David,
Wonderful. You pretty much said everything I've wanted to say but with
intelligence. I do recommend that both you and Joy apply for jobs at
Bechtel to get a share of the millions that will "trickle down".
You're not Executive Level?!? Would you settle for $40,000/year plus
free parking?
All,
And no one has mentioned that Bush has struck out once maybe twice by
not getting the persons supposedly responsible for (supporting)
terrorism. Bin Laden still lives and Hussein may be alive somewhere.
Regime change is fine and dandy but if we're combating terrorism, it
makes sense to eliminate the head honchos and on that count Bush has
failed mightily. With even bin Laden alive there's a known source -
with major dinero - promoting terrorism.
And what if in Iraq the people desire a Taliban-like regime? Will we
(cough) militarily suggest otherwise?
Is it even Democracy we want to promote?
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Ozzy
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "dne44" <dne_at_d...>
wrote:
> 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 2003-04-24 08:59:10