Hi Mary Anne ;-)

You make a lot of ggod points...I will address them as best I can.

If you are intent on killing the man, why not just do it and avoid bombing the children?

No one wants to bomb children. I don't want to bomb children. Any bombing campaign would almost exclusive target command and control facilities, munitions depots, airfields, underground artillery and tank storage, etc. etc.

For all intents and purposes Bush has placed a crosshairs on the man. But a man who lives more secluded than Hitler and who has been in power longer than Hitler has pretty much secluded himself away from snipers, bombers, assassins and mercenaries. Germany believes he has at least two doubles who appear during celebrations.

Personally, I am very opposed to assassinations versus imprisonment and trials. For the same reason Maryland is terrified - by a skilled sniper intent on proving the vulnerability of US citizens - I prefer to keep the roaming global snipers to a minimum. Like you I do not want the US demeaned by actions beneath it, and assassination always reaks.


Has anyone heard much about the Kurds lately? No? That's because nobody wants to piss off the Turks, who have their own, um, issues with their Kurdish population, to the tune of a 15-year-long war with Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

That may be partially true. However much has to do with the media's refusal to shine that spotlight on the Kurds. They know what's going on. They can report it prominently. They are not being coerced by the State Department to cover-up the Kurdish situation in Turkey. The media knows that shining the light on the Kurds plight discounts the war for oil theory some folks eagerly wish to believe.


Are you parading the fate of the Kurds out now to persuade me that this is at the bottom of Mr. Bush's "Get Saddam" initiative? Why now, when the Turks have been using NATO and American supplied weapons for years to kill the Kurds within their borders with nary a peep from our leaders?

Turkey's relationship with the US is much like Iraq's was of twenty years ago. It is considered a useful enemy of our enemy.
The Turkish nation and mindset are not exactly the height of civilized expression, but in comparison to a fundamentalist leaning government in that slot, they seem all fine and dandy.

It's a really difficult position to be in. Diplomatic maneuvers are indeed achieved by succoring some nations and placating others. Almost no nation comes to a diplomatic table without making compromises. Indeed, our nation is constantly looking the other way, thanks in large part to treaties which allow some semblance of common goals to be met.

Are we the great humanitarian Kurdish supporters now, suddenly? Are only the Good Kurds of Iraq the beneficiaries of our high-mindedness, or will we extend this concern over Kurdish wellbeing into the backyard of our staunch ally?

Are we? You and I are America. It would be easy for the media to whip up a pro-Kurd frenzy if it so wanted. I support the Kurds to a self-governing state - just as I support a Palestinian state. Conflicts do not make the economy prosper and even the often mentioned military industrial complex, which surges in profits at these times, realizes there is a limit to the extent the government can and will finance expensive weapons programs.

I say take it one step at a time. Should we not be concerned or help the Iraqi Kurds because our ally is persecuting them and we may have to limit our assistance to the Kurds in Iraq?

Of course not.

We must do what we can, where we can. Once we make things better for the Kurds in Iraq, naturally this will exert pressure upon our ally to reduce their abuses and clean up their act.


For more on the ever-complex Kurdish situation, see here and here. With a history like this, I have grave doubts that there is any concern for the Kurds beyond trotting them out to try to make America look like a rescuer rather than a frightened superpower. If protecting Kurds had been the main issue, it would have been on the front burner the whole time.

Again, the Kurdish issue is not being suppressed - but rather the media chooses not to shine a light on it. The media is very selective about its coverage of tragedy. Genocide in Yugoslavia was only actively covered by the media once the Clinton leadership had decided that this was a great new role and distraction and made it a "issue".

In 1998 endless anti-Saddam rhetoric flew. Clinton, Gore, Blair and the world were for regime change. Then the Secretary General - whose role in this I would really love to deeply investigate - personally brokered a deal with Saddam to continue the status quo. A deal which was violated almost as soon as it was made.

The media doesn't want to talk Kurds - because then it puts compassionate people, like yourself, on the defensive. It is too effective a counter to the whole blood for oil conspiracy rhetoric generated by a full of himself twenty-something at DNC headquarters.


