the “coalition” is laughable, as has been pointed out in other threads. Half the nations are marginal third world countries like albania. In many of them the administration acts in opposition to the public’s opinion on the matter.
On the issue on the inspections: What criteria are you using for judging the inspections as a “success” or “failure”? I’d just like to know exactly what I am supposed to “prove”!
Furthermore, you dont seem to grasp the difference between proving that Bush views Iraq as a threat and proving that Iraq actually is a threat to the US.
It is a well known fact that mr Tenet of the CIA did not view Iraq as a major threat to the US a year ago…
That B.S. about germany being in some way inherently leftist in relation to the states would make most of western europe leftists, and therefore, buy your standards, not worthy of consideration. That’s prepostrous! As is your attempt to pin Syrias views on all countries opposing the war.
The intellectual shortcomings of military commanders has historically been considered a recurring problem in the U.S. armed forces; unusually stupid officers has been a problem for the American (and British, for that matter) officer corps for two centuries. For obvious reasons - especially money, but also the hardships and unattractiveness of a life in the service - the armed forces have always had problems attracting the very brightest students. Janowitz and Dixon have both observed post-WWII that even the bright students that do choose a military education and career are disproportionately likely to quit after one or two service terms. Furthermore, the military has a very long (and costly) history of being stridently ANTI-intellectual, especially in peacetime. The anti-intellectualism of Allied militaries between 1918 and 1939 very likely cost the world twenty to thirty million lives. Nixon (1976) also notes that military cadets were remarkably prone to receiving approval and promotion based on their physical attributes and ability in sports, rather than their intelligence.
I simply don’t buy that “most military commanders are very learned people.” I see no evidence they’re any brighter or better educated than, say, most accountants. General Schwarzkopf is certainly an extremely bright man, and General Powell seems pretty smart too - although I’m not quite as in thrall to his intellect as some - but I think you will agree Powell and Schwarzkopf are not representative of all military personnel. That’s not to say officers are stupid, but then, most accountants aren’t stupid, either. In my experience in the service it was certainly not my impression that the average officer was unusually well-read or intelligent. But, hey, you’re free to provide evidence to the contrary.
I would posit that inspections can work in Iraq. In fact, I would posit that inspections have worked, to some extent (to what extent, we hope to learn more, soon). I would also posit that no proof exists (available to the public, at least) that inspections have been unsuccessful in neutering Saddam.
What do you point to?
As for George, I would put forward that UNSC Res. 1441 indicated Dubya’s confidence that inspections would work. If he honestly didn’t believe that - why sponsor 1441?
I don’t have the patience, at this point, to take on your entire post, so perhaps we can just start here, and work from there.
Rickjay: Most officers must be college graduates, for one thing. Yes, some enlisted personnel get field commissions, but they rarely make it to general staff levels. And before they do they attend the Armed Forces Staff College. A few General Officers, such as Tommy Franks, have ‘military’ educations. He graduated from the Artillery Officer’s Candidate School, and then the General Staff College.
Looking at the Joint Chiefs:
General Myers has a Master’s Degree from civilian college, plus he attended the Air Command Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
General Peter Pace also has a Masters degree, and attended Harvard University for the Senior Executives in National and International Security program. While in the military, he has attended the Infantry Officers’ Advanced Course, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and the National War College.
General Shinseki graduated from the United States Military Academy with a Bachelor of Science Degree. He also holds a Master of Arts Degree in English Literature from Duke University. General Shinseki’s military education includes the Armor Officer Advanced Course, the United States Army Command and General Staff College, and the National War College.
Admiral Vern Clark has an MBA, and attended the Officer’s Candidate School.
General Hagee graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering. He also holds a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. He is a graduate of the Command and Staff College and the U.S. Naval War College.
General John Pumper is the least-educated of the bunch, holding only a B.Sc. plus several years of academic training in the various war colleges.
This is typical of higher-ranking officers in the military. By the time to you get into command positions, you typically have several years of education inside the military, along with the post-secondary education you had outside which got you into the officer corps in the first place.
None of which proves that “most military commanders are very learned people,” unless your definitions of the total set of “military commanders,” or the definition of “very learned,” differ from mine. I would agree that the handful of officers that make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff have reasonably impressive educations.
Still, I have difficulty believing that someone who is reasonably well-read on the subject of military history, as I believe you are (IIRC) would NOT know that intellectual shortcoming is a problem that armies, even the mighty U.S. armed forces, face endlessly in their efforts to recruit officers, or that anti-intellectualism is a tremendously potent force in the armed forces. The military profession paradoxically tends to reinforce and attract the sort of people, and behaviour, that contribute to BAD soldiering. The challenge of any modern armed forces is overcoming those tendencies.
**Milossarian **: “Though your response to me here was days before, I feel compelled to respond to a couple of parts in it.”
Your compulsion does me honor, I am sure. :bows:
“[Abe] is the one who called into question Bush’s alleged “assuring himself of his own moral superiority”… My point was, if this accusation is in the context of Bush versus Saddam, of course he has moral superiority.” (emphasis mine)
But I’m not sure that was the relevant context. Abe can answer for himself, but I myself find much evidence of self-congratulatory moral superiority in Bush administration rhetoric, and not just with respect to Saddam. There’s a clear sense of the US being the self-appointed vanguard of Western values such as “freedom,” while those Western nations who disgaree with specific Bush policies (such as France, or Germany) are relegated to inferior status: accused, implicitly or explicitly, of hypocrisy, cowardice, out-of-datedness, self-interest or what have you. I find this kind of hamfisted rhetoric really embarrassing (see also my above comments on the Fleischer press conference for a different example of discreditable Bush administration
rhetoric which is also predicated on an assumed moral highground).
“If the word “evil” has any meaning whatsoever, Saddam Hussein, and his sons, are evil. I’ll provide you with as much and as graphic evidence of this fact as you feel you need.”
Is it your impression that I need any?
“I haven’t seen Bush or Blair harping on their moral superiority. Have you?”
Although Blair’s discourse took a noticeable dive after he failed to get the second resolution he so dearly needed, it’s never been pitched at the low emotive level of Bush’s discourse. (Hence the well-crafted speech that inspired this thread.)
“Please tell me where I said I didn’t expect any more from Bush than that he conduct himself more morally than Saddam Hussein.”
Please tell me where I said you said that ;).
“More than once here…I’ve offered to put up evidence of my divergence from Bush/Republican positions.”
Your word alone is sufficient for me.
“Last time I heard a count, 45 nations on this planet are part of the U.S.-led coalition, or are at least expressing support for the war.”
Well I’m especially impressed by the 15 who are so unreservedly in favor that they’re keeping it a secret!
Seriously, though, this lightweight support (outside of Britain) comes nowhere near as close to the ponying up, put your money and your troops where your mouth is support (including inside the Arab world) of the first Gulf War. Moreover, several of the European nations who have offered a thumbs-up from the sidelines have done so with the knowledge that even this weak gesture of support is opposed by the majority of their citizenry.
