This site is stunning. Thank you.

Any further word on the Turks? I'm stuck at work with nothing but local AM radio.

If you haven't noticed, you've been /.ed...your site was posted several times. Hope you don't pay too much for metered bandwidth!

Salon is reporting that Iraq is firing banned missles:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/03/20/banned_missiles/index.html

The leaders meeting at the EU summit have warned Turkey not to engage forces in Northern Iraq- which has significant potential to stop Turkey, considering its aspirations for EU membership. Still, worries over Kurdish separatism have taken precedence over Turkey's EU ascendency desires in the past.

Damn, he's figured out our secret communication methods. We should arrainge a meeting at the *cough* bakery *cough*.

Oh yeah, and what the hell is wrong with my sunglasses? I've been told they're very 'in-style' by numerous people who fear my vengeful wrath.

The new strategy- i.e., the shock and awe suspended while they hope to provoke a coup or demoralise the Republican Guard- was discussed on Fox News a few hours ago.

One thing I am curious about... (forgive me if this is common knowledge)

I have yet to find an analysis of why exactly Saddam would want to go through with this war. If you believe the Whitehouse, we're going to stomp the living hell out of Iraq, and Saddam knows better than anyone else exactly what Iraq's military capability (or incapability) is. Is he crazy, suicidal, and megalomaniacal? Does he have an ace up his sleeve? Does he really care that much about his country that he's willing to be martyred for it? Or has there been speculation that he'd rather sink the whole ship than give it to the enemy?

It just doesn't seem plausible to me that he would allow the US to invade Iraq without knowing something that we don't. Like, that there's gas underneath the entire population of Baghdad ready to kill the whole city and our occupying forces.

Either that or he really is crazy.

Anyone seen an analysis of motives? Care to link?

Ian,
I'm mad as a hatter.

That about sums it up.

Love,
Saddam

5:48 CST If you haven't been following the comments there is some rather 'interesting' conversations between Saddam and his sons.

This statement really interests me, but I can't find any more info on it. What am I missing?

nevermind... I'm an idiot!

"Does he really care that much about his country that he's willing to be martyred for it?"

That would be the most likely one. Interesting to compare with Bush who was a war time deserter during Vietnam.

I've heard good speculation that this is about legacy. Without holding the reigns of Iraq, Saddam is worse than nothing: a war criminal, humiliated. Likely one of those "better to burn out than to fade away kind of deals". Doing this his name will go down in history.

Worst case scenario, Saddam takes himself out as a suicide bomber upon capture, thus interlocking the concept of suicide bombing and martyrdom permanently in a generation of Arab kids. That's legacy.

As for assessing the mental state of someone who gasses his own citizens, you have me there.

Ian, although I think Saddam is an evil man, I think every Iraqi has the right to stand up to the foreign invaders. And I think they should. This is an unjust war, the US should withdraw now.

I think the comments Sean is talking about are here:

http://www.agonist.org/archives/000771.html#000771

They're not serious conversations -- just jokey stuff -- but I like the bit by Tommy Franks.

(You know people still have their heads screwed on straight when it's possible to crack a few jokes amidst -- as Donald Rumsfeld might say -- amidst all the godawfulness.)

I think the comments Sean is talking about are here:

http://www.agonist.org/archives/000771.html#000771

They're not serious conversations -- just jokey stuff -- but I like the bit by Tommy Franks.

(You know people still have their heads screwed on straight when it's possible to crack a few jokes amidst -- as Donald Rumsfeld might say -- amidst all the godawfulness.)

Quick clarification: Re-reading my post, I meant "Either that or he really is crazy" to mean "He thinks he can win", even though being willing to kill his own people is pretty crazy as well. I think it's generally agreed Saddam has a number of screws loose. On preview, the man himself even agrees.

The question to ponder -- or at least the question I sometimes ponder in my quiet moments lately is this: what if Saddam did win?

What if he *did* defeat the US?

Then what?

