There is no kind way to react to being told that one is *celebrating * the failure of a war, or being right in opposing the removal of Saddam, as if that were what it was all about. The fucking explanation from the person who made the fucking allegation despite having every opportunity to fucking know better had better be pretty fucking good, or else the verdict will have to be that he is indeed an amoral tosser. I ain’t apologizing for pointing that out.
No coffee yet, E?
(I kid. I’m a kidder.)
I took the “celebratory tone” comment as meaning we’re joyful that circumstances are slowly revealing the perfidy of the warhawks and the righteousness of our opposition, not that we’re gloating over how badly things have turned out. (And in truth, I’ll be the first to dance a jig this November if it comes down the way I now think it will, and we kick these fuckers out resoundingly -only to put less egregiously crooked pols in charge. I’m completely unabashed in my support of the far lesser evil.) But I’ll let our British friend 'splain himself without further aid from me.
No closets for me; my position has always been clear on the issue of Iraq, if somewhat unconventional:
Yes, it’s all about oil and regional realignment by the superpower
Yes, the WMD issue was a wholly fake pretext designed to enable the removal of Saddam
Yes and notwithstanding the above, I supported the removal of Saddam
Putting it as simply as I can; I’m interested in realpolitik, I’m not interested in US party loyalties or ideology. However, I do try to nurture an acute nose for bullshit, from whichever quarter it may come.
On my use of “disingenuous”: The only sense in which I did find the amorphous anti-war crowd disingenuous is in its intellectual rigour (in relation to Iraq); what I have often referred to as “woolly-thinking”.
I suspect part of what I perceiev to be woolly-thinking is to do with an anti-Bush agenda per se (and without even considering the isses in any great depth), but also many were swept away on a tide of John Lennon-esque anti-war sentiment without thinking through the issues clearly – probably becasue they were too busy putting flowers in their hair and digging the music, man. That constitutes intellectual dishonesty, imho, and to themselves, mainly; they made emotionally based choices in opposing Bush and/or this ‘war’, that’s not acceptable, imho.
No, I didn’t. But as I’ve said, those who opposed the removal of Saddam implicitly accepted the grave humanitarian position, and when push came to shove in the lead up to the invasion I found that unacceptable; part of my position was that I felt better opposing the UN created status quo/inertia that continued to cause thousands of deaths.
Not me. I’m sure ’luci will be able to vouch for the vigour with which I opposed the WMD argument from Day One – indeed, I recall introducing him to the Scott Ritter vs. (that piece of US serving shit) Richard Butler debate I was having with ye olde neo-con brigade in the middle of a pit thread on one occasion.
Yes, it’s interesting isn’t it that we accept there is a body of international law that somehow stands a step above sovereign law and works in just the same way. It’s, of course, nonsense when we look closer.
The thing about international law in relation to attacking other nations is that it’s all in the eye of the beholder:
*Article 51 of the Charter provides:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security.*
You justify pre-emptive action to the satisfaction of your constituency at home as self-defence and, once you’ve attacked, then the ICC or the War Crimes Trib has jurisdiction over breaches of Geneva, etc. (and assming you’ve signed those treaties). But Bush contrived a self-defence argument and he convinced enough to let him invade – that’s how democracy works. Innit.
Of course the UN can pass a Resolution condemning such behaviour, but not when the behaviour is that of two of the five countries who hold Veto’s; White Mans Law again.
I’d be interested in how you do think the UN works – a bunch of honourable white-haired guys joining hands and singing ‘we are the world’, maybe?
A lot, at least to me. And ask the people of Iraq, ask the Palestinians who may now get the whole Gaza Strip back, ask the people of Iran who see democracy a step closer, ask the people of Israel who feel a touch safer, ask me as someone who now feels it less likely the empire will have to invade a Muslim country that has a popular Government in order to secure its oil lifeblood (because, say, a single bomb wiped out the House of Saud and the oil stopped flowing West).
It was about breaking the inertia, the logjam of one-dimensional thinking, about dealing with the leave-it-to-someone-else years of the second Clinton Adminstration, about seeing new opportunities and a new Middle East landscape – if only some of that came good, it was a start.
