The BBC had a hilarious article earlier today, here, which states that, “Leaders from around the world have welcomed the approval by the UN Security Council of a new resolution on Iraq.” “Around the world,” according to the BBC is the U.S., U.K., France and Israel. Apparently the BBC is becoming as servile in its support of the British state as the American press is to its own state. They still have a way to go, but they are getting there.
So, the U.N. basically caved, in a historic act of appeasement, paving the way for a U.S. invasion of Iraq on pretexts that nobody takes seriously. Munich, anybody? The members of the security council, either too afraid of the consequences of crossing the U.S. (perhaps recalling the case of Yemen voting against the first Gulf War, and the consequent punishment of the tiny, impoverished country), or were happy to go along, after being assured that they would get their piece of the pie when Iraq is carved up. Other goodies being handed out to the sufficiently servile were passes on monstrous crimes, such as the terror war Russia is waging in Chechnya, and the ongoing repression of dissidents in China, etc.
What I can’t understand is what the rest of the world is thinking when they appease the U.S. in its bloodthirsty ambitions. Don’t they understand that when you demolish international law, that your own security is reduced? After all, it was only 60 years ago when another British head of state appeased a different aggressive state bent on world-wide domination. Or perhaps they are all just cowards, afraid to stand up to the bully on the block.
While your inflammatory comparison of the U.S. to Nazi Germany will, I’m sure, be carved up by other posters, it would be interesting to discover just how you believe that “impoverished” Yemen* was “punished” following the Gulf War and on what basis you believe that Iraq will be “carved up” and distributed to–Whom? France and Israel?).
While I am sure that you wanted to portray yourself as an iconoclastic fighter for truth and freedom, the sheer weight of the unexpressed assumptions in your post simply make you look strident (and, perhaps, historically ignorant).
I am not denying Yemen’s low GNP and GDP, but since they are currently rather wealthier than they were in 1990, your linking of poverty and punishment is, umm, odd.
(BTW, the U.S. has “money hungry” ambitions, not “bloodthirsty” ones. Get you cliches right or you will really look silly. The U.S. may indulge in bloodletting, but it never revels in it.)
When the Security Council vote on the first Gulf War occurred, the only “no” vote came from Yemen. By the time the Yemeni delegate put his hand down, a U.S. representative was at his side with the words: “That is the most expensive ‘no’ vote you’ll ever cast.” Yemen is a poor country, so $70 million means a lot. Well, I think it was the next day, or maybe the next week, that the U.S. completely cut off its $70 million aid package to Yemen. Get the picture? See, $70 million is nothing to the U.S., but it means a whole hell of a lot to a country like Yemen. Just the sheer spite of the act has to leave you in awe. Furthermore, the U.S. enlisted Saudi Arabia in its effort to punish Yemen, which ejected thousands of Yemeni workers from its territory. cite
Regarding the carving up of Iraq, I mean this is no secret. If you have been following this issue at all, you should know that a main sticking point with France and Russia was the large contracts the two countries had with Iraq to develop its oil fields once the sanctions are lifted. Furthermore, Iraq is indebted to Russia for some $8 billion, I think. In order to get the two countries to go along with the U.S. war, the U.S. had to promise them a piece of the pie.
Nobody on the security council can have any illusions about what this means, unless they are monstrously stupid. When the security council met in 1998 to discuss what was referred to as “Iraq’s ongoing defiance of weapons inspectors” but was in reality the U.S. attempt to thwart the inspection process, a classic scene ensued. Delegate after delegate came out of the chambers, re-iterating that the agreement that they had reached did not give the U.S. the right to use force. Finally, the U.S. delegate came out and said “we think it does.”
This resolution is simply cover for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, to cast it in terms of “multi-lateralism.” It is nothing more than propaganda. That the U.S. would use the U.N. for the precise opposite reason that the U.N. was formed in the first place is obscene, but nobody should place any credence in the non-existant support for U.S. military adventurism.
Lastly, I do think that Bush is bloodthirsty. I think he just likes killing people.
IF it happened in the way you described it, perhaps it was spiteful. So where does Yemen get its $180M in aid every year, today? (And what was the reason they provided for the vote for which they were “punished”?)
It is all very well to quote the Independent as if it was an “independent” news source, but you are still coming off as simply one more Yank-basher. (And I say this as someone who has actively argued against Dubya’s silly “Axis of Evil” and his preposterous claims that Iraq is a threat to the U.S.)