Ian - The US were primed to invade no matter what Saddam was going to decide. If he left for exile the US would have rolled in to make sure all remains of the current power structure were removed. If he stayed, well, we're seeing that now.

As such there was little incentive to leave and face execution at a later date. He was hardly going to "spare his people" after forcing his people through two wars in the past twenty years through pride.

There's also the loss of face. There's little honour in walking out of your country and letting it be invaded by "The Great Satan." In the same way Bush couldn't allow his resolution in the Security Council go tits up, Saddam is hardly going to throw in the towel with some many people watching.

With the coming battle I suspect Saddam is going to try a Somalia on the US. Make the invasion expensive in lives and equipment enough to get the US to bug out. The US is remarkably sensitive to casualties back home. Even the "rah rah rah" crowd start to go quiet once the "we regret to inform you" messages start to arrive. If Saddam can cause enough damage there's potential for the US to self-destruct from within. A potential city fight could be the means to inflict these casualties.

I'm mad as a hatter.

That about sums it up.

I second that.

Ian, I do not beleive that their is an ace up his sleave. I believe he is acting like a child just like many of the U.S.'s government members. The U.S. just has a lot more and better toys to play on the earth with.

BTW,

MSNBC -- just moments ago -- is breaking with 'Secret Surrender Talks Underway'.

I assume these are high-level leadership talks, no?

Saddam is not that crazy to really believe he can win a war against the USA. Those defiant statements are about propaganda and moral.
Its like the US media and government trying to persuade world that this war was neccesary and that diplomacy had failed. The US govt rejected diplomacy, thats why they think it failed.

Saddam cares about his country? That's a good one. No, I think Saddam believes he can actually survive this, because he's always survived. He thinks he won in 1991 because, well, he survived. And now he thinks that, somehow, the US will be forced to stop and withdraw and he will survive again. France, Russia and antiwar protestors have encouraged this belief.

And, "plebmaster", there's a reason that most of the Iraqi army is either deserting or wanting to surrender. Few people want to die for Saddam, to die so that Saddam's oppressive and murderous regime can remain in power. This is a regime that has killed 200,000 people in the course of internal repression.

But no doubt you'll be puzzled that most Iraqis welcome the Americans instead of fighting them.

"even though being willing to kill his own people is pretty crazy as well."

Pretty rational, actually, if you plan to rule through tyranny.

He may actually have a chance at winning. It wouldn't be the first U.S. invasion turned back by a more primitive force the last 50 years, or even the second. Certainly there the historical precedent is not one sided in favor of America.

I guess it's all about the definition of "win", doesn't it?

Saddam himself said the fight was not just with swords, but with souls.

Think about that for a second.

US may take out the miliary, it may get the oil, but it may lose opinion, the belief that the US is there for the Iraqi people's welfare.

Who wins then?

But then again, Saddam could be quacko looney for all I know. And yes, what he says to his people is different from what he really thinks.

Sydney:

That is what I've been assuming, although knowledge that A) he's got gas, B) he's willing to use it on his own people, and C) he's obviously preparing for a centralized fight in the city of Baghdad... makes me think that he might not be unwilling to really go out with a bang. In his eyes, the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians would certainly have a scalding effect on the bullyish US foreign policy, as we would be indirectly responsible for that massacre. And it would incur massive casualties on our side. Although, I think that the issue would be more not to incur our own casualties, but to incur maximum innocent casualties, thereby completely tarnishing our image of having an ability to control other countries.

All speculation, of course. I really have no clue what I'm talking about, just that if I were a crazed megalomaniacal dictator with a penchant for death and an intent on teaching the foreign devil a lesson, that seems like a good approach.

Lee,
...and you personally know that most iraqi's welcome the Americans? You shouldn't counter one evil with another.
I think they might be more welcoming if it were a more intl force going in there, not the anglo-army that is there now. I dont want US/UK/or Aust soldiers to die in iraq but their govts have put them them in a very unneccesary danger. If Bush doesn't withdraw his troops, I just hope the war is quick as possible.

