WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

http://www.4religious-right.info/religious_right_dominion_gov2.html

Quote:

"The Fifteen Percent Solution: How the Christian Right Is Building From Below To Take Over From Above": by Greg Goldin was originally published in the Nation in 1993.

Quoting moderate Republicans from Goldin's article, "What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing, " says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."

"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized, " says Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon. "Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected.

"Increasingly, they have the key say-so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate. In a state like Oregon, with 600,000 registered Republicans, it is possible for 2000 or 3000 people to control the state party apparatus. If they are outvoted by one or two votes, parliamentary manipulations begin, and after two or three hours of discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the more reasonable people with other things to do leave, and in the wee hours of the morning, things are decided. That's how they achieve their objectives."

0 Replies

george...any chance of me persuading you to sign up for a college course on moral philosophy? Your arguments, each of them, avoid moral questions completely. Were you aware of this?

You've noticed now that you structure your thinking, we can say quite often, I think, in binary opposites. I'm pleased you've noted this. But you also have a greedy appetite for absolutes.

You express surprise that I don't accept self-interest as the motivation behind the acts and policies of a state (and individual? you didn't say) But, what you quite curiously missed in what I said was "solely and only self-interest".

Take a look at Craven's posts again, if you would be so kind. We can take this key line

Quote:

No reasonable person expects America not to pursue its interests. What they might contend is that America uses methods that are not appropriate.

What could 'appropriate' here mean? It could be 'effective'...does it get the job done? Or, it could be 'legally permissable'...does it fall within some established code of conduct? Or it could mean 'morally justifiable'...is it evil?

If, as you suggest, each state is directed in it's policies by self interest alone, and, that this is not only historically 'true' but also 'true' in a prudential, or common sense view, then how can one fault Germany's treatment of Jews, for example. This is merely self interest at work, though perhaps not efficient or effective statehood. Or, if we use the second definition for 'appropriate' - it breaks a rule and rules aren't supposed to be broken because they are rules, so it was inappropriate to gas 6 million jews.

0 Replies

Quote:

According to the ratings of key organizations of the Religious Right, members of Congress who support their agenda overwhelmingly dominate the Republican Party. Since the Republican Party has majorities in both houses of Congress, Republican leaders set the agendas and chair the committees. They decide what bills will and won't come up for a vote. Comparisons to environmental scorecards show a strong correlation between high votes from the Religious Right and low votes from environmental groups,

The following is based on how Christian Coalition rated the United States Senate in 2001.

29 Senators voted with Christian Coalition 100% of the time. They were all Republican. 30 Senators received a 0 rating from Christian Coalition meaning they never voted with their issues. They were all Democrat.

If you add the Senators who voted with Christian Coalition 80% of the time, that makes 42 out of 49 Republicans that year who supported the Christian Coalition agenda and one out of 50 Democrats. If you add those who scored 20, 41 out of 50 Democrats and one Republican received very low ratings. The number of Senators in the middle is twenty - 10 Republicans, 9 Democrats and 1 Independent.

The following link gives you the full Christian Coalition rating of U.S. Senators, 2001 along with the Family Research Council rating of U.S. Senators, 2003. It also tells you the votes upon which the scores were based:

http://www.4religious-right.info/Christian_Coalition_Ratings.html

In 2002, three Democrats in the U.S. Senate -- the late Paul Wellstone (Minn.), Jean Carnahan (MO), and Max Cleland (GA) -- were replaced by Republicans who have received 100% from Family Research Council (FRC), the most powerful lobbying organization of the Religious Right today. FRC scorecards for 2003 give 100% scores to 38 out of 52 Republicans.

In 2001, 29 out of 49 received 100% from the Christian Coalition. (2003 scorecards not available yet.) Christian Coalition rates members of Congress on a variety of issues reflecting their general agenda. In 2001, along with the usual issues of family and reproductive rights, they were strongly opposed to campaign finance reform, environmental legislation, and gun control. They favored massive tax cuts, school vouchers, and Bush's Faith Base Initiative.

