Oh, puh-lease, Beagle. Please tell me you’re not fixing to trot out the New! Improved! Party Line. How it was all about liberating the poor downtrodden Iraqis.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! It was all about “mushroom clouds” and “vast stores of VX nerve gas” and threat and fear and Saddam is coming to get yo’ Mamma! It was only when we arrived and found out that one of the evilest shits on the planet was telling the truth! and we are the ones who are full of it. Oooopsy!
Then with a flick of the wrist poof! all gone! And then flow the tears crockidilian, emphasis on “crock”. Now we want to put on our retrofitted virtue, and parade ourselves in public as “liberators”. Our virtue is of recent vintage. Like new wine, it sets the teeth on edge.
If we, the people, are dumb enough to buy this shit, we deserve four more years. God help us.
I supported the proposed war in January, because the idea that Saddam didn’t have WMDs seemed like a joke.
I had cold feet when our allies deferred.
A few hours after combat started, somebody on the board pointed out that any WMDs would be wide open for capture by Al Qaeda during hostilities, and that we should therefore hack away at the Al Qaeda network for a couple of years before launching on Iraq.
Oops.
Timing and sequencing is important, IMHO. Details matter.
Well, praise Allah, that the WMDs turned out to be a Chimera. I regret supporting this war, such as it was. (Better option: roughly speaking, focus first on Al Qaeda, then on North Korea, then on Iran, then on Iraq.)
But, guess what? Now that we’re in, we gotta stay in. (Sort of. After a certain point, it is advisable to declare victory and get out.) In for a penny, in for a pound, as one estimatable analyst once said.
True. However, if the US doesn’t support human rights in some cases, and argues it is vital in other cases, eyebrows will be raised.
I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. The US violated human rights, and you come in saying the US had a policy which ignored human rights, so it’s ok. Doesn’t that strike you as strange?
As a matter of historical accuracy, although your arguement is nonsensical either way, the US has had a public face of supporting human rights for a hell of a lot longer than 25 years. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by the US more than 50 years ago. There have been more than a few of multilateral conventions aimed at human rights protection before the Carter administration.
Lest anyone mistake my argument, there is a difference between the public face of policy, and the policy itself. The US often paid lip service to human rights, while ignoring the same. Examples as cited in previous posts.
In fact, we the people are always lead to war because of the atrocities of the enemy. The reason is simple, no one really wants to fight for strategic rubber reserves.
So we removed Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini in what, the Regan administration? If you want to argue that human rights weren’t a concern prior to the Carter administration, putting in examples of human rights concerns in the Second World War won’t help your case. (You may also want to look up the details on the “removal” of Hirohito.)
Noreiga, Pinochet… I’d like to add them to the list of Dictators which the US supported.
I’m not sure that a communist county is a priori a human rights violator. In fact, some might argue that interventions in countries just because of a conflict of ideology is one of the darkest parts of American Foreign Policy.
Regarding the OP, Beagle, you’re nuts. The administration’s justification for war was not that Iraq had a poor human rights record, and peace activists didn’t ever say Hussein was a good guy. Bush may have paid lip service to human rights (as is customary when going to war), but that was not the primary interest. How do we know? Wait for it…
Inconsistent human rights policy.
No peace activists objects to human rights as a foreign policy objective. However, they point to the inconsistent record to show that it is not presently the objective of American foreign policy. Hussein was violating human rights in the 1980s, and we didn’t care. Hussein was violating human rights in the 1990s, and suddenly we cared. That, folks, is inconsistency.
Let’s move now to the subject of peace activists. There were many arguments against the war. For instance, the concern America would be lead into a quagmire wherein the people we claimed to be rescuing didn’t want our help after all. Additionally, some peace activists argued that attacking Iraq would radicalize a great many people and increase global terrorism. Some claimed that following fundamental principles of international law, such as not attacking a country without UN approval, would further global stability. And so on… You may note that nowhere on this list is the argument that Hussein is a nice person.
Of course, we really went to war with Afghanistan, and Iraq is just an extension of that… You see, they are both foreign countries run by Osama bin Hussein, and hiding evil-doers in caves with their weapons of mass destruction. Dammit, I can’t ever remember if we’re at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. Down the memory hole, I guess.
FYI, Saddam took power in 1979. The Iran War came so quickly after that most Americans, even in government, did not know his name.
