Saddam's Weapons

Yes, we sold him some weapons. We were blind to the threat. We needed him as a counterweight to Iran (and it's a damned good thing we didn't let Iran conquer Iraq; they hated us just as much back then as anybody in the world does now.). But the thing people need to realize is that Saddam's weapons were sold to him by a past administration. George W. Bush, Condi Rice, they didn't sell him anything. He (was) a threat, and regardless of he came to be that way, he needed to be dealt with.

American Idol

How the hell was Ricky voted off? And Kim L in the bottom three again? Grow some ears, America. Toss Carmen out on her ass (keep Kim C for the eye candy) and eliminate Josh, I don't care if he's a Marine. He's not that talented...

Fox News

What's the big deal with Fox News anyway? Yeah, it's biased, but so what? It certainly doesn't cancel out the liberal biases of the mainstream media. (And please, let's not talk about the myth of the liberal media. An overwhelming majority of mainstream journalists are liberals, there are statistics for that. That filters through, in story selection, in perspectives shown, etc. It's inevitable.) From all I hear about the evil of Fox News, you'd think it reached more than 4 and a half million people. Yes, it is biased, but it never pretended not to be and everyone watches it with that bias in mind. In the big picture, Fox News isn't really that important.

The site is fixed! At least, as of right now it is. Cross your fingers...

Major error in this site... somehow I copied someone else's template, cause none of those images or links are mine... I'll try and get this under control and find out how it happened, but that might not be for a while.

Why This War Isn't Vietnam

This war has only lasted twelve days so far. That's why it isn't Vietnam. Vietnam was closer to twelve years. Boys and girls, who can tell me what the difference between a year and a day is?

Thank God They Fired Peter Arnett's Sorry Ass

I'm sorry, I'm all for a free press, but come on. Saying the war has failed after less than two weeks have passed is irresponsibile enough. But to do so on Iraqi television, an institution that is the antithesis of what a free and fair press should be? Inexcusable. I can only hope he was coerced, but we have the example of his fine, unbiased reporting in the Gulf War to rid us of that assumption. What a moron. Had he made his remarks on a different television source, they could be excused (although they're still stupid no matter how you slice it), but to say that on Iraqi tv, to issue a statement that he knew would lend heart to the Iraqis opposed to America and weaken the Americans in the minds of other Iraqis- not good.

I'm trying to get a comments feature set up for this site. In the meantime, feel free to email me at mruthmar@hotmail.com, and just bear with me until it's set up.

This War Is Legal Under the UN

It's true that the UN is largely opposed to this war. It's true that they would not have supported it had it come to a vote on an eighteenth (not second) UN REsolution supporting war with Iraq. But UN Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the Securoty Council, provides clear UN support for conflict with Iraq. IT first recognizes that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA", that Iraq will be offered "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council" and, most damning, states that "Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material." This list was never provided by Iraq. So should we have given them more time? Passed another resolution? Res. 1441 recalls "all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999" It also recognizes that "in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein." Iraq never complied with said resolution. As for the timetable? "The Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material." Iraq never did that. The Resolution only goes on to threaten serious consequences, but the important thing to note here is that a cease-fire in the Gulf War of 1991 was wholly contingent upon Iraq's fully complying with Resolution 687, which it never did. Hence, the cease-fire in the first war itself was never mandated by the UN and this war can be seen as a UN-approved continuation of the first conflict. (Although personally I feel this war was mandated by Res. 1441, the term "serious consequences" is ambiguous. The fact that the cease-fire in the Gulf conflict was _not_ mandated by the UN is wholly unambiguous.) Like I said earlier, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the world doesn't want this war. However, it is fully mandated under international law.

The Humanitarian Argument Against War in Iraq:

Many of the peaceniks and anti-war protestors have this nice little soundbite they like to roll out concerning the war. They claim that we are killing Iraqi civilians and children, and because of this, the argument goes, our war is immoral and wrong. Just throwing all the other arguments aside, don't they realize what a flaming load of crap this is? Hello, how many children and civilians has Saddam killed??? And where he kills them deliberately, we do it accidentally. Where we strive to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, at great cost of American lives (if we wanted to carpetbomb Baghdad and didnt care about civilians the war would be won by now), Saddam and his sons kill civilians en masse. That's cut and dry. Yeah, we've killed a few civilians here and there, by mistake, but the number dead at American hands pales in comparison to the number dead at Saddam's hands. If the peaceniks truly cared about the children of Iraq, they would long for Saddam's demise. Had they any brains, they would recognize that war is the only means of removing Saddam. The humanitarian argument against the war in IRaq is 100% baseless.

Alright, welcome to the site, hope you enjoy it, and feel free to disagree with everything I say. I love arguing about things, so if you think your viewpoint isn't welcome here, think again. I should be coming out with something of actual substance in the next few days, so keep your eyes peeled.