Posted by: Old European on January 27, 2003 07:00 AM
The view from continental Europe: Al Qaeda, Pakistan, and North Korea are the real uncontained threats and irrational actors, so why is the Bush administration so fixated on Iraq?
Posted by DeLong at January 25, 2003 09:07 AM | TrackbackTo Some in Europe, the Major Problem Is Bush the Cowboy: ...One French official argued that the American military's failure to hunt down Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda's top command had led Mr. Bush to search for "easier but less important prey."
"Terrorists are a hundred times more likely to obtain a weapon of mass destruction from Pakistan than from Iraq," one senior European official said, not permitting a reporter to identify even his nationality because tensions with Washington are so high. "North Korea is far more likely to sell whatever it's got. But can we say this in public? Can we have a real debate about priorities? Not with George Bush."
This sense that many European officials have of dealing with an American president who makes up his mind and then will accept no argument is a central element in the current friction.
In interviews, German and French officials acknowledge that Mr. Bush's goal ? the disarmament of Iraq and ouster of Mr. Hussein ? would be best in an ideal world. In the next breath, though, they argue that for now, the containment of Mr. Hussein's power ? with inspectors keeping the Iraqi leader off balance for months ? is a perfectly acceptable second choice. While Vice President Dick Cheney has argued that a show of military might will begin to change the map of the Middle East, German and French officials say it will more likely lead to a radicalization of the Arab world, a fractured Iraq and a prolonged struggle with Washington over who will pick up the pieces.
“German and French officials say it will more likely lead to a radicalization of the Arab world”
This is an incredibly silly opinion. The Arab militant mindset respects only brute power. Smashing Saddam Hussein will intimidate these bitter and envious folks. There is little hope for peace in that part of the world until the moderate Muslim majority (and do believe that most Muslims desire peace) no longer have to fear their more radical brethren. Muslims need their own protestant style reformation. They require a few more Ataturks to lead them out of political and religious extremism.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 10:16 AMJonah Goldberg has some superb insights concerning the Axis of Weasels:
“And just to set the record straight: The sanctions regime has improved the health of all Iraqi children not under Saddam Hussein's thumb. In the Kurdish North — where American and British, but not French, planes prevent mass slaughter — there is no mass starvation or child-health crisis. Saddam, and not sanctions, has killed hundreds of thousands of children in order to score propaganda points, which have in turn been manfully presented to the world community by Mr. Chirac in exchange for fat oil contracts. In effect, the French (and Russians) do not want a war-for-oil because the current peace-for-oil allows them to collect billions from the corpses of dead Iraqi children.”
http://nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg012403.asp
I am so glad that my ancestors left Germany some one hundred years ago. This nation is so contemptible and responsible for so much horror. The same, of course, is true for their fellow weasel nation, France. They definitely deserve each other.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 10:43 AMNeither France, Germany nor the UN is operating from a position of altruistic disinterest.
My understanding is that the French oil services industry is the largest single supplier to Iraq (Slumberger, for instance) and it's clear that administration of the Iraqi oil for food program is a huge source of revenue for the United Nations.
This August 2000 data is from the UN website: " . . . . . . . . Since that first oil shipment, on 10 December 1996, around 1.9 billion barrels have been exported earning just under $29 billion.
Under the terms of relevant Security Council resolutions, some $16 billion of this money is available for the humanitarian programme in the 15 governorates in the centre and south of Iraq with another $4 billion for the three northern governorates. This is by far the largest humanitarian programme ever administered by the United Nations.
The Cambridge website notes that around $175 million had been used to pay UNCC expenses through 2000. The accounting isn't clear, but it sure looks like the UN gets the "float" on billions of cash flow - first revenues go into the UNCC fund, then claims are later paid out.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/guide/compensation.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/latest/bvs000729.html
Beyond the large financial conflicts of interest that skew UN and European positions, if you view the war on terrorism as a global effort against multiple stateless groups that hate the West, Iraq is by far the best place to start. Just look at the map.
When the geographic space of Iraq can no longer be used to constructively support terror, Iran and Syria/Lebanon are immediately isolated. And the critical flow of money and supplies from Iran to Hezbollah, its terrorist stooge organization in Lebanon, are substantially interdicted.
The Euro-elites are asking a question that's barely relevant. Yes, Pakistan and North Korea are important issues that have to be dealt with, but they're no more important than Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Dealing effectively with one will immediately put pressure on all the others countries, especially if the first one dealt with (Iraq) occupies the linchpin position in Middle East geography AND has the second largest oil reserves in the region.
