Elucidator, as you gaze into your crystal ball, what if, heaven forbid, they actually made a go of demacracy, and, heaven forbid, it also made Washington happy. Would that be real, real bad?
I think SuaSponte’s reasons for supporting war in Iraq are honorable, and I might be swayed to agree with them as general principle. Now, Sua and I may disagree on this part, but I feel that it isn’t the United States’ job to make the decision about genocidal regimes alone. That’s the world’s business, and would be the job of the United Nations and NATO. It is not the US’ task to determine which regimes are committing genocide and commit our military alone to the task of overthrowing them. The task of being the “world’s policeman” belongs to the world, not just to the United States. We have neither the mandate nor the need to protect everyone from those we see as evil. It should be done by agreement, not by unilateral action. This is the purpose of the United Nations. While I agree that it could, and should, be dealing pro-actively with such situations, I do not feel that the U.S. should try to police the nations of the world itself. If we are a part of a global community of nations, then it cannot work that way.
However, I respect Sua’s take on the current war. I don’t agree with it completely, but I respect it, and he has, at least, been consistent on this point. If only the Bush Administration had been so consistent.
See, the very real problem the U.S. is facing right now is that, in the last several months, the Bush Administration has changed its story several times. It hasn’t presented a clear, justifiable, consistent case for why it wants to go to war.
For instance, on “Meet the Press” this morning, when asked about the fabrication of some of the documents hald up as “proof” of Iraq nuclear capabilities, Colin Powell basically said “Fine. That doesn’t change our argument.”
It doesn’t? Their argument (the newest one, anyway), is based entirely on the idea that they have credible evidence of Iraq’s capability for mass destruction. And yet, much of the evidence Powell himself presented to the U.N. has been shown to be either massively outdated, plagarized, or fabricated. How does this not change their argument? If I made a case and my evidence was shown to be inaccurate, it sure as Hell would change my argument.
If the United States were to have presented a clear and reasonable case from the beginning, then perhaps it would be making some progress with the UN. As it stands, the US looks like a bully, just looking for a reason to fight. The fact that its reasons keep changing doesn’t help it one bit.
In short, I guess I’m saying that people like Sua should be the ones making decisions. Unfortunately, our current leaders seem to lack something of his forthrightness and consistency.
By the way, demacracy = democracy. (When my uncle was fighting in Korea in the '50’s, he didn’t think we would still have troops there now).
Avalonian, does it matter at all that Iraq has not complied completly with any of the UN resolutions mandated since the first Gulf War?
Yes. Does it matter at all to you that the U.N. inspectors are making progress?
And by the way, the “UN resolutions” rhetoric is just the latest party line on the matter of Iraq. It doesn’t change anything I said in my previous post, which I note you completely failed to address. Can I assume you agree with it?
Avalonian Well said and closely reasoned. Precisely what I should have said, but didn’t.
As to Mr. Powell’s remarks - well, really, what else could he say? “You’re right, we’re full of shit, but we are going anyway”? He put the best take on it he could. Lipstick on a pig.
I am perpetually surprised at my own credulity. I really thought CP was a man of honor and integrity. Taken in by his military bearing and air of command, I guess. I honestly believed that if he confronted the kind of evidence that has surfaced lately, the sheer totality of thundering mendacity, he would stand down and let the Bushistas twist slowly in the wind, as they richly deserve.
Fuck me for stupid.
Let’s apply occams’ razor here.
Hypothesis 1: Colin Powell, who has built up a reputation for honesty and seriousness throughout his entire life, turns out to be a mole for the Bush administration, a closet hawk who kept that fact hidden for several decades.
Hypothesis 2: elucidator is wrong.
You do the math.
That won’t do, Sam. Whats your premise? All those reports, which we have all reviewed to exhaustion, they are all fabrications made up by devious and cunning liberals to embarass the good and the noble?
There really was a high-tech bio-weapons lab, but those crafty rascals turned it into derelict buildings before the reporters got there? In one day?
That guy we got doing our nuclear inspection stuff, he doesn’t know anything about aluminum tubes and thier use in uranium enrichment? But Colin Powell does?
When he praises the British brilliance in the matter of international weapons intelligence, he doesn’t know that its a load of plagiarized crap 12 years out of date? Shouldn’t he? Wouldn’t you think he has some responsibility to know the truth when hes urging WAR!. Why, yes, I rather imagine he does. Perhaps you disagree, and regard a casual acquaitance with the truth as sufficient.
Occams Razor jo momma! The math says yours truly is right and Conan the Canadian is full of it.
>Saddam used to accuse the UN inspectors of being US spies.
