Not sure how I missed this before:
Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.
Re:Exactly!
VSarkiss on 2005-05-05T02:54:29
Yes, which is why we're making such a big effort in Darfur, and practically all of Africa.
I could have sworn we went to Iraq to find WMD. I didn't realize it was all for humanitarian causes.
and burma and zimbabwe and china..
TeeJay on 2005-05-05T08:17:03
Strange how Bush and Blair have failed to take any action against far worse junta's and dictators accross asia, russia and china.
Iraq was a tinpot dicatorship that the CIA lost control of, it was also too close to Israel, Kuwait and Saudi - nobody cares about junta's and dictatorship's that aren't sitting on a shedload of oil or next to key allies of the Bush Administration.
Just look at Pakistan - a key allie in the war on terror, but of course it used to be a democracy and is now ruled by a military junta where human rights have been eroded and torture and imprisonment without trial are the norm.Re:and burma and zimbabwe and china..
pudge on 2005-05-10T22:28:38
This is a terribly irrational argument. At best, it's a straw man, as no one in the administration ever said the only reason for going into Iraq was to get rid of a bad guy. It's also because Iraq is of obvious strategic importance, economically, militarily, and otherwise, and also because Islamic radicalism is a real threat to us at home, and Iraq's democratization will help us combat that.
But perhaps worse than the straw man posed is the direct implication that if you don't try to help EVERYONE that needs it, you can't justify helping SOMEONE that needs it.
As to Pakistan, of course we would like democracy there, but more important than democracy is stability. Many times, the US government said it would accept a government in Iraq that was not a democracy so long as it recognized certain rights of its people and wasn't hostile to its neighbors or the West. That is far more important than democracy in the short term.
And the Dawkins article itself... it shows why most people should stick to what they know. Dawkins doesn't know jack about political philosophy, and the reason most people didn't hear about this article is because it is not worthy of note.
For example, he wrote, "Al Gore's majority in the country, reinforcing his majority in the electoral college but for dead-heated Florida, would have led a just and unbiased supreme court to award him the tie-breaker."
The problem is that there is no such thing as a popular vote for President in the U.S. Gore did not have a "majority in the country" because no such thing exists. And to award him the "tie-breaker" because he is leading before Florida is counted would have been to deny Florida its rightful representation in the electoral college, which is a punishment to be handed out (cf. Amendment XIV, Section 2). It would have been unlawful for the court to do so barring evidence of Constitutional misconduct.
And so Dawkins' argument boils down to, "I dislike the result the law produced, which only shows there is something wrong with the law." He says following the law gave the victory to someone who didn't deserve it, but his evidence is based only on his opinion that Gore was the better candidate, and a misrepresentation of the facts.
He's about as astute on these points as a random actor from Hollywood, and about as worthwhile to listen to.
And as to his forecasting of Bush being a dream for Bin Laden... that's surely been proven wrong thus far. There's a long way to go, but democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, the arrest and killing of many insurgents, a more moderate Palestinian leadership, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Pakistan and other nations cracking down on radical Islamism, more democratic rumblings in Iran and LIbya and Egypt and Lebanon ... this is a dream for Bin Laden? On what planet?
Re:and burma and zimbabwe and china..
TeeJay on 2005-05-11T10:04:31
"This is a terribly irrational argument. At best, it's a straw man, as no one in the administration ever said the only reason for going into Iraq was to get rid of a bad guy. "
That's funny as that has been the post-facto argument from Bush and Blair has been exactly that. The goal of regime change was obvious before and after the war, actually rebuilding a stable iraq was probably a lower priority than Halliburton and Others paydays, getting elected and striking back after the humiliation and incompetance of sept 11th.
"It's also because Iraq is of obvious strategic importance, economically, militarily, and otherwise, and also because Islamic radicalism is a real threat to us at home, and Iraq's democratization will help us combat that."
That is known to be untrue.
The invasion of iraq and the truly fucking ridiculous management after victory was announced has done the opposite - there is now terrorism where there was none, there is anti-western feelings where there was none, and there is increased radicalism.
Islamic Radicalism isn't a danger to the US or UK, a small terror cult with no clear political goals has turned into a large organisation with clear political goals, martyrs and everything it needs to recruit and finance itself boosted by western foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.
Iran has had democracy for a long time, and has been moving towards a moderate position since the early 90's this comes from the hard work of european nations and moderate muslims in the middle east. The CIA has thrown some money and propoganda their way but Iraq has pushed many waverers back into the hands of extremists and hardliners.
The problems with attacking iraq were obvious before and during the invasion. It was stated that the nation was already suffering from severe infrastructure problems, yet the infrastructure (except the precious oil pipelines) were bombed back to the middle ages. The parts of the infrastructure that were working were left unguarded and the experienced staff were all fired for being members of the ruling party, the army and police force were dispanded, and into the vacuum came terrorists, seperatists and organised criminals.
It would have been far wiser to get the peace talks between israel and palestine back on track first, keep the pressure on iraq through the UN, which was working, revise the oil-for-food and other sanction schemes so that they punished the political class rather than the innocent, and worked to help moderates in Iran and Iraq (and no I don't mean throwing money at convicted embezzlers as the CIA did).Re:and burma and zimbabwe and china..
pudge on 2005-05-11T15:23:06
That's funny as that has been the post-facto argument from Bush and Blair has been exactly that.
You're absolutely wrong. The stated purpose of going into Iraq was never, ever, merely one thing. You hear what you want instead of what is actually being said.
The invasion of iraq and the truly fucking ridiculous management after victory was announced has done the opposite - there is now terrorism where there was none, there is anti-western feelings where there was none, and there is increased radicalism.
Even if all that is true, it doesn't argue against what I wrote. Again, you are attacking a straw man. No one *ever* said that there would not be a temporary rise in these things following the invasion. I predicted it myself, all the while supporting the war. But that these things are rising temporarily does not mean that we are not more effectively combatting them in the long run.
You see a hornet's nest, and you spray it with poison. Guess what, you see more hornet activity. And in the process, you've killed most of them, and weakened their position for the future. That there are more terrorist attacks now, against our troops, than before is a good thing: it means we are killing them now instead of letting them live to plot attacks elsewhere, against civilians.
Whether there is actually more radicalism, or whether it is just more apparent, is not known. What is known is that in the Middle East, the governments are all moving more away from radicalism, and the cultures are feeling more and more free to speak out against radicalism.
Islamic Radicalism isn't a danger to the US or UK
So 9/11 didn't happen? Do you really intend this statement to be taken seriously?
Iran has had democracy for a long time
Only in a similar sense as Egypt and Iraq and other countries that have sham democracies.
and has been moving towards a moderate position since the early 90's
And started shifting back in the late 90s.
this comes from the hard work of european nations and moderate muslims in the middle east.
And the U.S., which has been a staunch supporter of the Iranian opposition groups.
The CIA has thrown some money and propoganda their way but Iraq has pushed many waverers back into the hands of extremists and hardliners.
And it has pushed many of them into the hands of the opposition groups.
It would have been far wiser to get the peace talks between israel and palestine back on track first
That was not possible as long as Arafat was in charge, as we all know.
keep the pressure on iraq through the UN, which was working
No, it wasn't. Not in any functional sense of the word. The UN resolutions called for disarmament, monitoring, and verification. Even if we can trust that Iraq was disarmed, we know that they refused to allow for sufficient monitoring and verification, and without this we could never know they were disarmed, which means we have to assume they were armed.
This is all established fact. Only the most partisan or sophomoric interpretation of events could conclude that the system was working.
revise the oil-for-food and other sanction schemes so that they punished the political class rather than the innocent
Yeah, right. The UN refused to enforce its own resolutions that required the UN to take action to force Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, and those same people who refused to take action were profitting from OFF, and you want them to reform OFF? The case can be made that they refused to take forceful action *because* they wanted to keep the profitable OFF exactly how it was.
