"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
Indeed, he is correct. What Kerry et al don't or can't understand is that the world changed on 9-11. Police actions, international conferences and smart sanctions no longer work against the likes of Al-Queda or Iran.
The world didn't change, terrorism existed before and will continue to exist no matter how long the "War on Terror" runs (cf. the War on Drugs). The only new thing (to the US) was the attack was on their homeland.
I was fully behind the action against Afganistan as a followup to 9-11. It made sense from a "Stopping Terrorism" point of view. It could also of been the first step in returning Afganistan to a functioning state and starting a new dialog with the Moslem world that could lead to new understanding.
I supported the war in Iraq from a moral stand point (we needed to make amends for the mess we left it in from the 1st Gulf war). Given a bit more time it would of still happened but with more international consensus. However the obsession with WMD's was a diversion. Even if Iraq had them it was one of the least liky states to aid hardline Islamic terrorists by giving them the weapons. The sad fact is your not going to prevent the spread of WMD's from the source because their are too many, the best way is by good intelligence and intercepting them before they are used.
The result of the Iraq war has been a dramatic breakdown in International relations including the sidelining of the UN, alienation of the rest of the Arab world and turning Iraq into a lawless void where every Al-Queda recruiter can send their brainwashed foot soldiers to shoot Americans. I don't think any of that fall-out has made the world a safer place.
The only thing Bush and we did invading Iraq is create more terrorists.
Alex is perfectly right in saying that terrorism existed way before September 11th, it's always existed in one form or another, and the definition of terrorist changes depending on what side you're on. When Margaret Thatcher was in power she called Nelson Mandella a terrorist, now he's a world hero...
The main thing that changed is that america realised they aren't untouchable. The consequence was that there has been a culture of fear in America since and the powerful people of the US have used that to economic and political advantage.
Plus the main reason the Arab world is pissed off is that the western part of the world is just taking the piss.
Also in my opinion, neither side is right. From the properganda that's floating round the states (and outside too, but our news is a little less biased), in my opinion, the US troops are as brainwashed as the Arab world. There is no link (America has now confirmed) between Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. I've never been for the war, especially without the backing of the UN.
Ok, so I may come across like a lefty-greenie-liberal-whatever, but (and I don't even know who you are, so sorry!) typhonian's view is extremely simplistic view of the world. Also confirming my status as a greenie etc - I do recommend you watch Farenheight 9/11, or if you think Micheal Moore is too emotional and doesn't prove his facts correctly (but neither do Fox Network, CNN etc, or the american government!!) read "Why do people hate America". It's a lot more intellectual and has references for every single fact.
We can no longer look at world politics in black and white, we're right they're wrong, it just makes things worse.
Anyway, rant over, my apologies, but I feel a bit strongly about all this. I like American's individually (got lots of friends over there and spent several summers there). But as whole they seem to be extremely stupid. But so are everyone else!!
I'm sorry but if you are actually recommending Michael Moore then I'm going to have to place you in the same category as someone who recommends David Irving or the Turner Diaries. I'm sorry - it's nothing against you personally, I don't know you from Adam, as it were, but as Christopher Hitchens said, "calling Michael Moore a liar is doing a grave disservice to liars".
But you do touch upon a wider point which has to be addressed. The Arab World is pissed off because of the terrible conditions they are living under. Assad, Mubarak, Arafat, Quadaffi, Khomenini, Al-Saud - you would be pissed off living under the likes of those. It is to the west's eternal shame that they allowed or even encouraged brutal strongmen (e.g. Saddam) to gain power in those regions. For too long, brutal realpolitik has meant the people of the middle-east have suffered under the likes of the aforementioned thugs.
The liberation of Iraq is the first stage towards letting the people of the middle-east decide themselves how they are governed...
Fair enough on your opinion on micheal moore, I'm sure I could quote loads of people who support him.
Anyway, the arguments about Micheal Moore is also the reason I mentioned the book "why do people hate America". I can't remember the authors are off hand, but can look up if you want. But it's alot harder to slag them off. The pages listing American invasions into democratic countries over the last several decades runs for pages..
The western nations are often responsible for installing the above regimes you've mentioned, and we certainly haven't helped as you said. Plus if you looked at it from that point of view, allot of the imigrants etc in America are treated like you've described above, and are pissed off at the living conditions. Depends which way you look at it.
