Three Years! A Look Back. 03-05/2003 Who Could Have Thunk?

[Warren Stupidity]

As part of my protest over the third anniversary of the war crime committed by the Bush Regime when it invaded Iraq, I went back to my old usenet postings around the time of the invasion. I am just an idiot on a computer, an amateur, a nobody, but it seems that I and many others like me had this war figured out from the start.

Here is what one old lefty was saying three years ago about this damn war. P.S. Get off your asses and out on the streets tomorrow!

==================

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_frm/thread/3c5ab6c1d4ca2077/0ca4d662aafa88ff?lnk=st&q=(iraq)+group%3Atalk.politics.misc+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=10&hl=en#0ca4d662aafa88ff

On 15 Mar 2003 10:18:51 -0800, [e-mail] (Michael)
wrote:


>The anti-war lobby say we shouldn't go to war because it will cause
>civilian deaths. Instead they say we should help the Iraqis depose
>Saddam themselves. However if we do this, Iraq will end up with a
>protracted civil war in which far more civilians will die than in a
>short hi-tech war.


Iraqi internal affairs, as long as they do not cross the line into
crimes against humanity, our not the business of the international
community. Would I like to see a democratic Iraq? Sure. Is it the
neocon cabal's intention to create such a regime (after killing some
large number of Iraqis in the 'short hi-tech war?) I rather doubt it.
A democratic regime in Iraq would very likely be a fundamentalist
Islamic regime. The Algerian and Pakistani problem with democracy
would assert itself. Our government's goal is control over the
strategic oilfields of mesopotamia and arabia, not Making the World
Safe For Democracy. Democracy, War On Terrorism, Weapons of Mass
Destruction are just lies 1,2,3 put forth by the neocon agitprop
division.

==================

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.mideast/browse_frm/thread/c322b3c518e3a820/025b82ea4a5b6e3d?lnk=st&q=(iraq)+group%3Atalk.politics.misc+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=40&hl=en#025b82ea4a5b6e3d

Well that isn't quite the only difference is it? The other difference
is of course that we have this nasty partisan problem and patton by
and large didn't. That 'small difference' is the one that can spell
actual disaster for our forward positions. If we cannot clean up this
mess we may very well be forced into a truly ugly situation. And how
exactly do we 'clean up this mess'? The only way I know of is that we
start killing iraqis in large numbers from southern iraq to the edges
of baghdad. Where does that end up? Well it ends up with us having to
reinforce the reinforcements in order to keep a hostile and now
seriously motivated population under control, and it leaves us with no
exit strategy regardless of what happens in baghdad. Basically the
necon cabal in washington has put our soldiers and our nation into a
serious shithole from which there may be no viable political or
military exit.


==================


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/browse_frm/thread/795d837215c78658/50bab775dff900b2?lnk=st&q=(Iraq)+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=7&hl=en#50bab775dff900b2

<[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
> Steven Litvintchouk <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> The American left-wing could play a constructive role--they could act as
>> watchdogs to ensure that real democracy is given a chance in Iraq, and
>> that the oil really is put in trust for the American people.


>Sounds like a good idea, although I doubt *real* democracy will ever be
>given a chance in Iraq. It hasn't worked here yet.


>Why would the oil be put in trust for the American people? It doesn't
>belong to us.

Oh I think Steven had a bit of a freudian slip there.

As the protests have never been about supporting Saddam, and have
always been about opposing the imperialist adventure of the neocon
cabal, the struggle will continue as the neocon plan continues to
unfold. Perhaps, if we are patient and continue to explain what is
going on, the good folks of america will start to listen.


==================


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_frm/thread/952b3f762c9ccc98/919b5c7fd4701911?lnk=st&q=(Iraq)+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=10&hl=en#919b5c7fd4701911


>Are you just stupid or what? The problem with Iraq is the arsenal they
>posessed that was unaccounted for, their history of willingness to use it,
>their hatred for the US and Isreal, and the great potential of someone like
>Bin Laden getting their hands on such weapons. I guess if we hadn't done it
>and someone did set off some nerve gas or nuclear device, you wouldn't have
>cried "Why didn't Bush do more to prevent this?"?



And yet there remains no connection between Iraq, a secular
nationalist regime, and the radical fundamentalist organizations like
al qaeda. In fact al qaeda has stated in the past and recently
re-affirmed, that they would also like to get rid of the baath regime
in Iraq. Prior to the bush adventure, there was absolutely no reason
for Iraq to get involved with al qaeda, and certainly no reason to
give them weapons (which as far as we know the Iraqis do not have,)
that al qaeda would very likely use against the baghdad regime itself.
Generally you do not arm your sworn enemies with weapons they can use
against you.

However, it remains astounding that one of the many, ever shifting,
justifications for this war is *SPECULATION* that in the future some
bad thing *MIGHT* happen if we do not act now. That remains a
completely inadequate reason to wage a war of aggression. Our war
remains a violation of the UN Charter and of international law. Our
regime is guilty of a war crime.


Iraq demonstrated willingness to use chemical and biological weapons
against Iran because they had what they believed was the tacit
approval of the US. In fact, it was our government that provided the
critical technology for some of these weapons. True enough, the Iraqis
appear to have committed an atrocity against the kurds, killing, by
most reports, 5,000 in a chemical attack. You should be aware that our
good friends the turks have committed a similar atrocity against the
kurds, albeit with more standard military techniques, in their
campaign to put down kurdish independence. In fact, since WWI it has
been open season on kurds, with turkey, iraq, and iran taking turns
supporting and or seeking to eliminate various kurdish attempts to
create their own nation. Generally this has been done with the tacit
or explicit approval of the assorted Great Powers. But why bother with
history. It is so much easier to spew out non-sequitors and emotional
irrationalities.