We already had “Ayatollah Khomeni” etched into our memories and brains. Thanks to his wonderful first impression, most Americans assumed nobody could be worse.
Iran – Iraq War. Technically, Iraq was helping us strike at a nation that declared war on us. However long that support lasted, I find it hard to believe it creates a bigger moral paradox than being allied with Stalin, or the rest of rogues that have lead other nations.
Ya dance with who ya brung. Sometimes it’s a blind date. I’m feeling homespun.
True. Moral righteousness and self defense are the 2 biggest excuses for going to war from what i’ve seen. From what i’ve seen most wars were sold on one or both of these 2 principles. Even the Nazis, Soviets, Japanese and Italian fascists claimed they fought for moral righteousness. And so did the allies as evidenced by the fact that our political enemies are considered synonymous with oppression in popular culture (the nazis, communists, islamic fundamentalists).
I wonder if that’s why he never commented on the putsch that cemented Saddam’s leadership? That Saddam had a “different concept of human rights.” I can only find Snippets of Carter’s foreign policy towards Iraq, if he had one. He was “neutral” on the war, but there is more to the story that is hard to find, IMO.
People only get interested when President Reagan takes office, due to the aforementioned overriding partisan considerations, but the major events happened under Carter (Hostages, Saddam, Iran – Iraq War).
I don’t know how this snuck into ZMag, but it’s reasonable and well written. Obviously it has its own slant, but not as bad as you would think. Alright, IT’S GREAT!!! Fine, the “whatevers” can be smart also.
It’s really pretty simple, I base my philosophy on mass graves. If there are huge numbers of bodies being buried in pits or dumped in rivers (Somalia) it is up to the free (and unfree) peoples of the world to do something about it. The only useful response to genocide – every single time – is force.
The first HR, that we can all agree on (hopefully) is the right to be free from genocide. I sometimes wonder if Nuremburg is limited to the facts of that particular case, given the number of mass graves turning up in Iraq and all over the world since then.
Though the Communists disagreed, political freedom is equally essential for a number of reasons. Can’t we all just get along and agree to disagree?
OW! Stop hitting me with those batons!
But I’ve already been in school long enough. Whats a RE-education anyway?
Kinda, sorta, but not exactly. The Iranian hostage crisis was precepitated semi-spontaneously by extra-governmental militants enraged that the Shah was allowed to enter the U.S. for medical treatment ( he had been in Mexico ). They got an after-the-fact backing from Khomeini, but it wasn’t really a government action per se. In fact the government was blind-sided and the “moderate” Prime Minister ( Barzagan ) and Foreign Minister ( Yazidi ), both of whom had been working to reach a rapproachment with the U.S., were forced out by the invigorated clerical faction, who seized on the hostage crisis as a chance to suppress their opponents in the government.
However it did eventually morph into a de facto government action ( as Khomeini had control over the situation pretty quickly ). So you can make a case either way,in a sense.
It’s because they were, in fact, mostly college students. It was a worked up street mob of hunderds or thousands ( I’ve seen anywhere from 500 - 3,000 quoted ) of mostly pro-clerical faction college militants.
Yes. As you already noted, by the end it was a de facto government action supported by Khomeni fully. I choose function and actions of the government over formalism in this case.
The most important effect is the effect on public opinion. That made Iran and Khomeni public enemy number one. What is reality if it isn’t perception and the media? Politics.
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure if Somalia even has any rivers. I meant Rwanda where the ethnic violence was allowed to “work itself out.” Mostly with machetes.
I’ve got Black Hawk Down and “Black Hawk down” on the brain.
And here’s some more of that dissonance again. If the only useful response to genocide is force, why was it okay to support/side with Iraq up until 1990, the USSR during World War II, etc? Shouldn’t we have invaded Iraq in 1979, Cambodia in 1975 and nuked Stalin in 1945? You aren’t being consistent with regards to human rights in the slightest. If you are going to argue from a realpolitik position, fine, just don’t try to dress it up as more than that. Some clarification on how you think Saddam’s terror hadn’t begun in the 80s when in the next sentence you type you admit that his first action was to publicly kill political opponents in the legislature isn’t self contradicting would be nice. Perhaps I’m not made of stern enough stuff, but if a sitting president walked into Congress and started shooting people, I’d be pretty terrorized. Alternatively, an explanation of who exactly these “whatevers” you harp on about are would be nice.