When we bommed Afganistan, the contractors brought in to repare the country made a profit of 20%, the standard in the west is 5%. The west made money from bombing the country. Plus why was Iraq invaded but not Saudi Arabia? Because the american stock market would collapse. Or North Korea, they are a dangerous regime and are developing nuclear weapons? Its not about "liberation" it's about money and power.
To a large extent all you are quoting is American and UK properganda. The middle east won't be ruling it's self. The people put into power, ok so they're iraqis, but they are the ones america want. Ok, so I'm probably just as one sided, but from the other way, but I don't aprove of killing people for political reasons, and these are my views.
I think we'll have to agree to dissagree. Its a simple matter of differing politics. Neither of us is going to persuade the other, as we're both obviously fixed in our views. (Though I did think america was the land of the free until recently, hence doing camp america and visiting relatives, but I've changed my mind.
Anyway feel free to reply, but I'm not going to bother continuing:-) (I'll just get more frustrated!!!*talking to myself* let it go..... ;)
1) It's an opinion based upon fact. But you would expect me to say that anyway :-)
2) I think that "democratic countries" is a misnomer to a degree. Sure America has made mistakes, but it is damned when it does, and damned when it doesn't. And I think a lot of the envy is based upon jealousy to a degree.
3) Yet America is still the no-1 immigrant destination in the world. Plus, if the likes of Schwarzeneger can make it to the Governor of California, then that shows that anyone has a chance there. They built up a country out of nothing in just over 200 years. That's good going.
4) And? I don't think that is a reason not to liberate the country. It's how the free market works. As to why we aren't invading Saudi Arabia (which lets face it, is a horrible and barbaric regime which spreads and sponsors terror and intolerance), there's one reason: we need the oil. Which means the sooner we develop alternatives to oil the better, then we can tell Saudi where to go...
5) I think you're being overly cynical. After all, the biggest killer of muslims over the last few decades was...Saddam Hussein. Almost anyone would be better than Saddam, but the US Government is bound by US law to introduce a full democracy into Iraq.
6) Agreed. I'm in a similar position to you (except I'm right of course :-)). I read the guardian on-line every day and am almost physically sick at some of the views expressed. But I think we all must remember the words of Voltaire and his views about, well, views and holding them... :-)
7) Agrees. I feel the same a lot. Giving myself blood pressure for no good reason.
Fair enough on your opinion on micheal moore, I'm sure I could quote loads of people who support him.
typhonian is the kind of person who cites Samuel P. Huntingdon as an authority - which genuinely puts him in the same class of people as someone who cites David Irving. By contrast, Michael Moore doesn't just do better research, he's even amusing.
Assad, Mubarak, Arafat, Quadaffi, Khomenini, Al-Saud - you would be pissed off living under the likes of those.
To pick a couple of them:
Arafat: Yeah, and how much power as he got with the Israeli army breathing down his neck? (Please note, I'm not suggesting that Arafat would be the most benificient leader in the world or anything)
Khomenini: I assume you mean Khomeini, who (a) has been dead for the best part of 15 years, and (b) came to power on the back of a popular revolution against an American-backed dictator/monarch.
[House of] Al-Saud: who, of course, are not at all supported by the west, oh no, sirree, bob.
It is to the west's eternal shame that they allowed or even encouraged brutal strongmen (e.g. Saddam) to gain power in those regions. For too long, brutal realpolitik has meant the people of the middle-east have suffered under the likes of the aforementioned thugs.
Indeed. But what's with the past tense? Ranging a little further afield, we're busy propping up President Musharraf in Pakistan (y'know, military dictator, best nuclear proliferator for decades, 'n' all that) Not to mention a few nasty bits of work in central asia such as the government of Tajikistan. Oh, sorry, they were willing members of the coalition, and provided bases for US special forces acting in Afghanistan, so that's all right then.
The liberation of Iraq is the first stage towards letting the people of the middle-east decide themselves how they are governed.
I will happily accept that argument when Iraq holds its second set of free and fair elections. I sincerely hope I live to see it.
1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist. ETA and the IRA for example, had limited concrete aims. Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
2) Agreed.
