The US, The UN and Iraq

Blatham is likely on the boards this morning but if not, I don't see any violations of the membership agreement here. There are statements that may approach a deleterious intent but only should be taken as an insult if one wants to volunteer themselves. Let's not try to play this out as martyrs or pariahs of virtue. I'm unable to get into anybody's head as to whether they are itching for a war or not so I've been willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I've read mostly some very rational discourse on either side although some of the rhetorical assumptions make me squirm a little.

perception, if ever I acted like you the whinning would be so loud from the extreme ring wing that it would be a flood everyone must cross- I assume you live in caves-glass houses destroyed a long, long time ago!

To be honest, Perception, I'd discounted you a while back because you seemed to duck out of the line of fire, so no, I didn't have you particularly in mind when I typed that. Nor will I in the future, most likely.

Asherman, As we know well, our political leaders are fair game. I don't know any political leader, certainly recently, who hasn't come in for often outrageous insults and smears. If you feel the smear personally, you are joining many in America who have seen other leaders they admire dragged through the muck.

So the current administration is fair game. I don't go in for smears, sexual innuendos, or attacks on a politician's personal life -- I go in for disagreement on policy, countering rhetoric, examining a leader's business and political past as well as his current policies; and I have (this is the part which may trouble you) deep suspicions about Bush. As a former US ambassador said to a meeting of a World Affairs Council in my nearest city last night, this administration came in with a desire to replace negotiation with unilaterism and a press towards US hegemony. If you read the administration's own policy statements and look at the history of those putting them together, you know that is indisputable.

Many, many people -- more than half in this country and millions more overseas -- find this administration's policies and actions to be a frightening and even criminal undertaking. We will stand up against this administration wherever we can.

And yes, I think militarism is in itself atrocious. Obviously, that doesn't mean I think individual soldiers are. Nor is a standing army which defends us and which is not linked to preemptive or aggressive ambitions under fire from me! But keep in mind that there are thousands (conservatively) of Vietnam vets who saw action, who saw the military from the battlefield, and who now work actively against war and who have harsh words to say about military leaders.

Like so many institutions which should be kept on a short leash, the military have become self-sustaining, top-heavy and bloated thanks to their close relationship with the defense industry. Worst, they often use words like "patriotism" to protect themselves while they have become, in fact, one of our most unpatriotic institutions, bleeding dollars away from education, infrastructure repair, healthcare, and indeed "homeland security." Again, that doesn't mean that all who have worked with them are stinkers. Obviously not. But in my view anyone who goes on to defend the military establishment is defending deep corruption.

Deep corruption is what I see in the Bush administration. But I don't personally set out to insult even those herein who defend either Bush or the generals. I think these supporters are wrong, sometimes dangerously wrong with respect to the good of the nation, but they are often people of good will. Ignorance -- yes, ignorance -- IS playing a big part in keeping the administration afloat. Some of it is willful ignorance, some of it stems from laziness or the almost forgiveable inability to accept that something American could so closely resemble that long-term Paraguayan dictatorship.

It's important for those of us who feel strongly to shout out when we can. I great admire those who do and think they are the ones who are doing their country the greatest service.

"...So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong...."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

It may be a fact that some apply the label of "War Monger" and that some perceive the war, or any war, to be "IMMORAL". However, neither are "Facts"; both are nothing more than personal assessments.


I believe it a fact some participants in this thread sometimes push the limits of civil discourse, I believe it a fact that some oppose the war and that some support the war, I believe it a fact that labels and buzzwords are not facts.

timber

BillW

Feel better now?-----can we get back to the issues?

