and let me riposte a bit:
> It's worth noting here that the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq
> goes back to 1998 and the Clinton Administration. Did any of you
express
> any reservations about it then?
>
If it had become a major political issue, or if military action was
undertaken to enforce it, I would certainly have spoken up.
> No one ever said it [liberation] was anything other than a fringe
benefit.
hmmm... what did we name this war again? That's right "Operation
Iraqi Freedom". This war was actively sold to the world as a war of
liberation.
> But if I were living in Iraq I'd be pretty happy about it. We had
> other
> reasons as far as international law is concerned, but it's lovely
> to make this kind of a difference in people's lives. If one counts
> the victims in Saddam's two wars, he's killed over a million people.
> And he has two sons who show every signs of continuing his legacy of
> murder and torture. As fringe benefits go, liberating these people
> was a damn good one.
>
Saddam was an evil man, and yes the Iraqis are in general happy to
see him go. But they are not universally happy about what/how we did
it, and now they want us out.
I am happy he is no longer in power, but for me that is the silver
lining on an otherwise dark cloud.
> I don't support going in and starting a bloodbath (North Korea), or
a
> nuclear confrontation (China). Or using military force when
diplomacy
> might work better (Syria). Color me hypocritical, if it's
hypocritical
> to use common sense in working out which strategy to use with which
> dictator.
>
I don't have a problem with using common sense, but we aren't even
paying any attention to many places in the world where there are
dictatorships as bad or worse than Saddam's (Myanmar, Zimbabwe,
etc.), and we're turning a blind eye on others (China) for economic
or strategic reasons. The problem is that the government wants it
both ways: they want to pretend to be on the moral high ground, but
still be Machiavellian in the trenches.
> And Saddam never abandoned his nuclear program; I truly do think he
> was attempting to refine plutonium right up to the end.
>
This has yet to be seen, and it is far from clear that even if he was
that we wouldn't have been able to prevent it in other ways than by
going to war.
> Also--this guy has already started two wars, and is a master of
> miscalculation.
> He's not a predictable guy. It isn't like the North Koreans, who
like
> to talk tough, but don't do much: his aggressiveness is proven.
>
Would you apply this thinking domestically? Maybe a 2-strikes law? He
hasn't done anything significant since Gulf War I, and we were
watching him like a hawk (no pun intended) in case he did start
something.
>
> After the first Gulf War, Saddam was allowed to stay in power, with
> certain conditions, set by the international community. The U.N.
> formalized these with a series of resolutions, which Iraq
systematically
> violated. Meeting these conditions was a precondition to ending the
war;
> therefore, the fact that they were not met means that the first Gulf
> War never really ended (hostilities continued over the no-fly zone
for
> 12 years).
>
The international community set the conditions, therefore it should
be the international community who decides to enforce them. We do not
hold a legally privileged position (we do hold a practically
privileged position since we have the wherewithal to act on our own).
And our motley coalition of the willing (many of whom were bribed or
strongarmed or are currying favor) does not constitute
the 'international community' in my eyes.
> The damage to U.N. prestige was self-inflicted. Unfortunately, the
two
> missions we'd all like the U.N. to succeed in are those at which it
is
> most laughably inept: promoting human rights, and ensuring security
of
> the global community. I'm hoping reforms may come about in these
areas,
> but I'm not holding my breath. If reforms occur, I'll be glad the
U.S.
> helped to bring them about: I'd love it if the U.N. did some soul-
> searching.
>
Look, I'm not happy with how the UN acted either. But it was not
entirely self-inflicted -- unless you are saying that voting with us
was the only option available to them, in which case (by extension)
the UN is merely a US puppet. And while it is overly bureaucratic, it
is better at promoting human rights and ensuring the security of the
global community than you give it credit for: Unicef and other UN
agencies have helped lessen suffering and improv the quality of life
in much of the world, and I would argue that the mere existence of
the UN, the world view it espouses, and the diplomatic forum it
provides have helped lessen the amount of war in the world over the
past 50+ years.