3) Mostly agreed. Like you, I supported it because of the mess we made first time round, and also that no one deserves to live under the likes of Saddam Hussein. Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs (and for example, in Tommy Frank's autobiography, he recalls that the leaders of Jordan and Egypt told him before the way that Saddam had WMDs), then I wasn't surprised by the WMD aspect being used. It wasn't the strongest - the humanitarian case for removal of Hussein was much, much stronger.
4) The UN sidelined itself by being singularly usefull and completely gutless in refusing to enforce its own resolutions regarding Iraq. Of course, now we know that it was partially because France et al were so in bed with Saddam that they didn't want to see their biggest customers ousted, partially because the UN itself is completely corrupt (see for example the UN oil-for-food SCAM, or the appointment of such luminaries as Libya and Syria to Human Rights Comissions) and partially because of a disgusting adherence to Kissenger-style realpolitik. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
"the humanitarian case for removal of Hussein was much, much stronger."
Yes, if the argument worked for Kosovo it was equally valid for Iraq. However by making the argument about WMD's the politicians are suffering because they have been proved wrong.
As far as the UN is concerned I agree it needs some serious reform. However I still think it could of worked (it did for the first Gulf war) but it was never given the chance. It depends what spin you attribute to the French position. You can't trash the system in the *middle* of a crisis. Maybe something sensible will happen once the dust has settled.
"As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq."
I agree, however the argument GW seems to want to make is that the world is safer after Gulf War II than before. Just looking at the casualties caused by terrorist bombs post-Invasion would seem to indicate otherwise. And thats before you count a 1/3rd of all kills by US forces which are civilians. Of course the fighting is all over in the Middle East at the moment which may be the point - its not on US soil.
A free and democratic Iraq will be a help to helping quell extremist Islam in the Middle East. However the policies GW adopted haven't made it more likely.
1) Agreed. WMDs were a side-show, as Tony Blair has found out to his cost. At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed". You may or may not agree with the reasons for doing so, but that he had to be removed was a moral imperative. That is why folks who describe the liberation as "immoral" really rile me. The consequences of not liberating Iraq was to leave Saddam in charge. And this is "moral"? (not directed at you of course, but a general question).
2) I doubt it. What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established. Any brutal regime, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and so on are shown the door. The idea of a security council is a good idea. BUt I think the seats need to be revamped. US, Russia, UK, Germany, India, Brazil perhaps?
3) Rather cynical viewpoint, but one I think that has a degree of truth.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation. Though there's a case of ifs-and-ands and pots-and-pans there. But the liberation of Iraq was the least he (i.e. GWB) could have done after the disgusting betrayal of the Iraqis by his father.
At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed".
Rubbish. George W. Bush and crowd lied up and down about the WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq - when they weren't lying up and down about a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In contrast, Tony Blair desperately tried to put forward a humanitarian motive for invading Iraq.
What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established.
Wouldn't work if the US were running it: the US has a poor track record for supporting democracies, and many of its loyal and rewarded allies aren't democracies. Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was a US ally, as opposed to Iran: and Iran was and is nearer democracy than Iraq.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation.
And instead, they were replaced by Donald Rumsfeld's torture chambers...
1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist.
Your argument was that the world changed on 11th September 2001. You're seriously trying to argue that al-Qaeda didn't exist till then? Do you begin to understand why I'm saying you're American-centric? Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
Actually, what they've explicitly said they want is US troops out of Saudi Arabia - this was the original function of Al-Queda - though they're not averse to toppling secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein. So far Bush's actions have gone along very nicely with al-Qaeda's explicitly stated goals.
2. Agreed.
The attack on Afganistan was a bloodthirsty and largely pointless (in anti-terrorist terms) response to September 11. The section dealing with it in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/313252.html) is the weakest and least truthful part of his film.
3... Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs
Actually, the "liberation" of Iraq hasn't happened yet, and may never: it's currently being ruled by a puppet propped up by the US military - the parts that aren't fully insurgent.
As for the WMD, the consensus by most intelligence agencies prior to political tweaking of their reports appears to have been - No evidence for nuclear weapons: insufficient evidence for other WMD or any immediate threat justifying invasion. Scott Ritter was right all along.