The Christian Coalition scorecard for the House of Representatives in 2001. 163 Republicans and 1 Democrat received scores of 100%. 32 Republicans and 3 Democrats received scores of 80%. 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats received scores of 60%. 12 Republicans and 22 Democrats received 40%. 1 Republican and 36 Democrats received 20%. 129 Democrats and no Republicans received 0.

http://www.4religious-right.info/religious_right_dominion_gov2.html

More later............

0 Replies

Nicely stated, Blatham.

0 Replies

Lola,

My father used to tell me there were three political parties represented in the Congress and only one of them was really important. They were Democrat, Republican, and Texas. That was in the days of Sam Rayburn and it was Texas that he considered as the important one.

The Democrats once completely controlled Texas politics. The phrase "yellow dog Democrat" originated there. It describes a Texan who would vote for a yellow dog if it was on the Democrat ticket. There were once lots of yellow dog Democrats in Texas. What changed?

The children and grandchildren of the voters who once voted exclusively for Democrats, now vote Republican. Why? Many have become more urban and middle class and now find their sympathies have changed with their lifestyles. Others find the Democrat party has changed and no longer represents their values. Evangelicals who once voted straight Democrat tickets are now increasingly voting Republican.

Is this a sign of something dangerous or of growing Evangelical control of the Congress? Not at all when you recognize that these Evangelicals once ruled the Democrat party in Texas. If it wasn't dangerous then why would it be dangerous now?

In Texas and many other states, Democrats perfected the art of gerrymandering safe districts for their candidates. Through various affirmative action inspired lawsuits they have also added other districts carefully engineered to protect minority Democrat candidates. Now with Republicans duly elected to control the State legislature, they are getting a little dose of their own medicine, and they can't stand it.

Doesn't seem like such a bad outcome to me.

0 Replies

Blatham,

I'm curious to know what would be the basis for the moral philosophy in a course you would find suitable? From what source would a moral standard acceptable to you arise?

The very well known rule that nations act to further their self interests as they perceive them is primarily an empirical observation. It has also been repeatedly put forward as a prudent guide by numerous political writers and philosophers. It is usually, but not always true in an empirical sense. It is almost always true in relation to the expectations of the political leaders who make the choices. Sometimes those expectations are proved incorrect, but the intent was nonetheless to advance self interest. I have made no suggestion that there is some kind causative mechanism at work here as in e.g. 'France did X, therefore X is in France's interest: or conversely that X is (objectively) in France's interest, therefore France will do X. Indeed the contrary is often the case.

His writings strongly suggest that Hitler believed that the extermination of Jews was in the interest of not only Germany but all of Europe, and the evidence suggests that many contemporary Europeans also came to accept this idea. Hitler and others acted on this belief. History has shown us that this view was wrong in that much misery befell Germany and Europe - not to mention the Jewish victims of this crime - as a result. This is quite distinct from the moral questions involved. Morally it was wrong under all constructs of self interest.

I advanced the idea that it is much more likely that France and Germany are, in the Iraqi matter, acting to advance some carefully calculated self interest, rather than merely rejecting the style and substance of George Bush's policies on Iraq. I put forward a very reasonable model for that self interest based on observable elements in their policy and actions that predated 9/11. I also offered a very persuasive argument suggesting the several advantages that will likely accrue to them as a result of such as strategy. Finally I pointed out that it is important for us to accurately understand these interests and their underlying motivations so that we don't allow ourselves to draw an incorrect conclusion from our estimate of the present situation.

I don't see that moral philosophy has much to do with any of this. I doubt that God or nature or Gia cares much whether the USA or the EU dominates the next few decades in the political life of the earth.

Questions of what action is appropriate as in 'likely to be effective', or as in 'lawful by some accepted construct', or even as in 'moral by some standard' do not relate very much to the distinction I was trying to make. The question as to which of these measures should trump which, and under what circumstances, have perplexed philosophers for centuries. I doubt that a university course would clear up the matter very much.

0 Replies

george, honey......... Either you don't know these people.......or you don't care. I prefer to believe that you just don't know them. I believe that you and I are not talking about the same group of people.