"perception, if ever I acted like you the whinning would be so loud from the extreme ring wing that it would be a flood everyone must cross"
BTW---what is the ring wing?(LOL)

Asherman

re 'intemperate language directed against Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsefeld'...(note I kept in your salutary titles)

Any official elected or appointed to a post of power and priviledge is absolutely open for comment, criticism and satirization. It not only goes with the territory in a democracy, it must occur. And here is precisely where, I'd suggest, a military background is evident in your posts and in your thinking, where counter-intention and counter-voices are seen as a negative. When people like myself (or the majority of western world citizens) think these guys are dangerous fools or ego-maniacs, then we are obliged as citizens to yell it from rooftops. If enemies are 'stengthened', tough luck. If we don't do it, we are all weakened anyway. You say we ought to enjoy freedom of speech, but you talk out of both mouth sides on this.

Tres makes a similar point for freedom of speech, with the proviso that we ought to be aware of consequences. Again, this so obviously applies to any viewpoint expressed here, so why bother entering it into the discussion.

And as regards 'we just protecting our country'...so, who isn't? You are likely offended by my idea and statement that Bush unconstrained poses a greater real danger to peace and liberty than does Sadaam constrained, but your offence, though unfortunate, is certainly not going to inhibit my pointing to all the reasons I think it's true.

perception

Everyone thinks their views based on reality and common sense. That's part of the point. As regards hitting Iraq after it's attack on Kuwait, or going against the Taliban in Afghanistan, or into Kosovo....yes, justifiable (though with the first two there was precious little self reflection on US culpability, another tendency I see in this nationalism displayed). But this situation is different in a whole set of ways.

Did any of you guys read the links I posted at the onset of this discussion? Did any of you go to the Frontline link? I am aghast at how willing you all are to excuse the deceitfulness of these guys presently in charge and how content you are to follow along.

Joe Nation, regarding the question you asked: Yes, I would support war with Iraq if all of the requirements listed by Tom King were met.

That is a very important and timely question and hasn't really been seriously addressed. I think many of us who are absolutely opposed to aggression without the unanimous support of the UN Security Council would be willling to give our support if the legal and necessary steps were taken to make an attack one that had world wide support. I just don't want the US to make the rules up while the game is in progress.

It would be interesting to know how many protesters would lend their support in that case. It might even give the anti-war cause some necessary arguing points by making it clear that the protests would diminish significantly if the US would stop its aggressive stance.

This protest movement isn't only supported by those who would oppose war under any circumstances, but by those who are appalled by the position of those in leadership in the US government. I am so offended by gw's blatant ignorance of what this country stands for and what has made the US a truly great power, that I will protest the war and all that this government stands for until he is voted out of office.

I am not a peacenik, I understand the need for war at times when nothing else will work, even though I wish that the human race could handle its problems with more intelligence than resorting to violence. As long as psychopaths attain positions of power, there will always be a need for war. IMHO.

I have read Asherman, Roger, steissd and timber with appreciation, even though I disagree with them, because much of what they say makes sense--I just don't agree with their timing.

Steissd wrote:
"The protests last weekend and the anguish in the polls represent something genuine, a force that Mr. Bush will have to reckon with and that some of his foreign allies may not survive. But what the antiwar camp offers as an antidote to fear is a false sense of security. In the short run, war is perilous. In the long run, peace can be a killer, too."

This is a thoughtful and honest opinion, beautifully expressed. What I find ironic is that Bush doesn't care to reckon with the force of the protesters. He has dismissed them as insignificant.

Also, many of us in the antiwar camp do not have a false sense of security. We are just as worried as the rest of you at the dangerous potential of saddam. This is where Joe Nation's post comes in: many of us would love to see saddam obliterated, but with the support of the UN, not because an arrogant ass wants to play war or avenge his father or capture control of immense oil resources.

There is real danger in waiting for UN support. Saddam is a loose cannon, but I think there is more danger in allowing a tyrant get his way with immediate gratification instead of patiently going through channels--a tyrant named bush. If the aggressive cowboy arrogance were replaced with intelligent, thoughtful analysis and respect for the positions of the rest of the world, I think the US would have received the support it needs long ago.

(Putting on guide hat now)

This is a tricky time. War, or the potential of it, plus other issues each of us may consider deeply important, can stir us up. And we are, most of us, well stirred.

