The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Very well said.

never really understood why so many Canadians, at least to many Americans, turned on us over this war. Never made much sense to me.

I'm not familiar with Canadian gov't, but it seems lately it's taken a hard turn to the left. Maybe that's why? Who knows.

But at least in Ontario they said "NO" to shari'a law in settling family disputes. That was encouraging.

Canadian Army. Jokes aside, it was them who really liberated my native Holland, and not the Americans and British, who were too busy rushing for Berlin. Go to Holland on every 5th of May and it's Canada Day. No complaints therefore.

Apart from that, Politics is an unscrupilous game. Like an iceberg. We see only 10% of it. Morality is not important, though it sometimes helps with the votes. Arguments about 'why Europe and not Iraq' are totally irrelevant. You do what is in your country's interest. Sometimes even what's in your own interest. To achieve this and get the plebs on your side you need to tell 'little lies', like WMD, so the plebs can relate to it.

Example Iraq, why did they do it: Timing was in favour (9/11), America got rid of an enemy + influence in the region + some oil benefits + foothold to threaten another enemy; Iran + kept obligation to Israel which might come in handy to persue Peace process - and hey presto, Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip, it's magic.

My heroic little country Holland helps the US with troops therefore earning VITAL brownie-points and Britain did the same, earning even more than Holland. Everybody happy. The Governments at least.

I'm not even saying it's 'wrong', but I'm sure this is how it works. All these discussions about 'liberating people' and 'freedom' are merely by-products that do well with voters and keeps them occupied. It's a big global poker game out there, stakes are high, and there are plenty of cheaters around.

As for 'the war', I was against, as I don't like being lied to. I would have supported it if they had said "enough is enough, we're gonna get him now" ... but no, we got the Colin Powell show at the UN. Everybody knew Saddam couldn't even fire a rocket to Israel with some degree of accuracy, so come on !

Canada kicked America's butt not once, but twice.

WE try to invade and we get beat back.

Sam, that was great. Thank you! :-)

DOH! Just read the FAQ. Thank you, MrBig!

I must concur with minispace on this issue. The war in Iraq was not a war of liberation. There are three significant pieces of evidence in favour of this:

1) The initial reasoning for an invasion was made upon a purely military basis (eg. the phoney assertion that Iraq was a fundamentalist, terrorist state, with the ability and/or will to procure and use WMDs). When anti-war protests hit full strength the pro-war emphasis was subtly changed, in terms of governmental rhetoric, to one of 'liberating the poor people of Iraq.'

2) There are other countries requiring far more support in terms of liberation - countries that are yet to receive so much as a 'how do you do' from the US - nations like Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran. Strangely (although not really strangely!) no 'war of liberation' has occurred in these countries despite the fact, particularly in the case of Zimbabwe (and excluding Iran), liberation would be far more welcome and, indeed, easier to effect. The reason for not invading other countries in need is, of course, because they provide no gain: strategic or otherwise.

3) The people of Iraq are now no more liberated post Saddam than they were during that evil dictators reign. Basic amenities have dropped below what they were during the Saddam era, and the new draft constitution allows for the possibility of fundamentalist law to creep in to the mainstay. What this means is that what was once a (admittedly tyrannical) secular state will soon be held under the thrall of Sharia law: not a very liberating law for women or dissenters alike.

I think it is also a misnomer to suggest that Iraq should be held to account for its crimes against humanity while in the same breath excusing the US for putting the weapons in its hands, weapons which have allowed it to perpetrate such crimes. The US can't sit in judgement of Iraq, and proclaim itself the 'policeman' of WMDs, when, in fact, the US is the only country in the world to have used, not one but two, such weapons capable of destruction on a national scale (I do, however, realize that is an argument for another occasion).

It is also incorrect to assert that intelligence organizations around the world had a belief that Iraq possessed WMDs. Since the invasion many members of the US intelligence community have come forward to state that such evidence was at best stretched and, at worst completely fabricated in order to make a case for an invasion. Such 'whistle blowers' have been summarily persecuted by the Bush administration: I'll point you towards the outing of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame as one such example of this phenomenon.