You must understand that I'm not referring to conservative, regular religious folks. I'm talking about fanatics. It's the fanatics who have taken over your party, and are trying to take over the federal government. They have done so by seducing the more reasonable, good ole guys who are conservative and pleasantly religious to collude with them. I can see why you and other more well balanced conservatives (Republican conservatives) want to ignore this fact.

I have personal knowledge of a person in a leadership position in the Christian Coalition who said, in 1996, when Buchanan broke off from the Republicans, that he knew the evangelicals (and by this he meant those like him, fanatics) couldn't win without the Republicans, but he also knew that the Republicans couldn't win without the evangelicals. In other words, he said, that they (the evangelicals) had the ability to lose the election for the republicans, but not enough votes to win on their own. And they were prepared to lose it for the Republicans if the deal wasn't made. So this is the deal they've made. And Buchanan's attempt failed for this reason. But it's not just a deal like any deal. It's a deal with the devil. And we'll all pay the price.

Have you visited any of their web sites? Do you really not believe they're dangerous?

It seems to come down to this. You're saying they're just another innocuous interest group. And I'm saying they're not. What I'm saying is based in my experience with them, your contention is based on ignorance of who and what they really are.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Craven,

I generally agree with what you wrote. My opinion is that Germany and France are counting on the U.S. to act in defense of itself (and inevitably all the Western nations as well), and are happy to pose as a friend of an inflamed Moslem while they help themselves in cementing a leadership role in the evolving EU and positioning it as an alternative to the U.S. in the eyes of the world.

It is not in our interest to see them succeed in this.

George,

In the past you justifiably criticized blatham for reading motivation into the minds of leaders. I think you have done the same here, perhaps only because I disagree with your accessment nevertheless I do think it fair to say your take involves at least a bit of guesswork.

I disagree with several fundamental facets of your post. Unlike most Americans I believe that the 'threat' to western civilization is hyperbolic. I also disagree that Europeans are trying to 'pose' as friends of the Muslims. Europeans have not shown much of a taste for Muslim culture, I note that Turkey is looking like Charles Barkley saying "can I play" to MJ and Bird because the EU thinks they are too Muslim or too Arab to join.

I also note that the opposition to the war wasn't necessarily born of a friendship with Muslims. IMO Europe has as little use for Muslim culture as most Americans do and their opposition was to our strategy and not necessarily a defense of our target.

0 Replies

Quote:

I advanced the idea that it is much more likely that France and Germany are, in the Iraqi matter, acting to advance some carefully calculated self interest, rather than merely rejecting the style and substance of George Bush's policies on Iraq.

I see, george, you think that Blatham was suggesting that it was Bush's "style" that turned off the French and the Germans. That he was "belligerent," an attitudinal thing rather than simply disregarding the needs and views of other nations (including those of France and Germany).

In a few posts back, I said this:

Quote:

Maybe the reason the French and Germans didn't go along with us is because they saw what Bush and Co. were up to, and didn't want to help him create the disaster that now exists in Iraq and the Middle East purely for the benefit of the U.S. and our desire to dominate the world by controlling the oil supply.

It's this administration's selfishness, bull headedness and disregard for the ideas and needs of other nations that has lost us their initial good will.

I agree with Craven, I don't think they're simply sitting back and riding on our coat tails. I believe what they said. They believe it was the wrong thing to do to attack Iraq. They didn't believe there were WMD and guess what, there were none after all.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't see that moral philosophy has much to do with any of this. I doubt that God or nature or Gia cares much whether the USA or the EU dominates the next few decades in the political life of the earth.

Questions of what action is appropriate as in 'likely to be effective', or as in 'lawful by some accepted construct', or even as in 'moral by some standard' do not relate very much to the distinction I was trying to make. The question as to which of these measures should trump which, and under what circumstances, have perplexed philosophers for centuries. I doubt that a university course would clear up the matter very much.

Clear up the matter?! Goodness, george...clear answers are what you already have in over-abundant plentitude. They are stuffed full in your pockets, dangling out from under your hat...

