Millions rally against war: is that reason enough to delay or stand down?

Great Debates
161

Never said there wasn’t.

Generally, the Beeb tends to report news, flat. There is occasionally op-ed, as well as vox pop, but not as much as you’d get on other sites or in the newspapers.

WRT the Iraq situation, there’s a subsection that collates all the information here. If you spent five minutes perusing this subsection, you will find the following - all linked off the front page:

Here, for example, we find a forum for people to give their opinions on whether Blair can win over the British public, including quotes such as: “I know I am part of the minority in believing this will be a just war but minority often arises out of difficult situations requiring difficult decisions. Mr Blair is in that place right now.” “Good God, has Saddam Hussein not killed enough people already? Is 500,000 dead, in his own nation, murdered by his hand, not enough to convince the world that he intends to use the evil weapons of mass destruction he has collected?”

In the “Voices Around the Globe”, the beeb has taken vox-pops, including the opinions of citizens of Tel Aviv - e.g. “I believe a war on Iraq is justified. Saddam Hussein is evil and he needs to be removed.” “I believe a war against Iraq is justified because they still have biological and chemical weapons which are a threat to Israel and the world.” Also in this section are the opinions of people in Washington - e.g. “The US deployments in the Gulf are on track. We have given everyone all the chances they need.” “We have to get rid of terrorism. We support the president, who is trying to do what’s right and is a man of God.”

On the op-ed side, we find, prominently, an essay by an Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya, who is completely pro-war, and says stuff like “Regime change in Iraq will provide a historic opportunity - one that is as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.” and “All we saw in Afghanistan were people cheering in the streets. I expect Iraqis to do the same - to throw sweets and flowers at the American troops as they enter our towns and cities.”

We also have the letter and a report on said letter, on which you yourself started a thread, by Rania Kashi. Or how about British complicity in the Iraqi situation?

Do I have to go on? These are just a small selection out of one little subsection of the BBC News website.

As I have repeatedly said, you mistake balance for bias. Or you only see what you want to see. Or you just don’t look.

It is used in a humourous capacity - if I’ve offended anyone I apologise. My use of the phrase was entirely ironic, mocking the attitudes of former colonials.

162

Yes, this is a key point. Twelve years ago, someone might reasonably have believed that Saddam could be overthrown without a US military action. Supposedly, Bush Sr. and Powell held this belief. They were wrong, as it turns out, but their POV had a reasonable basis. Their mistake in judgment allowed Saddam to torture and murder many thousands of people.

Today, there’s no reasonable way to believe that Saddam can be overthrown or disarmend non-violently. The world has tried everything it could think of, and every approach failed. An honest assessment, devoid of wishful thinking, tells us that this is a binary situation. Saddam will be overthrown by US military might or Saddam will remain in power.

I remember reading his articles there. They banned him, you know, supposedly because his blog criticized the Times.

163

Strange, I saw that same “our oil/their sand” sign on the peace rally sign.

There was a “Support Our Troops” rally across the street in Raleigh. Here is a picture of it. Yes, that is the whole “SOT” rally. The other 195 (plus 8) pictures are of the peace rally. Frankly, I was impressed by the sheer diversity of people at the peace rally. This was not the typical college-student-hippie peace rally from the 1960s, this was a slice of the entire population of North Carolina. That in itself is impressive. It’s not just wingnuts who disapprove of this war. I personally think it’s too late to stop this war. For maximum effectiveness, these protests should have been held back in November before the push to war got completely out of hand. I’m just glad I registered my disapproval for this mad dash to war and exercised a few Constitutional rights.

I realize that this doesn’t add much to the debate. Sorry about that.

164

There were two in DC - one on October 26th and one on January 18th. They were both quite large - the first one estimated around 100,000, the second one around 300,000.

We’re doing what we can. :smiley:

165

It is one thing to say that a particular way of being anti-Saddam is unrealistic. It is another thing to distort the truth by describing that position as being “anti- anti-Saddam.” Sullivan is an articulate person and understands the distinction fully. He’s just engaging in high-pundit speak, preaching to his audience of pre-converted dittoheads.

