*originally said by Mark Twain *(thanks, Sailor):
If only they had quoted the full text of the Carl Schurz update of Stephen Decatur’s toast:
The italicized bit is what the demonstrations are about, if that isn’t clear yet.
Ah, the sound bite ploy. It sounds as though you regard all attempts to keep peace are appeasement. What a shallow point of view.
What would Hussein gain by attacking the US? I don’t remember him ever striking anyone who had the capacity to strike back, with the possible exception of Iran.
I think MAD. or in this case AD, with Iraq being on the receiving end, will keep Hussein from using against the US, anything he might have until the whole thing can be cooled down. And that can be done as soon as we get an adult in charge of foreign policy.
Of course, people should have the right to peaceably assemble and demonstrate against (or for) just about any damn thing they want to.
But, don’t confuse to ability to protest with protests actually being effective…
What the heck has a protest (or series of protests) ever accomplished? Did they cut short the decade+ of the Vietnam War? Did they stop the Gulf War '91? Did they stop the bombing of Yugoslavia? What tangible goal have anti-war protests ever accomplished?
He couldn’t attack the US directly, but Israel isn’t nearly safe, and the threat of attacking there would be deterrence enough. There were a number of Scuds sent there the last time, remember? If he can “send his fire to destroy half of Israel”, that is, and if he can’t, he can’t plausibly and significantly attack any other US allies either, and there goes the casus belli.
Powell is clearly trying, under circumstances that would force a less-duty-driven person to resign, and may be having enough success. The UN-authority approach in the face of the unilateralist war tom-tomming seems like his doing rather than Rumsfeld’s, anyway.
Aside from your first and last sentence, this paragraph is completely false.
First of all, no war declaration has been made.
Second, it most certainly was taken to Congress. They had a big vote on it and everything. I’m pretty sure it was in the papers.
Third, do you honestly think that GW hasn’t consulted the military and diplomats? That statement is just plain silly.
Fourth, the war on terrorism is alive and well. Just because you aren’t paying attention, or the media isn’t covering it ad nauseam, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. There are people all over the world actively engaged in that campaign. We still have folks getting attacked in Afghanistan.
I agree with that completely.
Israel isn’t “safe” from a lot of countries, Syria as a example. The missiles used on Israel during the Gulf war seem more like attempts to provoke them into attacking and igniting a reaction from the rest of the Middle East. Their use then doesn’t look germane to the case now. Biological agents, which Hussein presumeably had, weren’t used and that was during an actual war.
As I read the news, the least likely thing the Israelis need to worry about is an attack from Iraq. I’m not sure about this, but I think we include an attack on Israel by Iraq as an attack on us. And as an extraneous aside, the Israel situation also seems to me an example of the failure of military solutions in case of this kind of small-unit terroist or guerrilla action…
I’m afraid that Powell has decided that he will be the “good soldier” and follow orders.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**
This is wishful thinking. Over the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has never given full cooperation to the U.N. inspectors. Even now, with US military poised for attack, he’s still not giving full cooperation.
errata, I agree that the size of the turnout helps determine how newsworthy. I would not give much credence to an estimate by the organizers. Clearly there was a large turnout, but compare it with the Detroit Auto Show, where 800,000 people paid to attend. Kind of puts the Washington figures in perspective, doesn’t it?
There was even a demonstration in Spokane (free registration required):
**
You set 'em up, I’ll knock 'em down.
It sounds are if grammar yours needing help. Anyway, it’s nowhere near as shallow as projecting arguments onto others.
Revenge?
Your not recalling it, hardly means that it didn’t happen.
Iran was more or less Iraq’s equal in strength, so I don’t know by what possible logic you consider this only a “possible” exception.
And, you seem to have forgotten Israel.
Plus, the U.S. He’s taken potshots at our planes in the no-fly zone.
That’s four. Three of the countries he’s attacked were his equal or better militarily. So much for that argument.
Hopefully one with more acumen than you’ve demonstrated. We are not the only people Iraq could attack, and we’d also have to catch him. In a terrorist type attack it would be hard to prove his involvement.
Anyway, this is all besides the point. It’s not simply about his capacity as an aggressor. That has been demonstrated.
