http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,767196,00.html " One faction, however, is indifferent to the arguments. The civilians driving the Pentagon have a less analytical agenda. They seem ready to sweep through all objections. A group of hard, obsessive officials, all much cleverer than the president, exploit the instincts he shares, which include the instinct to secure vengeance in a family feud after what Saddam did to his father. Their cocksure certainty that they have a mightier military force than Saddam, which of course is true, extends into a blithe assumption that the solution to Palestine lies through a cleansed and puppetised Baghdad. These are people who have shown many times how little they respect international law, still less the spirit of international collaboration. Having come to dominate the world, they tend to despise it. Faced with allies they can ignore, they duly prepare to do so. " Makes you wonder what europeans might be thinking of us, doesnt it? After Bush we may not have any friends left at all. Sure we carry a big stick, but big enough to go it alone?
Us Brits don't think very highly of Bush Jnr. What Bush doesn't seem to understand is that Iraq is full of devote followers to Saddam and will never give up. He's just trying to score points with his father. Bush is provoking Saddam into using his 'Biological Weapons' and if he does use them against the US (let hope he doesn't), it'll be Bushes fault. Bush must think that Sept the 11th was a blessing to him. He's almost guarenteed another term. He's 'stuck' by his people and talked them through it. He using these events to his advantage and is going to do more harm than good. If you play with fire, you're gonna get burnt. I, like most brits, believe that Bush is uusing Blair as a puppet as Blair is a total pushover. Everyone knows that the British Army is more skilled than the US Army, its just that the US are more gung-ho. Thats gonna be your downfall.
If our economy does not turnaround by next January...he will have no choice.... Bush support comes from the moral majority ie "The Christians". They probably dont know that Iraq has a lot of christians too.
There are some things the author of that piece didnt take into account; bushs foreign policy antics, his alienation of the un, the consequent drop in international goodwill toward the us and the resulting lack of support that the us might have going into an altercation with iraq. Its not the authors fault, the piece was written back in april and a lot has happened since then.
The Guardian I wouldn't take too much notice of the Guardian.It is written by appeasers,known affectionately as the Guardistans! These are the kind of people who believe that rapists & peadophiles are really nice people-they just need to be given a second chance & a few kind words!Or that Saddam Hussien would be a nice guy if only he was invited round for afternoon tea. Thor does not speak for the majority of us Brits. I happen to think that G.W.Bush is the right man for the time. Not the brightest spark-but that means he will listen to the advice of his experts.
Actualy, I speak for a HUGE amount of Brits. He may have handled the Sept/11th thing well, but he's not handling Saddam well. Saddam has the advantage over Bush. He is making him angry. Angry ppl make mistakes
I found the Guardian's Op-Ed piece unpersuasive. Although at first it appears to be a well-reasoned argument against US, UK and regional allies invading Iraq to hasten Hussein's fall from power, to another skeptic with a different perspective it is as much just another hyberbole-leaden work, wherein the author resorts to grandiloquent manipulation of readers' intangible emotions and prejudices because he can offer nary a single compelling, tangible, unsubjective fact to support the veracity of his own thesis. e.g.: At the Op-Ed's center lies these two assertions: "No evidence has been published that begins to make the case for attack...," and "...as against the containment policy that has worked pretty well for 11 years". The veracity of both assertions is discounted by the author of the other piece linked to in my post above. The Guardian's author's assertion that insufficient evidence exists for invasion bespeaks his prejudicial selectivity in deciding what evidence is relevent. Certainly, all of us are privy to very much the same body of publicly available information/evidence as examined by the author. Because not all of us have drawn the same conclusions from that evidence, that evidence can't be deemed to be absolutely compelling, one way or the other. Therefore, the Guardian's author really is asserting that secret evidences not available for public scrutiny must be equally insufficient because they haven't yet been made public. That what might be sufficient moral and legal evidence for attack should, in all cases, be made public prior to an attack, even though the nature of the evidence might deleteriously compromise not only the secretive methods used to obtain it, but also secretive Iraqi sources important for coordinating anti-Saddam activities from within Iraq at the appointed time of an invasion from without. I laud the Guardian's author's sketicism, but with little more than crafty use of language to support his position and make his point, the piece remains just what it is: an opinion not persuasive enough to change minds, just reinforce the beliefs of the choir.