(Of couse, I don’t agree that there’s no chance that Saddam can be disarmed non-violently, and still less that everything has already been tried: but I’ll let that go for now :wink: )

166

Well, you will need to make the case, I’m afraid. Otherwise, I will assert that these particular “peace ministers” are like Jehovah’s Witnesses who reject medicine in favor of God. Even though a Jehovah’s Witness might say that he merely prefers a different approach, I would call him “anti-medicine,” because I consider his approach to not be realistic. I would say that he doesn’t actually advocate another approach; he just imagines that he does. In reality, all that he is doing is rejecting scientific medical care.

Similarly, someone who rejects the only realistic means of overthrowing Saddam in favor of a fantasy is properly described as “anti-anti-Saddam.” Now, if you could show that there really is a non-violent way to overthrow Saddam, then I would agree with you.

167

december, I have no time to argue semantics with you: the difference I’m pointiing to is clear enough. If a person rejects medicine in favor of god, then the person is anti-medicine. But if a person says, I believe disarming Saddam is important but I believe that all peaceful means of doing so must be tried before war can be resorted to, they are genuinely anti-Saddam. Someone with your particular viewpoint might say, well such as position is no more helpful than if they were anti-anti-Saddam. But anything beyond that is willful distortion of language. How do I know? Because I hold the position I have just described and I know I am anti-Saddam.

168

Suppose a person says, “I believe curing my child’s illness is important, but I believe that all non-medical means of doing so must be tried before medicine can be resorted to.” I would call that person “anti-medicine.” He will never run out of conceivable alternatives to try – not until the child dies of the illness.

169

But that is not an equivalent analogy. Try to think this through…

The question is am I or am I not anti-Saddam?

I choose to express my anti-Saddamness by arguing for inspections, containment, peaceful disarmament, and positing war as a last resort. You choose to express your anti-Saddamness by arguing that only war will be effective. Can you not see that?

The equivalent to medicine in your analogy would be war: I am in indeed opposed to war except as a last resort. The equivalent to anti-Saddam in your analogy would be something like anti-illness. The person in your analogy is not anti-anti-illness, though they believe in exhausting non-medical means before resorting to medicine. It would be fair for you to say that their reluctance to use medicine is no more helpful to their child than if they were anti-anti-illness.

Got it?

(None of this of course is to concede that there is any substantive likeness between my position on Saddam and your hypothetical person’s position on illness. To refuse to treat serious illness with medicine is foolish; to refuse to rush into war prematurely when premature war will cause more harm than good is wise. Or so I believe.)

170

What a brilliant way of putting it!

december, I take it by your lack of response to my cites that you concede my point.

171

Thank you for the cites. I will make just one point and then withdraw from this sub-debate. The examples I provided were flat-out anti-war or anti-American. The cites you provided were balanced coverage that included pro-war as well as anti-war opinions. What you did not provide is any flat-out pro-war coverage. E.g., have there been TV shows where all participants were pro-American and pro-war?

However, the real question is which side gets a greater amount of favorable coverage. That cannot be answered by citing some examples. So, I am prepared to leave it at this: You believe that the BBC is unbiased regarding the war. Andrew Sullivan and several of his readers believe the Beeb are quite biased against it.

Mandelstam, you and I and President Bush agree up to a point. We are all opposed to war except as a last resort. The difference is that I think that after 12 years, we have finally arrived at the last resort; you think we are rushing to war prematurely.

How would you decide that we had reached the point when war was necessary? Is there an amount of time? Are there certain steps you could mention which should be tried first?

172

IMHO, this is a great point. I’m against the war as an isolationist, but presuming I was an interventionist this would be a succinct summary of the issues presented.

Nobody’s being bloodthirsty here. It’s all about the threshold at which you place the justification for war, the boundary between “feasible alternatives” and “war is the only option”. That’s where the debate really lies for you interventionists, that’s what you have to decide. I wish the rest of the debate over this impending conflict could be that detached and civil. Unfortunately we’ve gotten embroiled in a conflict between extremists from “blow those dirty towelheads to hell” to “Bush is the new Hitler”.

