The US, The UN and Iraq

Asherman

Look, there's a reasonably good chance you and I could get on just fine over a pint and a discussion on something other than certain issues we are discussing. We could even disagree and still get on, which is what normally happens between folks. But you are doing things with sentences in your posts that frost me. Here... Look at how you frame this sentence. You portray two forces behind the debate, one good, one evil. NO room for grey. NO chance that the motives of those 'honorable' men aren't entirely honorable. ALL instances of speech calling them or their ideas into question are wrong. NO chance these policies are themselves wrong. These are absolutes and intellectually indefensible as absolutes. Elsewhere, when you take more care, as in your previous post, you acknowledge there might be some grey. But not in that sentence above.

Or take this one... Who here 'prefers' Saddam and Kim to barbers from Ohio? This is so exaggerated and twisted as to be totally false. Why did you even bother to write that sentence?

You finish with I said somewhere that I disagree with Federalism? A strong military? A sound economy? Your views on these are not 'clearly in conflict' with mine, as I haven't stated them. Again, why write such a sentence?

Not really a Preemptive Attack, if you consider Iraq has been in consistent violation of a number of the agreed-to conditions of the 1991 Cease Fire. A plausible case may be made that Iraq herself has abrogated the '91 agreement, thus ending the cease-fire and exposing herself to further hostile action.



timber

Upon consideration, I should have written "...we can consider the possibility that...", not that "...we now know that...". We don't know it, but it seems suggested by the numbers, if they are in fact legitimate.

Gulf nations are waning in it's support of the Bush war with Iraq. I wonder why? c.i.

Not according to Time Magazine.

Regarding barbers in Ohio, I distinctly remember...

tres, The news I heard was yesterday, January 17, 2003, while your Time magazine report is a few days old at best. c.i.

Way back on page 60 or so of this thread I decided that everything that was likely to be said, had been said, in some cases several times. I quit and went on to other things. This morning an idle perusal led me to review Blatham's two recent scoldings of Asherman and his recent posts.

Now I must confess that I do like Asherman's posts on most subjects - perhaps more importantly, I share his views. I find his descriptions and analysis usually complete, balanced and informative; positions clearly stated and with no disguised agenda; often laced with new (to me) information and generally very good prose style. Overall interesting and unusually refreshing. They can certainly be opposed by reasonable people, and one would hope that opposition would be graced with the same content, clarity, and (yes) objectivity that characterizes Asherman's efforts here.

It is difficult not to notice that Blathum, our forum guide, is a good deal more quick to point out the supposed rhetorical excesses of those whose views he opposes than those with whom he agrees. This is not a great fault - who can say he has not done something equivalent? Certainly I could not. However it has reached the point that it merits citation here.

Blatham's most recent admonishment of Asherman is telling. I will note that the Asherman post to which Blatham refers is, relative to his others, weak and defensive. Blatham is correct to a degree in some elements of his criticism, particularly with respect to the second quote. However Blatham is consistently far, far more sensitive to the use of perjorative terminology by those whose views he opposes than to those whose views he advocates. He is blind to his own ad hominem attacks on those whose views or actions he opposes, but demands exquisite sensitivity on the part of others.

Blatham has not elucidated what he would like to see done about the matters under discussion on this thread, so much as criticize the views of those who advocate or defend the viewpoint of the U.S. Government. That, of course is OK, but it is much easier to be a critic than it is to pose a concrete alternative plan which itself could be the subject of criticism.

That your source is newer does not in-and-of-itself mean its position is more valid.

george, From my perspective, I really think that both Asherman and Blatham brings two different opinions on a very sensitive subject. I find myself agreeing with both on different points of their arguments. Asherman is very good at supporting his position by example, but I can understand why blatham disagrees. I have yet to hear from Bush the necessity to go to war with Iraq; where is the threat? Where are the WMD? Where is the support of the world community? These are all very important questions for me and blatham. If we are ready for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq on the basis of fear and threat, there are many more countries in this world that I fear. Bush is willing to change the politics of war with a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. I can't agree with such a policy, no matter how fearful he or others may be, because most people in this world are against it. Opinions will change if Iraq strikes anybody first. Let's let the UN weapon inspectors do their jobs. Why the rush to war? c.i.

tres, Nor does your magazine. c.i.

Here's where our allies are at with the discovery of the empty warheads:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/860796.asp?0na=x220D4R0M#BODY

It appears Hungary will allow U.S. bases but in the Arab world we only have Qatar and Kuwait. I don't believe their governments are in total agreement to attack at this time. What's Colin Powell doing but issuing sound bites to support the administration's policies -- I don't see him overseas as when he helped build a coalition for the Afghan war. That's not good. Perhaps the administration is hoping for a new UN resolution to affirm a coalition but it remains to be seen if that will allow troop build up in the most important Arab state, Saudi Arabia or even in Turkey (probably more demographically important).

I was taken aback by Asherman's "strong central government," which, to me, means a bigger Federal government and certainly doesn't advocate the state's rights mantra of the right.

Scott Ritter made no money off his documentary and actually spent his own time and some of his own money.

The implication that anyone dissenting the administations policies towards Iraq is a Jane Fonda or that anyone who dissents these policies is not an honorable person who supports Americanism (whatever one perceives that is) is hardly a noble debating style.

A world survey shows that the majority of people in this world are unhappy with the US; they do not support the US war with Iraq.

http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_pew_global_attitudes.pdf

Another US survey shows that most Americans want our government to work on our economy - first and foremost.

c.i.

grrrrrr ... its best if I stay nuetral in the blatham/Asherman sparring match. Its kinda fun to watch, tho. I think they're fairly well matched. Asherman may have weight goin' for him, but blatham's a pretty nimble critter. I suppose, tho, they'll probably both realize neither is likely to secure real advantage, tire of the exercize, and agree to bark at one another from time to time, while picking nits in a sort of intellectual shared grooming ritual.
Neither appears to be in danger of running low on nits.



timber

This smacks a bit of, "Oh yeah? Well you're ugly!" :wink:

Seriously, my statement was clearly not intended to imply that my source was more valid, but simply to point out that the dates of publication teach us nothing about the relative value of either.

O-kay, I can buy that! c.i.

Throughout history superpowers were always the focus of discontent throughout the rest of the world. Some of this was justified due to excesses and errors of those societies. Much more, however was simply the tendency of human beings to envy those who have it better than they, and to blame others for their own plight.

If you consider that the Israelis and the Palestinians are each unhappy one with the other, you can see clearly that the fact that one is unhappy does not mean that viewpoint is justified, valid, or something upon which to base future decisions.

Many in Germany under Hitler would likely have responded to this survey that they were unhappy with the US. What would you have had us do with that information?

Many in Germany under Hitler would likely have responded to this survey that they were unhappy with the US. What would you have had us do with that information?



Another very good, valid point.

You can always twist truth into supporting any argument. For whatever reasons the world community is unhappy with the US does not change their 'feelings.' Heck, I'm unhappy with the US policies on a) tax cuts for the rich that will do little or nothing for our economy, b) policies that ignore our environment, c) "rhetoric" for war with Iraq, and d) GWBush in general. c.i.

Well, former CIA director James Wollsey just said in an interview

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,231338,00.html

"We start with Iran", because they are the weakest. He says that Hitler did less (up to 1936) than Saddan. The Europeans would act with their appeasement politic,like the acted after with Hitler, knowing about thousands of deaths in Germany.
...
"Oil is the lifeline for all industrial nations. ... We must take away the oil weapon from the Near East."

(I hope, some paper will report this, European only, I suppose.)