Notice the way he talks. Whenever he talks about some aspect of the economy or the environment, or some social issue, he blunders through like he is trying to pass an oral exam. He is distracted and basically all over the place. On the other hand, when he starts talking about killing people, then he can talk with vigor, you can see a little gleam in his eyes. His syntax is still atrocious, but his speech is more coherent and fluid. When he talks about how we are going to “hunt down the evildoer” or we are going to get them “dead or alive,” he really comes to life (no pun intended.) You can tell he relishes the role of the punisher and the warrior-king.
Recall also that Bush set the record for executing people as governer of Texas. When asked if he thought any of the 140 people he executed might have been wrongfully convicted, he blandly brushed aside the notion, insisting that he was “absolutely certain” that they were all guilty. He also openly mocked a woman executed in Texas, Karla Faye Tucker, and chuckled and grinned in a debate at a question about Texas lawyers who had slept through murder trials. His spirits these days are soaring at the idea that he will get to kill lots and lots of Iraqis who can’t fight back.
Well, you have a point Chumpsky, but I fear wildly overstated. I recall a quote from John Fowles, IIRC, to the effect that war is tempting to men because it affords them the opportunity to look gravely serious, it is the one thing that stops women from laughing at them.
What you call “spite” I call “consequences.” Surely the Yemeni delegation knew that if they opposed the US, the US would withdraw their aid. Surely they weighed the costs and benefits of their decision. Surely they came to the decision that voting “no” was more important than the aid package. That’s their perrogative.
But the US is not obliged to give aid to anyone, and in particular it is not obliged to give aid to countries who oppose it on the international stage. Why help someone who’s spitting in your eye?
Really, what’s the problem here?**
Ah, you are aware that Bush didn’t go out and hunt down 140 people to kill on his own, right? The decision to pursue a capital case are made by local D.A.'s in each individual case. And the Texas governor has very limited powers when it comes to granting stays of execution. And the number of folks going to death row under Bush weren’t that different than the number under previous Texas governors. Whatever the problems with the death penalty as used in the state of Texas (and I admit, there are many), it’s silly to say those problems are uniquely attributable to Bush.
The rest of your points trying to paint Bush as some kind of real-life Hannibal Lecter are both wholly subjective and, frankly, stupid.
And Dewey gets to say “stupid” again. He’s going for the record. Of course, its “frankly stupid” which shows reluctance.
There are “problems” with the death penalty as administered in Texas. Guess that depends on what you think of as a “problem”. I have problems with the death penalty even when fairly adjudicated. I have no qualms about such an admission, I hold humanity as a value even above justice. Killing people for a crime they did commit isn’t a good thing. Killing someone for a crime they didn’t commit is an obscenity.
13 men have been released from death row in Illinois, 13 men who are demonstrably innocent of the crimes they were to be killed for. Can anyone seriously suggest that Texas jurisprudence is superior to Illinois? So utterly superior that the Man Who Fell Up can say with a straight face that he is certain that no innocent persons have been executed?
A decent man would be ashamed. Make of that what you will.
Oh, really. The Yemen thing - you make it sound like the US went out of its way to punish the place. But no, it cut its aid. It’s not a horrible act of revenge to stop giving gifts. Gifts I might add, that those who are so determined to say that anything the US touches must be shit that their opinions are entirely determined by the day-by-day breeze of the reporting of US policy would be decrying as worse than useless and symbolic of cultural hegemony.
The US has got the UN to agree on a resolution. For a while that looked unlikely; that they would go it alone. I’m of the view that this would have been most unfortunate for international relations and international law. I’m guessing you thought that too, Chumpsky. So now I’m wary, but glad. Tell me what could the US government have done in this instance to convince you that they were not engaged in some elaborate conspiracy? What action would have made you reconsider their motives?
And its about damn time, the lousy ungrateful snobby Brits should be licking Uncle Sam’s boot for saving them in both World Wars!
Just kidding. Canada helped, too.
I hope this irreverent display adequately demonstrates how seriously I take the OP and his preposterous statements which I assume were supposed to be inflammatory but turned out to be just ridiculous.
It’s an easy record to go for when you’ve got the aptly-named Chumpsky around. He’s easily filling the “over-the-top leftist foolishness” niche recently vacated by Ace0Spades.
I mean really – he’s relying on things like “gleams in the eye” to paint Bush as Hannibal Lecter. If that isn’t stupid, what is it? I think the shoe fits.**
Point of fact, it’s never been shown that an innocent person in Illinois or Texas has ever been actually executed – the fact that the 13 men were released would seem to demonstrate that the appeals process worked well. (Indeed, it might have been better that they were on death row – inmates drawing life sentences don’t get bleeding-heart lawyers and law professors to file pro bono appellate briefs on their behalf).