> The "we needed the U.N.'s blessing" argument always knocks me out,
partly
> because it always comes from Democrats who had no problems with
Clinton's
> war in Kosovo--for which he didn't seek U.N. approval.
>
> Nor did France ask for U.N. approval before it went into the Ivory
Coast.
> Where was the outrage then?
>
Kosovo was a different situation (for one, it was an ongoing
international military conflict. Also, in Ivory Coast, there was
civil war and the imminent collapse of the government), and we worked
through a different organization (NATO).
In this case we *did* go to the UN for approval, we didn't get it,
and we went to war anyway. If the US had not gone to the UN at all,
would I complain about it? Yes! But this isn't a double-bind. When
Bush took the risk of going to the UN, he said "ok, I'm going to play
by your rules" -- and when they didn't go along with us, he
said "fine, I'm doing it on my own." This helped crystalize much of
the opposition to the war worldwide. In retrospect, if Bush was
going to go to war regardless (and I think he was), he would have
been better off avoiding the UN. (But I would still have criticized
him for it).
>
> There is a difference in scale between a state that pays off the
families
> of suicide bombers and one that has a camp in which terrorists can
practice
> hijacking U.S. planes. Slight difference of scale. Their support
for A.Q.
> may not have been as dramatic as the Taliban's, but it didn't help
their
> case.
>
Again, we'll see the details with time, but I guarantee you there is
more advanced support and training for AQ in Pakistan by a factor of
10.
> Yes. An egotistical megalomaniac managed, for just over a decade
(of his
> 30 years in power) to confine himself to occasional attacks on the
Kurds.
> Cold comfort.
>
Remember too that the US publicly and privately subsidized his rule
until 1989.
> The argument--and it's tangential to the case for war, but, hey: you
> brought it up--is that, appearances to the contrary, dictatorships
> are intrinsically destabilizing, particularly as practiced in the
> Middle East. The Arab countries (plus Iran) continue to oppress
> their people to varying degrees, and present the U.S. and Israel
> to them as scapegoats. The situation is untenable, and a breeding
> ground for terrorism large and small.
>
Then why aren't we in Africa, which makes the Middle East look
positively advanced in its governements. And thank god no democratic
country would ever use a foreign policy crisis to stir up nationalism
and turn attention away from an unpleasant domestic situation.
>
> Yes. It did. That "reasonable assumption" is the basis for this war,
> in a nutshell. That was the risk. That's what we were being
protected
> against. Only the chance of having hundreds of thousands of
Americans
> (or other Westerners, but we're the preferred target) wiped out in
one
> day. Other than that petty concern, though . . .
>
He couldn't even manage to kill hundreds of thousands of his own
people with WMD (the great majority of the people he 'killed' were
killed in the Iran/Iraq war. Apart from gassing the Kurds -- which
did not kill hundreds of thousands -- he stuck to conventional
methods). He has no delivery systems, and none of the WMD he has
would be likely to kill the numbers you are talking about.
> I like the fact that the civilian casualties were so low, you're now
> having to talk about the stress of living through a war
as "terrorism."
> This was targeted bombing, here: we're not talking about living in
> London during WWII.
>
I appreciate immensely the fact that we took such great pains (and
now have the technology to make it possible) to minimize civilian
casualties. But it is far too easy for you to shrug this off. And I
didn't call it terrorism, I said 'terrorized' and I meant it in its
literal sense.
> And I'd rather live with the sound of bombs going off than have my
tongue
> cut out, or be fed to a plastic shredder. Maybe that's me.
>
That's you. It seems like the Iraqis are split on how they feel about
this, and they're the ones that matter.
> Many of whom, oddly enough, gave material support to this venture.
(It's
> been said before, but a coalition of 45 nations is almost at the
level
> of the support the allies had in WWII, which was around 52, as I
recall.)
>
...and there are many more countries today, so the percentage is
lower. And how many of those countries were in the area 'threatened'
by Iraq? And how many have gotten or will get generous compensation
from us? This wasn't the world rising up in the face of an imminent
threat to global security and coming together. If we hadn't whipped
this into a frenzy, no one would be talking about Iraq.
