| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
US-Iraq War
Ambivalent Mind Set -- by Robert M. Liu More than 20 years ago, while still in Shanghai, I would tune in to the Voice of America on my short-wave radio for an early morning program called "Breakfast Show". It consisted of news, interviews, commentaries and music. That was my way of keeping up with international affairs in those days. Often the anchorman would wrap up his broadcast with a wisecrack. One day, he said, "Truth is simple; falsehood often is not." A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, but the anchorman’s remark remains in my mind to this day. In fact, it has served me well. Whenever somebody makes an argument that sounds too complicated to me, I will think twice. Well, these days, there is no shortage of complicated theories. I would like to jot down some of the arguments I have heard recently and let you decide if they are straightforward or tortured arguments. (1) "Saddam Hussein is a bad man, but toppling his regime should have been the Iraqi people’s business." This view is endorsed by Britain’s best-known spy story writer, John le Carre. He doesn’t seem to know that the Iraqi people simply didn’t have the capability to overthrow the regime. In 1991, they revolted against it only to get killed and buried in mass graves, where an estimated 500,000 victims* remains -- the price of "the Iraqi people’s business" -- have been found since the end of the Iraq War. If John le Carre really had wanted to see Saddam Hussein toppled by the Iraqi people, he should have congratulated them on their good fortune in receiving help in that connection. In addition, he should know that given time and opportunity, a bad regime could grow and then use its resources to overtly or covertly destabilize regional and global security. That was certainly the case with Saddam Hussein’s regime. While the danger of Saddam Hussein may not have been as imminent as Britain’s MI-6 suspected, the U.S.-led coalition’s preemptive action against his regime was clearly in the best interest of the Free World. It removed a long-time destabilizing factor in a tumultuous region before it had the time and opportunity to grow into an even greater danger. It took Adolf Hitler only a few years time before he completed his war preparations in 1938. It took Osama bin Laden only a few years time before he declared war on America in 1998. The argument that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent danger and so should have been allowed to stay in power until proven an imminent danger leaves me agape. Was Adolf Hitler a growing danger in the 1930s? He certain was. But British prime minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain was too incompetent to realize the nature of the danger, and so no preemptive action was taken. In consequence, Hitler got the time and opportunity to grow and then plunge the entire European continent into war. Was Osama bin Laden a growing danger in the 1990s? He certainly was. But the Clinton-Gore administration was too incompetent to realize the nature of the danger, and so no effective preemptive action was taken. In consequence, bin Laden got the time and opportunity to grow and then launch the 9/11 attack on the U. S. Since the end of the Iraq War, WMD program components have been found in Iraq, indicating Saddam Hussein intended to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction. Given time and opportunity, he would have developed WMD’s. Would Saddam Hussein covertly have passed on his WMD technology to suicidal anti-U.S. elements? That’s anybody’s guess. What was well-known before the war was his anti-Americanism and his support for all anti-U.S. organizations including al Qaeda. Remember Saddam Hussein’s regime openly applauded al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and celebrated 9/11. Didn’t that represent a serious danger considering the enormous resources under his control? Only Saddam Hussein’s apologists would want the public to believe that the Hussein regime had never provided a single penny’s worth of material support to al Qaeda terrorists. I’m not the CIA. I have no access to any evidence. But logic does not allow me to believe that Saddam Hussein had provided zero material support to al Qaeda terrorists. Let me quote a sentence from the Foreword of William L. Shirer’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH: "In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button." Today, the existence of such "suicidal little madmen" is a stark reality staring us in the face. What’s more, they are all virulently anti-American, physically targeting U.S. and allied interests. They are in the Middle East. They are in Europe. They are in the Far East. They are in America too. Only an irresponsible politician would tell the public that it is merely George W. Bush "playing on all our fears". (2) "Saddam Hussein is a bad man, but we should have let the United Nations decide whether military force should be used to topple his regime." This view is endorsed by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The senator certainly knows that UN Resolution 1441 provided for "serious consequences", meaning military action, in the event of Iraqi defiance and that Saddam Hussein’s regime had failed to comply -- it was concealing WMD program components. Since France had threatened to veto any UN resolution categorically authorizing military action against Iraq, "let the United Nations decide" would inevitably have resulted in the condoning of Iraqi violation of UN resolutions, which in turn would have resulted in the continuation of Saddam Hussein’s regime with its mass graves, torture chambers, WMD program