"Respectfully disagrees?" I think not.

Great Debates
1

Say what you will about the potential for war in Iraq – I believe that it is possible for people on either sides of the issue to discuss it reasonably and respectfully. However, when President Bush said today that he “respectfully disagrees” with the worldwide anti-war protests this weekend, I’m given reasons to doubt his words… at least the first one. Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t show the least interest in actually understanding those who oppose him. And therein lies the crux of the problem.

See, to me, to respect someone’s views means that you’ve taken time and effort to understand them. It means that, even though you disagree, you can grasp the other person’s views and are able to respond reasonably to them.

Based on his statements today, Bush has failed to do this. For example, from the article:

I won’t say that nobody in the anti-war movement feels this way (there are always extremists), but I think I can safely say that very few who are protesting for peace believe that Saddam is not a risk to many things, including peace. In making this statement, Bush is doing one of two things. He is either basically ignorant of the views of the peace movement regarding Saddam Hussein, or he is deliberately misrepresenting them. Either way, he is plainly not respectful of those views.

And again here:

“Doing nothing”? I’ll go out on a limb here… I don’t think anyone is advocating that the United States “do nothing.” Here Bush has gone even farther than before, by making the options black and white. The peace movement is for continued (and increased) inspections in Iraq, further diplomatic actions, and other forms of regime change. It does not support a shooting war of agression with Iraq, but neither could it be said, in any stretch of the imagination, that it supports “doing nothing.” Bush again shows a blatant disrespect for those who protest the war effort, by displaying either complete ignorance on the matter or malign mischaracterization.

And finally:

And this is respectful? The protests are “irrelevant”? He equates the protestors around the world with a “focus group,” and this is how he shows respect? This strikes me as not only disrespectful, but a very poor representation of American government. In the America I live in, the views of the people can be many things, but they are never “irrelevant.”

Here’s the thing: I myself feel that the U.S. has not yet fully justified its case for war in Iraq. That’s my opinion on the matter. I’ve met people who disagree with me, and many of them can do so respectfully. They take time to hear me out and understand me. I also make an effort to hear them out and understand what they have to say. I do not call their views “irrelevant.” That’s some of how I show respect to the other person, and I expect the same in return.

If President Bush had simply said he disagreed with the protestors, I wouldn’t see a problem with that. Of course he does. However, to say that he “respectfully” disagrees is disingenuous on the face of it, and he proves himself false with his own words. One cannot have respect for people one believes to be “irrelevant,” and one cannot respect views one doesn’t even understand.

Protests are one way for Americans, and others around the world, to make their feelings and opinions known. Bush’s response, talking about respect while displaying disrespect out the other side of his mouth, shows me that he’s not only disingenuous, but a poor leader of a free people. When he talks about respect in this loose fashion, I lose respect for him.

2

It seems that Bush has shown little, if any, interest in what the other side has to say.

I’ve listened to his side of the argument. I’ve tried, I’ve really tried. I WANT to believe that what we are about to do is not as horrible as it seems. Yet I have see nothing that has been put forth to convince me that Iraq is a threat to the United States. I’ve been waiting for this argument to materialize, but all I’ve noticed is that his rhetoric has been getting increasingly illogical and belligerant.

3

And, conversely, I’ve put much effort into trying to see how what we are “about to do” is as horrible as some people fear.

The message I’m getting from your posts is “If he understood us, he’d agree with us, and thus wouldn’t be going to war.” I fail to see how this is the case.

4

—He is either basically ignorant of the views of the peace movement regarding Saddam Hussein, or he is deliberately misrepresenting them.—

Of course he is misrepresenting others in a coy, well couched manner. He’s a politician, with one of the nastiest, most vile political operatives ever to draw breath roving around behind the scenes.

But hey: what is the peace movement doing? Isn’t it also willfully misrepresenting him as well: accusing him of all sorts of unfounded motives like a lust for violence, oil, or racism? I think it is. All is dirty in love and protest, I guess.

