I enjoyed your criticisms.
Unfortunately you didn't read what I said. Or, maybe you wanted to believe I wrote what I didn't - rather like the Wolfowitz business.
You said:
LAWRY: Greetings, Harry:
Here are the items in which, I believe, you err:
1. WMD is THE essential argument. How else can you legitimize the invasion of a country by another? Only the plea of self-defense will meet the test of law. Without WMD, couple with the assertion that they were a threat to the US (also dubious), you are left with an illegal act of war by the US. This is true no matter how much you, personally, or others in this country, do not like Saddam Hussein.
HARRY: I didn't write to this point, so your words are not germane.
2. Iraq is a basket case only because of two things:
A. Iraq's ill-advised war on Iran, and its toll. Remember that the US encouraged that war, out of its anti-Irani policies. B. Post 1991 sanctions, most vociferously demanded by the US
HARRY: How did the US "encourage" that war?
By patting Saddam on the back and telling him to "go get 'em"?
On the other hand, Russia sent him thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft. The French sent him a bunch of Mirages along with Exocets. And all those AK47's didn't come from the US either (unless we made them under licence). However, we "encouraged" him. Wow!
Iraq does owe the US some $4 billion though. I don't know why - maybe we gave him money to buy arms from the Russians and French. (He owes the Russians and French rather more than $8 billion apiece. Of course, for the final push into Iran, the Russians completely re-equipped Saddam's forces. Probably they were never paid, for the dictator used them to invade Kuwait. Let me repeat that - Russian and French tanks and planes were used to invade Kuwait.
But we, of course, "encouraged" him! Maybe, we sent him Wheaties for his troops.
The absolute blindness of people who want only to believe that the US and Republicans are the Great Satan is almost beyond belief. Of course, American weapons were used during the Iran war. They were used by Iran - particularly F4's, F5's, and a few F14's.
As for the sanctions, I thought they were UN sanctions. Certainly, the UN got a hefty 28% of the oil exports for expenses, which sweetens their end of the deal. But, I can't remember. Did Russia and France oppose sanctions? They should have done, they were really interested in exploiting Iraqi oil (on account that Iraq had become a poor customer for arms.
LAWRY: Without these two, Iraq would be no basket case, with or without Saddam Hussein.
HARRY: Without these two crazy adventures, Iraq would probably not be a basket case, but we are presumably talking history, not fantasy
LAWRY3. Cache's of weapons? In schools and hospitals? Any country facing invasion
is going to take whatever weapons it has and deploy them to wherever it is handy. This does not provide us or anyone else with a casus belli. 1,500 chemical suits? So what? Remember that it is the US that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world in its armoury: faced with an attack by the US, stockpiling protective suits seems like a wise move, not that 1,500 would go far. You call these 'evidence' -- evidence of what?
HARRY: Evidence that Iraq was a basket case. I never mentioned casus belli, nor did I try to establish one. The caches of arms, the protective suits, were stockpiled and left unused (in one hospital, there was a tank)! If Saddam was worried about the enormous stockpile of US chemical weapons, he should have given them to his Republican Guards.
LAWRY: 4. I am glad that you 'reported' on decrepit pipelines, etc., and will simply note that many others actually were reporting from the field on just that in the years since 1991, and reporting on the effects of the sanctions, which included a blockade on oil equipment and spare parts. So your point is what? That those who blockaded Iraq were able to ruin its oil infrastructure?
I reported how they were before the war. They showed evidence of the "basket case" status of Iraq. Iraq lives on its oil. Keeping the pipelines open and in good condition is vital. The UN could have helped. They reported on the leakages of the Domestic pipeline. Couldn't they have made any arrangements necessary to stop the leaks? The Saudis stopped the pipeline to the Red Sea. Couldn't the UN have put pressure on the Saudis to let the oil flow?
What the hell does the UN do to make its 28% cut worthwhile?
The only sign of life in the basket case was the surreptitious opening of the Syrian pipeline. That's the one the Syrians closed at the beginning of the war - at the behest of the Iranians. The UN didn't notice this was happening. Maybe it's all the good food they eat that makes their eyes close.
LAWRY: 5. Building Iraq into a jewel? Well, that is a fine sentiment: the best way
to accomplish that is for occupation troops to get out and take Bremer and
his crew of political poseurs with them, pay war damage compensation to
Iraq, and let the Iraqis get on with the job of rebuilding their country.
HARRY: Great words but not much practicality. It's the politics talking.
LAWRY: 6. The Arab leaders are making 'good noises' you say, prompted by the Iraq
invasion. You are evidently ignorant of the Beirut Declaration, which long
predates your tanks. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the recent
history, if only that, of the Middle East before making such condescending
and ignorant remarks.
HARRY: Don't assume too much. The Beirut Declaration was a mess of words. Even as they denounced the Twin Towers tragedy so, in the same paragraph, they denounced Israel for using it. To sweeten the deal, they could stop supplying Hamas and company with money.
Which they might do, for now things are different. There is an American President who apparently says what he means and means what he says. He also has a lot of tanks, aircraft, and soldiers, as do the Brits. And they are all in the backyard.
So, we are getting some "good noises".
LAWRY 7. Bush's 'power' on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: yes, the US has
power, but power needs more for it to have a positive effect:
A. It needs to be exercised -- and the US has proved itself notoriously
unable to use its power when it comes to this conflict. No reason to think
that Bush will find it easier than other Presidents.