Isn’t that because we planted spies in the inspection team, and the intelligence gathered by them was used in the bombing after we withdrew the inspectors? Seems to me, if the tables were turned, we’d be a bit suspicious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/301168.stm
>And, of course, IMO everyone breathing on this planet has a moral obligationn to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide.
Good point, but I hardly think the US government is qualified to make decisions about this…does anyone remember East Timor, or any of the other countries around the world in which we’ve sold weapons to madmen & looked the other way when they used them on innocents, just like we did with Saddam before Desert Storm? If we’re going to punish war criminals, we don’t have to go very far…of course, I doubt there is a country which hasn’t committed evil acts, but some sense of perspective is in order…
Also, that link to the original Blix report didn’t work…can someone supply another?
“The lack of objectivity, as far as foreign nations are concerned, is notorious. From one day to another, another nation is made out to be utterly depraved and fiendish, while own’s one nation stands for everything that is good and noble. Every action of the enemy is judged by one standard; every action of oneself by another. Even good deeds by the enemy are considered a sign of particular devilishness, meant to deceive us and the world, while our bad deeds are necessary and justified by our noble goals, which they serve. Indeed, if one examines the relationship between nations, as well as between individuals, one comes to the conclusion that objectivity is the exception, and a greater or lesser degree of narcississtic distortion is the rule.” - Erich Fromm
With regards to the link to Blix report, goto www.un.org, click on ‘Welcome’, then click on ‘The Situation in Iraq’, then look for the dropdown box of Blix Reports.
Sua’s arguments make perfect sense - as the case to build worldwide consensus to take out Saddam.
But going in alone to right the wrong of Saddam’s genocidal behaviors has to assume that we have the mandate of the international community. Otherwise, we are simply vigilantes.
Fwiw, I’m pretty much of the same view as Sua – notwithstanding the lies, the hidden agenda’s of the protagonists, my personal distaste for this (US) administration, the false evidence, etc, etc… Saddam has to go: And in the bonus pack we also have the encouragement and support for Kurdish democracy and the liberation of an oppressed people from a non-idelogue dictator.
That’s where I imagine Colin Powell is and probably Blair, also – neither of those guys share much (if anything) with Bush save that one single goal: Realpolitik: ‘The end justifies the means’ … cliché, cliché, cliché …
So I’d like us to move on. Accept that the WOMD don’t exist but that the* fact* that they’re non-existence cannot be proved is providing ‘us’ with the (artificial) pretext by which to get rid of a particularly nasty piece of work and the potential threat said nasty piece of work presents …
Also, I think we should work on accepting there won’t be a ‘war’ – not that I think any two people anywhere in the world share a definition of what that might actually mean in relation to Iraq. Saddam will go, but Saving Private Ryan 2 it ain’t going to be.
God even sharing the same views as this US administration makes me feel very dirty, and not in a good way …
Quibble the first:
That was last week. This week we are fervent supporters of Iraq’s “territorial integrity”. In a fit of Kissingeresque nostalgia, we have sold out the Kurds yet again. Last time, we sold them to the Iranians, this time the Turks. Under no circumstances whatsoever would we sell them out to Saddam. That would be wrong.
Quibble the second:
I hasten to point out that in order to do this we are using the 101st Airborne as a lynching party.
Perhaps. But war is chaos made manifest, a roll of very dangerous dice where snakeyes is an odds-on favorite. It might be badda-boom, badda-bing, bury Saddam. It might also be a bloody house to house horror show through Baghdad. I won’t pretend I know, and I won’t pretend you do either.
But you wanna talk realpolitick? Howzabout images of Iraqi widows and orphans streaming out of every TV in the Muslim world? Should get some excellent “shock and awe” shots of missies crashing into…well, we’ll say a command center, Al Jazeera will say orphanage…who do you think they’re gonna believe?
Werewolf of London, you are usualy such a sensible guy, this line of thought surprises me. I’ll put it down to a temporary aberration brought on by morbid contemplation of British cuisine.
If only the madmen would let us know their totalitarian/genocidal tendencies up front. Why don’t they do this, it would save so much trouble.
Mugabe is our next victim…
I’m in the same place as London Calling, reluctantly aboard. However, I’m not too optimistic about the aftermath. Kind of reminds me of how everyone was so happy when the Berlin Wall came down and all that, and there was even this chatter about the “end of history”. On FNN, an investment channel that predated CNBC, they had an old guy, Ed Hart, who said (from memory, but this is pretty close I think): “This idea that everyone will be happy and live together peacefully is fatuous. They can now stop hating the Soviets and go back to hating each other.”
As it turned out, both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia disappeared, one peacefully, the other less so.
How Iraq turns out is anybody’s guess.