No, what the author is argueing is that from the perspective of the international community no good moral or practical case can be made for attacking iraq. "Many Europeans who supported the Balkan wars and the Gulf war, and even the Falklands absurdity, are getting ready to oppose a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. They suspect its political provenance. They reject its moral justification. They look in vain for the interna tional support it needs. They see nothing predictably good in its practical outcome. And if they are British, they fear the prospect of being sucked into all these absences of reason, these diplomatic and moral black holes, at the behest of a different country, with different political impulses, 3,000 miles away." As far as the secrecy arguement, hasnt it become obvious to every one that the bush administration is covering up, at the very least, gross incompentence, in the handling of the pre 9/11 information? The secrecy arguement isnt going to wash with anybody who has been paying attention, because the motives for that secrecy now appear to be covering up either gross stupidity or criminal negligence. "Trust me I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", doesnt work any more. The reason George II wants to attack iraq is, i suspect, more about making political hay, securing iraqui oil reserves and distracting the american public from the bush administrations (at best) incompetence. Im not saying that unseating saddam wouldnt be a positive thing, but with the current lack of support we might have from the international community and the main motivation for the attack being political, maybe an attack at this time anyway, might not be a good idea. How many american lives are we prepared to sacrifice for this ignorant little plutocrats political carrer? The author of the piece does say: "No evidence has been published that begins to make the case for attack, as against the containment policy that has worked pretty well for 11 years. We're simply supposed to accept that it's there. Washington and London say airily that they have it." And he has a point. Even if there werent compelling evidence it could be easily manufactured after an invasion. Using "secret evidence" to justify an attack, would establish a precedent that would allow indiscriminate aggression anytime, anywhere against anyone. If the states among our dwindling supply of international friends arent nervous about setting this precedent they should be, especially if they are sitting on petroleum deposits.
What the author is arguing is that the international community is a homogenous demographic only when it comes to America exerting its considerable influence, and in its belief that its opinion is an over-riding component of our self-defense. By chance, that would be the same 'anybody' demographic that buys into such conspiratorial jewels as: "motives for that secrecy now appear to be covering up either gross stupidity or criminal negligence", and "....making political hay, ....and distracting the american public from the bush administrations (at best) incompetence"? And what about these qualifiers? "Im not saying that unseating saddam wouldnt be a positive thing", "current lack of support", "we might have", "maybe an attack at this time anyway, might not be a good idea." What you're saying is that ousting Hussein can be a good thing, that international support can be forth-coming, and that attacking Iraq is a good thing when the time is right. And what is it that makes it more plausible in our own mind that that "....ignorant little plutocrats political carrer" is the most likely reason for Bush bitch-slapping Hussein, instead of the equally, or more likely Bush intention to preserve American lives at home after 9/11 by being proactive instead of reactive? You, yourself, castigate the Administration for " gross incompentence, in the handling of the pre 9/11 information". Now you're advocating that the government wait for some other catastrophy to befall us before you give it your permission to do something. Yes, a weak one.
Your right. It hasnt yet gotten to the point where its us against them, bush hasnt yet had sufficient time to alienate the entire global community and international support isnt necessary for action against iraq as long as your comfortable with the idea of only american troops dying on the ground in iraq. Conspiritial jewels? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Havent been reading the news lately? How about the Rowley memo? How about the bush administrations attempts to stall an independent investigation? The refusal to realease information to families of the 9/11 victims? Thats just the tip of the iceberg for more see this: http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911 I did not advocate waiting for some other catastrophe, thats your phrase, your words. Sorry, scare tactics are wearing thin these days. Wrapping yourself in the flag and crying national emergency isnt making people jump as high as it used to. There are too many unanswered questions.
There are no nations "without sin". Group sanctimony is little cause for national surrender. I suspect, no, I adduce you're allowing your Bush-abhorance to irrationally cloud your 'all citizens are obliged to defend America' judgement. Self-preservation in its purest form is a-political. Hell, our greatest comfort would be for only American nukes to die in Iraq. But we are more defensibly principled than that. Assimilation, then synthesis. I would hope you don't stick with the first just because it's easier. I'm an Independent for at least two reasons: Democrats and Republicans. So, why do you not trust your elected representatives to decide for you, based on information you can't be privy to unless you get elected, as you would be allowed to do if you were elected? Because we shouldn't trust your own judgements either, as your mistrust implies. Which is the reason for the linked article in my original post to this thread--to counter the hysteria of the Guardian author. Your own monsters are no longer under your bed. Now, they're outside your window. You like to keep things simple, eh? There always has been, there always will be. Not everybody is paralyzed by the realization. There are people who overcome the uncertainty and act for a principled cause. Even for those who only huddle in their closet.
