Hey, you were the one who brought up the subject and made an assertion about human rights which I thought was invalid. Instead of supporting that assertion, or just saying you goofed, you chose to sidestep it. That’s cool. But to suddenly retreat into “hijack land” as if that NEVER happens on this board is pretty funny.
Yes, the topic of this thread is** How long should it take to find the WMDs in Iraq?**. Just curious: Can you point me to one of your posts where you addressed that topic?
Here’s a nice set of resources on the UN’s role in helping to end apartheid.
Compared to wars, it’s a long, slow process.
But then again, I don’t think wars do anything for human rights. Reconstruction periods afterwards can be beneficial in imposing new standards of human rights; wars themselves only chop off the government, and leave the people vulnerable. But the process of reconstruction is long, slow, and expensive as well.
My contention is that wars don’t have a net benefit in terms of human rights. Between the casualties and atrocities that occur during the wars, and the unpredictable fallout that occurs afterwards, war is a terrible way to try and improve oppressed peoples’ lot in life. World War I resulted in… well, World War II. Which brought forth the Cold War, which, when ended, brought forth the series of revolutions and political upheavals in the former Soviet Union, which brought forth the atrocities and the war in Kosovo…
When we set the machinery of war in motion, we don’t know what the end result will be, except that there will be a lot of death involved. It may improve some people’s lot in life, but we can never be certain at the outset of the war whether that will actually come about, or whether the war will provoke more violence, more atrocity, more bloodshed, and a worse situation than a different approach would have.
Using diplomacy to cast the light of international attention on human rights abuses, and to set higher standards for human rights worldwide, and to create pressure on countries through sanctions may not be as newsworthy as wars are, but I believe it’s a more effective means of moving towards a humane international community.
Thanks for the response. BTW, I was not in favor of this war, even though I do think the US was morally OK in waging it. I think it has to be an extremely unusual situation for the US to be in the liberation business. But I’m no fan of the UN either. South Africa, being a democracy, would have reformed over time. If the UN could do something about the situation in the many dictatorships around the world, I’d change my tune.
Remember those lazy, hazy dayz when invading Iraq was about WMD. Well, it’s been ~6 months since the invasion and 4 1/2 months since the end of major combat. The OPs suggested deadline has passed.
Is it getting close to time to launch a real investigation? Or was that blinkered media run at “the 16 words” all we’re gonna get?
It’s time, and then some, for a real investigation.
It should certainly look into the war plan, which allowed for leaving suspected WMD sites unsecured as a matter of course. As I said on the previous page, if the rationale for war was that (a) Saddam had WMDs, and (b) we needed to invade to keep them out of terrorists’ hands, the war plan is a total mismatch with the casus belli.
Since the war plan was in place well before Bush justified the invasion to the nation in exactly those terms on March 17, one can only conclude that either (a) Bush was bullshitting us all, or (b) he was Rummy’s and Wolfie’s dumb-ass sock puppet.
An investigation would be useful in that it would make this point publicly.
To hijack this a little further, I’d like to know why you think SA would have “reformed” on its own, despite the lack of evidence IMHO that anything of the sort was happening due to anything but external pressure. It was not a democracy - the vast majority of the population were excluded from voting rights and were therefore powerless. A minority ruled, in some understandable fear of what would happen to them if the majority ever did get real power, and therefore could not consider allowing the reforms you think would have happened. I see the UN sanctions regime, and other international pressure, as having been effective not only in forcing the revolution but in making it astoundingly, unprecedently, bloodless. Certainly moral leadership by Mandela and De Klerk played a major role, but that wouldn’t have mattered if the situation they were in hadn’t been forced upon them.
Thanksgiving? No, we have to give the inspections time to work! At least until after the elections!
“Planting” WoMD would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry off successfully. The circumstances would be analyzed with painful thoroughness.
It would be infinitely safer for Bush et al to go with “they are too well hidden” or “they were transfered to another country.”
The bizarre thing is, I remember actually having a moderate degree of respect for Dick Cheney, once upon a time. Boy howdy, was I off the mark. Now, I can only conclude that he is an unscrupulous liar who will say whatever helps advance his cause, without regard for the truth.
I think (hope?) that Scylla means to indicate that the current Administration has already stooped to much lower acts than planting faked evidence of WMDs.
I’m foolish enough to think that I could detect any use of the Big Lie.
In any case, although extremely successful conspiracies are by definition undetected, we can’t go around citing events that we explicitly do not know about.