components, ties to terrorist organizations, and vast financial resources which it could have used to sponsor terrorism. Senator Kerry’s "faith" in the United Nations indicates that he wants the U.S. government to abdicate its foreign policy and security responsibilities to an international organization consisting of members whose interests clash with those of the United States. To my mind, that is a clear sign of political incompetence. No wonder, according to Kerry himself, certain foreign leaders have told him that they’d like to see him become president. Does that mean they have already sized up John Kerry and come to the conclusion that, if elected, he would give them what they wanted? If that’s true, the senator must have appeared more eager to please foreign leaders than to look after America’s vital national interests. Shouldn’t we see that as a character flaw for a man who wants to be president of the United States? (3) "Saddam Hussein is a bad man, but military action in Iraq has created terrorism." This view is also endorsed by John Kerry. The senator pretends that he doesn’t know that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a sponsor of terrorism which provided financial support and training to terrorist groups and so had to be ousted for the sake of regional and global security. Apparently, the senator has an ambivalent mind set. He voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use military force to topple Saddam Hussein. But now he says military action in Iraq has "created terrorism". Does he want the public to believe that there was no terrorism in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power? The fact is that terror was created by the Hussein regime long before it was toppled by the U.S.-led coalition. Terrorism existed in Iraq before the Iraq War. Terrorism continues to exist in Iraq today. That is why U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq for the time being to continue to fight terrorism. This doesn’t mean the coalition’s military action has been futile. It has achieved important political goals. For instance, a friendly government will emerge in Iraq, contributing to regional and global security. Why can’t Kerry celebrate this foreign policy achievement? By the way, does Kerry’s vote against the US$87 billion in material support for U.S. troops fighting terrorism in Iraq mean that he is against the war to topple Saddam Hussein -- just like Howard Dean? Or did he mean to force a premature U.S. pullout from Iraq by trying to deny U.S. troops the money they needed in fighting terrorism in Iraq? (4) "George W. Bush has caused the loss of 2.3 million American jobs." (The job loss figure fluctuates between 2 and 3 million, depending on which Democrat is on the TV show.) Preaching this myth to the public is an insult to its intelligence. Anyone who reads newspapers knows America has lost a large number of manufacturing jobs because U.S. companies have had a difficult time competing with cheap foreign imports such as those from China. But more than two months ago, a study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the primary competitive challenge facing American manufacturers was not competition from cheaper foreign workers, but the extra cost of doing business in the United States. The costs contributing to job losses included high corporate tax rates, mandated employee benefits, tort litigation, expensive regulatory compliance and energy. Think twice and you’ll see the left-wing Democrats* agenda of higher taxes, more regulation, and cozy relations with the tort lobby is actually the worst job-killer. (5) "We want low prices for consumers, but we must block free trade and cheap imports to protect American jobs." "We want to stop U.S. companies from outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries, but we insist on high corporate tax rates, mandated employee benefits, tort litigation, costly regulatory compliance etc." Such views reflect the workings of a typical ambivalent mind set. The Democrats want to have the cake and eat it too. They should know trade protectionism would lead to trade wars and retaliatory measures by other countries, triggering even more American job losses. In my opinion, the only way to protect and create jobs in America is to improve America’s business environment through lower corporate tax rates and business-friendly regulations, which in turn could create investment opportunities and boost investment demand. If lower corporate taxes and business-friendly regulations don’t work like the Democrats keep saying, then, higher corporate taxes and business-unfriendly regulations will certainly work very effectively toward destroying jobs -- as has been witnessed in Germany. (6) "We want to change the direction of this country." Be careful what you wish for. Left-wing Democrats love to shout this slogan during the current campaign season. So let’s take a look at "the direction of this country". Trading above the 10000 mark, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is already back in an up-trend. As Wall Street economists would tell you, the stock market is a leading economic indicator, and the Dow’s bullish performance augurs well for the economy. "Change the direction" by raising tax rates would cause the Dow to fall sharply, which in turn would cause a financial disaster for millions of American households whose retirement portfolios are invested directly or indirectly in the stock market. The consequence of such a change of direction would cause the economy to plummet into another recession. While the job market remains weak, America’s 5.6% unemployment rate, compared with Germany’s 11%, France’s 9%, and Canada’s 8%, is actually moving