> Or finally stabilizing this fragile region, and giving its people
their
> first taste of real democracy. (This was, of course, my biggest
misgiving
> in the time I was making up my mind where I stood. The "it will
destabilize
> the Middle East" arguments seemed so good. But the "it will bring
democracy
> to the region" people sounded reasonable as well. I'll admit I
wavered on
> this one for a long time. It's clear where I finally came down. And
history
> will tell us.)
>
Indeed, time will tell. I hope you are right, but I think
this 'reverse domino theory' where one democracy suddenly topples all
these oppressive governments is about as valid as the original domino
theory. By the way, I have been of the opinion that Iran is/was
heading toward a form of democracy within the next 5-10 years. I
doubt we have accelerated this in the least.
> I really like that first one--the "Republicans are so greedy that
they're
> willing to sacrifice American lives to make money." It's always so
charming.
> After all, with the way the Prez and Vice Prez have to scrape by, I
can see
> why wealth would be so seductive that they'd abandon all morality
to make
> a few bucks . . . oh, wait. That doesn't work.
>
> At least you threw in "political and strategic" concerns. Which I
damned
> well
> hope these guys are taking into consideration: that's why we're
paying them.
> I *want* them to be thinking in "political and strategic" terms.
>
When I say economic, I am not saying that the prez and his folk are
doing it to line their own pockets (though I think there will be
friends of the gov't who profit mightily from it). I mean economic in
terms of the US. It is to our economic advantage to have a US-
friendly gov't in Iraq producing oil at maximum capacity. We're not
going to steal the oil, and I don't think we fought the war for oil.
But I do believe that if oil wasn't there, we wouldn't have fought
the war.
And you again misunderstand my focus when I say 'political and
strategic'. It's not to say that those aspects are bad or wrong, my
point is that the government has not been publically honest about why
we are there.
> Funny. How come we were considered so stubborn for *not* holding
> "unilateral"
> talks with North Korea? Our attempts to be "multilateral" there
brought
> us all kinds of criticism.
>
Joy, you're smarter than that. Talks and military action are very
different things.
> Do what you need to in order to survive. And then let history
judge. It
> was so when the Israelis bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981--
which
> the Reagan administration condemned--and it's so now, for us.
>
> We put up with all kinds of stuff we don't approve of in terms of
one
> sovereign
> nation occupying another. If I had a magic wand, I'd get the
Chinese out of
> Tibet in a minute. We "abide" a lot. But we can only do what we
can. We
> cannot
> cure every ill--only a few.
>
And we choose those few in our self-interest, but pretend that it's
for loftier causes, and then get pissed off if other countries
disagree with our choices. And the fact remains that if we wanted to,
we could do much more than we are doing to 'liberate oppressed
people'. I'm not saying I'd be for that, by the way. I believe we
should limit interventions to those where we are stopping an active
conflict or humanitarian crisis. I would have supported intervention
in Rwanda, if the UN hadn't messed that up so utterly.
> That's why we did it how we did it. Never before has the "invading"
army
> been so assiduous in avoiding civilian casualties. And rarely have
the
> "defenders" shown so little regard for the lives of their own
people. The
> way this war was conducted, as much as anything, shows our motives.
We
> increased the risk to our own troops by conducting this the way we
did.
> I can't claim the coalition behaved perfectly, but I do feel it met
the
> "higher moral standard" standard.
>
I think we did in the military conduct of the war, in general, as
well. The steps the Iraqis took in their own defense are little
different than the steps countries have historically taken when they
have been so completely outclassed on the battlefield. I'm very happy
we fought the war in the way that we did, but I still don't think we
should have fought it, I still don't like the propaganda the
government is spewing, and I think history will give this a very
mixed grade at best.
> Your partner in unemployment,
>
> J
Please, give us both jobs so that we'll have something productive to
do!
Coffee soon?
- David
Received on 2003-04-23 14:34:14
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: 2020-02-04 07:16:16 UTC