It is where you don't have clear answers that you quite disappear on us. You, our broad shouldered ex naval commander, become a mere whisp...a chimera...indeed, you are the very model of a modern-made ephemeral.

The consequences, and the ironies, which flow from the place you have arrived at here are not insubstantial however....

- moral considerations have no place in governance
- self-interest is all there is
- might does make right after all
- torture, or even rape, as a means of extracting information which may help the state in its self-interested pursuits, is simply realistic sometimes
- deceits communicated to the populace by leaders regarding acts and intentions are entirely appropriate and not problematical (frequency and content quite irrelevant)
- the US set out to invade and occupy Iraq without the slightest hint of any 'humanitarian' objective. There was and is no interest in others' suffering

Those ARE logical consequences of your argument, as you have now narrowed it down (a better example of 'narrow' I have seldom witnessed)

The ironies are likewise interesting, but let's just take one because I am beset by a virus, each teeny copy of which I visualize has the face of my ex mother in law, and I need to return to my cozy bed.

- a compassionate conservative, practicing theist, and a happy American who loves his constitution has arrived at a political philosophy which would gain no disagreement from Stalin or Pol Pot or Sadaam

- a secular humanist from Canada, who likes you personally, considers that you are the enemy

0 Replies

Since George is getting so much disagreement I wanted to mention that I agree with him in that I think the fears of faith based initiatives are exagerrated. I think the administration clearly has some faith based agenda items but that it's not making that much of a difference. They pick their battles well but our consitution is preventing much of what I guess that they'd like to do and that's one reason I agree that the constitution in flames is a bit of a hyperbolic metaphor.

I also think the concerns about the erosion of rights is exagerrated as well. The one thing I think is not, is the foreign policy agenda. That is my main qualm with this administration.

0 Replies

Craven -- I don't have a problem with faith-based initiatives in general, as long as they're done right and there's a choice, but with this administration's track record, I don't feel they should be entrusted with the program. I'd much prefer a fully secular administration working with religious and other social services on a viable program.

As for the erosion of rights, I'm a member of ACLU and got their latest info in the mail last night and have to admit it's even worse -- when laid out clearly -- than I'd thought. The need for a warrant is often preserved BUT the warrant is (by the new law) guaranteed by a secret proceeding. And that's just one example.

0 Replies

Tartarin,

I have a very fundamental distaste for religion. If I had my druthers religion would not exist, it's not just a personal choice for me, I'd rather live in a religionless society. So yeah, I'd prefer a secular government as well. I just don't share the assessment of the current administration's 'sins' as far as faith based initiatives are concerned.

In regard to the erosion of rights there are some things that bother me but there is enough resistance to them that I'm not too concerned.

Basically, what I'm saying is that they are often overstated, not that they don't exist.

0 Replies

Molly Ivins:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1472611.html

0 Replies

Lola,

You and Craven are perhaps suggesting that France and Germany became convinced that Bush's policy would lead to disaster, and therefore tried to steer us away from it, or at least to protect themselves from the awful consequences they saw coming if we acted against their advice. This is a variation on what was suggested earlier, namely that the overwhelming sympathy for America that followed 9/11would have certainly led the Europeans to actively support us had we only treated them with more consideration and been less aggressive and expressive of our willingness to act alone if necessary. Both scenarios are possible,and they have gotten a lot of play in the international press, but neither, in my view is either plausible or likely for reasons I have already given.

When one considers the actions and evident political strategies of France and Germany in the post Cold War era - including events that preceded 9/11 - as the context for the Iraqi decisions, a very different and much more powerful set of reasons for their behavior becomes evident. As I have suggested the governing self interest is more likely to be the intent of France and Germany to lead the EU in the development of an independent (of the USA) political and economic strategy in the decades ahead. This is a strategic question that dwarfs the Iraqi question in terms of its direct long term significance to the parties, and is therefore the more likely decisive element in their calculus. Some supporting observations;

The opposition to Bush's policies was played out by France particularly (and Germany as well) in the most public and politicized way possible - precisely the tactics least likely to persuade us to change course and most likely to create the greatest impact for Europe, led by France and Germany, as the counterweight to the United States in the world's political arena. That suggests something about motive.