closer to a level where the economy would be operating at full employment. There is not a single country on earth which is without joblessness. Of a population of nearly 290 million, there has to be a certain percentage out of work in the U.S. Call it natural unemployment. America remains the best-performing economy with one of the lowest jobless rates in the world. The Democrats are blowing the problem out of proportion to instigate popular discontent. True, joblessness fell to 4% in the late 1990s. But that was a bubble era when Wall Street analysts made outrageously exaggerated demand growth estimates, upon the strength of which, misguided investments poured into the telecommunications industry, creating unsustainable jobs. Put in another way, many of the jobs which came into being and caused the unemployment rate to fall below the natural level of joblessness in the late 1990s shouldn’t have been created in the first place. The economy is currently swinging back to its natural equilibrium from the excesses of the late 1990s. It would be irrational to use the bubble era’s unnatural jobless rate as a criterion to measure the economy’s current performance. Recent economic data showed the recovery was gathering momentum. GDP growth in the second half of 2003 was strong. With weekly initial jobless benefit claims fluctuating around 350,000, corporate America seems to have regained its ability to create jobs in recent months, though belatedly. At more than 60, the manufacturing index of the Institute for Supply Management gives an indication of expansion. "Change the direction" by raising tax rates would knock the nascent recovery off its track. Sustainable jobs can only be created when sustainable demand exists. The Democrats* anti-business rhetoric could trigger a downward shift in investment demand. Their higher tax rates would destroy jobs. Their business-unfriendly regulations can hardly convince American companies to keep their manufacturing operations in America. As to Iraq, although it is still a dangerous place, the U.S.-led coalition has established overall control with the deployment of U.S.-trained Iraqi police and Iraqi Civil Defense units. The Baathist insurgents don’t have the capability to reverse the course of history. America is clearly winning the war on terror, thanks to the professionalism of the U.S. military. Osama bin Laden, whose nationalistic fanaticism parallels that of Adolf Hitler, is probably hiding in some cave or underground bunker -- not a particularly healthy living environment. Under pressures from U.S. and allied troops hunting for him, bin Laden may be shaking from illness -- just like Hitler was 60 years ago. A historical documentary filmed in 1944 shows Hitler’s hand trembling behind his back because he was suffering from Parkinson’s disease under severe pressure. Saddam Hussein, whose tyrannical Socialism parallels that of Joseph Stalin, is in U.S. custody. His followers insurgency has lost momentum after repeated U.S. offensives. In the meantime, U.S. troop casualties have fallen markedly. America’s Iraq strategy is working. Things are moving in the right direction. But the Democrats must paint America’s military success in Iraq into a "Vietnam-like quagmire". That is an insult to the men and women fighting terrorism in Iraq, a blasphemy to the memory of those who sacrificed their lives in Iraq for the cause of freedom, a vicious stab in the back of the U.S. military. But what else can we expect from the political left? What’s more, the Democrats want to "change the direction of this country". That is exactly what Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist followers around the world are hoping for. They call George W. Bush "the worst American president" and so would certainly consider a change of political direction in America an opportunity to stage a comeback. Stay the course or "change the direction" in the middle of the global war on terror. That is the choice facing American voters. The stakes are high for the future of America’s national security. Saddam Hussein celebrated when Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton won the November 1992 election. Why? Because he believed that he saw an opportunity to make a move. He was right. By 1998, he was able to maneuver the UN weapons inspection team out of Iraq. While there was no report on whether Osama bin Laden had celebrated after the November 1992 election, the fact is that al Qaeda terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and that al Qaeda terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001. Both attacks were launched within months of a change of political direction in America. Why? Why? Why? Use logic and you’ll find the answer is actually very simple: it takes time for any new administration to learn the lay of the land, doesn’t it? That creates an opportunity for terrorists. Al Qaeda saw an opportunity when the new Clinton administration moved into the White House in 1993. Al Qaeda again saw an opportunity when the new Bush administration moved into the White House in 2001. Without question, "change the direction of this country" in 2004 would encourage Osama bin Laden and Iraq’s Baathist insurgents to believe another opportunity was on the way. However, in my crystal ball, I see hope and victory. I see Uncle Sam sit on the momentous spot of a historical cycle, where America is poised to rise to its shining moment -- just as it was in 1944. I see triumphant American soldiers come home to their families, singing "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah! Glory, Glory, Hallelujah! Glory, Glory, Hallelujah! The Saint is marching home." About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|