Dear Log,
«Our own debates turn on what we should do to change things, including withdrawing support from bad governments, an issue that illustrates our confusion. Continue that support, and for some it is oppression by proxy. Withdraw it, or work against such regimes, and suddenly we are overturning other peoples' governments.[...]Sometimes it seems as if we have not progressed in our understanding of international affairs beyond the stage represented in the treatment of mental disorder by such techniques as electro-convulsive therapy. Apply some huge trauma to the patient, and maybe the pain and shock will effect a cure. Almost these very terms were employed by the Iraqi exile Kenan Makiya at a meeting in London last year. The Arab world, to his mind, needs some enormous jolt of change. It could have come from a settlement between Palestinians and Israelis, but, failing that and in any case worth doing on its own merits, it could come from the use of military force to bring down the Iraqi regime.»
--"Action is risky, but turning away could be even riskier": Botched intervention worked in the Balkans, but will it in Iraq?
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-02-20T03:46:17
But again:), the UN Security Council has determined, and reaffirmed in dozens (?) of resolutions over 12 years, that Iraq must be disarmed. France has agreed, Russia has agreed, China has agreed. That Iraq must be disarmed is, in the UN Security Council, not a matter of debate. And your ideas, while interesting, do not address that mandate.
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-20T07:39:40
And again, I don't trust the governments on the Security Council any further than I can throw them. I haven't seen good things come from any of them, frankly.:)
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-02-20T11:47:39
Fine, don't trust them. It doesn't change the fact that the Security Council has decided Iraq will be disarmed of NBC weapons and missles that are capable of execeeding a 150km range, and that if inspections fail -- as they have failed, and continue to fail -- then further steps will be taken to effect that disarmament. Frankly, if you aren't acknowledging these facts in the discussion, and talking about how to disarm Iraq, you're just making noise. It's like going to a business meeting on how to cut expenses and ranting about how you don't like balloon animals.
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-21T00:28:19
1) The governments on the Security Council don't really care what you or I think.
2) As you say, they will do various things -- I fully acknowledge that they will probably invade Iraq and install some sort of authoritarian military regime, and keep a US military presence in the country indefinitely.
3) I think that these actions will not really help anyone. The likelihood that the actions will take place doesn't affect whether I support them or not.
4) The behavior of the US government *is* an issue here. It is more like going to a business meeting and pointing out that the CEO is lying to everyone and embezzling from the company.
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-02-21T00:44:10
1) I don't see the relevance of this bit of information.
2) I don't know who "they" is, but as I gave evidence of in the previous discussion, all the actual evidence I've seen shows that the US will not installing anyone into power, and that the person the US has given its blessing to (who is making a move for power of his own accord) is anything BUT authoritarian. I prefer to look at actual evidence when available than to speculate wildly.
3) That you do not see how the actions will help is not interesting, since you refuse to acknowledge the purpose of said actions.
4) I don't have any idea what this point is supposed to mean.
The bottom line is that you are arguing against war, and completely ignoring the whole point of the looming conflict, and yet you still apparently want people to take you seriously. That's a shame.
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-21T08:09:57
the person the US has given its blessing to is anything BUT authoritarian
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
you refuse to acknowledge the purpose of said actions
I acknowledge that from what I can tell, Saddam Hussein is a nasty dictator fellow.
What I don't see is why you trust the US government to make the situation better by military conquest.
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-02-21T12:49:25
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
That URL offers no evidence that the person the US has given its blessing to is authoritarian. In fact, it does not even mention the person by name. You were giving this URL in direct response to my assertion of this, so... I don't see the point.
And wow, what a horrible article. That reporter just sucks. It says that some Kurdish officials say that the US is abandoning plans for democracy in Iraq, but I don't find that to be interesting. I know how politics works, and I know how people hear what they want to hear. It seems more likely to me that the US said "we are going to control the country with our military until we can stabilize the country" and they erroneously took that as "they are abandoning plans for democracy."
The article says "the change in American policy" as though any change has been established, and it clearly has not; it quotes some Kurdish officials, who don't quote the US officials, and accepts their interpretation as fact.
In itself, the article is extraordinarily uninteresting, except as a case study in diplomacy or media.
What I don't see is why you trust the US government to make the situation better by military conquest.
That is because you refuse to see what the actual point is. You see "better" in terms other than what they actual are: disarmament. Until you see that it is about disarmament, you will be unclear on such things, yes. Of course.
I am not for military action. I am for disarmament. War is one means to disarmament. Inspections are another. Inspections have failed. War should be the last resort. No one is offering an alternative for disarmament that falls between inspections and war (not even France).
So what you are looking for, from me, is some other mechanism to liberate people from nasty governments, that doesn't involve conquest by nasty people?
