The US, The UN and Iraq

Tantor...you said:

Quote:

If he had a nuke, he'd use that. Saddam wants to be the leader of the Arab world, the new Saladdin. Destroying Israel would be a step toward accomplishing that.

I'm unclear...how would he lead the Arab world if dead? Are you considering he would survive after that?

0 Replies

tantor, Let me see: If Saddam uses a nuke against Israel, I wonder how many Palestinians will be blasted to smithereens at the same time? Yeah, a good way to win Arab support. c.i.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

fishin...on 'stars' talking...this is an aspect of TV culture which I loathe deeply. There is a very high probability that Princess Di, if alive, could influence public opinion on the Iraq question far far more than might Bernard Lewis...and there is no question who the media would put into the studio. To Garofalo's credit (in the piece I saw which lasted one minute or so) she spoke to precisely that point and described herself as 'inarticulate'. I too think there is a civic responsibility for each of us speaking in a public forum to do our homework and be careful.

Her comment that she is "just a citizen" is the part that drives me nuts (and it isn't just her, other celebs do it too..). How many "just citizens" do you see getting interviewed on TV on major national or international political issues? People get on camera interviews because of their expertise or because of their celebrity.

She knew the letter she signed was going to generate publicity. One would think she would have been smart enough to find out what it is she's signing and the overall issue or her publicist would have been smart enough to let her know that she should before opening her mouth.

0 Replies

For all of the participants - Let's tone down the rhetoric and stick to the topic at hand with rational and civil discussion.

If you are going to cite something as "fact" then it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence of the "fact" when challenged. Challenges should be something along the lines of "Please provide a link/citation for the claim that xyz happened...". If a statement is based on your own personal experience or is an opinion please state them as such unless the expession is blatently obvious.

This isn't a schoolyard and we're all adults here. This discussion is just that - a discussion. This isn't life or death for any of us. If you can't discuss the issue without the negativity then please withdraw from the dicsussion until such time as you can.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The poets (read that artists of whatever medium) are out the back door smokin' pot as you say, it was most likely the poetry of the likes of Solzhenitsyn with his Gulag that opened our eyes to the horrors of the Soviets rather than the metaphysics of Reagan with his "empire of evil". Most likely it was Miller's "The Crucible" that gave us the awareness of the horrors of Sen. Joe McCarthy and his witch (communist) burnings. It was Leonardo Da Vinci as a heretic that brought us the poetry in conflict with the metaphysics of the Church. Galileo was the poet who was imprisoned for life for his "ideas" that countered the metaphysic of his time. But now we have a new metaphysic and it is the "axis of evil". As it is vague and meaningless as any ideology, it still has the power to send men to their death. Weapons of Mass Destruction seems to be the buzzword but what, perchance meaning does it hold? Is this somehow different than the WMD such as mustard gas used in WWI, or perhaps the Napalm of Viet Nam? These are all valid questions and need/should be addressed but not via a vision, an ideology so carelessly tossed about has it has been this past year. The questions need to include terrorism, what it is, who it is, what can be do about it, and why it is. Like I said the poet dies but the metaphysic kills.

I have never thought of the term metaphysics being used to justify the pontifications of philosophers who have not given us any real anwers since the beginning of recorded history over the realities of mankind's struggle to overcome tyranny, prejudice and oppression over the same period of time. Now don't get me wrong, there is a place for philosophy but it is not to supply answers--it is the duty of philosophy to ask the questions for science to answer. I do think you degrade the realility of the struggle when you state that only the intellectuals(poets, writers etc.) can point out the horrors of said struggle. Ask any suvivor of the holocaust if they had to have a poet tell what was suffered. I still think the poets go out the back door when anything gets messy)))))))

0 Replies

perception

Can I argue (and I think dyslexia might too) for a complimentary model, by which I mean, both functions - the poet/artist/philosopher and the soldier - are necessary parts of a functioning and rich society. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I think it likely that most sculptors would think their activity a better one than soldiering. But it is as likely that soldiers would argue and believe the opposite. And I might argue that neither are right, or both are right.

Your first sentence is, for me, perhaps an unhelpful way to think about this stuff. There are very many things which science can't help us with, moral questions most particularly. That's where we need the other folks, like Jesus and Socrates and Voltaire and Jefferson and Arthur Miller.

Your last sentence too will gain an argument from me (are we surprised?). Physical courage, though I confess to having almost none of it and to being frequently beaten up by Girl Guides, isn't the only sort of courage worthy of note. There is the courage of spirit to start anew, as in the folks who initially settled this continent. There is the courage to think anew, in the face of grave consequences and even death, as in Galileo. And there is the courage to look into the deep and ugly corners of existence, as in Sophocles or Shakespeare.