Now if we can just prize Cheney’s greedy little paws off that Iraqi oil, I think things would really start to look up.
Not my position that they’re co-dependent; rather that there is a flaw (and irony) in claiming the moral high ground - implicit in the anti war argument- when so doing would result in the continuing deaths of thousands under the pre-existing UN sanctions policy. And also the maintenance of the existing and dangerous, imho, regional inertia, itself the ongoing cause of great misery beyond Iraq.
Put another way; one course of action (the removal of Saddam) vs. another course of action (doing nothing) = pretty similar immorality, yet one side, explicitly and implicitly, claimed the moral high ground throughout this ugly business. I don’t think that was justified.
Of course the moral irony is extended by the anti-war crowd putting their faith in the UN defined ‘International Law’ (sic), or White Mans Law, perhaps.
Sure, it’s at least possible my perception is faulty (about some anti-war people having a celebratory air), but there’s a lot hereabouts that reads to me like ‘Told ya so (‘bout those WMD). How’s about you listen to me now sonny boy cos I know war is a Bad Thing see, and folks die and that just ain’t right . . . “
And maybe they do it safe in the knowledge that they can always come back with . . . “But you believed in Bush’s WMD so you know nothing . . “.
I dunno, just felt like something in the tone. Sometimes. Like it was a competition, even.
Like I say, I could be wrong in my reading – and I don’t say this of everyone - but there’d have to be an awful lot in this very thread that I misinterpreted. Never mind all those other threads . . .
And I agree, it is cold comfort, at least to us; but you and I don’t speak for everyone.
The initial coalition of the willing consisted of 30 nations, hardly “enough to let him invade” - newsflash, voting in democracies still work on the principle of getting a majority. But Rumsfeld said that the USA doesn’t even need Great Britain, so irrespective of how many they convinced, they would have invaded anyway. The rest of the world “let” them, because ultimately Iraq isn’t worth starting the third world war over.
I can only speak for myself, but I think there might be a little confusion about properly attributing the reactions of people like me to these events.
You can legitimately classify me as “anti-war”. I thought then, and continue to think now that it was wrong, wrong, wrong. Immoral even. My emotional reaction to my country’s actions is primarily shame and sadness. I’m proud of the soldiers, but embarrassed by the mis-truths and behaviors of my government.
The confusion may arise from the fact that I am gleeful that the Bush and his gang of neo-con rogues have been caught in their lies and deceptions.
I do not celebrate that our country has attacked another for insufficient reason. I celebrate that Truth is beginning to see the light of day.
Wolfie:
Well, as far as that goes, I’ll concede that among some of the (in my opinion) unfair accusations listed above, you nevertheless have a point, at least to a certain extent.
I don’t have a clear constructive option that I can guarantee would work, or that would be better than the present situation, or that would have been better than the situation prior to the invasion. But to begin with, let’s not exclude the middle: our options certainly weren’t 1) rigor mortis, or 2) unilateral invasion illegitimately based on forged intelligence.
In addition, I’m not a policy wonk or an expert on Iraq/ the Middle East. Consequently it seems a bit unfair to expect me – or any of the others who opposed the invasion – to be able to provide an obviously better policy alternative. After all, I’m not particularly keen on China’s invasion and repression of Tibet, but just because I don’t have a better option than invasion doesn’t mean I have to support war with China as the only possible policy response to that problem – if you see what I mean.
If I had been president, I would have probably done this: pressured the UNSC to take military action against Iraq. Accepted that 1441 was not a default authorization for that action. Pressured for even more intrusive inspections. Introduced a motion to the council condemning Hussein’s human rights records and charging his regime with genocidal practices. But: I would also have accepted that in the final analysis, it was the UNSC as a whole that possesses a monopoly on the use of force in international relations, and that sometimes things don’t necessarily go my way in the international arena.