Ian-

I think it more likely Saddam has no regard for his country or his people. And that to burn out and fade away is a preferable course to dishonor. As evidence I would point out that his people go without while he puts up another palace or giant statue to himself.

He might also have simply not believed we would attack. He might have misinterpreted our internal dissonance as weakness. With someone so thoughtlessly brutal any reason for staying one's hand must seem incomprehensible. And we have given him so many chances. How was he to know this really was the last? It's been ten years. This would tie in to our current strategy because he may not be the only one in his government to thing that way.

MSNBC -- just moments ago -- is breaking with 'Secret Surrender Talks Underway'.

I assume these are high-level leadership talks, no?

You can assume these are high-level horseshit, unless they're about a particular unit. File it away with the Aziz defection.

Anyone empowered to have such discussions on the U.S. side would be pushed out on an ice floe if they whispered what they were doing, and legitimate talks to end the war in surrender were scotched.

Seriously, think about it. If it turned out you cared more about whispering to a reporter than safeguarding negotiations that could save the lives of American soldiers (and, oh yeah, Iraqis)? Hell, you'd be more hated than Hillary Clinton.

on a lighter note, here's what would happen if Saddam actually did win the war.

Saddam is delusional and surrounded by yes-men. He doesn't have access to information suggesting that he'll lose, and he honestly believes that the 1991 war was a victory because he thinks the US was scared to enter Iraqi sovereign territory.

Indeed, his whole career has been one of dramatically overestimating his own capabilities and somehow surviving. He miscalculated in Iran and Kuwait. Indeed, his irrationality is the primary argument why he cannot be deterred. He just believes in himself as the eventual victor no matter what, and has killed anyone who will tell him differently.

I was thinking more rifle/grenade city fight than chem/bio weapons. Mining your city with such weapons is very much a one shot affair and it's all over. I don't see this guy as being a one shot sort of dictator. Even his worst critics have to admit he's a survivor.

Mining your city with weapons you are certain will bring down the Monty Python Foot of Doom on your realm once used is not really a long term plan.

I'm thinking more a Stalingrad kind of thing. Still, time will tell.

Ian, I think that Saddam would rather die trying to remain dictator of Iraq and heir to Hammurabi (sp?), than to slink away. Also, I think the characterization of Iraqi citizens as "his people" is somewhat misleading. Since Saddam is a person too, one might assume some sort of common feeling or purpose. Perhaps it would be better to think of them as his flock or herd, which he can shear, rope, brand, or whatever as the season and the market dictate.

Hey, this is cool. Scroll down a few paragraphs.

The Agonist, Sean Paul Kelley, (found by way of Counterspin Central) is keeping an exhaustive timeline of the war’s events. Kelley’s impressive diligence is matched only by the detailed breakdown organized hourly by The Blogs of War.

You made it on MSNBC...

On that note...

A personal note to Sean-Paul's wife:

Yes. Your husband is crazy. So are most of the people here reading all this stuff he's posting. I apologize on behalf of all the freaks here goading him on to do more and more. He'll likely be up late night tonight, look like he's gotten 5 minutes of sleep sometime tomorrow morning, and speak in a low muttering tone througout the rest of the day.

And what he's doing here is really, really cool.

'Nuff said.

Matts - right up to the last sentance there you could have easily been talking about Bush instead of Saddam.

Re: Hey this is cool

This was also linked to from Slate in a "The War on the Web" list of blogs. Unfortunately, they got the URL wrong, listing you as being www.theagonist.org, not www.agonist.org.

STRATFOR believes: "...it is clear that the Iraqis believe:

1. That at least some of their forces will resist with some
degree of competence.
2. That the coalition has a very low threshold for time and pain.
3. That a plan can be designed to force the coalition beyond the
pain threshold."