5

George W. Bush = 1 person representing 1 viewpoint

“Peace Movement” = millions of people representing millions of viewpoints
I don’t think the peace movement can do anything like “willfully misrepresent” an opposing position, since the movement can’t even willfully present a cohesive platform of alternatives to the war. That’s not the function of a peace movement; its function is to protest war.

6

Just to be clear, advocating increased inspections IS advocating doing nothing. Inspections are a joke. Saddam has been able to get previous notice of inspections, either officially or through spies, and he has been able to cover his tracks.

7

I and many other like me feel that what has been going on up till now - and, in fact, anything short of war, will be ignored by Saddam. I cannot believe that anything will get done otherwise. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!

8

I keep seeing you pro-invasion people making that charge. Would you care to back it up by showing how inspections have been historically ineffective at finding and destroying weapons, or should we just take your opinion as gospel?

I ask, because this seems to be one of the major arguments against further inspections: the largely unsupported charge that inspections won’t or can’t lead to disarmament of Iraq. The counterargument, of course, is that inspections backed by military support can at least lead to the neutralization of Iraq’s army as a threat to regional security.

Perhaps after we discuss whether the inspection regime can’t bring about disarmament, you can then demonstrate how an invasion of Iraq will bring about a more secure Middle East and South Asia, or how such an invasion would be worth the cost in lives and in US dollars. It seems more than a bit short sighted to subject only one course of action (inspection regime) to a critical analysis without subjecting alternative actions (including invasion) to the same rough treatment.

9

The UN began an inspections regime in 1991. Nevertheless, twelve years later, Iraq has an enormous arsenal of WMDs, according to Hans Blix. Q.E.D.

10

december, the last time I asked you for a cite on “enormous arsenal per Blix” you gave me a cite which showed Blix saying there were weapons which had been inventoried in 1991 for which no documentation of destruction had been offered. That’s a far different thing, and you know it.

11

In other words, ** xenophon41**, the cite was of weapons which inspections did not suffice to destroy, which is what you asked for:

QED.

Regards,
Shodan

12

It could be argued that Mr. Bush is doing the only “game-theoretic” right thing to do. Which is to mantain the pressure on Saddam as high as possible. It is widely accepted that military threat has been the only reason Saddam accepted inspections. If Mr Bush started saying things like “Oh, well, all right, we’ll pull out as soon as possible, the inspections are working fine”, then the pressure would be gone, and that would defeat the purpose.
A “good cop - bad cop” charade is being played.

13

No, it’s the same thing. They only way they could be different would be if Saddam had secretly destroyed his WMDs. Sounds like a joke, doesn’t it? Saddam allowed his country to suffer years of economic deprivation from the sanctions and allowed himself to be killed and his government overthrown, when he had actually complied with the US resolutions and destroyed all his WMDs! Ha ha.

There is zero chance that these weapons have been secretly destroyed. If Saddam wanted to destroy his WMDs, he would have every incentive to document the destruction and to bring in UN witnesses. Furthermore, we have all sorts of testimony from defectors as well as intelligence from various countries.

BTW IIRC the inventory was as of 1998.

14

No, Shodan, the cite shows that Blix sees no evidence for destruction of certain weapons known to have existed in 1991, not that inspections have been historically ineffective. If a first swipe of disinfectant kills 90% of bacteria on a surface, can it be termed “ineffective” because 10% remain? -Depends, of course, on whether more cleaning is intended and on what the surface is to be used for. If I’m preparing food on it, then the first swipe is insufficient. If I’m going to assemble a carbeurator on it, I consider it a “clean surface”. What are our aims in Iraq?
I’m in no way advocating letting Saddam Hussein off the hook for his WMD’s. Iraq has been notably uncooperative and deceitful, and they’ve successfully impeded the disarmament process since the beginning. This does not mean disarmament through rigorous inspection is doomed to failure.