This has nothing to do with liberation, or Hussein being a nasty person. You are flatly mistaken. It is about disarmament. I've been preaching this mantra -- the same one the UN has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that the US has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that all governments in the area, that all governments in Europe, have acknowledged is the primary issue -- and you insist on attempting to frame it in other terms.
I acknowledge that from what I can tell, Saddam Hussein is a nasty dictator fellow.
That you refuse to acknowledge that this is about disarmament is telling. I will no longer discuss this with you, until you acknowledge that this is about disarmament, and frame the discussion in those terms. Life is too short to waste time on people who refuse to actually understand the nature of the conflict they are ranting about. I will just mumble something about pearls and move on.
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-21T17:53:49
This has nothing to do with liberation, or Hussein being a nasty person. You are flatly mistaken. It is about disarmament. I've been preaching this mantra -- the same one the UN has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that the US has been preaching for 12 years; the same one that all governments in the area, that all governments in Europe, have acknowledged is the primary issue -- and you insist on attempting to frame it in other terms.
These governments say it is about disarmament, but I don't believe them. During the 1980's the US government was actively arming the Iraqi government. Now they say this is a problem?
If the US government were disarming other governments with nasty weapons, there are lots of better targets: South Africa, North Korea, Russia, China, Britain, and France. In fact, the general trend is for the US government to *arm* other governments, not disarm them.
Remember that the anthrax that we've actually encountered was from the US Army!
That you refuse to acknowledge that this is about disarmament is telling.
Your insistence on assuming the US government is telling the truth is rather alarming, given its past record. If there is one thing to learn from 20th century history, it is that one should always *distrust* powerful people.
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-02-21T18:09:40
I know, I know, I said I would not respond. But I am trying to help you understand. I am too kind.
If the US government were disarming other governments with nasty weapons, there are lots of better targets: South Africa, North Korea, Russia, China, Britain, and France.
Not one of those countries is required by the UN Security Council to disarm. Not one of those countries unconditionally agreed with the UN Security Council to disarm. Your comparisons are uninteresting in the discussion at hand.
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-21T18:29:18
But I am trying to help you understand. I am too kind.
Please help me understand your point of view by answering my oft-repeated questions: why do you take what these governments say at face value? Are you at all familiar with the historical record of these governments?
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-02-21T18:40:28
I didn't answer it because it was irrelevant. I don't take what the governments say at face value. "Have you stopped beating your mother?"
But even if I did: EVERY government involved has agreed that Iraq must be disarmed, and that if inspections fail, other means shall be taken. It is not "these" governments, it is all of them, including Iraq. For that one just needs to read the record, which I have been quoting; you don't need to take anyone's word for it.Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-21T19:24:41
Have you stopped beating your mother?
Yes, I realized after posting that I should have worded that differently. Please excuse the rhetorical mistake.
EVERY government involved
News flash: NO government in the world is interested in helping out you, or any other individual. NO government will preserve your liberty, or keep you warm at night any longer that it has to. Note how EVERY government has agreed to nasty copyright and patent law, how EVERY government pushes for what's "good for business," and how governments like to get together to share information on each others' citizens.
The trustworthiness of governments *is* an issue when you are talking about actions that those governments will be undertaking. If I am going to buy a car from someone, their trustworthiness is an issue. I don't see how the people running the US government have any credibility whatsoever. You are unwilling to address this because you say it is irrelevant?
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-05-01T12:04:01
How bout that disarmament! Yeah!
Gotta love it.
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-05-01T12:11:31
Yes, it is going quite well. Your point... ? Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-05-02T00:20:19
I guess I missed the part where the US army commandos swooped in and seized the huge stockpiles of weapons that the Iraqi government was about to unleash on US citizens.Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-05-02T01:52:03
Are you ignoring the fact that only a small percentage of the known possible sites have been investigated, or the fact that the U.S. has said all along that we likely won't find much without help from Iraqis?
Or perhaps you think that I've ever thought that there necessarily were any weapons to find at all? I've said since this began that the point is not that Iraq *has* weapons, but that we *logically must assume* they do because of their complete failure to comply with their obligations to prove they have disarmed. Note that Resolution 1441 does not say anything at all about having prohibited weapons being a material breach; it was the lack of cooperation with inspectors toward disarmament was a material breach.
I'd like it if we could find all the prohibited weapons that exist, but if none do exist, I am perfectly fine with that, too. I've used this analogy many times, and it is still quite valid: if a suspected armed-and-dangerous-criminal is approached by a police officer, and the police officer orders him to put his hands in the air, and instead he puts his hands in his pockets, the police officer at some point must treat the suspect as though there is a weapon in that pocket. It is logically necessary.
