The US, The UN and Iraq

craven

I'd just like to express my admiration for the posts you have written on this thread. They are consistently careful in thought and balanced in tone. I find them exemplary.

Blatham

I did not attack you ---I attacked your evidence which is flawed because it is distorted. The authors of both the links started with the premise that the Bush administration has corrupt motives for their actions and then they both build a case with examples taken out of context and then throw in their own opinions. This type of evidence leads the reader to the desired conclusion. Now if you want to delude yourself that you are providing evidence that will convince any reader that your point of view is correct and mine is wrong then so be it.

perception

No, you did not attack me. Nor did I say you had. What you did do (and you've done it again above) is to avoid the specifics of an argument with an attack on the author (now, two authors).

You say the evidence is flawed because distorted. Exactly which argument is flawed and where precisely is the distortion? You use the plural here, so you ought to elucidate more than a single instance.

You say there are 'examples taken out of context'. Which examples? What is their proper context. And then, how is the conclusion effected?

It is not a matter of your political affiliation or of mine (I'm Canadian). It is a matter of taking the time and effort to read, think and speak carefully. There are likely a number of things Anton Scalia and I would disagree on, but the care and rigor necessary for valuable civic discourse wouldn't be on that list.

I agree -- summarily dismissing the facts in both articles as "out of context" and "distorted" isn't going to work. If one believes the conclusions to be distorted, that's an opinion on an editorial. That's what editorial writing is and one is always free to draw their own conclusions. If you're going to attack the factual content, you have to disprove it point by point. If you can't, caveat emptor! Again, read Paul Johnson's book if you want to read a history of the US that is heavily editorialized, slanted toward right wing conservatism. The conservative commentators take facts and extrapolate on them on a daily basis and many just swallow their conclusions without individual thinking. I realize each side believes the other side is taking the commentary ipso facto, but one can try and determine how much you agree with what conclusion is reached instead of profiling the writer and then discount everything that is written with entirely subjective comments about it being "distorted" and "out of context."

Hello Craeven,

Your point about focussing on the logistics is a valid point, but the very reason for this continuing conflict IS ideology, ALL conflicts are bases on ideology. We may have different perspectives of the ideology we believe in, but right is right, freedom and democracy is right to us in the west, and when that is under threat we will respond to remove that threat.

I don't think it is under threat.
I strongly disagree that this conflict is about ideology (unless we do not share a remotely similar definition of the word).

And I think moral absolutism in geopolitics is naive.

If it is ideology, and not particularly Sadam's as I still have to figure out just what that is other than despotism, is it "our version of God is more powerful than your version of God?" I can't characterize religious beliefs as ideology at all -- they're beliefs (faiths, if you want). not axioms.
Of course, America is against dictatorships of any form but that can't be the only criteria as we aren't having a lot of problem with dealing with the Chinese (they also have a parliament but it's debatable how powerful it is in determining the course of their government).

LW

Yes, it's very easy to step into the delusion that a mouthed cliche is an acceptable substitute for thought.

The link following is, I think, an exceptionally nuanced piece on the present state of affairs in Aphghanistan, by a writer who supported military action against the Taliban. The consequences, both positive and negative, will apply in a post-war Iraq, if not precisely. http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,838892,00.html?=rss

I have a couple of minutes this morning, though not many, so permit me to rather briefly express my thoughts on the Iraq, US, Un situation.

First, I have come to hold the firm opinion must not act unilaterally in any conceivable (or at least likely) situation for two reasons.

The first is the matter of principle (which others have spoken of earlier). For the US to act regardless of intenational community support is for the US to act in direct contradiction of a central value it (and I) hold dear - that is, to toss democractic decision making out the window in favor of 'we know best and we can so we will'. Of course, it is precisely such arrogance and arbitrary exercise of power which your founders sought to thwart in their design for your nation.

The second is the matter of precedent. If it is justifiable for the US to so act, then on what basis might we insist that China may so act with the 'terrorists' in Tibet and the 'regime' in Taiwan? Or on what rationale do we argue to the Russians that they ought not to lay waste to 'evil' Chechnya.

On these two points alone, I think the US cannot act without international agreement under any circumstances conceivable (one could, I suppose, conceive that the EU is filled with rabid anti-Americans, but such a view would not be very credible to anyone outside of a rather paranoid mindset).

But this particular enterprise involving Iraq is beset by other factors, such as spoken to in the links I have offered above and as many of you have brought up.

The US acted unilaterally after the sinking of the Maine, now proven to be an accident!

We have technology how that can determine errors made in the past -- we have the technology to scrutinize the Iraqis weapons stash unprecedented in history. The next few months are going to determine where this administration has their head and their heart -- they are listening to Colin Powell in involving the UN and I hope rational thinking will prevail.

Blatham

As I am preparing my critique of your two pieces of "evidence" as you and everyone has requested, I checked in for further quidance.
Your referenced article on Afghanistan was very well written , informative and without political agenda. Had your first two links been of the same high quality, if would not now be necessary to waste valuable time defending my position.