Wesley Clark, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee prior to the invasion, suggested:
With an almost eerie prescience he continues:
Clark continues by making a number of other interesting observations about the inspections routine, noting in particular that inspections also have “spin-off” effects – such as providing intelligence info to Western agencies, and severely hampering any programs the regime might have had in progress. He argues:
Sorry for quoting so extensively from Clark’s testimony, but I think he makes some pretty valid points and recommends policies that, while short of invasion, are not exactly a case of rigor mortis. It’s “better” because this course of action could have built legitimacy for an invasion, shown a passing respect for international institutions, and helped to build a consensus among US allies. In addition, it would have been an action potentially grounded in the actual facts of the case, rather than being based on some shit that Cheney made up.
Finally, again, I’m a bit taken aback by your accusations that we who opposed the war have “ascended the moral high ground” and been “patting ourselves on the back for the past few months.” Reflect back upon the debate as it developed prior to the war, and tell me who it was that took rhetorical possession of that “high ground,” accusing us who were against the invasion of “supporting dictatorship” and so forth. Hell, I never would have started this thread if Beagle hadn’t snidely asserted that once “WMDs” were found in Syria, he’d use the search function to embarrass all us “anti-war” types.
On the contrary: I have simply asserted during the past 18 months or so, over the smug and vocal objections of the “pro-Bush at any price” crowd, that the Cheney administration had not successfully demonstrated that Saddam Hussein constituted a serious threat to the US, or made a strong case for the invasion. Much of what I said over this period turned out to be exactly correct. I don’t assume any moral high ground for that, other perhaps than occasionally expressing my utter contempt for an administration composed of power-hungry, hypocritical, lying sacks of shit, apparently intent on plundering the country down to its last fucking nickel.
Having said that, perhaps some of us can be forgiven the occasional snide comment now, in the aftermath, considering the unholy amount of shite we were forced to endure, and argue against, during the run up to this catastrophe.
xeno:
Don’t worry, baby, I still see you. We just happen to be on the same side of this issue.
Desmo:
Careful. Powell actually answers: “I don’t know.” Not quite the same thing.
Finally, from the “this just in” department:
Britain: Intelligence boss claims his agencies were overruled on dossier
Israel: Intelligence agencies knew in advance that Iraq did not possess “WMDs”
US: “Gun-barrel” democracy a historically unsuccessful
Outer space: Rummy tells Senate that “WMDs” might still be found somewhere in Iraq
Werewolf, old rat-faced git, a couple of points. You have placed a great deal of weight upon your contention that “thousands” were dying due to UN sanctions, but have neglected to provide any evidence. Now, I have heard this as well, and heard it debated by persons whose opinion I respect. For instance, that the sanctions forbad chlorine importation on the entirely silly basis that such might be used as a chemical weapon, and that such sanctions had a ghastly effect on water purification.
But Shirley this is a question of more carefully tuned and monitored sanctions. If we could intercept the dreaded Aluminum Tubes of Death, why should we imagine it impossible to humanely administer sanctions. The excluded middle, if you will.
I grant we are not in GD, this is the Pit, where one may freak freely and fling whatever one chooses. Nonetheless, I expect better of you.
As well, I am personally a bit tired and irked of your consistent disparagement of persons who see things differently than yourself as somehow being representative of the counter cultural movement. (Snide references to “We Are the World”, John Lennon, etc…) As a lifelong stalwart of the countercultural movement, I suspect some envy on your part, and well deserved. A tab of clean acid and a Tantic trained hippy-chick beats the Hell out of a pint and a slut. If you missed your chance, I am sincerely regretful, but no apology is in order. We did what we could, it wasn’t much, it wasn’t enough. But we did it.
And you?
Ahhhmmmmmm…
Ahhhmmmmm…
Ahhhmmmmm…
“No War for Oil” could charitably be called a rebuttal, but Bush sucks/Free Palestine/Free Mumia, etc, isn’t going to sway anybody who managed to focus on Iraq as the issue. L_C has brought it up before this and he’s absolutely right.
And how “diffuse and incoherent” is regime change. Strengthening inspections doesn’t do anything toward removing the regime from power. Bring up the ongoing humanitarian issues with that scenario and we hear, “but that’s not the reason Bush and co. want to go to war.” For many people the general sentiments that war is bad and Bush is an asshole were enough to oppose the war. Fine. It wasn’t enough for others to do so, and it has nothing to do with lack of morals or intellect. I’m questioning my own intellect and common sense as it is, for being here arguing with people who believe supporting the war is by definition “pro-Bush at any cost,” like Mr. S here. (On preview: note elucidator’s mention of consistent disparagement.)
