Quote:I do believe the WMD matter was a red herring, an argument of convenience, valuable simply because it was the only one our "friends" on the Security Council would accept, and we need their action as a political cover for PM Blair.
A red herring/argument of convenience/lie is one thing in the context of some negotiation with another state or perhaps even with an international body. It is quite another thing when you pull it on your own citizens.
Quote:I'm not sure the real argument would have made the grade with the American public either, but after 9/11 we were a more willing audience than evidently were the British people. All governments use deception in rationalizing - and in carrying out - their wars. It is the results of the war, not the elegance and acceptance of the arguments for starting them that are what counts in history. Certainly FDR used a good deal of public deception to induce the American people to get into yet another European war.
Then you have just chucked away democracy in any meaningful sense of that word. You've replaced it with what you have always professed to despise - rule by an elite.
Citizens cannot be said to give consent to their leaders actions where their leaders deceive them regarding those actions.
It may be, george, that your professed dislike for the Platonic model of rule by elites (also the neoconservative notion of proper governance) is merely reflexive, based on some old value or principle which you've since discarded without being fully aware of it. What you argue above is surely not democracy, just the pretense of it. The ignorant masses cannot be trusted to come to the correct decisions, thus deserve to be lied to and manipulated - for their own good.
Blatham,
Actually you make a rather good point there.
I don't like the idea of elites or of Platonic models for the organization or operation of society. At the same time I recognize that deception has been an essential ingredient of strategy and statecraft (both good and bad) throughout history. To some extent this may rightly be considered an acceptance of something alien to democracy.
On the other hand - recall some of the marvelously deceptive speeches and stratagems put forward by various actors in the Athenian democracy as related by Thucydidies in his tedious but wonderful recounting of the war in Sicily and with Sparta. The art of persuasion is fundamental to democracy. The art requires some dissimulation, but at the same time one must recognize that often the listeners are themselves a part of the act itself - a collective evasion of difficult points to get to a conclusion that all on a more visceral level want. In the case at hand I do believe the American public understood more of the reality of the strategic argument than is or was articulated by those whose self-appointed role is to speak for them. Perhaps those most deceived in all this are the professional scribes and mouthpieces for various media outlets who make a living by dissecting the words and utterances of the main actors in the scene. Their self-interest in reacting to this is obvious, and somewhat diminishes my willingness to ascribe it to virtue.
The intersection of Islamist terrorism and any of the gangster regimes of the largely dysfunctional political structures in the states of the former ottoman Empire was either already at hand or inevitable in the near term course of events. The pattern of historical development in that part of the world was clear enough. Some decisive action to alter it was necessary to limit the Islamist threat, and to both avoid a worsening collision with the West and better the fate of the people of the region themselves. We have made great strides in Afghanistan and overcome remarkable historical odds (when one considers what befell others who intervened there), and now have tackled an even more difficult challenge. The intermediate situation may well be difficult but that the long term benefits may be substantial already seems clear.
george
My default position is that governments who lie to us, and do it a lot, are the bad guys. It's how you spot them. They don't want us citizens participating in government, so they shut us out, marginalize us, divide us, make us fearful. And the lies are conveniences to facilitate that end.
Your default position is that an American government, particularly a Republican government, are already the good guys and thus anything they might do, like lying, will be justifiable. Reading back through your posts I marked two things; first, that you are a very bright fellow with a love of learning and an integrity towards careful thought, and second, that most everything I've just said becomes negated whenever your flag is involved.
"The German alone...can be a patriot; he alone can for the sake of his nation encompass the whole of mankind... Johann Gottlieb Fichte circa 1814
"the only God-bearing people on earth, destined to regenerate and save the world (are the Russians)" Dostoyevsky
France is a "glorious mother who is not ours alone and must deliver every nation to liberty." Jules Michelet (date unknown)
***********
The consequences (or costs and benefits, to use terms which themselves shy away from moral considerations) are unknown, as you say.
Doubly unknown, adding that moral component. American soldiers can now be captured and tortured by the precedent the US has set. As a fundamental moral principle, we are hypocrites when we ask others to act in a manner which we ourselves refuse to act. China can, again by US precedent, feel free to unilaterally declare and engage military operations upon some state it declares a danger. The US, by consequence of its decision that might does make right leaves itself open, in any consistent set of moral principles, to anything done to it which falls outside of agreements she has made and has stuck to consistently.
I'll confess to the already evident instinct to defend and even justify the actions of my government. Perhaps it is no more than the result of a long habit, but actually I think it is more substantial than that.
I guess everyone claims his tribe's version of loyalty & patriotism is more authentic and essential than that of any other. Perhaps that is a bad thing, but I doubt it.
I do have a certain view of the main currents of the history of the last century, and that does strongly influence my views on these matters. I'll spare you the tiresome repitition of what you have read before from me concerning the trajectory of history since WWI, which, in my view, still influences the central events of our time. That too is a strong influence on my interpretation of these things. It just happens that, at least in part, the current Administration appears to be animated by a similar understanding.
There is plenty that I don't like in the chosen policies of the Republican party and the contemporary actions of its leaders, including the President. I rationalize some of it as political necessity, and beyond that I recognize it as better or less bad than the available alternatives. So I defend it to those who appear to me to be in the grip of the flawed, self-serving thinking that I associate with a good deal of the trouble the world has seen during the last century.
I am, as you know, particularly sensitive to those who appear to me to be zealots of a certain kind of contemporary thought, while condemning all who disagree as zealots of now superceded cuoltural norms. I don't like zealots or "true believers" of any stripe - by that I mean those who believe they alone know what is good for others, and are ultimately willing to force it on them.