4 - mostly nonsense. The evidence of the French being "in bed" with Saddam Hussein more than the Americans (Halliburton was dealing with Iraq all through the 1990s and the 2000s) is nil. The Oil for Food shocker was not that some money was being skimmed off as bribes, but that it was deliberately set up to provide less than the Iraqis needed. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
...so you concede the point that claiming "9-11 changed everything" is American-centric nonsense? Thank you.
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
I can only apologise as this debate got out of control. I don't intend to comment any more as all that has been said usefully has been said, and I enojoyed the conversation with tractorb.
Gav, I know typhonian via sea_cucumber, and can vouch for the fact that he's actually a decent bloke. I might disagree with him on a variety of political points (the majority of them, by the sound of things), but he does do his research, does cite sources and actually provides a reasoned argument rather than the traditional ad hominem attacks and the like.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-04 13:57 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-04 14:42 (UTC)I was fully behind the action against Afganistan as a followup to 9-11. It made sense from a "Stopping Terrorism" point of view. It could also of been the first step in returning Afganistan to a functioning state and starting a new dialog with the Moslem world that could lead to new understanding.
I supported the war in Iraq from a moral stand point (we needed to make amends for the mess we left it in from the 1st Gulf war). Given a bit more time it would of still happened but with more international consensus. However the obsession with WMD's was a diversion. Even if Iraq had them it was one of the least liky states to aid hardline Islamic terrorists by giving them the weapons. The sad fact is your not going to prevent the spread of WMD's from the source because their are too many, the best way is by good intelligence and intercepting them before they are used.
The result of the Iraq war has been a dramatic breakdown in International relations including the sidelining of the UN, alienation of the rest of the Arab world and turning Iraq into a lawless void where every Al-Queda recruiter can send their brainwashed foot soldiers to shoot Americans. I don't think any of that fall-out has made the world a safer place.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 04:34 (UTC)Alex is perfectly right in saying that terrorism existed way before September 11th, it's always existed in one form or another, and the definition of terrorist changes depending on what side you're on. When Margaret Thatcher was in power she called Nelson Mandella a terrorist, now he's a world hero...
The main thing that changed is that america realised they aren't untouchable. The consequence was that there has been a culture of fear in America since and the powerful people of the US have used that to economic and political advantage.
Plus the main reason the Arab world is pissed off is that the western part of the world is just taking the piss.
Also in my opinion, neither side is right. From the properganda that's floating round the states (and outside too, but our news is a little less biased), in my opinion, the US troops are as brainwashed as the Arab world. There is no link (America has now confirmed) between Al-Queda and Osama bin Laden, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. I've never been for the war, especially without the backing of the UN.
Ok, so I may come across like a lefty-greenie-liberal-whatever, but (and I don't even know who you are, so sorry!) typhonian's view is extremely simplistic view of the world. Also confirming my status as a greenie etc - I do recommend you watch Farenheight 9/11, or if you think Micheal Moore is too emotional and doesn't prove his facts correctly (but neither do Fox Network, CNN etc, or the american government!!) read "Why do people hate America". It's a lot more intellectual and has references for every single fact.
We can no longer look at world politics in black and white, we're right they're wrong, it just makes things worse.
Anyway, rant over, my apologies, but I feel a bit strongly about all this. I like American's individually (got lots of friends over there and spent several summers there). But as whole they seem to be extremely stupid. But so are everyone else!!
Raaaaaa!!! ;-p
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:39 (UTC)But you do touch upon a wider point which has to be addressed. The Arab World is pissed off because of the terrible conditions they are living under. Assad, Mubarak, Arafat, Quadaffi, Khomenini, Al-Saud - you would be pissed off living under the likes of those. It is to the west's eternal shame that they allowed or even encouraged brutal strongmen (e.g. Saddam) to gain power in those regions. For too long, brutal realpolitik has meant the people of the middle-east have suffered under the likes of the aforementioned thugs.
The liberation of Iraq is the first stage towards letting the people of the middle-east decide themselves how they are governed...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:06 (UTC)Anyway, the arguments about Micheal Moore is also the reason I mentioned the book "why do people hate America". I can't remember the authors are off hand, but can look up if you want. But it's alot harder to slag them off. The pages listing American invasions into democratic countries over the last several decades runs for pages..
The western nations are often responsible for installing the above regimes you've mentioned, and we certainly haven't helped as you said. Plus if you looked at it from that point of view, allot of the imigrants etc in America are treated like you've described above, and are pissed off at the living conditions. Depends which way you look at it.