No problem, mine too. Once I’ve read up on Powell’s latest remarks I’ll be back to address the points you brought up, and the pre-war Saddam/9-11 thing, and maybe some of Clark’s points too.
L_C: See Mr. S’ excluded middle argument. He said it better than I would have. I agree with you that “inertia” was not a good option. I disagree that it was an equally abhorrent option to “invasion”, or that it was the only other option to invasion.
Mr. S also makes the same point I made a few times during the runup to Bush’s corporate takeover of Iraq; having one’s own clear alternative plan is never a prerequisite to one’s criticism of someone else’s offering. I challenged a few war hawks before the invasion to describe to me in specific detail and without the magical elements of rose-throwing-Iraqi’s-dancing-in-the-streets, exactly how, when, with which elements of the military and through what possible social mechanisms the invasion option would produce a safer US / democratic Iraq / stable ME region. My challenge, of course, was picked up by none of them.
As far as self-congratulations: perhaps on some posters’ parts. I haven’t read all of the threads on this subject. I personally feel that if I’d manage to convince any warhawks prior to the invasion, I might have some cause for conceit. Unfortunately, I failed miserably at that, as did even the much more eloquent and informed doves who were arguing at the time. C’est la vie.
Tee:
Yeesh. Look, Wolfie started this whole thing. For the sake of clarification, I don’t mean to imply that everyone who supported the war was by definition “pro-Bush at any cost;” rather, I’m simply saying that many of those with whom I debated these issues over the last couple of years fell into that category. I concede that there were some strong arguments in favor of at least doing something about the situation, but simply can’t condone what was done nor the way in which it was accomplished.
I don’t know if you were one of those ideologues or not, Tee, although, on average, you impress me as being more reasonable than many others. In my review of pre-war statements, for example, your comments don’t stand out as being particularly offensive; rather, I find it hard to judge where you stood, exactly, on the issue.
“No War for Oil” is a principle to live by. If we went to war to secure resources, we are no better than 1940 Germany or 1941 Japan. We fought the largest war in our nation’s history to stop just that.
And you know what? Iraq WAS NOT THE FUCKING ISSUE! Afghanistan was the issue. Al Qaeda was the issue. September 11 was the issue. Iraq WAS NOT THE FUCKING ISSUE until Bush MADE IT the issue by FALSELY conflating the two. Iraq was no threat to us. Sadaam was contained and was no threat to Isreal or anybody else. We have another, perfectly legitimate war to fight, and I’m as pissed as hell that we are squandering our resources on Iraq. If that makes me cold-blooded and unconcerned about the humanitarian status of the Iraqis, then so be it. You want realpolitik, London? Try this on for size:
It is early 2002. American forces are in Afghanistan, and we are in the process of installing Karzai as president. We recognize that the way to win our war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorist like Al Qaeda is to isolate them from the communities which support them. This is, as Thomas Friedman has pointed out again and again, a war of ideas more than it is a contest of arms. In order to convince the Muslim mainstream that our way is better than violent Islamic fundamentalism, we rebuild Afghanistan. No, I’m sorry, we build Afghanistan in the first place. We buid them roads, schools, hospitals–all of the infrastructure they don’t have. We educate their women. We allow those who want to wear the burka to continue to do so, but no one is allowed to impose their morality on anyone else–in other words, we give them a taste of religious freedom. The Taliban, with their opressive Majors General roving the streets to beat women into submission, are gone. We use American military muscle to keep the people of Afghanistan safe and to KILL the terrorists who would oppose us. We bring in the UN and do nation-building right. While we are doing this we publicize the hell out of it. We say to the Islamic world: “Before we came here, the Afghans were living in the Iron age. Now, they are well-fed, modernized, and free to practice their religion as they see fit. They are on the road toward self-determination, and they no longer have to fear the warlords that have opressed them for two generations. Meanwhile, these barbarian fundamentalists are still trying to blow up roads and schools and whip women in the streets for showing a lock of hair. Which side are you on? Which society would you like to live in?” This is the carrot.