In gulf-war-I Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and
delivery systems. They did not use them, even as their army was being
crushed in its retreat from kuwait. Why? Because they were warned that
we would respond in kind if they did. This sort of simple threat of
reprisal is very effective. We have an enormous arsenal of WMD and we
have demonstrated our ability to deliver these weapons to virtually
any place on the planet with pinpoint accuracy. This threat is
understood by the baghdad regime. That might be evil folks, but they
are not stupid.


Prior to this war, there was simply no credible threat of an Iraqi WMD
attack against us. There was little chance that Iraq, if it does have
chemical or biological weapons useful to terrorists, would give these
weapons to groups that would attack us. As the CIA itself testified to
congress the risk of this happening has drastically increased now that
the regime is facing almost certain destruction.


We are engaged in a classic example of self full filling prophecy. Our
actions have enraged the muslim world. Where al qaeda was becoming
isolated, now there is a very good chance that more and more
mainstream muslim people will be drawn into their cause. Where there
was disunity among muslim nations and our proclaimed 'axis of evil',
we are driving them towards unity against us. Iran and North Korea
have accelerated their nuclear programs. We have destabilized the
friendly muslim nations of jordan, pakistan, egypt, saudi arabia,
yemen, and others. We have created a sense of grim determination in
syria and libya: these countries will be seeking to defend their
nations against our onslaught as well. We have created serious concern
in the two other nuclear super powers: china and russia. We have
alienated the european union, and perhaps we have galvanized their
determination to move from economic union to political union. For
what? For some addled-brained theory that this makes us immune to
another 9-11? For the election campaign of 2004? For some neocon
nightmare of world hegemony?


==================


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_frm/thread/88e8a907b089db0b/79ee5b9a33d96efd?lnk=st&q=(Iraq)+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=18&hl=en#79ee5b9a33d96efd

>"Brain Death" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:32:44 -0700, The Axis of Weasel
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:


>> >This occupation is a disaster. The US must leave - and fast
>> >Any gratitude for the removal of Saddam is now virtually exhausted


>> Wait a minute, you guys have to make up your mind. Before the war you
>> were telling us Bush would not stay long enough to do the job
>> properly. Now you're saying we've got to get out now?



Uh, actually most of us were saying that the US would establish a
permanent military presence in Iraq in order to control the middle
east oil fields. But it is so much fun to make up positions for your
opponents isn't it?

However, there is a related issue of how the US will establish a
compliant Iraqi regime of nominal independence. This is somewhat
separate from the military base issue, which will simply happen
regardless of how 'nation building' is implemented.


I happen to disagree with the article. Now that we have conquered Iraq
we have a responsibility to stay in Iraq as the colonial authority for
as long as it takes to rebuild a stable iraqi society. The correct
time frame is years not months, during which time the colonial
administration is going to be a magnet for nationalist agitation.


Or, we could just be irresponsible and turn the country back over to a
reconstituted baath organization, trained and ready to run the country
under a new quasi-military regime. Or we could establish 'democracy'
and have the embarrassment of having to overturn the resulting
fundamentalist regime. Given the arrogance and pig-headed stupidity of
the Bush regime, I suspect we are in for a few rather unpleasant
misfires in nation building over the next few years.

==================

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.dan-quayle/browse_frm/thread/a9b331e5a5622c81/06744aa6475190ed?lnk=st&q=(Iraq)+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=21&hl=en#06744aa6475190ed

Why on earth would you think that 'installing democracy' was part of
any plan seriously considered by the neocon cabal in washington?

Making Iraq Safe For Democracy was simply lie number three tossed out
by the professional liars in the faux-regime, when lies one and two
weren't having the desired effect. They are so lame at lying that they
haven't even managed to come up with lies 4,5,6 and 7. At least then
we could have a daily rotation rather than the confusing current
situation.


A really good set of professional liars would have had the moron
supplying a lie of the day for why we are going to kill a whole lot of
poorly armed Iraqis: a barrage of lies so overwhelming that buckets of
talking heads would be occupied for months just sorting them all out.

==================


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thread/6449c105e06ba5b1/6e8c256373db8547?lnk=st&q=(Iraq)+author%3Awarren+author%3Astupidity&rnum=27&hl=en#6e8c256373db8547

Too bad then that we are going after Iraq, as there appears to be
little or no connection between the Iraqi regime and al qaeda, either
past or present. Now on the other hand, the northern 'no-fly' zone of
Iraq, under US/British protection, does support an al qaeda linked
organization. Perhaps we ought to attack ourselves?

Terrorist suppliers of anthrax? Not even Resident Bush's team is
making that claim about the Iraqis.


As far as funding goes, look no further than our good friends the
Saudis. Rather a bloody ruthless undemocratic regime there too, doncha
think?


The only thing that stinks worse about the Bush (mal)administration
than 9/11 was the Florida selection. In fact it appears to be all one
continuum of rottenness.



>If nothing else, the Iraqi people will be rid of the man who gassed his own
>people.


Ah, yes, Plan-9 (from outer space,) for why we are going to kill a
whole lot of Iraqis.

The terrorist connection was hogwash.


There weren't any weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraqis are
actually cooperating with the UN regarding inspections and the
destruction of weapons that are not even remotely WMD, such as the
stupid rockets destroyed today. To no avail of course. No matter what
concessions the Iraqi's make, the message from Washington is "WAR!".


So now the Daily Rational for War is: we are going to make Iraq Safe
for Democracy. Where have I heard this before? It sure sounds like a
Very Familiar Phrase. Has a certain '60's ring to it, doesn't it?
Perhaps we can Win the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People too? Those
B-52's are just great at installing democracy. Carpet Bombing/Carpet
Bagging, hey its all the same!