Both countries had significant economic stakes in the future of Saddam's regime. Outside of Russia, France has been the principal supplier of arms to Iraq for many years. Iraq had billions in debt owed to France. in addition just a few years ago a French consortium signed a contract for the development of the huge oil reserves in northern Iraq. If the regime were to fall both the debt and the contract would be lost. Germany too had economic interests, but to a lesser degree.

Both France and Germany had been lobbying hard in the Security Council for a complete end to the sanctions against Iraq for several years prior to 9/11. Easy to believe this may have been to keep the oil incoming flowing so they could have a shot at collecting on the debts. After we raised the WMD and intervention issues they suddenly decided sanctions and Han Blix were the needed solution. Odd.

While Islamist fanaticism is a threat to both Europe and America, after 9/11 it was evident to all that the U.S. would resist and likely succeed with or without their direct assistance. In short we had no choice but to keep their chestnuts out of the fire along with ours. No real need for them to carry a share of the load in the more public and risky aspects of the struggle. (We observed this kind of behavior with respect to defense spending during the Cold War as well.)

I could go on but this is far too long already. I can't prove this analysis is correct any more that others can prove the alternatives. However both history and human nature strongly suggest this is correct.

0 Replies

George -- If you go back in history (and, by god, you do!!) you'll also see that France and Germany suffered much more from WWII than the US did -- in fact we still celebrate, savor WWII's noble, glorious days while those two countries are still vomiting the after-effects.

"After we raised the WMD and intervention issues they suddenly decided sanctions and Han Blix were the needed solution. Odd."

Or probably the result of having, so recently in their history, gone through so much violence so close to home.

There is no doubt, when it comes to Iraq, that they "saw this coming" much as the sane in this country did, from the moment of W's election in quotes.

And by the way, their reaction to the Cold War (which we loved, protracted) was much saner, less paranoid and for years they have feared those US administrations which have pressed a hard line, from star wars to the latest machismo.

And also by the way, we also benefited from our relationship with Saddam, his desire for weaponry from nuke to chembio, and our desire for an inside track on his oil.

0 Replies

craven, tart, and lola

There is a tradition in the US (and elsewhere) of faith groups doing good charitable works in communities where they operate. Non-faith groups too often help out the needy or the unfortunate. I think all of this is a great good, though I think much less of it where proselytizing is the goal.

However, Didion's piece "God's Country" (no longer available for free in NY Review) details (through conversations with Marvin Olasky - the individual behind this movement - and others, simple good-hearted charity is not all that is intended.

The separation of church and state issues aren't simple, and I don't want to get into that huge set of questions. But it does lead to the sort of area where the constitution gets wobbly, reflected in, for example, Scalia's and like-minded ideas versus the ideas of others on the SC or in constitutional scholarship. Scalia might well argue that the constitution is in grave danger, certainly Bork has argued that.

Of course, I too agree with george on a lot of things. I think george a good fellow, a smart fellow, and a brave fellow. But I designed the trajectory of this thread to confront some specific areas where I find deep and profound disagreement.

0 Replies

George, I believe your views are much more realistic, geopolitics really does boil down to 'us or them'. Whether one could effectively sell that complex important idea to a 'sound byte trained' public is doubtful.

It's our interest against their interest, whoever 'they' are. Politically, it's never put out there in those terms, it's an underlying goal in regard to respective economies, part of the political game. Anyone who has an advantage will use it, and if you sit still you will be trumped.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

You and Craven are perhaps suggesting that France and Germany became convinced that Bush's policy would lead to disaster, and therefore tried to steer us away from it, or at least to protect themselves from the awful consequences they saw coming if we acted against their advice.

Not really, in fact I don't think they predicted any disaster and before the war I saw little withing the realm of possibility that could turn it into a disaster.