As I recall, his theory of the first Gulf war was that America would back off when he inflicted enough caualties. He never was able to inflict the casualties, so that didn't happen. And he had no reason to change his theory. He watched bin Laden escape Tora Bora because the Americans didn't want to use their own troops and take their own casualties. He still thinks the theory is valid. It just needs some work on the execution end.

This worries me a great deal because I don't think he is crazy in the sense of being irrational. Survivors need to have some base in reality. Psychotic, yes; illogical, no. And so I trust that he has a theory about how to inflict the casualties he think are needed to reach our pain threshold.

I hope to God his theory is wrong. And for now I worry. A lot.

Another worry while we are at it. I have been at work all day, but I have been watching the news web sites. Maybe it's on the TV and I just haven't seen it. I hope so.

Where are the prisoners? Our plans and his depend on estimates of how well or poorly motivated the Iraqi soldiers are. I will feel much better about the world if and when I see hundreds of Iraqis at a time giving it up. Until I see that the verdict is out on what kind of fighting we might have to endure.

TO TREVOR:

Maybe is it very cool what he is posting, but imagine how do I feel:

"Honey, can I have a few minutes of your attention"

"Yes, sure. After I post this, ok?"

In a few minutes...

"Honey, can you talk to me now?"

"HM...I am doing something on my computer...hold on"

So I hold on and on and on and on :-)

What is the casualty count? How many Americans and British have died so far? Will we ever know? I doubt it. The Bush administration could not exist without secrecy, it must hide its skeletons.

Can't called them the Allied forces, hmm Coalition Of the Willing...

COW's that it! The COW forces! Moo!

Fred:

That seems like the best analysis I've seen so far (from Stratfor). Unfortunately I dont have a subscription there... hmmm.. now might be time to pick up one for this month.

And, this is coming completely out of left field, but does anyone remember a link that passed around a few sites a while back about ?Iraqi? military training procedures? I'm pretty sure it was Iraqi, although it could have been Iranian. Basically the training procedures consisted of 20 men stripping a live dog limb from limb and eating the raw the flesh in some bizarre and disgusting show of masculinity and brotherhood. This site actually had images of this happening.

Anyways, if anyone can remember where that was... that would be a good explanation for why the Iraqi troops aren't just giving up. For the same reasons why the Germans were able to work in concentration camps: you get brainwashed into performing any act, and your ability to think for yourself or use common sense goes completely out the window.

By the way, I made sure not to use the "n" word last paragraph so there wont be any Godwin's law complications. Heh. So don't invoke it on me. :)

one thing to remember w/ Saddam and his minions. They do not think in a Western mentality. That has always been our failure... not to think as they think. Saddam truly believes that we are EVIL INCARNATE. We are " the great Satan". He believes that this is not just a war of aggression but an idealogical and religious war as well. He believes God( Allah) is on his side and because of this he will prevail. The Koran says so. ( He thinks) To run away is to deny his beliefs and deny Allah. This is why we have Jihad, terrorists and martyrs willing to suicide bomb. Their reward in heaven is great.
Nuts, maybe... although I must say that Bush also feels he has God on his side........
Now that we are there it is imperative to quickly defeat him before the rest of the Arab world decides that this is jihad worthy and that we are out to destroy the ME

Nevermind my last post.

This is the article I was thinking about, and it's the Peruvian army, not the Iraqi.

However, I must have gotten the impression it was the Iraqi from this metafilter thread, where (near the top) Pseudoephedrine claims to have seen a video of the Republican Guard branch of the Iraqi Armed Forces performing a similar ritual.

Anyone have any info to back that up?

"He believes God( Allah) is on his side" - No, I doubt it. Saddam is a secular totalitarian, not an Islamic fanatic. He may use the rhetoric when it is convenient, but he runs a secular state based on a peculiar, nearly anti-religious Ba'ath ideology. Not all Arabs are alike.

Ian, I think Saddam simply cannot back down. There's no place for him to go. He is thus desperate.