*"Correct me if I’m wrong, but the response of the likes of France, Russia and Germany has been that:
*1. We are not yet at the point where military action is needed (Despite demonstrable evidence that every other possible avenue to make Saddam Hussein disarm and comply has been tried over more than a decade, and has failed.)"
Every other possible avenue? Such as the avenue of setting forth a timetable of three more weeks which the Chileans proposed? Or of 30 - 60 more days which the French proposed? Sorry, Milo, but that statement won’t hold water.
“And I’ve yet to see one person yet on the SDMB who is a critic of this war provide evidence that the inspections were working.”
Really? Expansion of U2 surveillance? Destruction of missiles? Clear evidence that no nuclear program was in the works? Gradual access to scientists? Much evidence that there was no mechanism for delivery of chemical agents?
I was pretty convinced that under these circumstances Iraq’s potential threat was effectively contained, that disarmament was happening gradually, and that there was, under the circumstances, at the very least justification for adopting a compromise like that proposed by the Canadians, the Chileans, and eventually the French: to wit, a timetable after which force might be deemed necessary and authorized by the UN. All a far, far better thing for the US interests that the current headlong rush.
They mumble that Iraq hasn’t used any WMD in about 20 years, as if that is evidence that their WMD are not a threat. Which is the exact kind of ridiculousness that allowed the U.S. to feel safe and secure up until shortly before 9 a.m. EST on Sept. 11, 2001."
Well I never mumble. And I stick to recent facts (see above). But I also feel pressed to remind you that what threatened the US on 9/11/2001 was not Iraq’s WMD, but the boxcutters of a handful of angry bin Ladenites, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. A very different kettle of fish.
“I have provided evidence in thread after thread on these boards regarding how 9/11 caused the Bush administration to reevaluate its policy on pre-emption in the face of potential large-scale threats.”
Well thanks for the evidence, Milo, but surely that is self-evident to anyone who read the newspaper both prior to after the event in question.
“But there’s no proof Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.” So? September 11 caused a reevaluation and a strategy shift on that type of threat, whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or not."
Sure, but Iraq’s type of threat just isn’t the Al Qaeda type of threat. In spite of the Bush administration’s ludicrous and embarrassing attempts to merge the two.
*"I’ve heard quite a bit since 9/11 about arrests and thwarted terrorist attacks in numerous countries. Cooperative law-enforcement and intelligence operations. Shared efforts in tracing and shutting down funding streams for terrorists.
That would seem to refute your apparent assertion that the U.S. is not working closer with allies."*
Yes, Milo, but all of that has been taking place (and hopefully will continue to take place) before the Bush administration isolated itself from and alienated the allies in question. And note that you yourself are now making the case that the key efforts against Al Qaeda-style terrorism are cooperative police/intelligence operations. Not invasions against sovereign states.
“Several smart pundits rightfully predicted that the outpouring of support for the U.S. immediately after 9/11 would quickly dissipate, and that the U.S. would come to be disliked for how its policies changed in light of that event. They were proven exactly correct.”
Well it’s very convenient if these same smart pundits are now overlooking the role played by the lead-up to this war in fulfilling their predictions. Perhaps they were so perspicacious because they knew that the preemptive doctrine had been in the mothballs since the first Bush admin, awaiting a timely moment.
In any case, the US could have changed its policies without the adoption of and insistence upon a preemptive doctrine.
"The U.S. doesn’t want to give up its power and influence to countries that may not necessarily have America’s best interests at heart. "
And the US doesn’t have to. But it can play its hand smartly, or dumbly and I’m not the only one to think that Bush has serioiusly fumbled the ball.
“You ever listen to the diplomats from Syria give their little Security Council speeches?”
Yes.
*"You’ll hear about as much anti-Semitism as you would at a skinhead rally.
*
Not really, though you will hear strident critique of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians (not usually a staple among skinheads).
“These are the countries the U.S. should allow to shape its policies?”
The Arab world exists and, as a matter of fact, is of great gepolitical as well as national defense interest to the United States. As I said, the US can play it smart or play it dumb: whether the country in question is Syria, France, Pakistan, Turkey, Mexico, China, N. Korea, S. Korea, Angola, or Canada. Right now I’d say Bush has played it dumb with all of the above. Though on the bright side, he’s doing awfully well with Bulgaria ;).
I guess it depends on what you consider ‘learned’. Most command officers are well schooled in history, especially military history, and often have good educations in subjects like philosophy and literature, aside from the typical profession-specific educations like engineering and flight training.
Today’s military isn’t very similar to militaries of old. For one thing, this military is an all-volunteer force. For another, the increasing amount of technical sophistication requires high educations from officers. The days are long gone when a guy with a grade 9 education could get a field commission and then rise up through the ranks simply by being tactically brilliant. Just filling most officer positions nowadays requires a pretty good education - engineering degrees are common in young officers, as are MBA’s.
Is anyone else getting the sense that the Sam side of the Sam/Rick debate is beginning to sound like a trailer for Crimson Tide? No offense Sam: it’s one my favorite Denzel vehicles.
It seems some of my words have been defended ably by other posters, but I’m going back to Milossarian’s first post here because it contains the highest volume of rubbish. Since I have very limited time, I will not bother to attack his follow-ups, consisting as they do mostly of equivocation.
No. My words were “would that Bush could learn from him [Blair], instead of convincing himself of his moral superiority and personal friendship with God”. This was stated in the context of persuasion and debate. Whether Bush is or is not morally superior to Saddam Hussein has absolutely no bearing here, in fact it smells like the typical strawman–bad. Blair endeavoured to persuade both the world and his domestic audience with a series of solid speeches and arguments that had mixed success, but Bush failed at this task. Bush presented no valid/effective arguments in support of this war –- nothing that you couldn’t tear apart in a debate. Bush’s “moral superiority and personal friendship with God” doesn’t imply that he is more or less moral than Saddam Hussein—it implies that Bush sees nothing wrong with his course of action because he is convinced that A) war in Iraq now is the right thing and must happen no matter what the opposition to it or reasons presented by the opposition, and B) that he knows what God’s will is, and that he knows God is on his side (for example, c.f. alleged discussion between Bush and Papal envoy a few weeks ago, Bush’s known fundamentalist tendencies, his self-congratulatory approach to dillemmas, and his complete lack of doubt on this matter).
Do I really need to respond to this, or may I assume that we are all familiar with the basic tenets of reason here? Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. Up until the start of the war it was not demonstrated that Iraq had WMD. It was not demonstrated to the populations of various nations (including that of the US) and it was not demonstrated to foreign governments either. Heck, it seemed that it was not even demonstrated to the CIA IIRC. The case for rushing to war was, quite simply, not proven.
Sure I do. But that has little to do with my point. No one is saying the circumstantial evidence against Saddam Hussein doesn’t exist. I agree that he may very well have WMD. What Bush and Blair failed to demonstrate was that there is a case for going to war to disarm Iraq when the evidence cited is that no evidence of WMD was provided where it is thought that there ought to be at least some. That’s not a very strong position to start a highly sensitive war on, and it’s a piss-poor position for the US to assume considering its recent history of unilateralism.