Meanwhile, in Southern Afghanistan, we continue to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda with great vigor. If they retreat into Pakistan, we follow them. We call Mushareff and say “Hey, thanks for the help in Afghanistan. Much appreciated. Now we’re coming into the north of your country to clean house. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with us and our new best friends India. Oh, and by the way, we’ll give you 48 hours to turn over to us all of those in your intellegence services who have helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda. OK, we’ll give you 72 hours, since you asked nice. And then, we’re going to have to ask you to resign and turn the country back over to the Democratic government that you overthrew when you took power. Or at least stand for general election. What’s that? You’ve got nukes? Betcha we’ve got more! Bet you ours work, and can be delivered quickly and on target. And I’ll bet if we’re threatened by any Islamic fundamentalist with a new nuclear weapon, we’re coming straight to you to ask some hard questions about how that happened. In fact, any terrorist attack on the United States by Al Qaeda is going to come out of your hide, because you’re giving them aid and support while talking nice to us, and when we said ‘You’re with us or you’re against us,’ we meant it.” This is the stick.
Iraq can wait until we’re done with this little program, because this is important. We were attacked. We are legitmately at war with our attackers. We are still threatened by them. We were not threatened by Iraq. Today, Osama sits laughing in Northern Pakistan. The Taliban retreat over the border whenever they like. Afghanistan is sliding toward chaos. All because we allowed ourselves to become distracted by a phantom threat from Iraq. Sure, we are a superpower, but our resources are not unlimited. One war at a time, please. I said all of this on these boards before the Iraq invasion. When you say those opposed to the Iraq war had no ideas about proper foreign policy, you’re wrong.
From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110527,00.html
Bolding mine.
"Let me be clear – analysts differed on several different aspects of these programs and these debates were spelled out … they never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said. The intelligence and analysts painted an “objective assessment” for policymakers of a brutal dictator who was building on programs that “may constantly surprise us and threaten our interests,” he said.
What a steaming pile of shit. I ask again, who actually believes this shit?
George W. Bush and his league of apologists. Some of whom are on this board, even.
The rest of us have been calling “bullshit!” on the “imminent threat” crap for over a year now.
<sigh>
Don’t forget at least 50% of the country.
About UN corruption:
So, L_C, is the UN more prone to bribery than the US Congress? My dad worked there for over 30 years, and I don’t recollect him mentioning lobbyists. And he wasn’t naive - he got in trouble for voting against the promotion of Russian spies who never showed up to work. Sure, there is dirty politics afoot, and plenty of pressure to vote one way or another. But probably no more than in any legislature.
A few questions for those justifying the war on humanitarian grounds.
-
Do you think US public opinion would be in favor of the war if Bush made this the main justification, not WMDs? (Sept. 11 was a subtext, not a direct justification.)
-
Who else should we be willing to invade if this is a good reason. Are we the only people who get to select the bad guys, or do other countries get to also?
As for the quality of the WMD evidence, one former intelligence official (I forget the cite) had an interesting observation. It is common to show countries undecided how to vote intelligence, suitably scrubbed to be sure, to sway them. This was not done. If you remember, the plan was to get a UNSC vote that would come out with the majority in our favor, to either pressure France not to veto it or to give the invasion some reasonable international credibility. We couldn’t even get a majority, so the vote was never taken. This would seem to argue that there never was intelligence that would convince anyone whose mind was not already made up.
I remember wondering, after Powell’s speech, why if we had such detailed intelligence about the whereabouts of the WMDs we didn’t share it with the inspectors, to produce a smoking gun. Now I know why.
From another era, Grover Cleveland answers:
[/quote]
While naturally sympathizing with every effort to establish a republican form of government, it has been the settled policy of the United States to concede to people of foreign countries the same freedom and independence in the management of their domestic affairs that we have always claimed for ourselves.
[/quote]
Looks at glass of Sambucca; looks at execrable example of coding. Shakes finger at glass: “See what you did!!!”
My god, I love you, vibrotronica.
[sub]You’re a girl, right? Because if you’re a guy, I just want to buy you a beer. Either way, hell of a post.[/sub]