As for the person who writes "these people do not have a Western mentality." Actually, Iraq is quite secular. Saddam is not especially religious. It's the US leaders who believe in the evil of their enemies.

Ian,
"That is what I've been assuming, although knowledge that A) he's got gas, B) he's willing to use it on his own people"

Both false. It's called propaganda Ian. However America has threatened to use WMDs and we all know that the US has them.

"In his eyes, the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians would certainly have a scalding effect on the bullyish US foreign policy"

I am sure jhe realises that America could not possibly care less, especially as they've slaughtered 2 million Iraqis over the last 13 years in a genocidal attack comparable to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews.

"if I were a crazed megalomaniacal dictator with a penchant for death and an intent on teaching the foreign devil a lesson, that seems like a good approach."

Have you ever considered the possibility that your government lies?

"does anyone remember a link that passed around a few sites a while back about ?Iraqi? military training procedures? I'm pretty sure it was Iraqi...."

It was the US trained death squads of Latin America perhaps. Trained at the School of the America's in Georgia?

"By the way, I made sure not to use the "n" word last paragraph so there wont be any Godwin's law complications. Heh. So don't invoke it on me. :)"

If you support a war criminal's invasions then are you not a nazi Ian?

I believe that the dog killing stuff and a few other interesting tactics were imported from the Nazis by the Americans after WW2.

DavidByron:

Both false. It's called propaganda Ian. However America has threatened to use WMDs and we all know that the US has them.

No, you're wrong on both counts. There have been many news reports of even in the last 24 hours of him handing out gas canisters to the army stationed around the city of Baghdad. I am getting this from watching MSNBC and CNN.

And he won't gas his own people? Try telling that to the people of Halabja.

I am sure jhe realises that America could not possibly care less, especially as they've slaughtered 2 million Iraqis over the last 13 years in a genocidal attack comparable to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, especially as this seems to directly contradict your earlier statement. The issue here is a PR one, not whether we actually/morally care about Iraqis dying (because duh, obviously if we really did we would have stepped in long ago). However, the PR issues is this: We attack Iraq - the direct result of this attack is the slaughter of innocents. Possible conclusion? We shouldn't have attacked Iraq.

If you support a war criminal's invasions then are you not a nazi Ian?

I actually completely missed this sentance. Please elaborate?

And yes, of course I have thought about the fact that my government lies to me. In fact, I have recently come to the conclusion that I am brilliant (as that kind of reminds me of the bit about "question assumptions"). However, I fail to see you making a case for why I should be treating all news as government propaganda. While of course news should be taken with salt (especially from Fox), you seem to be overly paranoid.

The US government lying to their own people is a clear fact. If Americans really want a true democracy, they need to challenge what their leaders say, and also what their media says. Also, think really carefully about who you vote for because he is going to be running the most powerful country on earth.

DavidByron is correct. America supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in which millions died, also they have knowingly contributed to the deaths of thousands of iraqi children through their
manipulation of economic sanctions. Even the statement that Saddam 'gassed his own people' is not entirely true.

Ian, this is why you should be treating all mainstream US news with a bucket of salt...
Balance your news sources by going to international news sites(bbc.co.uk) and other sites to get the other side of the story.

truthout.org, commondreams.org are good

plebmaster:

Absolutely... I tend to stay away from Indie news sites (they tend to overreact as much, but in the opposite direction, as american mass media), but I read a ton of news outlets from around the world. Ahh the power of the blogging age.

Good links, I have not before seen any indication that it could have not been Iraq who gassed the Kurds. And Harpers is always an interesting read.

The US populace is being led by the nose into supporting, paying for, and participating in (further) war crims, crimes against the peace, and crimes against humanity as defined in the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials in the 1940's.

Our media has been lying to us, censoring reports that debunk or criticize the lies and deceptions put forward by our government.

Forged, faked, fantasized, plagiarized, outdated, or just plain WRONG information has been touted as the "plain truth".