Oh dear, I have barely started and I am already weary of your simplistic, propaganda-fed approach to this matter. If you put it in such inane black and white terms, I grant you are completely right—however, as the UN weapons inspectors reported, there was very visible progress being made in the disarmament of Iraq before the US and the UK effectively dismissed and terminated such efforts. And remember, there’s a difference between the credible threat of force and war. Effectively, progress with UN inspections only really started happening in the last year, and the most progress took place in the last months. Rather than continue with that progress and allow it to build up enough steam to support a broad coalition of nations (and better popular support), the US saw fit to dismiss everyone else (including a sizeable chunk of its own population) and do things the hard way.
Rubbish—and forgive me if I ignore the diversionary tactics that follow in your response. Just about the only consistent message I have heard from him on this topic in the last year has been that he wants to see the end of Saddam Hussein (no doubt because Saddam tried to have his daddy assassinated).
Your perception of Bush so far presents a remarkably naive display; it is clear that you consider admirable diplomacy what most people would see as bridge-burning, distancing allies, and fumbling the diplomatic process in all possible ways. I believe I stated examples in support of my statements in my earlier post, but there are plenty more to cite as far as Bush and his administration are concerned.
Blair lashed out at the French and accused them of “poisoning” the diplomatic process, and to a small extent he is correct. But it is fairly evident from their use of language that the French had already established that Bush was driving for a war --not a peaceful solution-- and they signaled that they would seek to block such an attempt (c.f. the repeated reference to objections on an “automatic war”). You can certainly claim that France (or anyone else, since France was by no means the only dissenter) was defending its economic interests in Iraq, but so what? I can join you in your foolish technique and claim just as easily that the US is pursuing economic interests in Iraq. I won’t though.
“The evidence and history in everybody’s face” – what claptrap. I might as well say that, given the history of US-Iraq relations (a long history of mixed messages, to put it mildly) the real motivation of this war is revenge/oil/supremacy/Islamic persecution, etc. Anything goes when arguing in such vague manner.
Regardless of the information they have or don’t have, they were unable to cite any concrete item of evidence to support their claim, with the result that they effectively provided insufficient evidence for their position. Ergo, there was evidence lacking of significant connections between AQ and Iraq (it may well be that the two are friendly, although there are deep ideological differences between Saddam’s regime and AQ). Just saying there are connections is not the same as presenting evidence of the connections. Should we take everything politicians – politicians for crying out loud – say for granted?
That still doesn’t make Iraq a deadly threat to the USA, even assuming Saddam has those materials (and up until the start of the war it was not established that he did). One day Iraq might acquire or develop delivery systems capable of carrying WMD over to the USA. Iraq may be a threat to the US then, but in the short term of the next few years IT IS NOT. Unless, of course, the US were to present ideal targets to SH the striking of which does not require sophisticated delivery systems….
As for posing a danger via terrorist channels, the case is just as dubious so far. Firstly, we have the afore-mentioned problem of insufficient evidence to establish that Iraq possesses WMD materials. Secondly, Saddam Hussein hasn’t exactly been terribly active in international terrorism. Thirdly, I would be much, much, more worried about a suitcase nuke from an ex-USSR nation than unproven claims concerning Iraq.
From the news? For several months now efforts have so been focused on Iraq that North Korea decided it could safely initiate a very dangerous bluff (at least, I hope the brinksmanship of the past months is a bluff). As for Iran, practically nothing has been done to address the growing problems of a pro-reform youth increasingly disillusioned with America’s bully role – something that helps keep the fundamentalist nuts in power strong.
That is hardly an honest statement. Progress comes in starts and stops, particularly in the hideously complex diplomatic world. UN inspectors were doing excellent work back in the ‘90s until Saddam kicked them out. They were doing excellent work again up to a short time ago, in fact they were really getting going, but they were forced to leave by the threats of imminent war. Why were the inspectors not allowed to complete their jobs, just when they were starting to make the most significant progress seen in many years? Because their work, if successful, could conceivably have resulted in a peaceful disarmament of Iraq, and the Bush administration has been pushing for this war for the past year.
Right… North korea has not been a destabilizing factor across Asia for decades? Their insane regime and brand of communism is nothing to worry about? The weaponry aimed at South Korea and the threats to Japan --democratic allies of the US and hugely important economies-- all these past years should be ignored? North Korea’s long-range missile development, their research into nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, AND their massive armed forces (far more worrying than Iraq’s) are not of major concern to the international community? Is it not conceivable that North Korea is as much a potential threat as, or even more serious than Iraq? If N. Korea isn’t such a serious threat, why, e.g., was an agreement signed in 1994 to limit North Korea’s nuclear aspirations?
Really? Been paying much attention to the news? Silly comments and actions from the US irritate and worry North Korea, so the Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans have to move in and patch things up? North Korea expels UN monitors, and it’s a problem for that corner of Asia only? Where was this sterling reasoning hiding when Bush came out with the Axis of Evil cagal and prompted both Iran and North Korea to withdraw in their shells and jeopardize years of progress?
No, but seeing how often you grasp at them, you ought to inquire consider bulk purchase of the material.
Bush has repeated on numerous occasions that this war is to deal a blow to terror and to remove a risk to Americans. As early as September 2002 (earlier still, but I don’t have time to search for it) Bush claimed that “Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens” etc., etc.
My point remains standing. This war will not decrease terrorism, it will simply (as we are seeing these days) polarize the world in a tragic manner that is almost certain to result in more terrorism.
Not because the war is wrong mind you. I don’t have much business proclaiming which wars are just or unjust. But I do claim, along with almost every expert out there, that this war will probably exacerbate terrorism because the grounds for war were ill-prepared, and because the proper support was not obtained. Another 3-6 months of lobbying and discussion wouldn’t have made Saddam Hussein a man of unlimited weaponry, but it would have allowed for the development of a unified strategy in dealing with Iraq, and (much more importantly) for targeted information campaigns throughout the Muslim and non-Muslim world, in order to align the people either with their governments (if said governments are sympathetic to the US’s cause) or with the goals of the US in Iraq (that is to say, convincing the world that the intention here is to improve things for everyone, not wage an unnecessary war against a Muslim nation when, for example, Israel continues with its perceived injustices). Instead we see yet again the US choose to radicalize the population of dozens of countries, including allies, and deliberately rendering difficult life for the governments of Egypt or Jordan in the Middle East, or Russia or Turkey in Europe, etc.
This display of blinder-assisted wilful ignorance may explain much of the nonsensical rubbish you keep flinging in defence of a diplomatic strategy that can at best be called “dangerous”.