It occurs to me now that, if I get voted King, I will have all poets serve 6 months in some region of war and conflict, and also will have soldiers spend a comparable period learning ballet.

0 Replies

fishin, Sometimes, in discussions, when speaking of future events, it's rather impossible to provide "evidence." All we can do is provide our opinions. Sometimes, some of us will be right, and some of us will be wrong. But, we still have to wait until the predicted event happens. There might even be disagreement to whether the event will actually happen. They are all legitimate subjects for discussion. IMHO. c.i.

0 Replies

perception

I bet, you never saw one of the paintings, made by people in the KZ's, read any of the poetry, written there: Most probably, you don't know about that.

0 Replies

The farmer, the millworker, the shopkeeper and the soldier make possible the support of luxuries such as poets and philosophers. Humankind requires all to thrive. The poets and philosophers give us our culture and society. The rest permit that we may continue and further our culture and society. The relationship among all is at once symbiotic and synergistic

Of course, things would run ever so much more smoothly if we could simply do away with ranting, ill-intentioned, propagandizing zealots. Prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance are disgusting no matter how exposed and expressed. Hate from a pulpit is no less vile than hate from a podium, a lecturn, or a parent. Twisting a religion to enrage a society against another society is an atrocity ... one from which humankind seems never to tire.

Presently, Islam generates a considerable amount of bang for your hate buck. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from Bali to Bagdad, if there's unrest, odds are there's Islam ... or rather, Islam's Armed Radical Fundamentalist aspect. Venezuela's current difficulty is almost refreshing by comparison at this point.

It has taken generations for Islam's Armed Radical Fundamentalists to gain their current capability. The seeds of this war were sown in the first half of the last century. Blundering, self serving, arrogant Western policies toward The Middle East ... idiocies by not just, nor even particularly, the US. The British, The French, The Dutch, The Germans, The Italians, and The Russians, none notable among others, all have actively contributed to the tally of missteps, generally in the service of questionable near-term agendas of jingoist expedience.

Sadaam Hussein the man is less a part of Islam than of Islam's problem. The same can be said of Arafat, and of the leaders and financers of Hizbolla and of al Queda and all the rest. The politicians who came to age during the times of Western Mismanagement, and their sons, and yet their sons, have taken over the religion. Sadaam is but one of these, who view Faith as a politico-military assett. Schooled in cynicism, they see advantage in schooling their population in fanatacism.

Knowing that a dangerous fire is one's own fault in no way lessens one's need to take steps to counter that fire. A fire must be beaten back, a component or segment at a time. Attacking a fire rapidly, efficiently, and with all means at hand, is the only way to confine and minimize the damage caused by the fire. In the fire we are fighting at the moment, Sadaam happens to offer an accessible and highly visible flame, with great potential for spread. As such, he must be dealt with, and as quickly and thoroughly as may be practicable. The fire will remain, but will be deprived his further contribution. There is little to be gained pondering and debating the causes and preventions of fire when one's immediate task is to extinguish a fire.

It doesn't end with Sadaam. It didn't begin with Sadaam. It must end for Sadaam, and his kind.

timber

0 Replies

"It must end for Dadaam":

well that's what today's (British) papers think, too:

BUILD-UP TO WAR

The press is increasingly conviced that an attack on Iraq is
inevitable after the US concluded yesterday that Saddam Hussein was
in "material breach" of the UN resolutions on disarmament. The
utterance of this much-awaited "trigger phrase" will lead to a more
aggressive round of weapons inspections, and the Guardian says
President Bush "could go to war soon after January 27" - when the
chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is due to give the UN another
progress report.

Although the Telegraph says the US is now on the "brink of war", a
leader in the Times insists that Washington is not ready to start a
war yet, "partly because US forces are not fully ready, and partly
because the resolution makes clear that a failure to deliver a full
report is not, in itself, a casus belli".

Meanwhile the Mirror's front page features the caption: "There is a
lunatic with weapons of mass destruction 'ramping up' for a war that
will imperil the whole world. STOP HIM." The picture accompanying it
shows George Bush.

* January 27 is decision day for war against Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863506,00.html
* Mirror: Happy Christmas, war is coming

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12469633&method=full&siteid=50143
* Independent: Missing: four tons of nerve gas, 8.5 tons of anthrax,
and assorted nuclear bomb parts
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=363156

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Meanwhile the Mirror's front page features the caption: "There is a lunatic with weapons of mass destruction 'ramping up' for a war that will imperil the whole world. STOP HIM." The picture accompanying it shows George Bush.