Linking 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath automatically places suspicion on Iraq for having had terrorist links, even if it's stated that you don't link the two. It is a proven fact that none of the terrorists that attacked America on that fateful day were of Iraqi national extraction. It is also proven that Iraq - a secular regime - had no links to the funding, organization or support of the operation. In fact, it is well known that Saddam had a strong dislike for Fundamentalist Islamics, as they posed a very real threat to his dominance of the region. Saddam had funded terrorists in his local region, an act that is/was not exclusive to Iraq; nor for that matter something that the US hasn't dabbled in over the years. So to say that Saddam's support of terrorists (support which was, in fact, on a very local, micro level), should make them a terrorist state is tantamount to implying the rest of the world should ready an invasion of America. Sadam did, also, initiate the attempt on Bush Snr's life, but, however, this is once again not an unusual phenomenon. It was with amusement recently that I observed Pat Robertson call for the assassination of the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez; a statement from which the Republican regime has attempted to distance itself. Unfortunately, the Republican party obtains much of its vote by riding on the coattails of such lunatics and, as such, must be seen to share views somewhat analogous to this.

"The US soldiers are doing the most honourable job imaginable and volunteering with their lives." This statement, to me, neglects the mention of the unspeakable atrocities that were committed at Abu Grade. It also omits mention of the various 'collateral damage' incidents that have occurred since the war's beginning.

So, if not for reasons of liberation, why do I think that the Iraq war occurred? I think that the nepotistic allotment of government contracts definitely was an element - most of the contracts for rebuilding the country have gone to companies that are now run by ex-Republican party members or friends of the Bush elite - however this was only a tasty incentive for the US invasion. The reason that I think the US invaded Iraq was that in the light of its failure to capture the real culprit in all this (OSB), it required an easily obtainable and symbolic target in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. That is why so much evidence was provided (evidence which was later disproved) in regard to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. I think that Iraq serves as an ideological carrot dangling before the Bush administration's gaping maw; a strategic landmark upon which it wishes to set about bring democracy and - yes - those good old fashioned Christian ideals which it holds so dear.

In closing, I'd like to say that the war in Iraq is a hotly contested issue, (as any war should be)
and one that can raise the extremes of emotion. Sarah, I'm not angry at you for your opinions, beliefs and arguments. I quite enjoy reading your blog, and I find it refreshing to balance out my beliefs with those of someone in opposition, for, indeed, the only way to obtain even a fibre from the fabric of that mystical garment named 'truth' is to listen to - and, yes, accept - the arguments of those with divergent opinions. I think that the only real test of who is right and who is wrong (not that 'right' and 'wrong' are readily quantifiable states) in all this will be the test of history. I think that when America pulls out of Iraq - probably leaving it in the grip of civil war - we will be better able to determine if the people of that shattered country benefited from this

Samantha, not Sarah: sorry!

HELL YEAH! It even makes me feel bad for once joking that Canada is America's best national park. Where are they keeping you guys?

Jason...
1) "the phoney assertion that Iraq was a fundamentalist, terrorist state, with the ability and/or will to procure and use WMDs"

I don't recall anybody claiming that Iraq was a fundamentalist state. It was clearly secular with a veneer of Islamism when it suited Hussein's rhetorical purposes. Where was it called an Islamist state?

I'm curious why you think it was a phony assertion that Iraq had the ability and/or will to procure and use WMD's considering that Hussein did have chemical weapons at one point and used them against the Kurds in Halabja. Inspectors also found chemical weapons after Desert Storm.

2) I always find this a curious talking point among the anti-war folks. Considering all the damn trouble and all the hoops Bush jumped through just to attack Saddam (who was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, who was militant, who it was believed had WMD's, who was a tyrant) and that those hoops were erected by appeasers and the no-war-ever crowd, it makes no sense for those same people to then crow about how Bush isn't also attacking NK or Iran. After your ilk put up and are putting up such a fight over the overwhelmingly obvious target of Saddam, you don't have the right to complain Bush isn't attacking lesser targets. If you fuss so about removing Saddam, I can only imagine the wailing over trying to remove Mugabe.