No doubt there are elements of hypocricy in all this, but - what the hell - I'm all I've got.
You too are animated by a certain world view whose primary differences - it seems to me - arise from the fact that that you rank the importance of undesirable things differently. The truth is I can't fully understand that point of view, with the informatioon available, any better than you can mine. I'm willing to credit you with the same good intent that animates me, even as I gnash my teeth in disagreement with your conclusions -- more or less as I suppose you credit and react to mine.
That's why I enjoy arguing with you. Friendship & respect helps too.
georgeob1 wrote:Blatham,
... In the case at hand I do believe the American public understood more of the reality of the strategic argument than is or was articulated by those whose self-appointed role is to speak for them.
One more time with appropiate emphasis:
In the case at hand I do believe the American public understood more of the reality of the strategic argument than is or was articulated by those whose self-appointed role is to speak for them.
Some excellent posts, Blatham, George thanks.
Well made points and courteous responses, almost alarmingly devoid of teeth gnashing...
Now does anyone care to comment on this observation.
Some of the so called neo conservatives come from a very left wing - even Trotskyist - background. Although I am not a social scientist (in fact I think the term is something of an oxymoron) it does seem to me that the analysis above by you two gentlemen has a distinct Marxist-Leninist edge to it.
Quote:"I feel quite strongly that as long as we have our military in the Middle East fighting so that we can continue to purchase oil from that region, we have an obligation to find alternatives to foreign oil. It is difficult to justify the death of even one soldier when we are not doing everything in our power to explore options for oil within our country."
A little honesty leaks out in Repub Rep Dan Lungren letter replying to those who complained regarding his support for oil extraction from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
More evidence of greed and corruption in the UN oil for food program!!! Kofi Annan doesn't deserve to continue in his post for even another day longer and the UN should be thrown into the pits of hell where it belongs and...
Quote:U.S. Officials Suspected of Embezzlement in Iraq
Nearly $100 million in reconstruction funds is unaccounted for, investigators say.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-fraud5may05,0,6994435,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Thats very strange Blatham. I'm sure I've been told many times that oil has nothing to do with invading Iraq. And that 'Peak Oil' is a chimera. Sorry a "pseudo scientific fantasy".
Steve, i would warrant that it were possible to show that we were told time and again that oil had nothing to do with the invasion, and that is one of the many reasons why i provided a bibliography. However, as i've just arisen, and haven't yet had my coffee, i won't be doing any "ancient" thread crawling just yet. Perhaps later.
George & Blatham ...... riveting
ican711nm wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Blatham,
... In the case at hand I do believe the American public understood more of the reality of the strategic argument than is or was articulated by those whose self-appointed role is to speak for them.
One more time with appropiate emphasis:
In the case at hand I do believe the American public understood more of the reality of the strategic argument than is or was articulated by those whose self-appointed role is to speak for them.
Well, that's nice. I'm pleased that you two can, in the classic fairy-tale tradition, weave straw into titanium before your very eyes. There's a third weaver in competition with you however. Doug Feith, in an interview covered in the latest New Yorker reveals that after Iraq was attacked, "the Iraquis had flowers in their minds."
In perusing the first US, UN & Iraq thread, i realized that my bibliography was not complete. The first thread in this series was produced when Jespah split it off from Walter Hinteler's
Anti War Movement thread. I have revised
the bibliography accordingly. Therefore,
US, UN & Iraq 8 is in fact, the ninth thread in the series.
Thanks Geli,
Saved me from going downstairs to read it!
Just by way of diversion the Harlow constituency has just declared, after 3 recounts, and my mate Bill was returned with 97 votes over the Conservative candidate.
phew!
Quote:I'll confess to the already evident instinct to defend and even justify the actions of my government. Perhaps it is no more than the result of a long habit, but actually I think it is more substantial than that.
I think it is more substantial than that too.
Quote: I guess everyone claims his tribe's version of loyalty & patriotism is more authentic and essential than that of any other. Perhaps that is a bad thing, but I doubt it.
It is not either good nor bad exclusively.
But it is always mistaken.
For a long time, I've wanted to be god (a man's reach ought to exceed his grasp at least a little). As a small fry, I figured that would even up the power disparity between myself and adults. At 12 or so, it would have allowed me to peer into girls' washrooms. Now, I'd reach down and remove that part of Americanism that feeds on threat - threat from the outside and threat from the inside. As a christian man, it must seem now and again to be quite odd that, in America, peace has a worse reputation than war. But what better way to turn inside-out than to engage in devouring yourself?
Quote:That's why I enjoy arguing with you. Friendship & respect helps too.
I'm getting misty and can no longer type...
steve wrote
Quote:Some of the so called neo conservatives come from a very left wing - even Trotskyist - background. Although I am not a social scientist (in fact I think the term is something of an oxymoron) it does seem to me that the analysis above by you two gentlemen has a distinct Marxist-Leninist edge to it.
Many of them do have that background. Irving Kristol uses this past in a rather sneaky manner (credibility enhancement of a sort) with his well-noted line, "I was a leftist who was mugged by reality." Of course, not all victims of a serious mugging evolve into higher beings, some become insane vigiliantees. Horowitz is another example. Let me quote the fine fellow: "...you cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.'"
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Thanks Geli,
Saved me from going downstairs to read it!
Just by way of diversion the Harlow constituency has just declared, after 3 recounts, and my mate Bill was returned with 97 votes over the Conservative candidate.
phew!
Welcome Steve .............. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.
Translation...
Well dont feel so bad about it Gel, its 2pm here so toga wearing time is over for today.
.....on the other hand, just because you are paranoid, it doesnt mean they're not out to get you