What I contend they did, was simply try to stop a superpower from waging an unprovoked war. Earlier you implied that you disagree that it was not provoked and in some sense it's true. But in some sense it's true that there has never been an unprovoked war and then it comes down to whether the "provocation" justified a war.

IMO, Germany and France simply did not want to rubber stamp what they considered an unjustified war. Nowhere did I state that they were predicting disaster. That is not an opinion I hold.

Quote:

This is a variation on what was suggested earlier, namely that the overwhelming sympathy for America that followed 9/11would have certainly led the Europeans to actively support us had we only treated them with more consideration and been less aggressive and expressive of our willingness to act alone if necessary.

Seems you misunderstood what I'd earlier contended. I do not believe that they would have supported the war. I think the war helped erode the goodwill but never meant to imply that the goodwill would have garnered support for the war.

My take is that the war was something that they would have rejected no matter what level of sympathy existed. And I contend that the war was so strongly believed to be unjustified by the world that the decision to wage it dissipated the sympathy.

It's a bit funny that you think I was arguing that some statements eroded the political capital that could have been used to support the war. I think the war was simply unsupportable to the majority of the world. It was sold as pre-emption and there was nothing to pre-empt. I think the strong feelings about this has made people the world over hate America.

In some of the nations that are the most friendly to America the street has been furious.

You keep trying to make like this was just a matter of nation's and their self interest but that neglects the fact that there are millions and millions of people who were fundamentally opposed to the war and had no personal interest in it.

Quote:

As I have suggested the governing self interest is more likely to be the intent of France and Germany to lead the EU in the development of an independent (of the USA) political and economic strategy in the decades ahead.

I agree with this, and I am hoping the EU does well to counter the unchecked power of the US.

Quote:

The opposition to Bush's policies was played out by France particularly (and Germany as well) in the most public and politicized way possible - precisely the tactics least likely to persuade us to change course and most likely to create the greatest impact for Europe, led by France and Germany, as the counterweight to the United States in the world's political arena. That suggests something about motive.

I think any astute observer would have noted that there was no option to change our minds. I would have betted my life that the war was a fait accompli very early in the campaign. What you interpret as deliberately taking measures that would not change the US's mind I interpret as recognition that the US was going to do it with or without them and their refusal to rubber stamp it.

The choice posed to them was "rubber stamp the war or be rendered irrelevant" and their reply was that to rubber stamp an unprovoked invasion would already render them irrelevant and that they didn't plan to be quiet about it just because they lacked the power to stop it.

Quote:

Both countries had significant economic stakes in the future of Saddam's regime. Outside of Russia, France has been the principal supplier of arms to Iraq for many years. Iraq had billions in debt owed to France.

This is something that war supporters often point to to try to cast the opposition to the war as financially motivated. It's a nice sounding rhetorical argument because it demonizes France and makes the opposition sound like a pretext about money. But the people of France opposed the war without having an individual stake in it. Were they all supposed to have been concerned with the chump change as well?

Over 100 nations did not support the war till it was already in motion. They did not have a financial interst so perhaps there were elements beyond self interest that generated some opposition?

It's convenient to the war supporters that the major opposition to the war had a financial stake in it but to point to it as motivation for their opposition is demonstratably false.

The US repeatedly offered our guarantee that their economic concerns would be fully addressed if they supported the war. They refused.

Just like I consider it false to say the US went to war for Iraqi oil (when lifting sanctions would ahve accomplished as much) I consider it false to say that the objection to the war was financially motivated (as we would have guaranteed the financial interests so if that was all they would have gone along).

The US agreed to sell oil to nations that were illegally buying oil from Iraq at the prices they had been getting. We were shopping around for support and if cash is the alleged motivation we were both offering cash and guarantees for the support.

In short if cash was the motivation they would just as easily have gone along with the war as we were willing to protect the financial interests of anyone who supported the war.

Quote:

in addition just a few years ago a French consortium signed a contract for the development of the huge oil reserves in northern Iraq. If the regime were to fall both the debt and the contract would be lost.