Very much to the point. The maddeningly frustrating part for me as an American, is that our alleged democracy provides those of us opposed to this jingoistic and self-willed war movement have no recourse to reign in the idiot.

0 Replies

Setanta

The jingoism drives me around the bend too. Unfortunately, the sound-bite style of present media (TV particularly) is ideally suited for simplistic claims. More patient, thorough and careful analyses/debates are depressingly rare, and not sought out by many of us. What seems to me to make this situation particularly dangerous is that these jingoisms can be very powerful, representing large myths (by which I mean cultural stories that can deeply move us) in a few shorthand words.. "America, the Great Satan" or "America, the greatest country in history" all embody hosts of uninspected ideas and assumptions. As such, they are not only maddeningly stupid, they are dangerous.

But I must confess that my opinion on America's actions as regards Iraq have been changing. Timber has played some real part in this, his posts have been detailed and compelling. This is a matter of degrees, it isn't black/white, yes/no. I think America has some irons in the fire here which badly undercut stated rationales/justifications for why they are doing what they are doing (to make the world a better place), but that of course doesn't mean that a depowered/removed Sadaam won't produce that same end.

At the same time, I consider that America itself, and this present administration particularly, represent certain potential dangers to the world which their own myths make them frustratingly blind to (Walter's voice, coming from a well educated European perspective is very helpful here).

0 Replies

Blatham

Yes of course you're correct----In my first sentence I was quibbling.
In my last sentence was attempting some bad humor.

I'm in favor of the 6 months of military training for poets-----Please don't make us learn ballet for any more than 60 seconds.

Walter
There are many things I don't know about----I'm getting a crash course right now thanks to so many knowledgeable people on this particular thread.

I do believe however that there is an unrealistic tendency on the part of some people to overshadow reality with an almost neurotic psychological need to enhance the stature of "poets" in the overall scheme of things. When I was about 6 years old I didn't need a philosopher to tell me that the neat little package of the "virgin" mary producing the Christchild was just too contrived to sell to me but at the same time I realized that mankind needed a moral code to live by so the ten commandments would provide good basis. In grade school when I studied about the American civil war, I realized the horror of war but instead of saying that all war must be banished, I realized instead the absolute futility of that argument because I had already encountered the school yard bully.
I didn't need a philosopher to tell me that it was very likely that bullys would always exist therefore it would be much more logical to counter and neutalize the bully so that we could proceed with whatever game we wanted to play.

In the case of the Civil War I realized it was the manner in which it was waged that was so stupid---I didn't need an intellectual to tell me that.

There will always be intellectuals to refine the way we think---but there will always be bullys to contend with---it is sheer folly to think otherwise.

I think it is time for the intellectuals to stop acting so superior, and for the pragmatists to step back and take another look----perhaps if we joined forces to combat a common enemy---terrorism.

0 Replies

I'm going to link in another political thread here, as a case in point to my final paragraph... http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2142&highlight=

0 Replies

Walter, There's an interesting article in the "Opinions" page of today's San Jose Mercury News that supports the thesis of your post. In the article, he describes the recent Washington Post poll, and makes the following observations. "A. 9 out of 10 would like to see evidence that war is necessary, and fewer than half say Iraq poses an immediate danger to the US. Conclusion? War is okay even if it's not justified. B. 6 in 10 support using US forces to topple Saddam, but fewer than 5 in 10 wants to see US ground troops in the fight. Conclusion? Let's not have anybody in the US uniform get hurt. C. 6 in 10 favors a nuclear response if Saddams uses any WOMD on US troops. Conclusion? If they fight back, nuke 'em! What's a little collateral damage." It's not only GWBush that is crazy. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

fishin, Sometimes, in discussions, when speaking of future events, it's rather impossible to provide "evidence." All we can do is provide our opinions. Sometimes, some of us will be right, and some of us will be wrong. But, we still have to wait until the predicted event happens. There might even be disagreement to whether the event will actually happen. They are all legitimate subjects for discussion. IMHO. c.i.

C.I. - You are absolutely correct that they are legit items for discussion but we can (and ideally should) be able to provide some evidence. If you have an opinion on something you came to form that opinion somehow so you can easily state your chain of logic for the opinion. i.e. "Since X and Y happened I believe Z will also happen.". This doesn't have to be quite so formal but it's just an example...

The idea here is to get away from the "Z will happen beacuse I said it will and if you don't like it that's to dang bad." method of discussion.

0 Replies

Tantor wrote:

Saddam tried to do exactly that. Our troops found WMDs on the tarmac of Iraqi air bases, waiting to be loaded onto the jets. We don't know why they weren't. It appears that the order was given, the weapons in many cases deployed, but the order not carried out.