Our complicity in the rise to power of the Ba'ath party (Kennedy, 1963), the rise of Hussein (Johnson, 1968), the arming and funding and informing of Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war (Reagan Bush (Cheney Rummy Wolfie Perle Negroponte) -- 1980-1988), the BLOCKING of UN censure and sanctions against Iraq in 1988-1989 -- by the US government.

The breaking of the 1991 ceasefire TWO DAYS after it was signed (Barry MacCaffrey and the "Highway of Death, a massacre planned by a US General).

And the ongoing trade with Iraq by US corporations in violation of (illegal and immoral) sanctions... Halliburton, Kellog Brown and Root, Schlumberger, GE, Honeywell, and others, 1993-2000 and to this day).

Stand up now, or be among the war criminals.

Learn what it felt like to be a German or a Japanese in the 1950's - stared at, feeling guilty, shamed in the eyes of the world, ostracized, mistrusted...

A broken people - we are about to become that - morally, if not physically.

May I recommend, for a historical and unimpeachable source of background information on why we are here today, in this situation, facing monumental "Blowback" of the most dire sort...

1) Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson.

2) http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

The second is an incredible source of declassified information dealing with the CIA, the NSA, and the various and sundry nefarious, stupid, evil and twisted shit we have been paying for with our hard earned dollars for the last 50 years.

Wanna know why Iran hates us (Mossadeq)? Or Iraq (Kassim)? and so one and so forth.

Get informed. Get active. Shake off the stupor, wake up. Resist or be implicated.

The Pelletiere argument that Iraq is not responsible for gassing the people of Halabja has been thoroughly debunked by Human Rights Watch, among others. Do a search for their report.

And ask yourself why the Kurds don't seem to have any doubts about who gassed them. Jeez.

The WMDs are just propaganda by the US. Iraq has none and the US has known that for eight years. Did you not see the interview transcripts with their star defector? Saddam's son-in-law? The guy who ran the WMD programs? The guy that the Americans touted as their source -- but ommited to mention that he told them the WMDs were all destroyed in 1995?

In any case the US couldn't care less if Saddam has WMDs -- they gave them to him after all. They are quite happy with other countries in the area with worse records on war that have them -- Israel, Pakistan, Iran. It's not as if they are any use as an offensive weapon.

Do you not know that the pentagon said that it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds at Halabja? That little fact must have slipped past Fox news. As did the fact that at the time there was a war on between Iraq and Iran and this gassing took place in the middle of a battle. Both sides used chemical weapons. In any case the Kurds are hardly Saddam's "own people". That turn of phrase just happened to go down well with Bush's focus group. And America and Turkey have a record of bombing and terrorising Kurds worse than Saddam's --- which incidentally? all took place when Saddam was America's loyal henchman.

If you beleive the government after all that then you're just naive. We're talking about known liars here. They want to invade an entire country for hundreds of $billions and you think they wouldn't lie to get their way? This is the same government that came out and said openly that they had a ministry for lying.

"No, you're wrong on both counts. There have been many news reports of even in the last 24 hours of him handing out gas canisters to the army stationed around the city of Baghdad. I am getting this from watching MSNBC and CNN."

LOL. I'm sure the canisters were labelled in English "chemical weapons". Maybe you should think about the implications of the claim you are making here.

In Your post you stated that a A-10 aircraft
was a jet,sorry it's really a upgraded C-130

Sincerely
Steve

PS: Posted from Panama City,Panama (Panama Canal) BTW great Site...

David Byron:

Look, I was against this war for all kinds of reasons, not least because I view this Bush administration as both untrustworthy and unAmerican. But none of that relieves those of us who oppose their policies and their vision of the world of the responsibility to articulate our own visions with an appreciation of complexity, and some humility in the face of the arduous and limited purchase any of us has on "the truth."

What on earth do you mean that the Kurds were hardly Saddam's people? The Kurds aren't Iraqis? What are you saying about the CIA's original denial of Saddam's role in Halabja? To be accurate, the US government's position then was to point to an insufficiency of evidence to say for certain that it was Saddam's military responsible for the attack, and to suggest there was evidence that it was the Iranians. All of which was a total crock.