Debate is important whether you recognize it or not, Milo. Rushing to a suspicious war in an oil-rich territory, with the world almost completely unaligned, and with those nations that are aligned behind the US often doing so reluctantly or against the democratic wishes of their people—that is what you get for rejecting debate and diplomacy. Not to mention a rise in extremism of all kinds, from the stereotypical beer-bellied redneck NRA supporter in an American trailerpark whose only knowledge of the UN is ignorant preconceptions and patriotic fervour, to the masked Islamic fundamentalist waving his semi-automatic and repressing women while inciting action against the Great Satan.
Counter productive.
The one alluding to myths here is you, Milo. Like the whole myth of the hide-and-seek process in a vast land. Let me spell it out in the simplest terms possible. The US claims that Iraq has WMD, but for months—years—the support they were able to provide is indirect evidence that Iraq had at one point posessed WMD. Just because they used to have WMD back then doesn’t mean they have WMD now. Of bloody course it is unlikely that Saddam ordered all WMD destroyed and none remain. But until someone can demonstrate sufficient present evidence of WMD, it only remains a suspicion—and acting on that suspicion is extremely unlikely to gather the global support needed for a war. As we have seen.
An authority such as the IAEA has far greater credibility because they represent an objective body, and their claims are scientific in nature, being based on inspections and monitoring. Both the US and the UK have been found guilty of fabricating or manipulating evidence in this debacle—if you assign to them sufficient credibility in these matters you are more charitable than I.
Independent verification. No one expects it to be an instantaneous affair, but to cut the process short just when the process of independent verification was starting to yield results was a little dumbfounding.
I say that we aren’t dealing with North Korea. I base my claim on the US strategy of offending and isolating that country along with others in recent times and then seeking to wash its hands of it even more recently, when it is obvious that it could be a real headache and a much mightier challenge than puny Iraq. “Here, China, why don’t you deal with our friends and allies the South Koreans in trying to contain this madman now that we have stung him into nuclear blackmail?”
The Kurds? They are simply one of many groups of people who have been unfortunate enough to bear the brunt of crimes against humanity. I doubt that many neighbouring nations are very eager to see an independent Kurdish state, something that deposing Saddam would pave the way for. Turkey certainly is not keen to see that. As for “history” in Kuwait, please. The Gulf War was what, 12 years ago, a foolhardy invasion carried out after Saddam perceived that the US would not intervene (he was wrong). Israel?? Laughable! All they would be is a target, but they’ve been quite left alone by Iraq the past decade—their safety from Iraq was effectively jeopardized during the Gulf War, but hardly since in spite of the usual bluster and saber-rattling. Iran? The conflict that began in 1980 between Iraq and Iran had many reasons. To begin with it was a modern phase of the ancient Persian-Arab conflict. It was also a religious conflict, a conflict of antipathies (Khomeini vs SH), of revolution (it was feared Iran might destabilize the precarious Sunni-Shia balance in iraq), territory/water, and above all a huge error in judgement on SH’s side (vulnerability vs ambition). I think you’ll find that Iran is curiously sympathetic to Iraq on this matter.
If anything, recent history of the region teaches us that it is best to tread softly. Today Iraq is an impoverished nation with security forces whose only strength is the home advantage. Did you really see pre-war Iraq as a nation capable of territorial expansion?
The Iraq that Bush declared war on is not a dire threat. It is a poor nation steadily declining in influence, and by no means capable of anything as drastic as the Iran war, or even of invading small unprotected neighbours. Iraq posed no imminent evident danger to anyone before the start of this war.
Your output may not be much good for debate, but it is worth a good chuckle. You seem to be in agreement with Bush’s philosophy of seeking UN support while at the same time making it clear that UN support is not necessarily relevant for the US to initiate such a potentially sensitive war. And that whining claptrap about “certain nations’ monetary interests” is EVERY BIT AS BAD as claiming that this war is all about oil. In other words: it’s possible, maybe it’s even likely, but until you have solid evidence to support the claim, stop the flow of bullshit.
The UN generally operates on the basis that peaceful resolution is more desirable than armed conflict—not a bad approach, given the times we live in and the technology we have. When France and other nations perceived what was clearly a belligerent approach by the US, they moved to block it for a number of possible reasons.
There is no evidence that the end of the United Nations avenue in this matter was reached or even approached – unless you insist on counting the normal hurdles and obstacles in such a situation, something we know the anti-UN crowd of fools does regularly. One of the strongest evident reasons for threatening to veto is to present a strong encouragement to continue with solutions other than armed conflict.
No disagreement there. My point (which you keep ignoring) was that the current conflict is radicalizing Muslim and Arab populations all over the world, including in Palestine. And remember that there is little sign of terrorism out of Iraq, rather it is produced much more significantly by US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. The US has made some noises recently about a Palestinian state, etc., and that is almost certainly because A) they now realize the danger embedded in that situation, and B) they fear the backlash from the Muslim and Arab world if they are seen charging headlong against Iraq in a war lacking any real urgency, when their efforts could be much better focused on finding a long-overdue solution to the Israeli problem.
I am just highlighting for the benefit of the particularly ignorant that many of the reasons provided for this war are as empty as the post to which I am responding. Common-denominators may moan and gasp in horror when some politician (American or British, Spanish or Italian) gets up and starts telling heart-rending anecdotes about the itemized suffering of Hassan or other individual subjects, but these are hardly arguments. Give me a break and try to realize that this is quite possibly the least reason for this war, or half of the other nations on the planet would be in hot water too. How naïve.
The whole point here is that we don’t know precisely what is going on. That is why some of us make the effort to inform ourselves on a regular basis – something I can only recommend to you in place of your vague and tired allusions to “history”.
My last comment to you, Milossarian, is that if you do not believe that, as I stated, Bush fumbled the diplomatic approach to the war, then I have little more to say to you and your friends in fantasy land. I will now cease to address the shabby, shallow arguments you seem to favour and instead make a couple of points that will hopefully will clarify my position.
Democracy is, at least theoretically, the rule of the people. Nations such as France, Russia, and Germany, who have populations that are unequivocally opposed to an immediate war in Iraq, have resisted efforts leading to (as France called it) an “automatic war”. Their elected representatives, the leaders of those nations, have democratically expressed the views of their citizens, whether those views were sensible or outrageous. You can’t fault them for that.
Other nations, such as Spain and Italy, are rather less credible – Italy in particular is possibly the most farcical government on the face of the planet (speaking both currently and historically). The leaders of both Italy and Spain are refusing the democratic expression of the view of their citizens, because those views are overwhelmingly in favour of attempting a peaceful resolution before resorting to war. It is hardly to Bush’s or democracy’s credit that the support of such nations has been bought with the exchange of interests and at the expense of the wishes of their populations, so please drop the fucking holier than thou approach to the current Iraqi regime. It may be evil and dastardly, but the fix to the problem is hardly a pristine solution itself when it comes to matters of principle – indeed, the fix challenges the very world order and the relevance of the UN, with all the attendant problems.
As for the UN, its role is to discuss the views of the member states. It is not encouraging when this forum for progress and discussion is undermined by a push for “dollar diplomacy” and cowboy attitudes. As with all things political, sometimes progress can be slow and winning approval may require effort more substantial than a belligerent swagger and unsupported statements.
