It is pointless to make threats that you are not willing to carry out. The current buildup has been necessary to demonstrate US resolve. There’s no purpose to bluffing if the opposition is willing to call you on it.
As for my charge against the Europeans, well, look who has been objecting to the US buildup and who has close business ties to the Iraqis.
I try to keep my pacifist viewpoints out of the Pit, because it never seems to go well. But I felt driven to respond to this one.
An analogy. I am against murder. I am fully in favour of laws against murder. I believe murderers should be sent to prison. I do not believe, however, that citizens should take the law into their own hands. I would rather not live in a world where anyone who felt like it delivered “justice” from the barrel of a gun.
Would the world (and his own country) be better off without Saddam? Very likely. Do I believe that anyone who feels like it should take him down? Of course not. What the US is proposing is vigilateism.
Do the Iraqis want Saddam in power? Probably not. Would they be willing to put their families and future at risk, willing to live through carpet bombing, to dislodge the man? We (the rest of the world) have no way of knowing, and we have no right to answer that question for them.
Furthermore, I worry about what the US would do once Saddam is dislodged. What will fill the power vacuum left behind? I don’t trust your government’s motives in this. I’m sorry, but I don’t. And given your government’s foreign policy over the last thirty years, I think a bit of healthy skepticism is called for.
Well, look who want s to go to war and is encouraging the Europeans to come along.
Business ties to the Iraqis? Would that be Cheney’s Haliburton? Perhaps we need a war to destroy the evidence? (Anyone can hurl unsupported charges. In an open discussion, I’d have hoped we avoided making things up.)
The current build-up (including deployments) began after Hussein agreed to let the inspectors come back. It was not necessary unless Bush intends to invade, regardless.
Well, gobear, it’s certainly your right to hold that opinion, and i see no reason to doubt your own sincerity on the issue.
But, as a matter of logical debate, if Brutus is going to continue to insist on saying that anti-war demonstrators are “supporters of Saddam,” then some people will probably reserve the right to suggest that his support for invasion makes him “pro-war.”
Tit-for-tat name calling like this is, of course, not particularly constructive, but Brutus’s insistence on continuing with it makes it hard to criticize those who respond in kind.
It’s hardly making things up, but have it your own way.
I don’t think Brutus really believes that the protestors are pro-Saddam, but they have handed Saddam a huge propaganda coup. One does not have to support evil in order to be used by it.
The claim that European inspectors would deliberately ignore evidence simply because someone in their countries has ties to Iraq, presented as fact or probability with no evidence that they have been remiss in their duties, surely is making things up. But, if we’re simply hurling unfounded accusations, I suppose we could all pretend that this is just about oil, too, (or that Cheney needs a war to hide his sins).
In terms of Brutus’s beliefs, i’ll let him speak for himself. All the following comments were directed at anti-war protesters in this thread (emphasis added by me):
and
and
and
Also, as i pointed out earlier, just because Saddam has cynically attempted to use the protests to further justfiy himself and his regime does not mean that the protests have done him the least bit of good.
As you and many others have pointed out, any dissent against Saddam within Iraq is ruthlessly quashed, so the anti-war protests don’t serve to help him convince his own people, because they’re already cowed anyway.
Nor do the protests help him with the belligerent powers (US, UK, Australia, etc.), because the leaders of those countries have made ot quite clear that the protests will not deter them in their commitment to go to war.
One could argue that the protests might serve to turn certain European countries (e.g. Spain) against the US war plans. But opposing war on Iraq and supporting Saddam are not, as some of us keep insisting, the same thing. Even if the protests do have an effect on some European governments, this does not make them a “propaganda coup” for Saddam; it makes them an effective tool for the citizens of democracies to show their leaders how they feel on certain issues.
And, if the US, UK, etc. decide to go ahead against Iraq without UN or majority world support, which looks increasingly likely, then any change of heart on the part of these European governments will make little difference anyway. So i really don’t see how the protests are aiding Saddam in any way at all.
gobear dig up.
The UN inspectors currently in Iraq come from 22 different countries, from all continents of the globe. To suggest that the European members would be under pressure from their respective governments, or even corporations, to ignore evidence because of business ties is ludicrous.
Especially when taking into account the amount of Iraqi oil that ends up in the United States.
Surely, the American inspectors must secretly be planting warheads left and right to make sure enough evidence is found? It’s all a set-up, man!
Gaaaaah.
Why?
As I understand it, Iraqi oil goes to Europe; our main supplier is Venezuela. I’ll do some digging, and if I am wrong, I will apologize.
Heh.
I think this whole war is a bit bigger of a propaganda coup for the baddies.
gobear, stop weaseling. I’m not saying Iraq is the main supplier of US imported oil. I’m saying the majority of the oil Iraq exports ends up in the United States. In fact, more than 46% of all Iraqi exports go to the United States. So, surely the American inspectors in Blix’ team must be a hell of a lot more biased than the European ones, huh?
In case you misread my intentions again, the answer is: “Of course not”.
(Underlining added to preserve inflection)
One does not follow from the other. What I am taking issue with here is not your contention that the allegations are ludicrous (I myself am highly skeptical of those same allegations), but that the oil flowing into the US somehow refutes those allegations. It doesn’t. I explained the basic reasons for this in another recent thread; my apologies for cross-posting. Here is what I wrote:
I don’t think the US is in any danger of attack by Iraq.
If Bush wants to say that Saddam is supplying Al Qaeda, then he needs to show proof, but in any case Al Qaeda has numerous sources of supplies (I’m guessing the Philliipines primarily).
Therefore, the regions on the Eastern hemisphere are more in danger of Saddam than we are (assuming he really WANTS to fuckup his comfortable existence).
So, I think Bush should put the RESPONSIBILITY for Saddam in the UN’s hands and pull out of there while offering US military assistance to the UN if they want to do anything about THEIR problem.
No, no, you’ve got it wrong. It’s the warmongers that are anti-Iraqi, since the campaign is going to kill many innocent Iraqi civilians. You just want the US to go over there so we can kill a bunch of innocent people.
(No, this post is not serious, in any way, so please don’t flame me for a possition I don’t really hold. I just figured a post that idiotic and mis-representational deserved one right back. If he somehow thinks that not supporting an action is directly supporting any action that is indirectly caused by not doing its opposite, then he really should take a look in the mirror sometime.)
Beeblebrox, I couldn’t agree with you more. One does indeed not follow from the other. I was merely applying gobear’s logic (economic ties in the homeland create bias in UN weapons inspectors) to demonstrate that of all the inspectors, the US ones surely must be the most biased of them all, as almost half of Iraqi’s exports (that’s all produce, not just oil) goes to the US, making it Iraq’s No. 1 trade partner by far.
I obviously do NOT believe any of the UN inspectors would compromise their task because of pressure from their respective governments, be they American, European, or any other nationality.
And you are giving Al-Qaeda a huge propaganda coup. Your prowar sentiments will be used by Al-Qaeda (the real threat) to recruit more members. It is being used RIGHT NOW to recruit more members. They will kill Americans. Sleep well at night, hopefully your duct tape and garbage bags keeps you safe…
The US might ben an end user but your own source notes that the contracts are not with the US but with middlemen, and they are the ones who will be hurt directly by a regime change and the subsequent loss of revenue.
Al Qaeda will recruit more members no matter what the US does. And as I said I’m not pro-war as much as I am anti-more useless inspections. Show me an alternative.