The last time we had to clean up after this schoolyard bully, there were conditions to be met to avoid his being expelled. He has not met those. If we allow him to stay without meeting them, our negotions meant nothing, but more importantly or negotiations will mean nothing going forward.
tomndeb:
Thanks.
Ok, I’ll bite. If there was a point to your equating Neville Chamberlin’s actions to the duty of a government to try for peace as the first line of defense, what was it? You never made a point that I could see, only a smart-ass quip. Of course I don’t have your vast amount of worldly experience, so enlighten me.
And, by the way, Neville Chamberlin was the guy who took Britain into WWII, not because of an attack on Britain but because of an attack on another country. You blame him for not standing up to Hitler in the case of Czechoslovakia, et al. Did we? Did we rush in to help Britain and France try to defend Poland? If so I must have missed it.
As far as your claims about Hussein’s potential for aggression, we also have considerable and haven’t been all that bashful about it.
Arguments based upon what someone might do just aren’t sufficient to send the country into a war. At least not in my opinion.
Oh and by the way, Scylla, how come you didn’t criticise** tomndeb’s** spelling the way you did my grammar over an “are” that should have been “as?”
David:
It spoils all the fun to explain smart-ass quips. If you’re whooshed, so be it.
Bad bad argument. I notice that when people make these they often pretend you said something you didn’t, and repsond to that alternate argument, rather than the one given. Lots of countries have the potential, as do lots of leaders. Any country with an army has potential to attack. What I said was “capacity,” which hopefully implied that his demonstrated willingness to do so. Any dog can potentially bite. They are not the same as those that do.
And again, you are responding to the argument that you would have liked me to have made rather than the one that I did make. His potential is not the major issue at hand.
So you didn’t have a point, or you don’t want to tell us what it was?
OK, “capacity” then. Same point in spite of your evasions. But then I guess I forgot all of our incursions into other countries are in the name of freedom.
The whole justification by GW is that Hussein has the power, therefore he might.
Since his post was accurate and intelligent, I considered it to be simply a typo rather than indicative of sloppy thought.
This is just getting silly. As I said, I’m content to let you be whooshed.
Evasions? Why do you have to lie and pretend I’m doing something I’m not? What about this don’t you understand?
He fought Iran, bombed Israel, attacked our planes, and has been commiting genocide against his own people. I don’t see how you could equate that with our current or recent foreign policy. It’s disingenuous in the extreme.
Again, you’re either ignorant or you’re simply pretending. Go check the text of Bush’s speech to the U.N.
As Bush said, and everybody else in the world seems to understand, He’s in violation of the treaties and resolutions that were the conditions to allowing him to remain in power the last time he attacked somebody.
That, combined with his demonstrated capacity and willingness is our “justification,” if you want to call it that, although it’s more like a necessity in my eyes that we enforce these resolutions.
Speaking from the sidelines - I’m rather whooshed, too. I take it you brought up Chamberlain with some sort of purpose in mind, and I for one would really like to know what your point was - this is GD, after all.
If someone throws out a one-liner, refuse to elaborate and then complain that people aren’t arguing against the points he made, wouldn’t it be more suitable for him to elaborate the points instead of complaining about the opponents’ incredible density ? Y’know, in the name of fighting ignorance.
Unless you are saying that the Chamberlain comment was just a quip and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I guess it depends on what you consider a quip. Obviously the situations are dissimilar, yet Neville remains an object lesson on the dangers of suing for peace. Whether or not England had a reason for doing so is entirely beside the point.
My post was that a duty of government is to preserve peace where it exists and promote it where it doesn’t.
Your post dragged in Neville Chamberlain with what appears to be a clear comparison to the appeasement of 65 years ago.
When challanged you claim it is just a joke.
That is either evasion or intellectual cowardice. Take your pick.
Everybody in the world understood GW’s speech at the UN and action was taken on the basis of it. Hardly anyone in the rest of the world and only a part of the US understand his subsequent rhetoric.
Since you only respond with ad hominum crap I’ll say goodbye to you now.
Reasonable enough, up to a point. And that point is where “we enforce these resolutions”. They are not our resolutions, They are the resolutions of the United Nations. Until such time as the United Nations confers some extraordinary status on the US, it is not the perogative of the US to enforce UN resolutions, any more than it is the perogative of Tennessee to declare war on Canada.