Kara its all part of the doublethink.
This is a war for peace. Killing for life. Killing with (according to one US military spokesman) "kindness". Well it seems Saddam has refused to accept our kind gifts of missiles, and has send us some in return.
Before the war started we were confidently told the war would be over quickly, to enhance the attractiveness of going to war. Now the war has started, and there is nothing we can do to stop it, we are told to expect a longer war, so we can't say "you lied", and of course if it is over quickly we will be overcome with gratitude towards our own dear leaders.
My take is this. Three aspects
1. I don't believe the anti war corner have a monopoly on the moral aspect of this conflict. It is quite easy to make a justified case for war based on the morality of getting rid of Saddam.
2. I'm also convinced that the only way of changing the regime in Baghdad is through force. However I am not totally convinced of the need for force AT THIS MOMENT. But this is a matter of judgement and I am content to leave that in the hands of the politicians and the generals.
3. What I am certainly NOT convinced of is the legality of this action. Its interesting that the forces of aggression bluntly state it is legal. Everyone else says it is clearly in breech (a word that gets used quite a lot at the moment) of international law or express their grave reservations about its legality.
I never thought my government, who I support, and my country of which I am proud, would put me in a position of having to support an illegal act.
Thanks, blatham.
That is a powerful statement from Mary Wright.
Ghali's speech has apparently been disappeared.
But here are excerpts from an interview on the 17th...
Quote:Monday March 17, 2003
What do you think of the current US foreign policy?
The United States foreign policy has completely changed in the last 10 years. Since the arrival of Bush Sr there has been a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. The international community was not aware of the importance of this change; now, the young Bush and the people surrounding him represent a group of rightwing extremists. They are fundamentalists: Christian fundamentalists.
Their policies are ideologically inspired: the United States believes it has a special message to the world. First they invented economic globalisation and now they want to globalise their philosophy in the same way. Like communism or socialism, you could call it "Americanism"; it is an ideology based on the liberation of the economy and the imposition of a democratic system. By spreading this around the world they hope to bring peace and security....
Multilateralism and unilateralism are just methods for the United States: they use them a la carte, as it suits them. The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy. They will use it when they need to, through a multilateral approach and if they don't need it, they will act outside the framework of the United Nations. Of course with a military budget that is equivalent to that of all the permanent members of the security council together, they can afford to.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,915868,00.html
Just which of "Our Leaders" promised a short, sweet, sanitary war? can someone provide a link?
"The United Nations is just an instrument at the service of American policy. They will use it when they need to, through a multilateral approach and if they don't need it, they will act outside the framework of the United Nations."
Blatham -- just as with that village in Vietnam, you have to kill the United Nations to save peace.
" I don't believe the anti war corner have a monopoly on the moral aspect of this conflict. It is quite easy to make a justified case for war based on the morality of getting rid of Saddam."
Steve, I think the problem with that is a) it would have been possible for the UN to remove Saddam without excessive use of force, contracts to Halliburton, etc. etc., and b) international law and agreement, carefully crafted, has been our best practical instrument of morality and the US has simply blown it off -- law and morality.
Just an accuracy note, nothing to do with Iraq ...
The "Village" that was "Destroyed " in order to "Save" it was the city of of Hue, during the '68 Tet Offensive. The statement was "It became necessary to destroy the city to liberate it". Strong NVA and VC forces held out doggedly for several days, occasioning much artillery fire, air support, and infantry action in the cause of their nuetralization. Considerable damage was done particularly to buildings related to civil infrastructure, as the indiginous Communist forces had siezed them for their symbolic value. The Battle for Hue was one of the longest and bloodiest of the war, and it was the last of the Tet-related actions to be resolved.
Steve
I think we ought NOT to be surprised to hear from Bush, on the day the missles begin flying, that the war might be worse and longer than 'some people' think. That idea was handy before, but it served its usefulness and now it's time for another story for the sheep to bleat.
More rousing, attention mis-directing and ass-covering stories to expect:
1) Technology is just so beautiful and entrancing and beautiful
2) Our soldiers (there's Fred, handsome fellow, and Jeannie his lovely blonde wife back home in Sioux Falls with little pink baby Phoebe) are brave and driven by good patriotism. The other guys probably don't bathe and likely have sex with farm animals.
3) There WILL BE womd found. And Ari will be DEEPLY offended at any questions which suggest the military might do what the police have frequently done (for the good of the community)...plant the evidence, or that the US knew where it was but never passed that info on to the UN because...well, perhaps because the UN is a problem for unilateralism. Boy, Ari will be offended.
4) More beautiful weapons
5) Bevies of wimpy cowardly Iraqui troops will surrender, singing songs about the Dodgers and Jesus. They will joyfully kiss boots (which accounts for the facial bruising).
6) Halliburton will, in a ;completely transparent and fair bidding process', get to help out the world with rebuilding.
7) Atrocities atrocities atrocities...thank GOD for those shiny weapons we have - just for defence, of course.
8) Hard drives will be found linking Sadaam to Noam Chompsky.
9) Imbedded reporters will come across a school yard of Iraqui children with flowers and a wide-eyed curiosity about Jesus.
10) Terrorist attacks on America following the Iraq war will constitute absolute proof that the Iraq war was the correct strategy to prevent terrorism.
Blatham frantically searching for mistakes of the US military showing women and children being killed-----no luck so he must improvise with spin.
Your cynical smirk is showing great disappointment.
Is anybody else thinking of phallic objects every time the War News Networks mention "embedded reporters"?
First time I heard the term. I'm visualizing a little guy with a camera encased in lucite.
Art Harris on CNN, right this moment, is attempting to give a report, live, with his gas mask on.
Which sounds about like you'd imagine.
I got better transmission with two Dixie cups and fifty feet of string when I was 5 years old.
Paula Zahn: "Are you allowed to tell us where you are, Art?"
Harris: "I can only tell you, we're very close."
This is so riveting I think I'll go play golf...
Perception, can't see what was "spinny" abt the observations. Look at the reasons given for the war - now that is spin.
Even Hans Blix has gone on record to say that US had no real interest in the UN inspections - they just were itching to take Saddam out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm
"Is anybody else thinking of phallic objects every time the War News Networks mention "embedded reporters"?"
Darn it, P Diddie, no I wasn't. But I will from now on! LOL!
Oh, Blatham, you nailed it again. I think every time Ari stages a press conference, it should be a requirement that you follow with the statement from the Opposition.
Gautam wrote:
"Even Hans Blix has gone on record to say that US had no real interest in the UN inspections - they just were itching to take Saddam out".
That may be his last official statement before he disappears to spend that $10 million that Saddam paid him for influencing the UN security council to continue the farce that he was engaged in. He did Saddam a great service---he may even have gotten a bonus.
I doubt he was paid, perception. He probably should have been, but he's a chippie.