This doesn’t mean that the war against Iraq should never ever happen, but it means that a credible effort must be made to avoid war and resolve the dispute peacefully. Bush advocates and pro-war folks claim that more than enough effort was made, but the response to that is (as I mentioned a few times) to ask why then was the work of weapons inspectors cut short before they found a single WMD or related item?? With the verified discovery of one – just one – single such item, the US would have been able to garner more legitimate support from its allies and neutrals, correctly stating acceptable evidence of WMD as a causus belli to disarm Iraq. As it is the chorus of voices still claiming “case not proven” just highlights the dangerous unilateral approach to foreign policy, if we may call it a policy at all.
What’s more, Bush is putting his allies in a very difficult position. Since the majority of nations in the coalition do not support the war democratically, stress is coming to bear on those leaders that decided to stand alongside Bush contrary to public opinion in their nations. You can see this happening across large swathes of the world, and particularly in Egypt, which has a growing fundamentalist problem, a president paralyzed by his friendship with the US, and massive popular opposition against the war in Iraq while Israel ostensibly continues to do as it wishes at the expense of the Palestinians. If Mubarak’s power is threatened, will the next leader of Egypt also be pro-American, diplomatically accessible, and anti-fundamentalist? Probably not, thanks to the huge swell of anti-Americanism that Bush invited with his idea of diplomacy. The situation in Egypt is mirrored across the Arab and larger world.
Abe, those last two posts constitute the most thoughtful arguments I’ve yet read about the current situation, and sum my feelings up almost to a T, but with a clarity I could never hope to achieve. Thanks for taking the time to write them.
Pronunciation differences do not constitute “mangling”. Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter also pronounced the word “nookyular”. It is because they are from certain sections of the country, not because they are stupid. Americans aren’t mangling English when they do not pronounce the first “o” in “laboratory”. There is plenty to criticize about Bush without resorting to things like that.
I am astounded, Lib. I have a hard time believeing that you would take what I wrote as an attack of the President’s pronunciation. Well, I have to admit that to my brand of English his pronunciation can be amusing, but that’s not what I was referring to. I have not heard Bush give one single speech, interview, etc. without mangling the language or inadvertently saying something that is really, really out there. As some example, there’s a few gems collected at http://www.bushisms.com/NewQuotes.html
There are no doubt other sites out there, but that is the first one I found. There is also a set of books called Bushisms or something like that, which catalogue Bush’s worst oral offences. He is not a terribly eloquent man.
Well, I just had more than an hour’s worth of response to Abe’s personal insults and mountains of illogic eaten by the hamsters.
I was able to save the second half of it.
** How eloquently you’ve described your own spewings! Couldn’t have done it better myself!
**
They did? Please provide me cites where Iraq demonstrated it was substantively complying with 1441. I’ll wait.
**
We can thank Bush for that. That’s gotta hurt, eh?
**
I’ve already dispensed with the blatant illogic of this screwball position.
Compliance with 1441 isn’t something for which a nation has to “build up steam.” You either do it, or you don’t. They didn’t.
And where did this bizarre notion come about that every nation has to unanimously agree with any military campaign before it can be undertaken?
Such a position would allow any one nation, for any reason, however illegitimate, to forestall a perfectly just action. Whaddayaknow, that’s exactly what happened in this case!
** One man’s opinion. Another’s is that the U.S. saw a national security threat in Saddam Hussein’s unique combination of past actions, known WMD and current lies and games, and decided for itself to do what needed to be done to bring about the goals the rest of the world said they shared in 1441.
Interesting how you chose not to address the points in the quote you cited, instead mumbling about “must have diplomacy” “distancing allies,” blah-blah-blah.
Unanmimous coalitions can’t happen. Too many nations want to knock the USA down from its position of preeminence. Too many nations can have their own agendas, and fail to look at plain evidence and take obviously needed actions, for other-than-pure reasons. Even if you don’t agree that’s happened in this case, the possibility of it happening in future cases is obvious. The threshold that some are seeming to now require for a nation acting in its own interests is positively strange.
P.S. More of Europe supports America in this effort than does not.
**
One man’s opinion. Another’s is that they looked at incontrovertible evidence that weapons inspections weren’t achieving the goals set out in 1441, and chose to wimp out and backtrack from their previous vote for “serious consequences” in 1441, if Saddam Hussein didn’t comply. Which he demonstrably did not.
**
France has demonstrable oil ties to the Saddam Hussein regime. U.S. officials have stated repeatedly that the wealth of Iraq will be taken from Saddam and his family and given to the Iraqi people. The entire world, looking at the U.S. with a suspicious eye on this matter, will be watching, and will cry foul the second it doesn’t happen.
France - it’s fact. U.S. - It’s speculation.
**
Known rapist is seen dragging a kicking and screaming woman into his house.
Abe stands at the door, asking if the rapist has the woman in there. The rapist says no. Abe, through the doorway, can see a woman’s purse, a crumpled dress, and a pool of blood on the floor.
Abe goes home, and says there is no direct evidence the rapist had the woman.
**
I don’t have to go by what politicians say.
The CIA lists mountains of evidence of Iraq’s past WMD and programs. I can read the text of 1441. I can read the text of what Hans Blix had to say about Iraq not complying substantively with 1441.
**
Thank God a lot of people in power disagree with your position. But feel free to continue to have it.
There is one nation on earth - one - that has done all of the following:
invaded countries unprovoked in the last 20 years, without them in any way attacking first.
launched missiles at neighboring countries unprovoked in the last 20 years, without them in any way attacking first.
Used weapons of mass destruction.
Futher, one would be hard-pressed to find another nation on earth whose leaders hate the USA more than Saddam.
In light of the above, you, Abe, sound absurd.
**
You then list several more of your absurdities, which fly in the face of evidence.
But setting all that aside, all I need to see a threat is Saddam’s possession of any WMD, his obvious hatred for this country, and the fact that others exist in the region with a similar U.S. hatred. Whether the dots have been connected at this point is rather irrelevant, in the face of the obvious potential that they could be in the not-too-distant future.
Further, U.S. intelligence has indicated at least some level of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Colin Powell referenced it in his address to the U.N. That they aren’t giving you every detail about their intelligence-gathering techniques apparently allows you the freedom to completely discount Powell’s assertion. Have at it, if it floats your boat.
**
Which might be why someone in power in the U.S., who sees the potential for an imminent threat against the U.S., might not wait around for countries like France, Germany and Russia to become logical in the face of obvious evidence.
Did 8 years of Clinton taking the diplomatic route in re: Iraq lead to disclosure and disarmament there? No? Wonder why? Even that democrat grew disenchanted with Saddam’s lies and obfuscations, and took military action.
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, Feb. 17, 1998 Cite
Clinton just shriveled in the face of the international backlash that followed, rather than complete the job. Either that, or he was just paying lip-service to the threat, and never intended to actually thwart it. But, in his defense, politicians on all sides of the political spectrum pooh-poohed such threats, and threats of the ilk of Usama Bin Laden, prior to Sept. 11, 2001. There is quite a good article in this week’s TIME that points that out as fact, and how that terrible event changed a great many leaders’ thinking.