3) The rest of this is the usual lefty greatest hits that hold no water and I don't care to take the time required to respond to them all in a mere comment when I could be doing my own blogging. I will note this, however:

"This statement, to me, neglects the mention of the unspeakable atrocities that were committed at Abu Grade."

They weren't that unspeakable and they really weren't atrocious either. Consider this: under Abu Gharib's U.S. management, when soldiers misbehaved, the military investigated and prosecuted the offenders (this process was well underway before all those pictures went public). Under Hussein management... well... you remember that guy standing on a bucket with wires attached who was told he'd be electrocuted? Under Saddam, those wires would have been live and the soldiers in charge would have been rewarded when the charred corpse was dragged away.

Jason, no worries on the name thing; just letting you know I didn't write this article, though. Mr.Big usually, not always, but usually is the one to write the political commentaries. Although, I tend to agree with much of what he says.

I don't always believe the same as he does, but I give him the freedom to rant on this site regardless of his perspective. If it's something I really don't agree with, I'll write a rebuttal, but typically, I just don't give a rat's a** what he has to say, lol.

I find more thrill in poop jokes and craptacular trends, and such.

"I don't recall anybody claiming that Iraq was a fundamentalist state. It was clearly secular with a veneer of Islamism when it suited Hussein's rhetorical purposes. Where was it called an Islamist state?"

The inference was clearly, from the start, that Iraq had connections to Islamic fundamentalists. How else could a link be drawn between Iraq and 9/11? The hope, obviously, was that by inventing such phony spook stories as the 'Iraqi buying radioactive yellowcake from Africans' tale, the average uneducated American would fall prey to the false assumption that Saddam was leading a bunch of crazed extremists (once again, we must lump them with the 9/11 perps!) in an all out Jihad against mums and dads in the US. As I'm sure you're aware, some of the strongest propaganda is waged upon a people by the things that aren't said, not by the things that are, and this is why no direct statement, in line with what I’ve claimed, was made. It was only after the court of public opinion declined to accept the campaign of lies, deceptions and falsehoods that the Bush regime started talk of 'liberation'.

"I'm curious why you think it was a phony assertion that Iraq had the ability and/or will to procure and use WMD's considering that Hussein did have chemical weapons at one point and used them against the Kurds in Halabja. Inspectors also found chemical weapons after Desert Storm."

After years of economic sanctions it was quite clear that Iraq did not have the financial resources to procure or deploy such weapons - a fact evidenced by the complete absence of any WMDs upon Iraq's fall. When making reference to the employment of WMDs I refer to the use of them to attack the US: let's not pretend for a second that the US invaded Iraq because Saddam gassed his own people. The initial scare tactic used to sell the war in Iraq to the average American was that there was the imminent possibility of Iraq acquiring and utilizing WMDs; another complete falsehood.

"2) I always find this a curious talking point among the anti-war folks. Considering all the damn trouble and all the hoops Bush jumped through just to attack Saddam (who was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, who was militant, who it was believed had WMD's, who was a tyrant) and that those hoops were erected by appeasers and the no-war-ever crowd, it makes no sense for those same people to then crow about how Bush isn't also attacking NK or Iran. After your ilk put up and are putting up such a fight over the overwhelmingly obvious target of Saddam, you don't have the right to complain Bush isn't attacking lesser targets. If you fuss so about removing Saddam, I can only imagine the wailing over trying to remove Mugabe."

I'm not for a second suggesting that the countries I mentioned should be invaded, I am merely postulating that if a war of 'liberation' was to be waged there were far more worthy targets.

"3) The rest of this is the usual lefty greatest hits that hold no water and I don't care to take the time required to respond to them all in a mere comment when I could be doing my own blogging. I will note this, however:"

It is interesting, and telling, that you've assumed that my reasoning is derived from 'lefty' political thought. I don't consider myself a 'lefty', and I develop my opinions on every issue based on the merit of what I see as the evidence at hand. I do understand, however, that it is easier to make a dismissive comment like, ‘the rest of this is the usual lefty greatest hits that hold no water' than address the issues on a systematic and logical basis.