You know that the order was given? But don't knoiw why it wasn't carried out? My call: in the absence oif fact you make a judgement call that supports your theories (in this case that the order to use WMDs was given) but when a fact doesn't support your ratiocinantion you disregard it (as in the fact that they weren't used).

My point was very simple, you used the lanching of the scuds to say Sadaam would use nukes just because he had them. Yet in the past he has had weapons that were not used and in the very situation he described he did not use warheads with WMD.

Tantor wrote:

We have in fact relinquished many of our nukes. We have invited the Soviets to inspect as we destroyed various missiles and bombers, leaving the pieces out in broad view so that they could be viewed by satellites. Surely you have seen photos in the media of this happenning. For example, we have chopped up much of our B-52 fleet at Davis Monthan AFB, the boneyard for AF aircraft.

We gave up nukes because it's overkill. We don't need as many as we had and it was a smart move to relinquish them. If you have thousands but only need 100s it's a good idea to disarm a bit. If you have single digits and need hundreds it will be a more painful concession.

Equating our willingness to destroy (or simply dismantle and shelve in some cases) warheads to the utter disarmament of one's arsenal is silly. There is no comparison. Our arms reductions were reciprocated by our competitors in the geopolitical scene, what Sadaam must do will not be reciprocated by anyone.

I think that it's reasonable to wait for the threat of force before conceeding this. He has nothing to gain by disarming except the removal of hostilities. If the hostilities didn't exist neither would a valid motive for disarmament exist and it would defy reason if he did so without needing to do so to save his hide.

Tantor wrote:

We do in fact host a large contingent of Germans at Holloman AFB, NM. It is where all their pilots train to fly F-4s. Nobody twisted our arm to make it happen. They are foreign troops. They are on our soil. Questions?

What's the ratio of American troops on German soil and German troops on our soil? Also note whether German troops are allowed to operate or conduct missions of any sort from our soil and then look at how our troops on theirs are there to do precisely that.

Maybe no arm twisting but certainly a big carrot. We come out on the good end of this deal.

Tantor wrote:

Look up the difference between race and culture, Craven. There is one, you know. Arabs who grow up in our culture adopt our reliance on reason while those who grow up in the Mideast do not. It is not race at issue, but culture. That is why I said our culture is superior to theirs, which is true, rather than our race is superior to theirs, which is not true.

Resorting to cheap race baiting should be beneath you, Craven. Raise your game.

I know the difference. There is still a race by the same name and it's a common euphemism or bigots to decry cultures instead of races. Cultural superiority is curcumstantial in large part and this is a fact that is often missed by bigots. If you are willing to differentiate between these situations then it will be closer to an unbiased claim.

But claiming that Arabs only respond to force is silly. Humans in general are like wheelbarrows, they only go as far as they are pushed. It can be said that almost any nation on earth only responds to force. There have ben very few nations that conceded where concession was not going to be enforced through vuiolence.

There are many problems with Arab culture (their zealous religiousness, their undereducation, the inequality for their citizens and much more) and any of those could be used to claim that their culture is currently inferior (a claim I have no qualm with if based on fact).

But you choose to use a quality that is nearly universal.

a) It's a rare entity that compromises with a percieved enemy without being forced to or gaining something from it.

b) Most strongmen rely heavily on military means and usually do what they want unless the thread of force exists. This is typical of the despot and not exclusive to any culture.

My qualm with your comment is that it's not just Arabs who only repsond to force. Every nation tends to compromise only if the situation merits it. The threat of force is a great motivator.

In most cases reasoning with a country with an incredible amount of leverage is not much of an option. Stalling them till the threat of force materializes is logical in some cases.

0 Replies

Not to be picky, but surely German pilots are not paying hard earned Deutch Marks to learn to fly the F-4? Maybe the F-111?

0 Replies

fishin, Just food for thought: Look at all the financial pundits who predicted that our economy will be on the upswing in 2002, using as their 'evidence,' the whole of the US economy. Unemployment rates, inventories, rate of inflation, interest rates, consumer confidence, consumer spending, consumer debt, and all those 'evidence' they felt supported their opinions. Guess what? Most of their opinions were wrong! It was my opinion in late 2001 that our economy will not show any uptick for a minimum of two years. c.i.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Not to be picky, but surely German pilots are not paying hard earned Deutch Marks to learn to fly the F-4? Maybe the F-111?

Pssst! They pay in Euros now! lol

No F-111's. German Tornado's actually...

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9612/FR9612d.htm

0 Replies

The US, The UN and Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know