Odd I find it quite odd that the "intelligent" response to a Guardian reflecting on British and European considerations toward war should be a piece written by American journalists who have no particular regard for European thought. Such presumptuousness cannot help its own irrelevance: who cares what sense of urgency you can create on paper if you can't sell it around the world? Question: Who here thinks that anyone could get a job as Director for Gulf Affairs under the Clinton administration (1999-2001) while advising as a policy result that the United States is overstepping its bounds and ought not talk so tough about Iraq? So how is it that the "intelligent" response to a British piece involving European considerations should be a piece of American journalism written in an arena where warfare is a foregone conclusion and the only remaining question is how to justify it? Why are Americans so frothing for war? It's not like it's the only solution. Just because it's our favorite one doesn't mean it's the best one. Consider: The massive presumption here is that the United States is somehow guiltless. Or, to put it another way: We'll let the Iraqi people be after they agree to be us and not themselves. Or, to put it yet another way: We, the People of the United States of America feel that we have no obligation to treat our international neighbors fairly or kindly, and as such feel that anyone who complains is automatically evil. As the Iraqi Bush War becomes more and more a reality, keep your eye and ear on Tariq Aziz. He has the potential to make the US look really bad in the eyes of Muslims. He will be a thorn in Bush's side. He will hold a line, staking Iraq's position on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. And unless the US is really really careful, he can hold that line very, very well. But you see, though, by the quote above--the US isn't happy with anyone else until they're "one of us". This is all about dominion; we can't seem to carry off our foreign policy without angering people, so the best thing to do is to use our military to take care of the "bad guys" who don't like what we do. Hey, does anyone think that if we, the United States, regarded our international neighbors more fairly and more respectfully, that some of this might not be possible? Remember: they're just Muslims. It's not like they're important. What's 3,000,000 of them, more or less? We can move them to reservation land just like we did those silly Injuns. After all, we're the United States of America. God bless us, every one. Or something stupid like that. Dona nobis pacem. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
RePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!dd I too found the chauvanism of the piece repugnant. Well said.
Is Saddam a threat? Yes. He's attacked Iran, Kuwait, and Israel (scuds during the gulf war) and he slaughtered Iraqi Kurds. He's a constant threat to Saudi Arabia and even threatened Kuwait in'94. How many times does he have to prove it before something is done? Hussein is not going to stop and there is no doubt that he is trying to acquire WMDs (if he doesn't already have them). Sooner or later he must be dealt with. Getting political support will be difficult especially from the Arab nations. Saddam, who is only a Muslim when it suits him will use religion to garner support. If we go in with massive ground troops and the Iraqi forces retreat to the cities the cost in terms of lives lost, both US and civilian, will be high. In the end the US will be victorious reguardless what the rest of the world thinks. The problem becomes; what do you do after Saddam? We're not talking about a nation yearning to be free or one that has a history of political freedom. Is there anyone who would be an acceptable leader? Someone who the Iraqi's would support? I don't see anyone and if we simply put in some puppet we will have to have a military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future. I don't think that's in our best interests. Of course we could just flatten the entire country like we did with Germany and start from scratch. Actually the idea of doing that with the entire region is rather tempting. Hmmm... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiassa, Umm, Next Stop Bagdad? was not written by American journalists. One of those pesky details. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No matter who authored it, a 'piece involving American' "considerations" is no less worthy of public presentation than are its European counterparts. The "intelligent" piece was more thorough it its presentation, backgrounding, coverage, and without resorting to filler rhetoric, character assassination and hysteria-mongering. Perhaps you and the others here can go into as much detail as did the author of Next Stop Bagdad? to make Europe's case for them as to why and how containment, or some other solution, is "the best one". The Guardian's author did not do it. Here's your chance to do it for him, folks. As part of that effort, all of you might also explain why Europeons are so "frothing for" peace, while at the same time they're selling nuclear bomb-making components to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. I'm not entirely decided that invasion is the best solution. So, convince me what is the best solution, why it is the best solution, exactly how it is/will be implimented, maintained and monitored for effectiveness, and why that particular solution will certainly spare America another catastrophe like 9/11 or worse. Let's see the details of the best solution here.
So, what you're not saying is: invading Iraq is a bad idea but you can't really explain why containment of Hussein/Irag is the best solution, or even that that containment is actually working, or just why dropping all sanctions and letting Hussein operate freely is the best solution. All you know is that America is a bully, Bush is clueless, and vocally passive inaction is always the best course of *cough* action. Umm, well, I was hoping for more, but, ah....okay. I see your point.