"They weren't that unspeakable and they really weren't atrocious either. Consider this: under Abu Gharib's U.S. management, when soldiers misbehaved, the military investigated and prosecuted the offenders (this process was well underway before all those pictures went public). Under Hussein management... well... you remember that guy standing on a bucket with wires attached who was told he'd be electrocuted? Under Saddam, those wires would have been live and the soldiers in charge would have been rewarded when the charred corpse was dragged away."

So, what I'm to deduce from this is that you don't think 'sicking' attack dogs on to prisoners is an unspeakable act? You don't think that beating them, running them around naked and piling them on top of each other is a sickening development? In light of that I'm certainly not surprised that you're in favor of war. And to compare one violent act, and then say another isn't quite as bad would, I think, not go down too well with the spin doctors in Washington that are trying to sell the idea that they are bringing the joyous, benevolent light of democracy to the world; or to put it in lay terms for you: two wrongs don’t make a right.

Jason,

1) If you go back and look at speeches and such leading up to the war, liberation was a factor that was mentioned. Your argument, though, is quite odd. You're basically saying that because nobody directly said Iraq was a fundamentalist Islamic state, that is proof that the administration implied that it was. They've never claimed Big Bird is an alien either, does that mean I should be suspicious about the yellow one's galactic origins?

Hussein had millions of dollars to spend on new palaces, on new SAM launchers and radars that were constantly destroyed by the U.S. and British, and on Chinese fiber optics. The man had plenty of honest and ill-gotten money to spend on WMD had he wanted to.

2) So if we were to invade solely for liberation and not for reasons of national interest, it would be ok?

3) I didn't say your points were derived from lefty though, but that they were lefty greatest hits... and they are. And yes, I realized that my comment may seem like weasling out of arguing, but the fact is that I have a policy of not getting too involved in these back and forths on other people's blogs and also of not posting extensive comments. It's not productive and only you, me, and maybe Sam will read them. I'm already way over my limit with this one. To properly address all your points would have taken much more room and time that I'm simply not going to devote here. In fact, I don't plan on continuing this discussion after I post this, so you can have the last word.

As for Abu Gharib, no, I don't think what the soldiers did was either unspeakable or atrocities. They were disgraceful, shameful, reprehensible, and inexcusable, not were not unspeakable atrocities. Putting a leash on a guy is bad, yes, but it hardly amounts to an unspeakable atrocity. I'd rather not lessen the impact of that terms with lesser rights abuses. And my other point with that was that we punished our soldiers for what they did and demonstrated what responsible governments do. You're right, my attitude might not go well with the D.C. spin doctors, but my Sith master Karl Rove hasn't said no to it.

"1) If you go back and look at speeches and such leading up to the war, liberation was a factor that was mentioned. Your argument, though, is quite odd. You're basically saying that because nobody directly said Iraq was a fundamentalist Islamic state, that is proof that the administration implied that it was. They've never claimed Big Bird is an alien either, does that mean I should be suspicious about the yellow one's galactic origins?"

Dan, thank you for your amusingly ridiculous analogy. What I am saying, and what I'll now lay out in very simple terms for you, is that when someone utters a speech, making no mention of Iraq's connection with Islamic extremists, but when, in the same speech they mention right wing buzzwords such as 'terror', 'jihad', 'Moslem', etc. they are making what is known as an 'inference'. This subtle tactic is designed to produce a linking effect in the minds of those witnessing said speech to the extent that they believe the two things synonymous with one another.

"Hussein had millions of dollars to spend on new palaces, on new SAM launchers and radars that were constantly destroyed by the U.S. and British, and on Chinese fibre optics. The man had plenty of honest and ill-gotten money to spend on WMD had he wanted to."