**
This statement is ridiculous and false. And points out precisely why the U.S. and U.K. stopped waiting around on those who decided they’d rather play patty-cake with Saddam Hussein than see 1441 complied with.
I just gave you cites from Hans Blix saying Iraq was not substantively complying with 1441. Him adding, “They have opened doors for us in places where we haven’t found anything, and that’s certainly encouraging.” Does not equal “excellent work.”
**
A. You obviously have a little bit of trouble comprehending what their job was. Colin Powell is there to help you:
B. What on earth is your evidence that “the most significant progress seen in years” was occurring? That we went from no inspections at all to meaningless inspections and a lack of substantive compliance? Gee, what progress.
In regard to all of your North Korea statements.
True or false? China, South Korea, Japan and Russia are likely to have more influence in talking Kim Jong-Il down than George W. Bush would?
True or false? China, South Korea, Japan and Russia have more military might than Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia?
True or false? Kim Jong-Il is acting in a way decidedly different from Saddam Hussein. He is being noisy. He is not lying, or attempting to hide his activities (now, anyway. Some treaty, Bill and Madeline).
What conclusion do you draw from that?
Do you think the U.S. should use the exact same, cookie-cutter approach with every country, in every instance?
The fact of the matter is, 12 years of diplomacy and sanctions failed in Iraq. Diplomacy has not yet been exhausted in regard to North Korea. Your side’s blatant inconsistency on insisting that the U.S. only work in coalitions, yet blasting the U.S. for not going after North Korea immediately, while its powerful neighbors who have a lot at stake here too stand by silently, is telling.
**
Ah yes, adhering to the Clinton-Albright fallacy that if we aren’t hearing anything from them, and haven’t been attacked today, all is well.
I have little doubt that if NK continues on this path, and diplomacy fails, military action will be necessary. Isn’t that rather obvious?
**
This in the face of France’s stated position that under no circumstances would they support military action in Iraq.
“Disarm and comply or else” has little meaning if “or else” is meaningless, wouldn’t you agree?
**
Your ongoing myth here has already been addressed by me. Where is your evidence that any U.S. policy short of abandoning the Middle East and Israel is going to pacify those that hate us?
I see you tossed in another insult about how I have blinders on and I am ignorant. While I have no doubt you’ll find a cavalcade of support from your ideological friends here at this curious little message board, I am almost getting carpal tunnel from pointing out your mountains of illogic.
**
I don’t believe I ever said it wasn’t. I think diplomacy is essential in all international dealings. I also think that the U.S. doesn’t need unanimous support from every country in the world before it acts in its interests. Especially when it’s evident that many of those nations, for a variety of reasons, don’t have America’s interests first and foremost in their minds. I don’t expect them to. I do expect my president to, however.
**
You’re right. The world is unaligned. I hope you will be a champion of changing Russia, France, Germany and China’s minds, and pointing out how they are being willfully illogical.
**
Thank you for pointing out yourself the illogic of your opinion.
Yes, they did have WMD. If they destroyed them, they are required to prove they destroyed them. They never proved it. Never even tried, really.
See my rapist allegory above. Snidely dismiss it at your leisure. I’d expect nothing more.
Milo, I told you up above that I didn’t have the patience to address your dissertations. I asked you to focus on one issue. While I appreciate the time you spent responding to Abe, I feel you are severely twisting the one issue I requested that we focus on, for now.
To suggest that 1441 helps your case, is ludicrous. Let’s look at some of your statements:
Before proceeding further, let’s take a look at some of Hans Blix’ comments:
Now, I acknowledge that for every such quote that I can use against you, you can find one to use against me. Anyone reading Hans Blix’ reports that suggest they are anything other than a “mixed bag” is not being honest (if the shoe fits…).
But that isn’t even relevent. 1441 was explicit that Hans Blix was to report findings to the UNSC, for the UNSC to consider. The UNSC never reached a conclusion.
Second, “serious consequences” never equated to an authorization of force in the UN’s history. The magic phrase was always “any means necessary”. The original draft of 1441 included the magic phrase. The final unanimous resolution did not (an implicit agreement by the US on its removal).
Third, even Colin Powell acknowledges this in these quotes:
and:
Please note that the US never asked for such authorization, despite our President telling the nation he would “regardless the whip count”.
Fourth, you seem to misunderstand Iraq’s obligations under 1441. Iraq was to accurately declare their WoMD and comply and cooperate with the full implementation of the resolution. False or omitted declarations are not a “further material breach”, unless Iraq failed to also “comply and cooperate”. The UNSC “intensely debated” whether to use “and” or “or” in that paragraph. The final version was “and”. It was a two-parter.
Now, even if Hans Blix said that they failed or omitted items in the declaration, and failed to comply and cooperate, that still wouldn’t authorize the use of force by member states. Hans Blix was to report facts to the UNSC, it was up to the UNSC to evaluate those facts.
To summarize, let’s go back and review the your comments I quoted above:
[ol]
[li]I have provided cites that suggest that Iraq was substantially complying with 1441 (while acknowledging that contrary evidence also exists)[/li][li]Whether Iraq did or did not comply with 1441 was a decision reserved to the UNSC, and that decision was never made. No (UN) authorization exists that allows the US to replace their judgement for that of the UNSC.[/li][li]There is as much evidence that Iraq was complying with 1441 as their is evidence that they were not (while I acknowledge that speculation that they weren’t is probably valid, but that criteria isn’t sufficient). There is no irrefutable proof that Iraq is not in compliance with 1441.[/li][li]If you are able to read 1441 and Hans Blix’ reports, then have demonstrated an inability to interpret the comments in a balanced fashion, or simply decided to ignore anything that didn’t fit your world view.[/li][li]Iraq failing to do “excellent work” is not a further material breach.[/li][li]Colin Powell’s comments do not support the position that the US is authorized to use force by UNSC resolution 1441.[/li][/ol]
Now, as I said, I have elected to focus on only one issue in your posts. I find the rest of your arguments equally lacking, but let’s try to focus on just one issue at a time, OK?
Sorry if this issue is too complicated and nuanced for you. If you and your ilk would confine your illogic to a few inches, I could respond in kind.
P.S. If you think there is no irrefutable proof that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441, you prove the irrelevance of the “diplomatic process,” vis a vis eliminating a threat the Security Council unanimously acknowledged existed. Read it slowly, maybe it will sink in:
Saddam … Hussein … was … required … to … do …things… or …else.
He … didn’t… do… them.
What you are able to cite from Blix is his biased, anti-war-slanted, I-want-to-keep-my-job-inspecting-Iraq, diplomatic hoo-hah. That stuff needs to be filtered out, to get to the crux of what 1441 was asking Iraq to do, and what was actually occurring under the inspection regimes.