This is not true George. The US made clear overtures to all who had an economic stake in Iraq. While trying to sell the war the US made it very clear that the economic concerns of Iraq's creditors would be addressed.

If France had supported the war the US would have granted France the contracts needed to protect their interests. This was placed on the table several times.

Quote:

Both France and Germany had been lobbying hard in the Security Council for a complete end to the sanctions against Iraq for several years prior to 9/11.

This is another false claim. The majority of the world viewed the sanctions as detrimental to the average Iraqi civilian, this was a position shared by the US. Russia was the key opponent to the US/Brit-proposed "smart sanctions" and the rest were happy to extend the status quo. Your claim is made fictitious by your use of the word "completely". Yes, they opposed the new, US-proposed sanctions. But most of the world did and most of the world did not have a financial interest in Iraq.

The US was using its veto power on the sanctions committee to veto contracts for several basic items. Things like pencils. The US prevented pencils from entering Iraq citing "dual use" concerns in just one infamous case and the US vetoed ambulances and more.

The sanctions were absurd and even the US recognized it. The US wanted them changed as did every nation on earth. The difference was just in what changes, France and Germany were not trying to have them "completely" removed as you allege. they were simply responding to the nearly universal perception of the sanctions as being unecessarily delibating to the Iraqi civilian.

That is a position the US shared.

Quote:

After we raised the WMD and intervention issues they suddenly decided sanctions and Han Blix were the needed solution. Odd.

It's not odd to me. They didn't want the US to wage a war under the guise of pre-emption when there was nothing to pre-empt. Sanctions were preferable. Heck, almost anything was preferable at that point.

In any case this is yet another false claim. You will not be able to provide any evidence of this decision that you use as factual basis.

Quote:

I can't prove this analysis is correct any more that others can prove the alternatives. However both history and human nature strongly suggest this is correct.

I agree. But the more important part is that you can't prove most of the "facts" you used in your analysis. I can prove that several of your claims are incorrect. It would be tedious and it's not going to make a difference in your opinion but that doesn't change that you based this on several demonstratably false claims.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

George, I believe your views are much more realistic, geopolitics really does boil down to 'us or them'. Whether one could effectively sell that complex important idea to a 'sound byte trained' public is doubtful.

It's our interest against their interest, whoever 'they' are. Politically, it's never put out there in those terms, it's an underlying goal in regard to respective economies, part of the political game. Anyone who has an advantage will use it, and if you sit still you will be trumped.

In that any opinion can be called an "interest" this is true. For example you can say that I oppose the war because of my "interests". My "interests" being that I do not wish to allow feckless breaching of sovereignty.

And while I cede that all nations operate within their interests I do not agree with the use of this axiom to try to portray the opposition to the war as a pretext.

Many people have an opposition to the very concept of this war. Not the geopolitical ripples.

The constitutional objection is that war should not be whimsical, that when sovereignty is breached on the basis of pre-empting a phantom that global security has been undermined, not improved.

Here is Chirac way back in September 2002:

Quote:

(On the topic of ousting the Iraqi leader) "One can wish
for it. I do wish for it, naturally. But a few principles and a
little order are needed to run the affairs of the world." Noting
that there are many governments whose overthrow might appear
desirable to Western leaders, Mr. Chirac cautioned, "If we go
down that road, where are we going?" He noted that the Security
Council had not reviewed any proposal for replacing Mr. Hussein ?
the declared objective of the Bush administration.

President Chirac described the Bush administration doctrine of
pre-emptive military action in its fight against terrorism as "
extraordinarily dangerous."

He said, "As soon as one nation claims the right to take
preventive action, other countries will naturally do the same."
He asked, "What would you say in the entirely hypothetical event
that China wanted to take pre-emptive action against Taiwan,
saying that Taiwan was a threat to it? How would the Americans,
the Europeans and others react? Or what if India decided to take
preventive action against Pakistan, or vice versa?"

Sure, all nations have self interest. I contend that the opposition to teh war was motivated on the acknowledgement of this and the desire to prevent nations from waging wars out of self-interest and using "pre-emption" as the pretext.

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know