Take a look at the UNSCOM Comprehensive Review from January 1999. While it shows a history of determined resistance and duplicity on the part of Iraq, it also shows a comprehensive understanding of Iraq’s capabilities, a confident assessment by UNSCOM of the probable quantities of unaccounted-for weapons, and an impressive record of destruction of prohibited weapons. This report indicates to me two things:[ul][li]Saddam and his regime are not to be trusted, andthe inspectors are difficult to fool[/ul]Given time and military support, an expanded inspection regime is a serious and effective method of enforcing Iraqi disarmament.[/li]
(People arguing either side of this debate may also want to look at a timeline of inspections 1991-1998, which shows how recalcitrant Iraq has been.)

15

december, if you’re going to make arguments on my behalf, you’d damn well better improve them.

16

:slight_smile:

xenophone41, a successful inspections program is one that destroys all the WMDs. The UN’s program in Iraq left huge stores of WMDs in existance (or not shown to be destroyed, which is the same thing.) That’s a lower bound. There may be any amount of additional WMDs in Iraq. Based on other evidence of weapons-related imports and defectors, Iraq does indeed possess a great deal more WMDs than the already huge amount documented by Blix.

You believe that,“Given time and military support, an expanded inspection regime is a serious and effective method of enforcing Iraqi disarmament.” There no evidence that this would be effective. In fact, the last 12 years is evidence that it won’t work. BTW note that the 1991 - 2003 inspection regime was implemented after a military victory and carried the threat of additional military action if Iraq failed to comply. So, your suggestion of “military support” has already been tried.

Historically, inspections are not a long-term soution, even when they work temporarily. The countries doing the inspections eventually lose interest, and re-armament takes place. Unless Iraq genuinely wishes to disarm, inspections will not suffice.

17

december- No, it’s the same thing. They only way they could be different would be if Saddam had secretly destroyed his WMDs. Sounds like a joke, doesn’t it? Saddam allowed his country to suffer years of economic deprivation from the sanctions and allowed himself to be killed and his government overthrown, when he had actually complied with the US resolutions and destroyed all his WMDs! Ha ha.

Hmm it’s funny alright. You are missing a golden oppurtunity rabble rouse and you laugh it off. :slight_smile: From the UNSCOM report linked thoughtfully (and on my end thankfully) by xenophon41 :

(bolding mine)

-on preview-
"The UN’s program in Iraq left huge stores of WMDs in existance (or not shown to be destroyed, which is the same thing.) "

Weapons degrade, therefore not same thing.

18

decembler*, the nonspecific threat of punitive military action is not the same as military support of inspections and oversight. Such support would involve targeted military strikes (when provoked by obstruction) of facilities identified by inspection teams, combined with on-the-ground support for those teams when requested. This is much more participative and proactive than no-fly zones and aerial bombing.
*[sub]Just getting revenge for the “xenophone” thing. ;)[/sub]

19

This is not what I was trying to say. The point of my post is not that Bush would back off if he understood the anti-war perspective, but simply that he can’t say that he has respect for that viewpoint unless he understands it.

He could, as some do, show respect and understanding for opposing opinions and still disagree. But he’s not doing that. He’s just disagreeing, with no attempt to understand and a patent disrespect for the anti-war opinion.

For those who say that increased inspections (one of several measures anti-war advocates support) is “doing nothing”… think about what you’re saying for a moment. Sending well-trained teams of UN representatives into hostile territory to investigate production facilities and military installations, and having them give detailed reports back to the UN about what they find regularly – this is “doing nothing”? Your definition of “nothing” must be a very strange one indeed.

20

I’ve got a little nitpick this. Look a little more carefully at your quote.

The word that seems to be bothering you the most is the word “irrelevant.” Bush didn’t use that word. That is the author’s word. Be careful not to let the author of an article put words in anyone’s mouth.

-LA