Sorry, I’m not going to defend every stupid CIA misadventure in the history of the United States when I already explicitly stated that we inherit foreign policy blunders from our forebears.
Nor am I going to apoligize for efforts to keep Soviet Communism from spreading. The excess that happened on both sides were extreme. The US is not covered with mass graves of Communists, OTOH.
The whole point is you inherit the jokers that run other nations. I don’t have to justify any past actions except those that I outlined in my OP, which obviously some people read as an invitation to talk about the present war, presidential politics, and the anti-Reagan talking points from back in the day.
We supported Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, led by a noted joker: an old martyr.
France supported Iraq far more during that time period. Is that fair to mention?
I didn’t ask for either. If you are arguing from realpolitik, that’s perfectly acceptable, that’s how the world works, unfortunate though it may be. My problems are these:
You claimed to be consistent on human rights. You clearly aren’t, you have yet to explain how
isn’t patently self-contradicting. It’s a realpolitik position, accepting or ignoring vast human rights violations when it is politically expedient to do so. Again, it’s how the world works, but please don’t dress it up and act like it’s a consistent position.
You still haven’t clarified how exactly these “whatevers” are.
You smeared pacifism by equating it with mass murdering shitbags like Saddam. Really, this is the biggest of my objections. Should we bring the Dalai Lama before the Hague to stand trial for supporting genocide?
And yes, I actually have read all of your posts, not just the OP.
Everyone gets realpolitik when they think that a nation (Iran) has declared war on them, if that was what you mean. That was a statement of fact, not a normative statement.
I’ve been trying to point out that just the basic facts of what went on back then have been spun to the point that the mere dates can defeat some arguments. Um, no, Reagan did not put Saddam in power. Carter was there for the hostages, Saddam, and the war. What was his policy? That was not a rhetorical question.
Here is how the argument goes, IRL, and here often:
I (American) don’t like Saddam.
“But your nation did (some CIA operation)”
American: “Being without infinite patience, I prefer not to debate the Cold War or the history of the CIA every time the subject of foreign policy comes up.”
I, personally, can be consistent on human rights. My nation may not be in every case, obviously. I think you are conflating me with the United States government. I refuse to devolve every debate into the cast of characters that the United States supported back during the Cold War, unless you will give equal time to the Gulag Archipelago, Communist expansionism, mutual assured destruction, or the Soviet seizure of Eastern Europe. That’s a big topic to debate every time foreign policy comes up.
Revel explains why this seems to happen all the time in several books.
“Whatever” is a generic term for people that trot out these tired political talking points from the left. Sometimes this is cloaked in terms like “peace movement.” In a sentence: Carter was a sucker or hypocrite. Clinton’s policy against terror was flaccid, if nothing else was. But, modern Republican presidents get the harsh historical critiques and defamatory movies.
I want to see JFK on pain pills giving it to Marilyn Monroe on sleeping pills. That’s Oscar worthy stuff.
Precisely when, on what date, did we become the virtuous virgin of Human Rights? It is a marvelous device. Stuff a crack whore in one end, out the other comes Mary Jane in her maryjanes clutching her prayer book as she flounces off to First Communion.
The USA has a history of supporting bloody tyrants as long as your arm. For fifty years, any frothing psychopath with an funny hat and cheesy pilot-like sunglasses could count on airdrops of money, guns and lawyers from the US simply by declaring a firm opposition to instability and/or Communism. Being bloody tyrants, they frequently engendered insurgency. By an astonishing coincidence, these movements invariably turned out to be Communist! Batista, Trujillo, Duvalier, Reza Pahlavi, Nhu, Diem, Pinochet, Syngman Rhee, Somoza, Uguarte…let me know when you get bored.
Recently assumed virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge.
It’s just nihilism. You skate right past hundreds of millions of Communist mass murders to condemn me. I’ll grant out that brutal dictators of every political stripe should be abolished.
C’mon, lefties! Join me. Condemn Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea! It’s liberating.
Piffle. Show me where me or any of my ilk (got my ilk?) has wasted any hamster juice defending any of the above named regimes. Your gleeful exposure of presumed hypocrisy is a fantasy.