because our president is convinced that he can read Saddam's mind and knows he's going to attack. Surely, September 11th can't have driven our country into such fear that we must now lash out at the first bogey man who frightens us! Now is the time for thoughtful Americans to let our representatives know we need to be not only tough on terrorism, but smart on terrorism, as well. We are on the brink of a disaster of our own making.

~ Bernie Nofel, San Diego, California

So Damn Insane Versus Saddam Hussein

After 9/11 Americans rallied patriotically behind our president in his retaliatory campaign to stop Osama bin Laden and his followers. This was in response to an attack on American soil. Since then our president has taken it upon himself to cleanse our world of terrorism, with or without world approval. It is starting with Iraq. Where does it go next, Korea, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Israel, China, Russia or Cuba? The list goes on and on, they're all terrorists! But you and I know we would never invade any country who is too powerful (hard to defeat), an ally (no matter who they terrorize) or already in bed with us (does what we tell them to do). So we go after some big mouth who's terrorizing his neighbors. But what about us? We're terrorizing the world (do it our way or else).

His daddy went to war with the same man over oil. What do we have a copy-cat-president or one just trying to save family face? Who died and made him world chief of police anyway? It's time to inform our delusional-minded leader to get down off his self-made almighty throne, stop playing cops and robbers, and start doing something about our economy.