It’s not that Blix didn’t acknowledge that Iraq wasn’t complying. He just chooses to couch it in several metric tons of marshmallow fluff.
At any rate, you make it sound as if the relevant portion of 1441 was the report back, and the council to then decide what to do. Is that what 1441 was about? The real teeth of 1441 was in 678 and 687. 1441 was saying, “This time you are going to have to REALLY comply with those earlier resolutions.”
Spin it however you feel it needs to be spun. I think it’s rather obvious by the above what the priorities and intent of 1441 were.
As for Blix, from his Feb. 14 report:
Putting that in Blix Babelfish, it translates to:
“Iraq has complied thusfar only in process, not in substance. Resolution 1441 calls for them to substantively comply. Substantive compliance means immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions. And that ain’t happened yet.”
More Blix:
That one actually works without Blix babelfish. This one too:
Wow. How to spin such obvious, straighforward stuff?
AZCowboy, you have beeen doing all the hard work, and Milo has chosen not to respond to my last, so perhaps I can leap in here.
Milo: “Sorry if this issue is too complicated and nuanced for you. If you and your ilk would confine your illogic to a few inches, I could respond in kind.”
Is this absolutely necessary?
“If you think there is no irrefutable proof that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441…”
Well for me the main point here is that the inspections process was still ongoing. Moreover, significant strides were being made, and containment was being achieved while that process was ongoing. So there was no imminent threat; no need to rush in without the full complement of our allies.
“What you are able to cite from Blix is his biased, anti-war-slanted, I-want-to-keep-my-job-inspecting-Iraq, diplomatic hoo-hah. That stuff needs to be filtered out, to get to the crux of what 1441 was asking Iraq to do, and what was actually occurring under the inspection regimes.”
Is that supposed to be an argument? Blix is baised because he wants to keep his job? Blix is biased because he’s anti-war? Diplomacy is “hoo-hah”? Inspectors reports need to be “filtered out”? I never heard Colin Powell say any of that and, in fact, Blix’s reports generally provided ammunition for both sides of the Security Council debate. This seems an awful lot like ad hominen directed at Blix.
I don’t see how you can expect to be taken seriously if your main strategy is to cast aspersions on the character of someone who, by all accounts, from both sides of the divide, behaved professionally.
Perhaps you’re ready to vent your frustrations in a Pit thread?
“It’s not that Blix didn’t acknowledge that Iraq wasn’t complying. He just chooses to couch it in several metric tons of marshmallow fluff.”
On the contrary, he was pretty clear about what was progressing and what wasn’t. I don’t call destruction of those contraband missiles, for example, “marshmellow fluff.”
"1441 was saying, “This time you are going to have to REALLY comply with those earlier resolutions.”
Correct, or “serious consequences” would be faced. But those serious consequences, for the reasons AZ has explained to you, were understood to have not consisted in an automatic authorization of war absent a second resolution.
“Substantive compliance means immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions. And that ain’t happened yet.”
To be sure but the very same report, and the one afterwards also made clear that the process was not yet finished; that they needed to finish the job. 1441 did not come with a deadline for concluding the inspections process. Bush, in effect, forced that deadline, tried to get a second resolution but then couldn’t, then switched to arguing that he didn’t actually need it (while also switching back from disarmament to regime change).
It all comes down to timing. The Bush administration wanted to present itself as having exhausted every possible peaceful option. But how can you say that you’re giving every diplomatic alternative its due course when in fact you’re setting a deadline that, as the world knows, is to do with the weather in Iraq.
Of course, you are not even giving lipservice–as the Bush administration did–to the idea that diplomatic solutions might have actually precluded the need for force.
That being so, I think there’s very little point in debating further: that is, your arguments do not even represent the official position of the Bush administration, and are more to do with your own unconcealed contempt for diplomatic alternatives.
It’s one thing for us to argue about facts and the best way of interpreting them. But if we’re dealing with a fundamental difference in principle–you’re contemptuous of diplomacy, inspections and those who conduct them; while I’m serious about their legitimacy–what is the point, really?
Abe, AZ, and others, I enjoyed reading your posts.
You blast Blix as “biased, anti-war-slanted, I-want-to-keep-my-job-inspecting-Iraq, diplomatic hoo-hah”, and then proceed to quote him again. Frankly, I find his writing remarkably straight forward, and I think the bias and employment challenged comments are ad hominen. But all of that after I told you that I could match you Blix comment for Blix comment. You fail to acknowledge that his reports aren’t even the relevent criteria.
So let’s keep this simple:
Please point to them, specifically. What didn’t he do?
“Or else” was to be determined by the UNSC.
You quote 1441, but only the preamble. Yes, 1441 was about Iraq, and disarmament, and they were presumed to be in material breach of earlier resolutions. And they had one last chance. The UNSC, after being informed by the inspectors, was to “remained seized of the matter”.
Are you familar with what that phrase means, in “diplomatic hoo-hah”?
1441 acknowledges continued violations of earlier resolutions. It did not recognize a violation of itself. That would be pretty stupid.
Feel free to go back to my list of six items in my previous post. I stand by each statement. Otherwise, I am comfortable to leave the judgement of which of us has a better handle on these issues to readers of this thread.
Mandelstam, I only found your post on preview. We hit some of the same nails.
While Milossarian’s arguments revolve around themselves in circles of self-congratulatory and boot-strapping logic remarkably similar to those of a certain statesman, I feel there are a couple of points I must respond to, though I would not normally bother with such dishonest and demonstrably false claims he does us the courtesy of expelling here. Especially with very little time to spare, as usual.
Resolution 1441 issue was already addressed by others, to whom I am grateful. Also addressed were Milossarian’s judgements on Hans Blix’s accountability, bias, and honesty.
One note on statements such as the below:
Firstly I must note that the “points” were addressed in my post – more than once throughout it. Secondly, owing to the nature and quality of your arguments, there is no way that I will pick up after you for every single bit of rubbish that you leave behind in this thread. If I don’t directly respond to something it’s not because you scored a point and I desperately want to avoid people noticing it – it’s because (as in the case above) the material has already been addressed, or it is plainly evident, etc.
It’s not surprising that you should berate me for not replying to sub-points, since you have demonstrated your incapacity to treat the bigger argument as a whole and clearly prefer to focus on smaller components. It’s not a tactic that is going to work.
Let me dispense with this question by referring you to the latter part of my previous post and the practical (not moral) arguments contained therein. Leaving aside the concept of international cooperation, mediation, resolution, and peaceful coexistence, it’s in the US’s best interests to act in accordance with the interests and desires of other nations, where possible, in order not to run into conflict down the line (e.g. support for this war would doubtlessly have been more forthcoming had Bush not managed to piss off a number of leaders and nations he has relations with, including Mexico and Canada, during or before the run-up to the war). On the matter of Iraq, it was clearly possible to continue making progress peacefully, as argued by myself and others here, not to mention Unmovic. Victims of Bush propaganda disagree, but since they tend to trot out the putrid and dishonest excuses for arguments you’ve shown us so far it is fairly easy to dismiss them without losing any sleep.