Your statement concerning the frequency of anti-aircraft fire on American planes in no-fly zones apparently comes from a Pentagon press release which itself admits that the Iraqi number of hits has been zero. Further, the no-fly zone in the south is three times as big as the one over Iraqi Kurdistan, uses 4 times the personnel and 3 times the aircraft. Apparently it's not all for the Kurds, though I haven't anything against the Shi'ites in southern Iraq.

If someone were shooting at your kids - your daughter - does it diminish the crime in any manner simply because they missed or your daughter ducked fast and avoided the threat? I know this is not a nice analogy - but those pilots are some mothers kids too.

Let's guess who wants more planes patrolling a larger southern zone? Perhaps our reluctant ally to the south afraid of retaliation? Hmmm.


I don't believe that Saddam Hussein is a peace-loving leader. I don't believe that the Saudi leadership is peace-loving either. Yet we have not targetted them, even though we have far more reason to be worried about the screws loose in that kingdom and the trail of cash leading to the people who have attacked New York and DC. Why is this?

The same reason we let the Kurds get beaten up in Turkey - political alliances which always are based upon meeting some mutual goals and at the same time agreeing to look the other way on issues of conflict. In a nutshell - nations ally themselves with the US conditionally - and the conditions often are that we cough up big amounts of cash yearly and ignore their own persecutions and "in-house" conflicts. This is the way we gain an "ally" in the second and third worlds.

I don't like it any better than you - but what is the alternative? Have no allies in these regions?


The argument that we haven't seen any WMD so Saddam must have them or else we'd be able to find them (??) is insufficient for me to support the bombing and blockading of an entire nation, against the opinion of many nations whose friendship we may need someday, hard as that may be to imagine.

Those nations (i.e Europe, Russia, China) are simply serving their own needs. They couldn't care less about the Iraqi people or children! Their goal is economic interest pure and simple. In many ways they scream and shout that it's about oil - because that is their focus! Russia's economy has only bounced back due to increased oil production. In many ways the new economy in Russia is an oil economy like Saudi Arabia or Iraq. China sells arms and parts covertly to the tune of tens of millions yearly to Iraq. Japan is almost solely dependant upon mideast oil, so is europe.

Will Saddam burn the fields again? Will oil prices shoot through the roof? How long will it last? Will the US annex the oilfields? The same fears were paraded in 1991 only to prove false. Oil prices recovered quickly, reaching all time new lows within several years.

For them any war is about oil. Not us.


I am alarmed that you claim knowledge of the future, which is a sign of delusion. I am deeply alarmed that my government seems committed to retaliating before the fact based on what might happen. This is otherwise known as "first strike".



I know the sun will rise tomorrow and that the sun will set in the west. This does not make me delusional but simply aware of certain courses of action which are predictable without the onset of any remarkable interference. Yes the sun could go nova in a few hours and my knowledge of the future might be mistaken. Tyrants and dictators may not be as predictable as the movements of the sun and the earth, but they make a close second. ;-)

When the Japanese did this in 1941, it was called "infamous". Rightly so. I do not want my nation, which I love very much, to become "infamous" by its own definition.

Again, we are being attacked - the fact that they are poor shots is not materially relevant to the crime. Does it only count or become "real" when a boy doesn't come home?

For what doth it profit a nation, if it win the entire Middle East and lose its sacred honor?

We are the honorable party in this case - our track record stands pretty well aside from perhaps the Phillipines occupation, during the 19th century. But next to the Belgium and King Leopold and other nations exploiting the ignorant during this era - we were saintly.

Saddam has no honor. The Iraqi people are in an almost identical situation to the German people in 1939.

However I assure you - many more "innocent" Germans died at the hands of the US and Britain - firebombing cities to dust and killing hundreds of thousands of women and children. Not one of our finer moments. But determined to be necessary to break the backs and spirit of the German people.

Yet in these days no one was calling German children "innocent" or the German people "victims". If you supported Hitler - you were an evil Kraut who deserved what you got coming.

The only reason the Iraqis are considered "victims" is the same reason the Palestinians are considered victims - because they seem more sheeplike, more ignorant and seem to have almost no control or influence over their government.

Regards--
Mary Anne

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It feels good to actually discuss issues rather than mouth rhetoric.

Good night here good morning there,

;-)

SDAI-Tech1