If your point is that the US government is capable of lying, and that the Reagan/Bush administrations had a particularly shameful history in regards to Iraq and indeed, the Middle East in general, and that all American administrations have had a muddled and self-contradictory policy towards that region, granted.

But to talk as if the Middle East is some kind of shadow play with the US always pulling the strings is to make assumptions about American omniscience that is damn close to the assumptions of the neo-con hawks, though they of course approve of such.

We didn't invent Saddam, or the Baathist party. This country is not the source of all evil in the world, nor the prime mover responsible for everything that happens everywhere on the planet.

I think it's clear that this Bush administration decided to take on Saddam for the worst possible reasons, and picked his regime to have a war with not because of its strength, but because they knew how weak was his military, and how limited was his possession of chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. But it is ridiculous to suggest that he doesn't have a history of wanting them and developing them. The notion that there isn't any evidence of fear and loathing of Saddam among the Iraqi people is an odd one, to say the least. There will be surrenders. Why wouldn't there be? If we can get through this war nightmare without inflicting major new civilian damage on the Iraqis, don't be surprised if many Iraqi's welcome us initially, out of relief if nothing else.

There has always been a principled human rights argument for taking on Saddam. The fact that the Bush administration in the first Gulf War destroyed the civilian infrastructure of civil life in Iraq, and left the Iraqi people with nothing of their former lives except Saddam, might suggest we had some responsibility for helping them get rid of him. I think this Bush administration has cynically manipulated those arguments in the service of policies and a strategic vision of American imperial hegemony which are bad for the world, and bad for this country. But even that badness is not the only badness in the world. And to make a statement that accuses "America" of having indulged in a genenocidal slaughter of two million Iraqis over the last 13 years is to indulge in the same kind of simple-minded moral clarity that makes the arguments of the neo-cons so noxious.

Nor are the important issues here who does or does not give a genuine damn about the Iraqi people. William Kristol could as easily argue, no doubt persuasively, that there is evidence in your own arguments that they are motivated less by a concern for the lives of Iraqis, than with an overwhelming hatred of this country.

I'm not saying he'd be right. But that presumptuous waving of the bloody shirt in the face of anyone one disagrees with is no less dismaying when it emanates from the other side of the political spectrum.

Leah,

David also stated that USA was the agressor in the Cold War.

The government did indeed try to put out that Iran was responsible for gassing the Kurds, but that turned out to be a lie. Even, if you'll pardon me, a damned lie. As their number one enemy of the day, they were pinning everything on them and hoping it stuck.

As far as the 'own people' argument, it's to some extent bunkum, but not for the reasons that certain parties would say. The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group whose territory was broken up between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey when the British did their map magic last century.

Perversely, they are most integrated into society in Iran, a nation even more diverse than Iraq, and having a stronger sense of national (as opposed to ethnic) identity. And also, a government that shares the 'love' around a good bit more evenly. The Turks have never considered the Kurds living in their borders to be 'their own people', though they have no problem hanging on to their territory, while they still consider turkomens living in Iraq to be 'theirs.' In Iraq, the Kurds have been in varying states of permanent rebellion for some time. They are viewed as a problem, an obstacle, a roadblock on the way to the oil in Kirkuk.

The tendency in the western democracies to have given up an ethnic identification, or at least subordinated it to a national one, would seem odd in some places. That whites, blacks, hispanics, chinese, etc., living in a city a thousand miles away would be considered 'your own people.' And I think it has a great deal to do with equality under the law. In many places the ruling ethnic/religious group puts harsher restrictions on the others, making it impossible for them to integrate into society. Going back to our Kurds, in both Iraq and Turkey they are treated significantly worse than citizens of other groups. Is it any wonder that neither they nor the governments of Iraq and Turkey think of themselves as belonging to a single, cohesive group?