False, since the populations of most countries are against the war. A number of European leaders may support the war but they do so generally against overwhelming public opinion, and I already discussed this, mentioning the two nations that were instrumental in gathering European support: Italy and Spain. In the case of Italy, the less said about the government the better, because it is truly a disaster. In the case of Spain, you have to wonder if Jose Maria Aznar wants to retire early from politics. On closer inspection his gamble is evident and by no means unique: with the political centre of Europe moving east and north away from Spain, Aznar want to see a more prominent role for his country and increased clout thanks to better trans-Atlantic relations that will offset what he fears is Spain’s decline into political irrelevance. Spaniards who oppose the present war: about 80% according to opinion polls. Aznar is hardly taking a democratic position here, and he is not the only one, as I already mentioned.
It’s part of the problem of polarization – the majorities of the European, Arabic, Islamic, and even Russian (to name some large ones) public now have a reduced opinion of the US, which is precisely the last thing needed because that opinion must release steam through political valves (i.e. electing leaders who take a harder line against the US) or explode (i.e. in events like the riots we have seen to date across the world, and probably worse).
France does have some economic ties with Iraq, but so what? If you want to look at it that way, who is going to temporarily occupy and manage Iraq and its riches? Who will be organizing (at least at first) the rebuilding of Iraq? Who will play a strong role in establishing the successors of the present regime? The US, by charging forward into this war against Saddam, has also assumed the highest interests in Iraq. The Bush Administration stands to gain not only because of a decreased reliance on Middle Eastern oil and lucrative future contracts, but also because of important political capital. Among that capital is the reaffirmation of US military and political supremacy both for domestic and international purposes, as well as the fulfillment of Bush’s own agenda (for example, his publicly-manipulated War on Terror is one of his strongest approval and reelection platforms). These factors also are demonstrable.
This garbage reeks even by your abysmal standards, Milo. Since I am feeling magnanimous today, I will give you a couple tips. Firstly, write something of such an offensive nature again and I will do something about it, starting with humiliating you in such a manner as you are unlikely to have experienced on a message board before and proceeding with complaints about you to this Web site and all the rest of that fun. I put up with your idiotic arguments but I do not have to put up with the above statements of rapists, blood, and Abe, intended seriously or not. You have been warned.
Secondly, either leave the foolish analogies at home or put them in your Fisher-Price pipe and smoke them. Such an argument by analogy here is the penultimate resort of the fool and ignoramus, since it can accomplish little – unless your intention was to mock me. Unfortunately you have so much work to do in proving your arguments that mocking me is perhaps not the best idea.
Thirdly, I advise you to stop twisting the arguments of other people. I doubt many here are convinced by the incoherent and biased material you keep posting, and twisting people’s words and arguments against them not only doesn’t help your case, but it makes you look like a cheap debater.
This objection and the ones that follow were already addressed in my previous post, as well as in those by AZ Cowboy and Mandelstam. How about any recent or presently applicable evidence from the CIA? I freely admit I may be out of the picture on this matter, as I have not caught up with the CIA’s work in a while and may have missed the most recent developments.
A lot of claims follow in your post, about Iraq’s evilness, “possible” future developments like Iraq throwing WMD at the USA because Saddam Hussein hates the USA, etc. No doubt you will complain, but I trust that most posters will be comfortable if I skip the items of irrelevance and proceed, just before posting this amusing link from last October: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2315967.stm
(it notes how real intelligence is able to make little headway against pro-war propaganda)
That’s the thing, there is (or there was) no sign of an imminent threat! By the way, your use of language needs some comment. “Logical” and “Evidence” are not words you have thus far spoken authoritatively on in this thread. You have been going on all along about the “fucking lunacy” and “illogic” of certain countries, the “face of obvious evidence” in front of them and so forth, yet after spewing thousands of words on the subject you still have not demonstrated (logically) the points that you raised in objection to my assessment of Blair’s speech and the situation, preferring instead to mire yourself in an ineffective item-by-item defence of some of the Bush administration’s questionable actions. And the broad, vague, simplistic, wishful statements such as the one quoted above really don’t champion your cause.
I’m skipping through quite a bit of your arguments concerning the role of Hans Blix, UN inspections, etc., for the simple reason that they are mostly false. The material was beautifully addressed by AZ Cowboy and Mandelstam in a couple of posts. I look forward to your reply.
Here, for your information, are some of the last things Blix and others had to say regarding the American push to war just before it actually started: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2829213.stm
More falsehoods, Milossarian. Firstly, 12 years of diplomacy in Iraq failed only when the US began to pursue its war irrevocably, and things started falling apart diplomatically speaking. This has been discussed already. Secondly UN inspections were most certainly not failing, which has also been already discussed. Thirdly, I did not blast the US for not going after North Korea, but I criticized the selection of Iraq as the nation to wage war on when there are other priorities and greater dangers – and that is not to say that A) that another target for immediate war loomed ahead, or that B) war against Iraq at some point in the near future is utterly out of the question. And I must add that you have no idea what “side” I am on.
Of course, but France’s actual position, as stated by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was that “France will not let a resolution pass that authorises the automatic use of force” (my emphasis). He also said, quite rightfully as we are seeing so far, that “The use of force risks aggravating grudges and hatred, stoking a clash of identities, a confrontation between cultures which it is precisely the responsibility of our generation to avoid.”
Abandoning the Middle East peace process would enrage several parties beyond belief, not pacify them. For another thing, where is your evidence that ending what is effectively a state of apartheid for Palestinians could not be used to make the Arab and Islamic world more amenable to “necessary” US aggression against the regime of a nation of Arabs and Muslims? Where is your evidence that taking steps to remedy the Israel and US-sponsored disenfranchisement of millions of people won’t score points both with the vast Islamic and Arabic public and its leaders? Where is the evidence that applying pressure to end the apparent injustices against the Palestinians will not raise the profile of the US in the eyes of the world entire? Come on, these are items so obvious as to be self-evident, and your resort to the classic “they just hate us, period” argument is plain silly.
Hm, nothing of huge import left in your response, so I’ll stop there. I will try to make it simple for everyone if you wish to reply though. What are you trying to argue? Are you trying to state that the Bush Administration is unmistakably correct in its fumbling approach to the war? Are you trying to prove that the blame for this problem lies mainly with the French? Do you wish to demonstrate that Iraq IS (was) in fact a credible and imminent threat? Do you intend to establish that UN inspections were not making progress? Do you wish to justify the present war as just, or necessary, or in the US’s best interests, or how?
Rather than work your way down people’s posts and offer contrary ad hoc responses to whatever you come across that you don’t like, you may want to develop a thesis first. Your snippets of objections go on and on, but it is unclear what you are trying to accomplish.
And I stick to recent facts (see above). But I also feel pressed to remind you that what threatened the US on 9/11/2001 was not Iraq’s WMD, but the boxcutters of a handful of angry bin Ladenites, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. A very different kettle of fish.