B. It needs to be exercised wisely -- and Bush and his advisors have proven
themselves singularly inept in this regard.
C. Its use must be guided by a well-formulated outcome and strategy -- and
Bush and his advisors have proven inept at this as well.
HARRY: As for A - this is Bush and he seems to try to do what he says he will do.
B. Perhaps you didn't notice the recent war.
C. It began while the war was still on and is now underway. He is already inept? That was quick and perhaps a hasty judgement isn't a good one. I bet you've been reading the Democratic propaganda again, you devil.
LAWRY: 8. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not dependent on the US: the parties
are quite able to make a hash of it without US help. To think that the
conflict can now be solved because can focus on it displays a splendid
ignorance of the essential issues of that struggle.
HARRY: Really Lawry, we give Israel several billion a year. More importantly, we give the Palestinians $84 million (this from memory - correct me if I'm wrong). In part it was supposed to fund 100,000 police. I don't think they have materialized.
In any event, people get used to money coming through the door. If it stops, it causes heart palpitations and perhaps action. We'll see.
The rest is about me.
When the Arab leaders get together and say they'll include Israel in the maps from which they teach their children, I'll pay attention to Declarations. When their maps put the label "Palestine" on what is now Israeli territory, I'll regard the Arab Leaders' meetings as being perhaps hopeful.
Heck! If they will simply stop financing Hamas - that would be a start.
It would be a lot better than Declarations.
Harry
-----------------------------------------------------------
9. You may be better at crossing your fingers than others, but I wish you would use that skill at 'walking' through the many sources of information that are available on all of this, then doing some thoughtful and genuine analysis, and then at sharing the fruits of that analysis with us. We need more light and less noise in the discussion, Harry. I admire, on the one hand, your willingness to write at length and tenacity, but deplore your ignorance on Middle Eastern affairs. You are still in the 'beginner' stages regarding the Middle East, and it would behoove you to learn, rather than to prattle.
No doubt this will seem harsh, but we have been getting to this point over several months. I don't think you have followed up on any of my requests to you to consult various documents (like the Beirut Declaration, and so your learning curve is pretty flat. I doubt that you have read the Roadmap, or analysed the changes it went through between last September and May, 2003. And yet this is the kind of elementary research that one HAS to do before one can hope to know about the Middle East.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a sad leader of a sad country; but how much sadder is it when someone who has the opportunity to learn a bit refuses to do so?
With personal respect, Lawry
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard > Sent: Mon, June 09, 2003 3:29 AM > To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Because We Can > > > Karen, > > Good article and good commentary. > > A long while ago, I said I thought the WMD were pretty dubious, but I > thought that probably the war was a correct thing to do. Didn't > support it > when it looked as if the buildup would be al that was necessary - > but once > it started I looked to the good things that possibly could come from it. > > I didn't think it would go as it did. But, then I didn't realize that > Saddam had reduced his country to a basket case - as I've > described it many > times. > > The evidence included all those caches of unused weapons found around the > place, mostly in schools and hospitals. We have forgotten, I suppose that > bunch of chemical protection suits that was discovered - was it > 1,500 of them? > > The dams were not blown, attempts to fire the oil wells didn't occur > although I recall a number of them were equipped with charges that were > never fired. > > I've already reported on the decrepit pipeline infrastructure - broken > pumping stations, leaky pipes, and the rest. > > There was none of the ferocity of Saddam's Gulf war as he set fire to the > Kuwaiti wells. > > No Stalingrads - it just took 900 British Commandoes let the final charge > into Basrah - and suffered 3 dead. > > I think that Saddam was a sad leader of a sad country. > > If it can be done, Iraq must be turned into the jewel of the Middle East. > While this is happening, Bush must use his power to get the Israeli - > Palestine dispute settled. Perhaps, some dominoes will begin to fall - > pushed by McDonald's no doubt. > > The Arab leaders are making good noises - it's surprising what a few > divisions of tanks will accomplish. They just have to be there, and there > must be a belief that the guy who controls them is not afraid to use them. > > When the tanks began to roll into Iraq, the attention of Muslim > leaders was > jolted. When they got to Baghdad in a few days, attention was > fully on what > Bush would do next. > > Keith dismisses out of hand any chance of success. Perhaps I can cross my > fingers better than he. > > Harry > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Karen wrote: > > >Friedman is quite honest here, both in trying to separate the wheat from > >the chafeand in his attempts to cover his previous commentary > where he was > >more approving of the Bush2 stated reasons for going to war. Its been > >said that before a war there are some believed good reasons. > Afterwards, > >there are never any good reasons. You always wonder if another > way would > >not have been more productive and less costly. > > > >However, this is not just about one local neighborhood, Iraq, it > is about > >Israel and Palestine, the best case study for human ineptitude and > >institutionalized politics, historical animosity and historical > >opportunity as we have in prima geopolitics today. > > > > > > > >Since Ive posted many times here about the need for some heroic > >self-sacrifice on the part of the political leadership in Israel and > >Palestine, let me share that I am cautiously optimistic and holding my > >breath regarding recent developments. I am waiting to see if Sharon has > >had a midnight legacy conversion experienceor just realized that all the > >pressure applied to the Palestinians to change their stripes and demote > >Arafat will have the end result of exposing Israels feet in concrete > >attitude since the Palestinians are moving ahead. Lots of corny photo > >cops abound, but I am waiting to see not the Kodak moments, but the > >WYSIWYG, or What you see is what you get moments. - KWC
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