But let's keep an eye to each of us ourselves in what we say and how we say it. It is little more excuseable to respond to a 'flame' than to begin it. And where not responded to, it dies an ignoble death.

Ul -- I heard that CBS report on the radio this morning and am glad you found it and put in a link. Well done. It's an important piece of the puzzle and something many of us suspected. I hope Blix and his colleagues get knighted, Nobel-ed, covered in flowers, kissed by fair maidens, whatever else anyone else can think of, for the job they're doing under the most difficult of circumstances.

Diane, Very well said:
"There is real danger in waiting for UN support. Saddam is a loose cannon, but I think there is more danger in allowing a tyrant get his way with immediate gratification instead of patiently going through channels--a tyrant named bush. If the aggressive cowboy arrogance were replaced with intelligent, thoughtful analysis and respect for the positions of the rest of the world, I think the US would have received the support it needs long ago."

timber, why did you take my statement out of context and not take into consideration the full jist of the statement; ie, going back to Asherman's statements which are as you said:



"ALSO"

The whole point is lost - my argument was a success in understanding Asherman's contention; ie, irony-

Guess what that does to your argument! Why didn't you address the beginning, not the end - or all together?

I'm sure the same could be written of any number of your remarks, yet I manage to refrain.

Dianne wrote:

"If the aggressive cowboy arrogance were replaced with intelligent, thoughtful analysis and respect for the positions of the rest of the world, I think the US would have received the support it needs long ago".

Your post was very well written and thoughtful---thank you and I know it wasn't addressed to me but since this an open forum, please allow me to take issue with one item in your conclusion.

If I remember correctly, everyone, perhaps not you, was very supportive of the views and actions of Colin Powell when it appeared that he was the lone voice of reason in the white house. Now that it is obvious that he too has come to the conclusion that further diplomatic action will be pointless many anti-war people have turned on him. Perhaps you are not one of those but my point is that perhaps he is justified in hardening his position because he has information that we are not privy too. Colin Powell is a man of high integity who possesses the highest moral values and do you think for one minute that he would not resign if he did not fully agree with the Presidents position. He has everything a man could want----most importantly he has the respect of all who know him----do you honestly think he would for one minute associate with anyone that the anti-war folks issue their insults to if they indeed were guilty----????

In the editorial pages of the San Jose Mercury News this morning by a Arlen Comford of Menlo Park:

"Recently, in a Washington Post article, Condole3eza Rice compared the reluctance of France and others to support war against Iraq to the appeasement of Nazi Germany before WWII. This was a comparaison of a most powerful nation, Germany, and one of the weakest, Iraq.
Here are some comparisons she didn't make.
Hitler registered Jews and synagogues, Bush registered Muslims and has the FBI counting and identifying mosques.
HItler held secret tribunals. Bush held secret and military tribunals.
Hitler passed the Engabling Bill for the safety of the Germans by "temporarily" suspending civil liberties. Bush passed the Patriot Act to secure the safety of the American people, which limits civil liberties. Hitler deprived the Jews of their citizenship. The leaked Patriot Act II would allow the Bush administration to revoke citizenship.
Hitler deprived the Jews of their basic human rights without due process. Bush deprived accused American citizens of their basic human rights, detaining them without due process.
HItler set up isolated concentration camps for political opponents. Bush sent illigal combatants and terrorists to isolated military prison camps.
Hitler killed over 50 million people. Bush authorized the use of nuclear weapons on countries that refuse to give up weapons of mass destruction. This was a comparasion of a powerful leader, HItler, and the most powerful leader, Bush. Arlen Comfort, Menlo Park"

c.i.

If THAT was published in Germany, I'm rather sure: we would be invaded! :wink:

timber's online too -- good.

Walter, Invaded? c.i.

Can anyone show me any source which supports the claim that Bush is registering Muslims?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-2-2003_pg3_3