By any reasonable review of information currently available, the decision to invade Iraq was made prior to establishing reason. Everything that has followed has merely been acquired/contrived justification. Blix was not given more time for the sole reason that that it made no difference what he found/did not find, the scheduled invasion would happen regardless of findings. The charade of requesting U.N. approval was only a gambit for legitimizing a prior made agenda.
tartarin
Was trying to show the circularity... our access to 'facts' is very much via the administration.
Welcome, Joelo! I don't like it either, not a bit. I didn't say it in my above post because it didn't seem necessary, but he wouldn't have had my support. Nothing in my view can justify what Bush did -- others set the bar lower. But to do it and to LIE about it, intentionally fool us? It shocks me that others are willing to let this pass. It makes no sense that we don't hold our government to the same standards that we hold our kids -- or, indeed, other countries!
Oops. I'd better rush out and remove the little mini-nuke I just attached to a strut in the kayak, Blatham.
Joelo, Welcome to A2K. If you have followed this disucussion from the very beginning, many of us have stated that what his president and administration have done is legally and morally wrong. They have changed the whole concept of warfare from defensive to aggressive. We are now disucssing the moral breakdown of our government. They have lied to the world community to justify this war with Iraq, and the truth is now being exposed for all to see. Even with all this after-the-fact knowledge of the lies perpetrated by our government to justify this war, many are prone to "forgive" them, but many of us challenge that deduction. They are saying, "look, the Iraqi people got rid of Saddam, the monster." c.i.
Tartarin wrote:Blatham -- Maybe you're being ironic, but if not, I disagree profoundly. Ends justifying means only works in extremis.
Bush had the opportunity to say to us and to the world: We believe Saddam has extremely dangerous weapons which could be used against us and other countries. We can't prove it. However, in the current climate of terrorism, we can't afford to wait for all the dots to be connected. We believe the most responsible action will be to invade Iraq and make sure any WMD's are destroyed.
Tartarin,
With respect to your first point I suppose, to paraphrase a former President, it depends on what is the meaning of "in extremis". I assume you believe Roosevelt was "in extremis in 1939-1940, but that Bush was not in 2003.
With respect to the second, you may well be correct. I doubt that we would have gotten more international political support with the approach you suggest - the opposition appeared to be based on other factors - however we may well have garnered more public sympathy. I doubt that would have prevailed in the Security Council, so this tactic would have required we act without the attempt to get their support - an option which I would have considered as reasonable.
I rented "The Pianist" yesterday without great expectations and found it really fascinating. Particularly interesting were the changing levels of acceptance which accompany atrocity (something which Hannah Arendt raised and in turn raised the hackles of many). The levels of acceptance on the part of the Warsaw Jewish community as each limitation, insult, and atrocity is commited; the levels of acceptance within the non-Jewish Polish community -- a kind of inevitability (Jews are always treated this way, oh dear); the military and political calculations and miscalculations in the world beyond Poland which actually pushed people into the ghetto, into boxcars. Lying and secrecy and cover-ups are old-timey stuff. I suspect that those of us here who are older and more experienced will have been more likely to have our lie detectors working overtime from Bush's campaign speeches onward -- we don't just hear Bush, we've "heard that song before." And know where it leads. And we know we're supposed to wait it out -- "this too passes." If I had to guess where we, the American people, are in the timeline of "The Pianist," I'd put us on the sidewalk, watching the long stream of Jews heading to the ghetto, still embracing the occasional friend and then watching them walk off.
dyslexia wrote: .... The charade of requesting U.N. approval was only a gambit for legitimizing a prior made agenda.
I agree with you. Indeed President Bush said as much in his speech to the General Assembly prior to the debate in the Security Council. As I recall he said the UN's actions (or failure to act) would determine whether it would remain relevant in the unfolding world scene.
George -- Kindly take back your scissors. I don't want to split any more hairs with you. I wasn't there to judge Roosevelt's actions. I am here to judge Bush's in the full context of his life, his campaign, and his administration, as well as all the reports we are now able to get, minute by minute, of international complexities . Not to omit the opinions and counsel of wise heads outside of this country and its politics.
"Failure to act": Another Bushism. The UN acted -- it denied Bush's demand. "Failure to act" has passed into the language but it really means "failure to do as I want you to do."
Blatham,
I'm about half way through the Hoffman piece, and now am off to the gym and other events. It is well-written and quite interesting. So far no big problems with his recitation of the facts or the consistency of his reasoning. Where we part ways is in his implicit assumption of the validity and effectiveness of the 'progressive agenda' which he, correctly, claims is being reversed or set back.
Thanks for the cite. I'll get back to it and to you later.
Tartarin,
OK, "failure to do as I wish" is allright with me. I don't want to split hairs either, but do become skeptical of inconsistent views.
Do you really believe we can make better judgements about contemporaneous events than those which we can examine in the context of history and what resulted? That is an - unususl - view.
Neither is entirely reliable, but as voters and participants in our political process, we are required to get the best information we and act on it. History tempts us with its certainties, but don't forget it's the victor who writes the history. We are still writing contemporaneous events, so to speak, and are complicit.
Oh, and George, isn't consistency the hobgoblin of little minds?
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a petty mind -- there, Geroge, I gave you an out . . .
Tar, if George acknowledges what you've written at all, i think his argument could center on the word "foolish" . . .
Here, let me be more precise:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen ...
-- from the essay
Self Reliance
I obtain this
here[/color] . . .
(Consumption Warning: no part of the last two posts is being delivered in either a sarcastic or aggressive manner . . . )
Oh my G-d I blinked and had 20 pages to read or so it seemed.
George you articulate some valid points very well.
Oops got to go more later
But please one thing, what has Oliver Cromwell to do with Chile?
A little known episode infvolving his son John and the aleged "Jamaica Expedition," but i believe i'm prohibited by international law from recounting the adventure to an Englishman . . .
Steve
"Jews from other countries became interested in the Jewish community in Chile. Simon de Caceres, an ex-Converso based in London, tried get permission from Oliver Cromwell to lead a military contingent of Jews to conquer uninhabited lands in Chile in 1656." from:
Jewish Virtual Library: Chile