The US, The UN and Iraq

Lets see here, c.i. ...

US Population: 300,000,000 (close enough, for the sake of a round number)

540,000 Demonstrators (your figure)

540,000/300,000,000 = .0018%

I think The Administration is listening.



timber

Poll yesterday in Globe and Mail...15% of Canadians think it ok for US/Britain to go in outside of UN authorization. The rest of will therefore not vote for the President in the next election if he should so decide. This figure bound to change however, if the Mrs does add some Barbarella duds to her wardrobe.

timber, Those numbers do not represent all the people against an aggressive attack on Iraq. They are a very small representation of the total. c.i.

ci

timber knows..he's just feeling feisty this sabbath morn.

funnily ? i found these in today's farmer ...- about the only link on voting i could find that didn't seem to be hooked to a particular party

Given those stats, i think that anyone showing up to demonstrate in the U.S. is impressive.

These numbers are more telling:

Invade based on Bush Administration evidence 23
Invade only after UN inspectors find evidence of weapons 52
Not invade regardless of what UN inspectors find 19
No opinion 6

Most of us will support the invasion of Iraq only after the UN inspectors find evidence of WMD.

c.i.

The Foreign Affairs article Blatham cites frames some of the issues well enough, but the argument offered skips over some important logical possibilities and ignores facts related to them. In short it is opinion, informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless.

One section Blatham quoted I found intriguing in its content, some of which I agree with.

Quote

"It (the U.S.) may well believe that the constraints of international agreements and organizations are not necessary, since U.S. values and power are all that is needed for world order. But in reality, those same international constraints provide far better opportunities for leadership than arrogant demonstrations of contempt for others' views, and they offer useful ways of restraining unilateralist behavior in other states. A hegemon concerned with prolonging its rule should be especially interested in using internationalist methods and institutions, for the gain in influence far exceeds the loss in freedom of action. "

Surely Blatham will recognize the "straw man" in the phrase, "than arrogant demonstrations of contempt for other's views", - clearly a reference to our rejection of the Kyoto and ICC treaties. The facts of the matter are clear in that we have not rejected any treaty on these matters, but only the specific ones negotiated in forums dominated by European powers which often appear to us to be chiefly motivated by the desire to tame an unruly United States.

The last sentence in the quote, "A hegemon concerned with ..." is well stated and often a true characterization of events. Often, but not always. The truth is that in the WTO, for example, we have experienced a net loss in economic power, even with the new influence on that organization factored in. We do benefit however from the stabilization of trade regimes that it brings.

While it is true that the United States does continue to value its sovereignty more than perhaps do many of the European states (and states that emerged from the British Empire such as Canada), it is a fact that both sides in this matter are pursuing their self-interest. There is nothing altruistic in the surrender of sovereignty by the states of the EU: they are working to create a rival hegemon, and Canada has already taken steps to position itself economically with them.

It would be refreshing if Blatham would occasionally note that the U.S.is far from alone in preserving its sovereignty. Russia, China, India, and Indonesia all act in a similar manner, and all have the potential to seriously challenge our (and Canada's) interests. Why does he so persistently single out the United States for this criticism?

A very good question, I think.

ehBeth, Thanks for providing the information on voter turnout. It reflects a true picture of why demonstrations in this country seems minimized by just looking at percentages to the total population. c.i.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030119/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc_2




This may be a bit inconvenient for those who assume The Administration is bent on War for The Sake of War.



timber

Blatham,

I've reviewed a number of my posts, and must admit that you are correct in identifying several of my statements as straw dogs. I've allowed myself to emotionally react to what appears to be a constant stream of anti-American sentiment from you and others. Gravitas, gravitas.

I've read the Foreign Affairs article, and agree with you that it deserves a full and careful reading. I found it to be mostly a balanced and accurate analysis of the current situation that exists in foreign affairs. I'm less impressed with the author's remarks in the paragraph you chose to quote, and than with the concluding paragraph immediately following:



It seems that the author may have chosen Scylla over Charybdis. The problem should be instead to find some course between the two, IF any exists. In the absence of that middle-course, I choose Charybdis.

