Maybe we should start an Olive Blog.
Nah, some one would steal it...
-Ozzy
--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "7visions"
<7visions_at_p...> wrote:
> 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_d...>
> 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 2003-04-25 08:28:30