I am not making excuses for the lack of found weapons; I'm repeating things I've been saying all along. I've never been fully convinced that they have prohibited weapons. But if they don't/didn't have them, then they should have fully cooperated with inspections, as required.
All that said, I see no reason whatsoever to think no weapons will be found. The evidence that Iraq has been developing prohibited weapons is quite strong. Perhaps it is foolish for people to assume the weapons exist until we have the "smoking gun," but it is far more foolish to assume they do not, in light of the evidence. It's probably best to admit we don't know.
But the bottom line is that if no weapons are found, it won't have the slightest impact on my argument for the justification of the use of military action, which had to do with Iraqi cooperation with the disarmament process, irrespective of the existence of weapons, which we were logically required to assume exist (act as though they exist) until Iraq proved otherwise. That is how the UN Resolutions were designed, how they were written. They were stupid resolutions, IMO, because Iraq never should have been given that kind of responsibility. We should have taken and occupied Baghdad a decade ago.
Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-06-02T10:36:17
They were making it all up. The whole point was to deceive nice people like you into thinking that they were doing something you would approve of.
As I said before, it's about credibility. Those guys (who armed Saddam in the first place, and thought that he was just great) have zero, and deserve total skepticism.
They are preserving the existing state, and just swapping out the old bosses for some new ones that will obey more faithfully.
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-06-02T10:57:58
They were making it all up. The whole point was to deceive nice people like you into thinking that they were doing something you would approve of.
Making all *what* up? Be specific, now.
Were they making up that Iraq had unaccounted-for weapons? No, they were not. We know this to be true, and no one but Iraq has ever disputed it; everyone in the UN Security Council agreed with it, as did the inspectors.
Were they making up that Iraq refused to allow inspectors to interview Iraqis outside of Iraq, such as in Greece? No, we also know this to be true, unless all of the UN inspectors are lying, as they said they requested it, but that those requests were never honored, as was required under 1441.
It seems to me you are saying they made up the current existence of weapons. Let's assume, for a moment, that this is true, that there are no weapons (despite the fact that you could not possibly know this, since far less than half of the inspection work is done). That you think this relates directly to what I am saying, that you think they were deceiving me, means you have no idea what I am saying, as I said that I was never convinced of the current existence of weapons, that the primary justification for war that I have been trumpeting for many months is the lack of cooperation -- which logically necessitates the practical assumption the existence of weapons -- rather than the actual existence of weapons.
You don't seem to understand this. You seem to think I ever believed weapons currently exist, despite my insistence, both before and after the war, that this is not the case. That's a shame.
Please try to read a little bit of what I say before replying, next time.Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-08-02T19:27:14
You don't seem to understand this. You seem to think I ever believed weapons
currently exist, despite my insistence, both before and after the war, that this
is not the case. That's a shame.
My issue with your argument is your suggested solution for the problem of "nasty
government X may have dangerous weapons." Your solution is that the US
government military invade that country, and replace its government with one
more friendly to the US government, is it not?
The problem with that solution is that being nasty, and being friendly to the US
government, are not by any means mutually exclusive (for example, the history of
Iraq up to its invasion of Kuwait). And an invasion comes at the cost of a
great deal of suffering for lots of people. Ever hear about Iraqi conscripts?
How many of them were killed? The US military talked about "totally wiping out"
military units with tens of thousands of people. The liberal types moan and
groan about civilian casualties, as if conscripts were somehow beneath their
notice. Hard-core hawks, of course, seem to lump all Iraqis into the latter
category.
Re:related thread
pudge on 2003-08-02T20:14:04
My issue with your argument is your suggested solution for the problem of "nasty government X may have dangerous weapons."
The solution everyone, including Iraq, agreed to in 1991.
Your solution is that the US government military invade that country, and replace its government with one more friendly to the US government, is it not?
Of course. Though the goal is not friendliness to the U.S. per se, but friendliness to the positions of the U.S., such as rejection of NBC weaponry, peaceful coexistence with Iraq's neighbors, opposition to terrorism, etc.
And an invasion comes at the cost of a great deal of suffering for lots of people. Ever hear about Iraqi conscripts?
You appear to be under the misapprehension that I am unaware of the foul nature of war.Re:related thread
mary.poppins on 2003-02-21T10:18:20
The bottom line is that you are arguing against war, and completely ignoring the whole point of the looming conflict, and yet you still apparently want people to take you seriously. That's a shame.
So what you are looking for, from me, is some other mechanism to liberate people from nasty governments, that doesn't involve conquest by nasty people?
(PS have you looked into the history of US government policy in Latin America? It is the area where the US government has had the most freedom of action over the last fifty years, and so is fairly instructive as to what these people want to do. Do a search for "Operation Condor," for instance.)