I want a recount! How many thousand?. Seems to be a minor disparity of numbers here.

Poll yesterday in Globe and Mail...15% of Canadians think it ok for US/Britain to go in outside of UN authorization. The rest of will therefore not vote for the President in the next election if he should so decide.

Then I must insist we do not give Canadians the right to vote for American presidents.

I appreciated Condy Rice's comments on the Anti-war demonstrators. (paraphrased)
We rejoice in their right to march in dissent of our govt's policies; and are glad they don't have to worry about their pictures being taken; being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and having their tongues cut out, as is Saddam's practice...

It is the warrior, not the protestor, who guarantees the right of dissent. Grant that our warriors never loose sight of this.



timber

george and asherman

Thanks kindly for wading through the piece.

George...the example you give of a straw man isn't one. We can clarify by PM if you wish.

As to why I address my concerns re the US and not China or elsewhere, because the US is singularly influencial in the world (and because there aren't any Chinese evident here in this discussion). And because I consider 'american exceptionalism' a dangerous example of nationalist hubris.

timber

I don't think the administration is bent on war with no other option acceptable.

Asherman

That is gracious of you. Quickly, on the 'anti-American' nature of my (and others') posts...I sent a PM to timber and suggested he might forward it to you as it states my opinion on this matter. Though it might get rather heated, this perhaps ought to be the subject of a thread.

I too found this a thoughtful article. But I don't see evidence in the text that the author concludes as you assume. His last sentence (from your quote above) suggests he and you agree on a middle path. I suppose the only other point I might make is that if a middle path is difficult, it will be folks of the dominating culture who are likely to be least upset by the order of things. If it were (a newly hatched and democratic) China enforcing stability and order, would we be so content?

Lash quotes Condoleeza Rice This would be so very much more compelling if, for example, the US had not turned a blind eye to the gassing of Kurds when it happened, or if Ari or Condi had given even one speech before 9-11 regarding the humanitarian atrocities of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Though what she says is true, the selectiveness of her indignation is just a bit problematical. And, of course, many of those marching would have had their pictures taken (not by tourists).

And if the United States had not turned a blind eye to the gassing of the Kurds (which we didn't, but only failed to immediately bring military force to bear on Saddam), wouldn't you then have accused us of being self-appointed policement acting without proper warrant? The religious excesses of the Taliban, and other Islamic states, were and are deplorable in our eyes, but they are soveriegn nations and it isn't our place to dictate a nation's religious leanings -- is it? It was the Taliban's harboring and sponsorship of the Al Queda network that brought American's to that remote part of the world, not the American preferance for an open and free society.

I was responding, but Asherman said it so much better.

Where was Canada, Italy, ANYONE ELSE when the Kurds were gassed? And it is the convenient flip side of the charge that America doesn't mind her business. We 're damned if we do and damned if we don't, depending on prevailing winds...

First, I have no idea what kettle you think I am calling black.

Second, it seems to me the administration's position has been the same all along; Saddam is a threat and we will do whatever it takes to neutralize that threat. How do you think they have wavered from that position?

Criticisms of U.S. "national hubris" would be less fatuous if regional powers or even the vaunted UN had stepped in to limit the slaughter in Bosnia, the depredations of the Taliban, or even to enforce the many languishing, eight year old Security Council resolutions regarding the disarmament of Iraq.

Sadly, the "national hubris" of the United States was required to get corrective action of any kind on these matters going. What then is the real underlying problem?

Lash

You avoid the point. A pawn shop dealer who has been quite undemanding of original purchase invoices for the color TVs that Fred brings him each week, doesn't make a credible spokesperson for closing down the opposition across the street who has 'stolen goods' on premises.