When we bommed Afganistan, the contractors brought in to repare the country made a profit of 20%, the standard in the west is 5%. The west made money from bombing the country. Plus why was Iraq invaded but not Saudi Arabia? Because the american stock market would collapse. Or North Korea, they are a dangerous regime and are developing nuclear weapons? Its not about "liberation" it's about money and power.
To a large extent all you are quoting is American and UK properganda. The middle east won't be ruling it's self. The people put into power, ok so they're iraqis, but they are the ones america want. Ok, so I'm probably just as one sided, but from the other way, but I don't aprove of killing people for political reasons, and these are my views.
I think we'll have to agree to dissagree. Its a simple matter of differing politics. Neither of us is going to persuade the other, as we're both obviously fixed in our views. (Though I did think america was the land of the free until recently, hence doing camp america and visiting relatives, but I've changed my mind.
Anyway feel free to reply, but I'm not going to bother continuing:-) (I'll just get more frustrated!!!*talking to myself* let it go..... ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:02 (UTC)1) It's an opinion based upon fact. But you would expect me to say that anyway :-)
2) I think that "democratic countries" is a misnomer to a degree. Sure America has made mistakes, but it is damned when it does, and damned when it doesn't. And I think a lot of the envy is based upon jealousy to a degree.
3) Yet America is still the no-1 immigrant destination in the world. Plus, if the likes of Schwarzeneger can make it to the Governor of California, then that shows that anyone has a chance there. They built up a country out of nothing in just over 200 years. That's good going.
4) And? I don't think that is a reason not to liberate the country. It's how the free market works. As to why we aren't invading Saudi Arabia (which lets face it, is a horrible and barbaric regime which spreads and sponsors terror and intolerance), there's one reason: we need the oil. Which means the sooner we develop alternatives to oil the better, then we can tell Saudi where to go...
5) I think you're being overly cynical. After all, the biggest killer of muslims over the last few decades was...Saddam Hussein. Almost anyone would be better than Saddam, but the US Government is bound by US law to introduce a full democracy into Iraq.
6) Agreed. I'm in a similar position to you (except I'm right of course :-)). I read the guardian on-line every day and am almost physically sick at some of the views expressed. But I think we all must remember the words of Voltaire and his views about, well, views and holding them... :-)
7) Agrees. I feel the same a lot. Giving myself blood pressure for no good reason.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:57 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 13:50 (UTC)Arafat: Yeah, and how much power as he got with the Israeli army breathing down his neck? (Please note, I'm not suggesting that Arafat would be the most benificient leader in the world or anything)
Khomenini: I assume you mean Khomeini, who (a) has been dead for the best part of 15 years, and (b) came to power on the back of a popular revolution against an American-backed dictator/monarch.
[House of] Al-Saud: who, of course, are not at all supported by the west, oh no, sirree, bob.
Indeed. But what's with the past tense? Ranging a little further afield, we're busy propping up President Musharraf in Pakistan (y'know, military dictator, best nuclear proliferator for decades, 'n' all that) Not to mention a few nasty bits of work in central asia such as the government of Tajikistan. Oh, sorry, they were willing members of the coalition, and provided bases for US special forces acting in Afghanistan, so that's all right then.
I will happily accept that argument when Iraq holds its second set of free and fair elections. I sincerely hope I live to see it.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:32 (UTC)1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist. ETA and the IRA for example, had limited concrete aims. Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
2) Agreed.
3) Mostly agreed. Like you, I supported it because of the mess we made first time round, and also that no one deserves to live under the likes of Saddam Hussein. Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs (and for example, in Tommy Frank's autobiography, he recalls that the leaders of Jordan and Egypt told him before the way that Saddam had WMDs), then I wasn't surprised by the WMD aspect being used. It wasn't the strongest - the humanitarian case for removal of Hussein was much, much stronger.
4) The UN sidelined itself by being singularly usefull and completely gutless in refusing to enforce its own resolutions regarding Iraq. Of course, now we know that it was partially because France et al were so in bed with Saddam that they didn't want to see their biggest customers ousted, partially because the UN itself is completely corrupt (see for example the UN oil-for-food SCAM, or the appointment of such luminaries as Libya and Syria to Human Rights Comissions) and partially because of a disgusting adherence to Kissenger-style realpolitik. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:56 (UTC)Yes, if the argument worked for Kosovo it was equally valid for Iraq. However by making the argument about WMD's the politicians are suffering because they have been proved wrong.