173

Alistair Cooke used the same analogy.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=6255

174

NO! Because that’s NOT how the BBC works.

175

december:

Now I am sure that WWII was set off by the evil dictator actually attacking a country and not by the good guy contries making a pre-emptive strike?

I’d say that you could make just about any analogy from the second world war, considering:

(a) it went on for 6 years.
(b) it involved the whole world.

Lot of ground material there, for the creative mind.

176

Hm guys, december and mandelstam having read what you actually talked about it would seem it was not the world-war two. :slight_smile: I withdraw.

177

Wasthis what you read, Randy? (An excellent paragraph each from 12 leading historians about lessons for this war from history).

“History never repeats itself. When it comes, it takes you by surprise” - Simon Schama

178

december: " Alistair Cooke used the same analogy."

Well then, since Alistair Cooke is a fairly smart person let us hope he used the analogy appropriately–as a way of articulating his own opinion towards delaying the war–and not, as you did–as an unsuccessful way of defending Andrew Sullivan’s misleading description of other people’s views on Saddam Hussein.

“Mandelstam , you and I and President Bush agree up to a point. We are all opposed to war except as a last resort. The difference is that I think that after 12 years, we have finally arrived at the last resort; you think we are rushing to war prematurely.”

That does very precisely state the difference in opinion between us; so I’m glad we seem to have gotten this much clarity. :slight_smile:

" How would you decide that we had reached the point when war was necessary? Is there an amount of time? Are there certain steps you could mention which should be tried first?"

I have offered opinions on such questions in other threads devoted to those subjects. In this thread, I’m happy to leave it at the following. Between 1998 and 2002 little if nothing was done towards disarming Iraq. In the last six months or so–triggered by the new post-9/11 climate-- a new set of actions has been taken. Under those circumstances it makes no sense to talk of “12 years” as though for 12 years the world has given its sustained attention to this problem. On the contrary, for about 4 years the world thought rather little about it.

As of today, the majority of the US public wants to see a second UN resolution; almost all of the US’s key allies, including Italy and Britain want to see a second UN resolution. So I’d say–in a hypothetical sense because everything depends on specific circumstances–that I’d see some legitimacy in going to war if the UN agrees on a resolution to that effect, setting forth a clear timetable of deadlines.

Steps to be tried along the way should certainly include continued air surveillance, increasing the inspectorate, and putting UN troops into Iraq to back up their activities. At the same time, simultaneous efforts should be made for some kind of resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and world cooperation in pursuing AlQaeda networks should continue. At home, Bush should get serious about homeland security: a first good sign would be dropping his absurd proposal to give another tax cut to the rich, and earmarking at least some of that revenue towards protecting ports and so forth, aiding states in improving their emergency services. During the whole of this period, Donald Rumsfeld should not be allowed to say anything in public on the subject of Europe as the man has the diplomatic skills of a bull in a china shop.

It seems possible to me that if the US were thus to shelve the determination to go to war in February or March and, instead, begin to pressure its allies to get behind this kind of inspection/containment/disarmament regime that it would be able to get even reluctant countries such as France, Russia and China to agree. Since I’m no expert on either war or the Iraqi climate I can only venture a guess as to when a final deadline period might be. But perhaps around November of next year? Bush might actuallly like that timing ;).

179

Thanks for that link Sentient.

Oh and december, instead of closing your mind on the BBC and allowing Andrew Sullivan to do your thinking for you, why don’t you just listen to or read it for the next three or four days and judge for yourself?

180

You can read his essay here. It doesn’t take an explicit position on Iraq war, but it does draw a parallel with inaction in the face of the Nazi buildup. I really recommend the essay. He must be 94 years old or so, and he still writes beautifully.

I do not wish to debate your recommended steps on this thread, but I do have one question. How will you know when it’s time to give up on the peaceful approaches and go to the “last resort” of war?

He looks like Mr. Smoothy compared to Jacques Chiraq.:stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, Chirac’s tantrum was unplanned and very harmful to his interests. Rumsfeld was intentionally insulting the French and the Germans. That may prove to be good diplomatic strategy. Note that all of Europe is now with us, except for France, Germany and Belgium.