But I understand there is a lack of certainty at play. The fact that 13 souls were released raises the possibility, however remote, that there were other poor souls who went overlooked. Bush’s words were overstatement, in that we can never know with 100% metaphysical certainty that a prisoner committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. But what can be said is that death penalty cases get reviewed with greater appellate scrutiny than other types of cases, and that scrutiny gives us an acceptable level of certainty in the eventual outcome.
But back to Bush – taken as a given that he (like most of his fellow Texans, and indeed like most leading Democrats, including Al Gore) is pro-death penalty, how would you have him answer that question? Do you think he would be attacked less for a statement that indicated less than total confidence in the judicial process?**
Of course, Chumpsky wasn’t trying to make a point about the death penalty in America; he was trying to paint Bush as a bloodthirsty monster. A decent man would be ashamed to try to paint that picture. Chumpsky isn’t ashamed. Make of that what you will.
(And FWIW I’m really more interested in Chumpsky’s Yemen point than this one)
The Beeb only featured those particular “world leaders” because those are the ones of the most interest to their readership. The Security Council resolution was unanimous, so besides the USA, Russia, China, France, and the UK, it’s also Mexico, Mauritius, Norway, Singapore, Syria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, and Ireland who may be taken to approve of it.
In what way are all these nations “appeasing” the U.S.? Do you really believe that the Yankees swing such a big stick in the rest of the First World, let alone the Third World, that Germany and France are simply rolling over out of fear of the GOP War Machine? Funny, I’d think that if their goal really was “appeasement”, that they would have caved two months ago, and that George would have had his Iraq resolution way back in September, when he first asked.
Or do you really not remember the last two months, how we had to listen to him hammer away at his point, day after day, and listen to every other nation in the world, besides Israel, tell him, politely, to go soak his head? Even Tony Blair took a while to muster up enough support before he was able to pick up his bookbag and go stand on Dubya’s side of the gymnasium.
Oh, wait, I know–the nations of the world are all caving now because they see that the GOP won big in Tuesday’s election, so they “know” that war is “inevitable”, and they’re anxious to be on the winning side, is that it? Right, like I believe that somebody like Gerhard Schroeder, who’s been up on his hind legs about this all fall, and who’s barely been speaking to George ever since the end of September, is suddenly gonna roll over and beg for his belly to be tickled, just because there are a few more Republican senators in the Capitol… :rolleyes: I mean, come on, he’s a pro, he knows that in politics, nothing is ever a lock.
Our Leader was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one mouth, he is consulting with the UN, rallying support, and appeasing one bunch of critics with an utterly empty display of respect. At the same time, often in the same breath, he makes it clear that if he doesn’t get his way, he’s talking his ball and bat and going to bash in Saddam bin Laden’s head anyway.
At least we will have that threat out of the way, no need to worry about drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax flying ten thousand miles to attack us. Not any more!
And what do you know, killing an innocent man apparently helped Shrub’s campaign. It sure seems to me that he enjoys playing a homicidal Cool Hand Luke on the world stage.
You know, when Bush first started talking about Iraq, the left (including most Democrats on this board) were screaming at him about unilateralism. They said he needs to go to the U.N. and get approval of the Security Council. The American people agreed - a bare majority supported war without the U.N., but an overwhelming majority (78%, last poll I saw) approved of it if the Security Council agreed.
So the Bush team responds to the desires of the public, goes to the U.N., and in a drawn-out, brilliantly managed process of negotiation manages to get unanimous agreement from the Security Council. You’d think the left would be cheering him for doing the right thing.
Instead, they fall stonily silent for a few days, then start carping about the way in which the U.S. managed to get unanimous agreement. Or something. I’m not quite sure what the argument is now, except that Bush is a bad man and must never be praised for anything.
"but you are the undisputed champ of “Worst Cite”. "
Wow, with one shot I’m the champ. I am humbled. As for not-objective I don’t get a partisan feel off the howler, unless it is us vs the press corp, YMMV. (note: if I remember correctly I found that site from a december post, so at least one R. supportor gets value out of it )
I thought it was common knowledge the level of defense poor people facing the death penalty got but if you need it spelled out:
Southern Center for Human Rights Indyweek
From Dewey’s own link:
"In Graham’s case, there was no confession or physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence was weak, so the prosecutors had to base most of their case on Bernadine Skillern’s testimony. "
Which was contradicted by two other eye-witnesses that were not called to the stand. But he was probably guilty, right?
If pretending that they were all guilty helps you sleep at night then knock yourself out (please).
)