Such is life and who knows, this could be a useful exercise and a learning experience.

Blatham

BTW---Your "firm opinion" that we should not act unilaterally has been overtaken by events. In case your memory has failed, the vote in the UN Security Council was 15 - 0. That seems fairly "Multilateral" to me.

This result speaks volumes for the diplomatic ability of Colin Powell and the US, UN ambassador but it also speaks loud and clear for the strong position displayed by the President.

Negroponte and Powell get points but it has more to do with the wish to avoid our cold shoulder and the wish to stay relevant.

Furthermore, they'd go ape poop if we determine the breach in a situation that is iffy. And the unilateral cry will be rasied again.

I do, however, think that it will not come to that. On Dec 8th there will likely be said breach. We should let the inspectors continue anyway because calling it a lie without letting anyone verify it would be insulting to the council.

If Iraq pulls a stunt like pulling guns on the inspectors almost everyone will consider it a breach. If we claim they lie about the Dec 8th declaration it will be a horse of a different color.

I'm fairly certain they will lie (or at least leave out what is going to have to be a very comprehensive list as it requires a listing of all dual use facilities and evrything is dual use) but if we call it a lie without giving inspectors a chance to prove it the council will cry foul.

This is why I hope we play this one well. It's going to be tricky.

Blatham and any readers interested in the "examination of evidence"

My basic objection to both these articles being submitted as "evidence to support a position" in a debate is that evidence must be factual and not contaminated by Bias, half truths, or any type of "murky" evidence that is designed to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion.

Let's start with the first article with the "conclusion" evoking title"George Bush against the world". The title is designed by an author to catch the "attention" of any targeted reader. In this case, other liberals because the author already suspects she will not change any opinions, so she just wants to "rally" more liberals to her predetermined conclusion. And of course other liberals wants psychological re-inforcement for their already formed opinion that "poor George is isolated against the world"

Now for the "out of context" claim I made. The author extracts a paragraph from a speech made by NCA Condoleeza Rice: Now the author knowing that the reader will not have the text of the speech , somehow takes issue with the statement which I now quote, " An earthquake of the magnitude of 9/II can shift the tectonic plates of international politics. The international system has been in flux since the collapse of Soviet power. Now it is possible---indeed probable---that that transition is coming to an end. If that is right, then...this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity...a period akin to 1945 to 1947, when American leadership expanded the number of free and democratic state----Japan and Germany among the great powers----to create a new balance of power that favored freedom." end quote.

Since we don't have the actual text that follows the author now takes the reader "by the nose" and starts to lead the reader along her road to the final destination, by saying: "Since taking office no one in the Bush Administration has ever publicly defined the goals of it's foreign policy, -----even though its approach has been consistent throughout". Wow---is this a "loaded" statement or what?
Let's examine this statement:
--"Since taking office no one in the Bush Administration has ever publicly defined the goals of it's foreign policy". She has just proclaimed to the world that, My God this bunch doesn't have a foreign policy----how could we let them do that! But yet----in the next breath she says---even though it's approach has been consistent throughout. What? If they don't know what their goals are, how can their approach be consistent. Or---You could say---well I know that they have goals, I'm just going to make the reader think they don't----now which is it?

If you're a reader just looking for re-inforcement then you don't take issue with wording such as that---you just swallow it. But---if you're thinking about what it is that the author is really try to convey----you start to say---HoHumm just another cleverly written article put forth to forward a particular agenda.

This is not evidence and should be dismissed by the judge.

As for the other article, I dismiss that as just a mass of Rhetorical Garbage.

Evidence must be factual and not contaminated in any way to be considered relevant enongh to support an argument---this stuff doesn't qualify.

Blatham

If you will remember, I didn't take issue with either of your points which are essentially correct and I fully support the Administrations position. It was your condescending tone and flawed evidence for your position. If you as a Canadian want to give advice, I suggest you advise your government on how to stem the flow of illegal immigrants who then try to come into this country and blow things up. ( anyone who cares can look it up on page 7 of this discussion)

Now if I'm out of line I would like the moderator, or anyone else in this discussion to tell me now.

The validity of an opinion is not contingent on nationality. And I suspect that you suspect that your jab at Canada was a low blow. People enter from Canada because the countries share a close relationship.

Craven
My point was their immigration policy is even more out of control than ours which even I find hard to believe.

Why do you say their immigration policy is out of control? My guess is that you'd prefer a more isolationist policy but why? As far as I know Canada doesn't have immigration problems.

Expecting Canada to guard our borders and keep track of our problems with visas (one of the highjackers had his visa extended after he was dead) is a an example of the denial that lead to 9/11. I guess some people want more of the same? It doesn't matter how they get in, they have to cross our borders through our officials. It's the blame game -- something I would expect from someone who aspires to being a politician. Good luck.