« shock me amadeus! | Main | answering a ton of email at once »

The Iraq dilemma one year later


Click for supersize

(background images stolen from stripcreator)

Crude, yes. I'm no Ted Rall.

Comments

You may say it's crude, but it's right on the money.

That's a pretty good cartoon. It shows all our favourites talking about how we can disarm Saddam, and prevent the, ahem, "threat to America's national security" through diplomatic means. All the while, George Dubya and his warmongering, short sighted minions are bombing the hell out of a nation without any moral or legal justification. I love it!

Chip, you forgot to mention hegemony and the children. You're slipping.

... and the OOIIILLLLLLL! You forgot the oil!

What I honestly don't get is this: the man has had 12 fucking years to disarm. What makes anyone think a few more months will matter?? Does Blix not hear himself speaking and the absurdity of what he says???

I'm dumbfounded by this.

Chip, I fail to see how anything in that cartoon could be construed as a true option. Please inform us what other options there are besides
inspections - been inspecting since 1991. No results other than 10 - 15 destroyed missiles.
sanctions - been sanctioning since 1991. No results other than Saddam's 2 or 3 new palaces and thousands of dead Iraqis
treaties - NK signed a treaty not to build nukes. They built nukes.

Please, I've been waiting for answers since the beginning.

Speaking of Ted Rall, where' s my parody? :)

Nice pics, but they have no connection to the reality. If you allow me the shameless hint, I put some thoughts about the so much popular french-bashing (also german-bashing) here on my side.

Holy butt screwing monkey! I just rolled my eyes so hard reading Chip's comment, I could actually see my brain pulsating.

As much as the peace heads would like us to believe that W is hell bent on war, the fact of the matter is so many U.N. "deadlines" have passed for Iraq, the concept of deadline has lost all meaning for me (and I write for a magazine, so this is a debilitating development). The point is, W isn't rushing to war. He has all the justification in the world to strike Iraq today, or yesterday, or a year ago, but he's tried his best to work with the sickly U.N. instead. He knows the U.N. will become irrelevent if he attacks without their approval (which wouldn't be a great big loss, in my opinion), but he wants to preserve the institution if possible. But he's running out of patience, and rightly so.

You want moral justification? How about dismantling an oppressive regime that has been the model of instability in the Middle East for the past 30 years? How about removing a man from power who gasses his own people and tortures others simply because he "thinks" they "may" disagree with him. How about halting a weapons program that, although it may not threaten U.S. soil directly, will most certainly be used on U.S. interests somewhere in the region.

You want legal justification? Bush has it, in the form of previous U.N. resolutions and an affirmative Congressional vote.

I may not be a particular fan of Bush, but I support this war and I sure as hell support the troops about to fight it.

Oh my god. 2 people died. Bush = Hitler.

Moron.

Hey, it's in Indymedia, so it must be true! And objective! And neutral! And totally factual and not at all slanted!

What one might note is how the whole story underplays the fact that the cases have been reclassified as homicides. Which means someone's under arrest and likely to go to jail.

But hey, why center on that, when you can mention it in passing and then go on for another 500 words about how evil Amerikkka is?

Yeah, he's had 12 years to disarm, and so far there is no evidence that he hasn't. Sure, there's no evidence that he has, but honestly if all oranges are round, does that mean that everything that is round is orange? Nope.
Also, gassing his own people, this has been proven to be false, the basics are that the evidence was in the form of testimonies, and some dead Kurds. The testimonies were from Iranians, and the gas used to kill the Kurds was the type Iran was using. Hmmmm.
Like someone said before, he's had 12 years, what difference will a few more months make? So they give him a deadline, if he doesn't follow, the U.S. gets to satisfy their bloodlust, if he does follow, the world is a better place without 1 trillion tax payers dollars spent on bombing, cleaning up and occupying Iraq.
Oh, and so what if Saddam breaks UN resolutions, that's the UN's problem, not Americas. So America should wait until the UN makes a decision. Unauthorized war cannot be to enforce a resolution made by the UN, that doesn't make any sense.
Dismantling the oppressive regime...blah blah blah...yeah sure. That's what it's all about eh? How come the US isn't helping any other oppressed nations or people?

Re: gassing the Kurds: nope, Chip, it has not been proved to be false. Saddam did it. Not the Iranians or the Russians or the Pakistanis or the Martians. That accusation has been discredited. Please buy a clue, or at least get your information from somewhere other than Indymedia or Zmag.

Oh and please, take your "the US can satisfy its bloodlust" remarks and stick them back up the asscrack you pulled them out of. You just sound like a hysterical moron when you say things like that, and give us no reason to regard you as other than a troll.