As far as the UN is concerned I agree it needs some serious reform. However I still think it could of worked (it did for the first Gulf war) but it was never given the chance. It depends what spin you attribute to the French position. You can't trash the system in the *middle* of a crisis. Maybe something sensible will happen once the dust has settled.
"As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq."
I agree, however the argument GW seems to want to make is that the world is safer after Gulf War II than before. Just looking at the casualties caused by terrorist bombs post-Invasion would seem to indicate otherwise. And thats before you count a 1/3rd of all kills by US forces which are civilians. Of course the fighting is all over in the Middle East at the moment which may be the point - its not on US soil.
A free and democratic Iraq will be a help to helping quell extremist Islam in the Middle East. However the policies GW adopted haven't made it more likely.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:08 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:39 (UTC)Again, answers corresponding to your paragraphs:
1) Agreed. WMDs were a side-show, as Tony Blair has found out to his cost. At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed". You may or may not agree with the reasons for doing so, but that he had to be removed was a moral imperative. That is why folks who describe the liberation as "immoral" really rile me. The consequences of not liberating Iraq was to leave Saddam in charge. And this is "moral"? (not directed at you of course, but a general question).
2) I doubt it. What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established. Any brutal regime, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and so on are shown the door. The idea of a security council is a good idea. BUt I think the seats need to be revamped. US, Russia, UK, Germany, India, Brazil perhaps?
3) Rather cynical viewpoint, but one I think that has a degree of truth.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation. Though there's a case of ifs-and-ands and pots-and-pans there. But the liberation of Iraq was the least he (i.e. GWB) could have done after the disgusting betrayal of the Iraqis by his father.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 11:02 (UTC)Rubbish. George W. Bush and crowd lied up and down about the WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq - when they weren't lying up and down about a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In contrast, Tony Blair desperately tried to put forward a humanitarian motive for invading Iraq.
What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established.
Wouldn't work if the US were running it: the US has a poor track record for supporting democracies, and many of its loyal and rewarded allies aren't democracies. Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was a US ally, as opposed to Iran: and Iran was and is nearer democracy than Iraq.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation.
And instead, they were replaced by Donald Rumsfeld's torture chambers...
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:07 (UTC)Your argument was that the world changed on 11th September 2001. You're seriously trying to argue that al-Qaeda didn't exist till then? Do you begin to understand why I'm saying you're American-centric?
Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
Actually, what they've explicitly said they want is US troops out of Saudi Arabia - this was the original function of Al-Queda - though they're not averse to toppling secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein. So far Bush's actions have gone along very nicely with al-Qaeda's explicitly stated goals.
2. Agreed.
The attack on Afganistan was a bloodthirsty and largely pointless (in anti-terrorist terms) response to September 11. The section dealing with it in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/313252.html) is the weakest and least truthful part of his film.
3... Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs
Actually, the "liberation" of Iraq hasn't happened yet, and may never: it's currently being ruled by a puppet propped up by the US military - the parts that aren't fully insurgent.
As for the WMD, the consensus by most intelligence agencies prior to political tweaking of their reports appears to have been - No evidence for nuclear weapons: insufficient evidence for other WMD or any immediate threat justifying invasion. Scott Ritter was right all along.
4 - mostly nonsense. The evidence of the French being "in bed" with Saddam Hussein more than the Americans (Halliburton was dealing with Iraq all through the 1990s and the 2000s) is nil. The Oil for Food shocker was not that some money was being skimmed off as bribes, but that it was deliberately set up to provide less than the Iraqis needed.
As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
...so you concede the point that claiming "9-11 changed everything" is American-centric nonsense? Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:21 (UTC)2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:12 (UTC)*grin* This is a joke, yes?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:19 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:11 (UTC)Oh. It's a serious example of the kind of American-centric thinking that's so hard to take seriously when you're not American.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:40 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:35 (UTC)Aren't you glad you started this conversation?! ;-P
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:56 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:22 (UTC)I think my initial "hrm." applies.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 12:26 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 13:29 (UTC)Gav, I know
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 14:27 (UTC)(no subject)
From: