The US, UN & Iraq III

I understood blatham to be referring to the "intellectual" climate!

Only climate that counts, BoGoWo!

Tartarin - Here are a few choice pieces that you chose not to quote (funny, you've never been so averse to copying whole articles before...):

Of the one unnamed analyst they quote as saying these were not weapons labs:


So those who have seen them think they are labs, but a guy who hasn't thinks they are not. Okay. That doesn't tell us who is right and who is wrong, but it does give us information we can use in weighing these opinions.

And then there is this:

(bold mine)

Now, having quoted that, I want to add that we are dealing with scientists here, of course there is disagreement. These may or may not be mobile germ labs, but the mere presence of a minority opinion does not prove it. I expect there to be a contrary opinion on such matters.

The one thing that does set off my BS meter is the claim that there was no rush to judgement on this. There is no question in my mind (my opinion) that those making this analysis were under the gun to make a firm decision and make it fast. That's just reality.

Wait and see, Scrat.

Blatham wrote:



Those are my feelings exactly. I had respect for him before he lost his independent bent and caved over the issue of intelligence about MWDs.

Blix said "have patience" Bush said "we have run out of patience"
now Bush says "have patience"

X X X X X X

Blatham has here encapsulated a point about which we disagree very profoundly.

Exactly what was the "immense and unique potential" that greeted the world at the end of the Cold War? This notion is accepted without question in many quarters, but does it stand up to examination? Certainly much of the treasure, effort and political capital expended in the Cold War became available for other, one hopes better, pursuits. But were there other urgent issues, movements, and tyrants also ready and willing to step into the void and provide the world with new challenges as well?

The answer is clearly yes. The breakup of the Soviet Union and the potential for the plunder of national wealth by the gangster remnants of the old regime was an immediate challenge largely unmet by the West. The disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the civil war and genocide it spawned found Europe unwilling or unable to deal with genocide in its own midst less than a generation after Hitler. The already well-developed movement of Islamic fanaticism or permanent Jihad, with roots going back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire and beyond, exacerbated by the growing development/modernization gulf with the West, the infusion of vast oil wealth in select areas, and the constant irritant of the Palestinian question, was ripe and ready to challenge the Western world. The problem of the proliferation of WMD, particularly in the hands of certain gangster regimes was real and readily apparent. Corrupt governments in Africa were leaving millions needlessly impoverished and victims of civil wars and worse.

The Western world largely wasted the first decade after the end of the Cold War in the feckless pursuit of illusory legalistic structures that would be effective only in the areas of the world as yet unassaulted by these contagions. Real problems require real solutions. Reorganization and rule making are rarely real solutions.

The current U.S. administration is attempting to deal with these fundamental issues in a way that, so far, appears both promising and tolerable in its side effects. I have yet to see any better solutions put forward either here or in the public discourse.

It would be very interesting to me to learn how those of you who rise in such indignation over the possibility that the administration was excessively aggressive or even knowingly deceitful in describing the WMD potential of Iraq, react to the historical facts surrounding President Roosevelt's deliberate deception of the American people prior to his election in 1940.

There was a still strong isolationist movement in the country and very little appetite for our involvement in yet another European war. In 1939 he won an extension of the military draft by just one or two votes in the Congress. Roosevelt loudly proclaimed his firm intent to keep America out of the war that all could see was coming and campaigned on a platform of peace prior to the election, even as he ordered U.S.naval units in the Atlantic to fire on German submarine on sight. There is also ample evidence that Roosevelt fully realized that our embargo on exports of oil and steel to Japan and our forward deployment of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii made eventual war with Japan inevitable.

Do you believe that as a result of this deception our entry in WWII was morally wrong?

Georgeob - I think maybe there's a case of apples and oranges here.

World WarII was completely different. It had started with Hitler and Nazi Germany going in (pre-emptively) and taking Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland. It also involved a number of other countries declaring war on Germany, and then coming in. With the US. We were isolationaist at the time (like under various Bush policies), but we had a president who had a larger vision. We declared war, and went. There was a world conflagration, and we stood together with allies.

Where the Iraqi situation differs is that we didn't even declare war on them. We went in and invaded. And we had no allies (except for GB). And there were millions and millions of ignored protestors here, BEFORE the invasion. And world opinion was not with us. So this was not a matter of a war that was just. It was a one-sided invasion against a people we had decided needed to be liberatated. And we needed big justification for that, hence the WMD. Now the WMD excuse is being proven false with each passing day.

The last president we had whom we said had lied, we impeached. This is a lie with far greater implications, in which a country (not a sex act) was lied to and about. Do we stand idly by and let our country fall into this pit? Or do we try to rescue it into the greatness it was headed for?

X X X X X

Mama,

You merely talked around the question, you didn't answer it What about Roosevelt's deception? Was it justified? Did the use of it make our entry into the war immoral?

Do you suggest that because Hitler was a bad guy and had already attacked his neighbors, using deception to mobilize internal support for the war was OK? What is the possible connection between these disparate ideas?

Saddam was also a bad guy, and he too had attacked his neighbors. How do you ignore this while treating the same factors as relevant in WWII?? We had more allies against Saddam than there were against Hitler in 1941, and we didn't have to lie so much to persuade the public of the suitability of our allies as we did with Stalin.

Think some more.

Rise in indignation over a president 60 years ago? The German Navy (U-Boats?) were already in the Atlantic when Roosevelt provoked war. The situation was entirely different. Roosevelt was FAR from a perfect president -- his delays and hemmings and hawings when it came to admitting that Jews were being rounded up, taken off, and murdered are a disgrace. We were a deeply and unforgiveably anti-semitic nation... But that was then; this is now.

I'm really troubled by George's need to find a parallel to Bush, as though if Roosevelt did the wrong thing then that takes Bush off the hook somehow. (George isn't alone in this curious show of amorality.) Bush is a deeply flawed man -- he's been a liar and cheat most of his life and is surrounded by admirers who think that's just fine, as long as they get their way. That draws the whole nation into a moral morass. I personally put defenders of Bush in the center of that morass, with their heroes. It doesn't matter whether they have been taken in or whether they just want their side to win at whatever cost, they're part of the mess.

As for Blatham's "cusp of potential," he's exactly right, and the people who were part of the development of the UN and those who set up the Marshall Plan were the best of the best, shouted down, ultimately, by the war machine which, at the end of hostilities in 1945, couldn't let go of power. The Cold War was not much more real than the Iraq "war." The Soviet Union was a nasty, nasty imperialistic (though mostly more defensive than offensive) regime. We'd do well to ask ourselves how much better we are right now than the Soviets then. Just like us, they were seeking to spread a political belief. Our military-industrial complex LOVED the Soviets -- couldn't have been happier -- just as they love Bush now.

Imperialism and militarism are wrong, no matter who's doing it.

The passage of 60 years does not alter the logic of the comparison. The question was, did Roosevelt's undeniable and persistent deception of the American people (and others) regarding his intentions make our subsequent entry into WWII immoral? The question is relevant because Tartarin and many others have claimed that Bush's alleged deception has made our actions in Iraq immoral. The point is either valid or it is not. Which is it?

Tartarin suggests an interesting relativistic set of values. 'The Soviets were more or less equivalent to the U.S. in the Cold War, because both were attempting to export their political beliefs.' The difference, of course is that we believe in personal and political freedom, individual initiative, property rights, and Democracy, while they believed in the centrally planned ant hill. We produced wealth and free expression and they produced poverty, tyranny and mass extermination.

Tartarin asserts the U.S. is a "deeply and unforgivably anti Semitic nation". I find this odd. It was the French who more or less willingly shipped off their Jews to certain death in the Nazi extermination camps. It is the U.S. that is widely faulted for its excess support of Israel. Deeply and unforgivably anti-semitic indeed!

What is behind Tartarin's odd willingness to blame America for the problems created by others? Could this also influence her judgements concerning Bush? ( "... deeply flawed...a liar and a cheat most of his life..." -- words that could better fit other presidents)

"The question was, did Roosevelt's undeniable and persistent deception of the American people (and others) regarding his intentions make our subsequent entry into WWII immoral? The question is relevant because Tartarin and many others have claimed that Bush's alleged deception has made our actions in Iraq immoral."

George -- it was a wholly different situation, as we've pointed out. They are not comparable. In the first we have America joining a group of allies in defending invaded territories. In the latter we have America's preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation with a small coalition of allies and without the support of the international community on the pretext that Iraq intended to do us harm. The Germans and Japanese were well on their way into war and violation of others' sovereignty before Roosevelt got us into the war... with allies who were firm and who were themselves threatened.

"'The Soviets were more or less equivalent to the U.S. in the Cold War, because both were attempting to export their political beliefs.'" You put this in quotes as though quoting my words. Are they? Or is that your interpolation?

"Tartarin asserts the U.S. is a "deeply and unforgivably anti Semitic nation". Actually, I wrote: "We WERE a deeply and unforgiveably anti-semitic nation... But that was then; this is now."

"The difference, of course is that we believe in personal and political freedom..." Really? Would you say our personal and political freedoms have increased or decreased lately? And didn't you leave out my statement: "The Soviet Union was a nasty, nasty imperialistic... regime."

Why not just defend Bush's actions, George? Why drag in straw men like Roosevelt? You spoil your own argument when you try to find someone as bad as Bush or worse than Bush in order to defend Bush. The problem is Bush and his administration and it doesn't matter who may or may not have sinned in the same way. To keep raising the poor comparison with Roosevelt in an apparent attempt to lessen the impact of Bush's lies is RELATIVISM, pure and simple!

Tartarin,

Apparently then you accept my point. Namely that the morality of a conflict is not removed by the use of deception on the part of political leaders. Other factors can make the difference. I believe that other factors do make the difference in Iraq, as they did in 1940 - you evidently do not.

I used single 'quote'marks around the 'The Soviets were more or less equivalent ...' statement to indicate a paraphrase of your comments. I believe the paraphrase was entirely accurate. You did indeed say that the Soviet regime was a nasty one, but you also asserted the equivalence in the act of attempting to export political ideas, both during the Cold War and now.

You are correct, you used the past tense in the anti-semitic remark, and I failed to note it. I believe the evidence suggests that in 1943 we were far less anti semitic than any of our European allies or enemies. Perhaps you should have noted that.

I have defended Bush's actions in Iraq in this and other threads several times. I believe you have seen that. My purpose here was to point out your inconsistency with all the commentary about deception on his part. I believe I have succeded.

I don't accept your point, George. You seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the means -- morality/truth can be suspended to achieve political goals. I do think you misuse others' words -- whether you do it deliberately or inadvertently. We are debating, among other things, the same lapses in statement and intent in Bush, whether deliberate or inadvertent, the extent to which he avoids telling the truth, the extent to which he outright lies. (By the way, the fact that Bush does it doesn't excuse you! You might want to go back and take a look at Bush's campaign promises, just to check out how long-term and annually compounding his lies have been.)

While you're at it, I'd like to hear from you which specific lies Bush told about Iraq you believe to be defensible -- and how you would defend them.

now thats what i would call a gauntlet tossed.

George

Deception is not an absolute moral wrong. Like any moral question, it has to be evaluated in the context of the situation. It is one thing to tell your daughter that she was the prettiest girl in the Christmas play, but quite another to sell an auto with the odometer spun back.

If we are to compare the Hitler case here, then, to make the situations more analogous, imagine a scenario where Roosevelt deceives, then Germany is attacked (with almost no support or agreement from the rest of the world), and when forces arrive there, it's found that Hitler had not really attacked neighboring countries at all, had only talked boastfully, and was guilty of ambition and treating his own people very poorly.

Considered in this light, Bush's deception is of a completely different moral category than Roosevelt's. What Roosevelt was up to is very clear. What this administration is up to is decidely not clear. Nor is it at all clear how much this push to war was driven by theory (Wolfowitz) and how much by the structural facts of the ties that now exist between defence industries and the Pentagon/White House, or how much by the financial concerns of the oil industries, or by the desires of Israel, or even by the machinations of Carl Rove's mind.

Further, when one is trying to sort out the moral standing of someone who has deceived, it is not unimportant to establish whether the deception is a singular (and arguably justifiable) event, or whether the deception is but one of a series of similar deceptions which together show a pattern of untrustworthiness.

X