Actually, the Iraqi army gave up far less resistance in the war this time round than they did in the latter one - this was because they no longer had the resources to afford to keep their weapons maintained. The fact that you equate the expense associated with WMDs to that of Sam Launchers and Chinese fibre optics shows that you'll possibly need to do some further investigation into the issue. But hey, what are we arguing about? No WMDs have been found...

"2) So if we were to invade solely for liberation and not for reasons of national interest, it would be ok?"

But you didn't invade for liberation at all. And your question is a vague and hypothetical one as, truly, the likelihood of the current administration invading another country for anything other than self interested reasons is as high as the likelihood that Iraq will end up a democratic and free nation.

"As for Abu Gharib, no, I don't think what the soldiers did was either unspeakable or atrocities. They were disgraceful, shameful, reprehensible, and inexcusable, not were not unspeakable atrocities. Putting a leash on a guy is bad, yes, but it hardly amounts to an unspeakable atrocity. I'd rather not lessen the impact of that terms with lesser rights abuses. And my other point with that was that we punished our soldiers for what they did and demonstrated what responsible governments do."

Do you not find that when you have to defend the behaviour or others by resorting to the semantic nuances of words that you're in an 'atrocious' position? And lesser rights abuses? One of those prisoners died!

"You're right, my attitude might not go well with the D.C. spin doctors, but my Sith master Karl Rove hasn't said no to it."

I can perfectly understand the tendency to dismiss real life events as paranoia. It makes life easier. Karl Rove isn't the prince of darkness, he is simply a human that made the very human error of giving in to his instinct for revenge.

Okay, I'll admit that 'unspeakable attrocities' was hyperbole on my part. :)

Sam, sorry for leaving such long comments on your blog.

No worries. That's what it's all about.

Did you know that the Canadians (who use the British "Challenger" tank) have the longest recorded tank-on-tank kill? : A Canadian tank crew killed a T-72 tank in the Gulf-war from a distance of TWO MILES!! That's almost further than the eye can see, even in the flat barren kuwati desert. I'm a former US Marine but, I gotta give it to 'em, nice kill, very impressive! And the braggin' rights....yup, they own 'em!

To all the know nothings who prattle on about how the US armed Saddam, that is a lie. Most of his weapons were Eastern Block from Russia and the Czechs. The UK, Germany and France sold tons more weapons apiece to him than the US ever did. The sanctions killed no one, it was Saddam and his corrupt UN and Euro allies who let that occur by mis-using the oil for food program. The Euros and the Russians cynically dealt with him and subverted sanctions and weapon sales bans every chance they got.

I didn't read through the whole post nor the comments, but one factual correction:

"He was a sworn enemy of the US and attempted to assassinate a US president. But, since this was Bush’s father whom so many hate, you figure this is okay? A plan to kill a leader of any country is an act of war, pure and simple. If Clinton were in office and a plan to attack was made against his life, I would hope all republicans would put their petty disagreements aside and support Clinton in declaring this as an act of war."

Bush Sr. was not in office at the time Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate him. He was no longer the leader of any country in April 1993.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

"What good is a cop who does not have any ability to stop the bad guys"

What good are cops who ARE the "bad guys"?

The UN is like a town counsel, where the criminal gangs have a say and along with
the appeasers have the majority vote.

I find it SO odd and amusing that many people who OPPOSE the War in Iraq use as justification for their position that we have not gone into other countries? Like they would support that but not in Iraq?

As for the Urban Legend that the US created Iraq?

Here is a link to information from the
Stockholm International Peace Reasearch Institute.
It shows where Iraq got it's armaments from
1973 to 1990. The US supplied about 1% falling between South Africa and Libya.

Almost all of the rest came from the USSR,FRANCE, the People's Republic of China and the Warsaw Pact, IN THAT ORDER.

No surprises there! ;-)

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Well said.

Paul,

You know nothing about the Canadian army or the war in Iraq, and I doubt you were ever a marine.

First Canada uses the German Leopard I tank, second there were no Canadian armour units in the Gulf War.

I can smell BS a mile away, and you stink!

Bob, the Canadian army vet.

Very well said, Mr. Big.
Jason…s**k it!