Kudos again to you both...It is a shame that this excellent dialogue will
not be seen beyond this list....
Lenny
----- Original Message -----
From: dne44 <dne_at_dslextreme.com>
To: <OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:34 PM
Subject: [OliveStarlightOrchestra] Re: Fought over ideology
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> OliveStarlightOrchestra-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Received on 2003-04-24 23:06:00