Clearly, if the first major anti-terror effort after Afghanistan is an attack on Iraq and it fails wretchedly, then there will be a dramatically larger problem than we face now. THAT's why the effort can't fail. One should note that the major naysayers the moment have previously predicted: (1) a long messy war and huge loss of American lives in the first Gulf conflict in 1991, and (2) a humanitarian and perhaps military disaster in Afghanistan in the winter of 2001/2002. NEITHER came true, which suggests that many/most/all naysayers of that ilk should have much less credibility than they're being accorded.
Posted by: Anarchus on January 25, 2003 11:21 AMAn interesting article on the relative dangers of North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq and on the inconsistencies of Bush foreign policy.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030127fa_fact
Logically, the new strategy should have applied first to North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons program remains far more advanced than Iraq's. The Administration's goal, however, was to mobilize public opinion for an invasion of Iraq. One American intelligence official told me, "The Bush doctrine says MAD"—mutual assured destruction—"will not work for these rogue nations, and therefore we have to preëmpt if negotiations don't work. And the Bush people knew that the North Koreans had already reinvigorated their programs and were more dangerous than Iraq. But they didn't tell anyone. They have bankrupted their own policy—thus far—by not doing what their doctrine calls for."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030127fa_fact
An interesting article on the relative dangers of North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq.
Extract:
Logically, the new strategy should have applied first to North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons program remains far more advanced than Iraq's. The Administration's goal, however, was to mobilize public opinion for an invasion of Iraq. One American intelligence official told me, "The Bush doctrine says MAD"—mutual assured destruction—"will not work for these rogue nations, and therefore we have to preëmpt if negotiations don't work. And the Bush people knew that the North Koreans had already reinvigorated their programs and were more dangerous than Iraq. But they didn't tell anyone. They have bankrupted their own policy—thus far—by not doing what their doctrine calls for."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030127fa_fact
An interesting article on the relative dangers of North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq.
Extract:
Logically, the new strategy should have applied first to North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons program remains far more advanced than Iraq's. The Administration's goal, however, was to mobilize public opinion for an invasion of Iraq. One American intelligence official told me, "The Bush doctrine says MAD"—mutual assured destruction—"will not work for these rogue nations, and therefore we have to preëmpt if negotiations don't work. And the Bush people knew that the North Koreans had already reinvigorated their programs and were more dangerous than Iraq. But they didn't tell anyone. They have bankrupted their own policy—thus far—by not doing what their doctrine calls for."
Just so everyone knows, that's not just the view in Europe, non-UK Europe, but also in the UK. There are stirrings (see today's FT) in the Conservative Party (the right-wing party) against the war, and it's possible they may change their stance (tho' still unlikely given the leader's links with the American hard-right). That would be of major importance as it would mean the PM (Tony Blair) was completely isolated. If the Government's policy was to change, then with the UK, France and Germany and united against this Bush family escapade one would hope even the Republicans would think twice (although obviously we realise that the UK, France and Germany represent 'old' Europe and the future lies with Romania)
Posted by: matthew on January 25, 2003 12:48 PM>> The view from continental Europe: Al Qaeda, Pakistan, and North Korea are the real uncontained threats ...<<
I've never understood this argument. Is the idea supposed to be that it is somehow "unfair" to evil doers to eliminate one of them first, before the others?
Gee, then think how unfair it was for these very same Europeans to so insist that the US bomb poor Milosevic and all those Serbs. I mean, it's not like *he* had an atom bomb program, thousands of unaccounted-for poison gas weapons, a history of gassing civilians, and the habit of invading every independent country on his border. So how unfair was it for them to insist that the US take *him* out, instead of taking out the Pakistanis and Koreans first?
And without even going to the United Nations for a moral imprimatur for the bombing! How come the approval of the international community -- as represented by that of such moral stalwarts on the Security Council such as Syria, Russia, China, & Co. -- didn't matter to them *then*?
It couldn't possibly have been that they expected the Russians and Chinese to veto such bombing at the Council -- so it was more expedient for them to proceed "unilaterally" instead, could it?
Looking back at it, do these Europeans owe poor Slobodan an apology? Or is it really is just a case of
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242003/images/frontsm.gif
;-)
"That would be of major importance as it would mean the PM (Tony Blair) was completely isolated."
Gosh, why does this remind of Winston Churchill's troubles in convincing many of his party to fight against Nazi aggression? Have some folks forgotten that pacifism is greatly responsible for the deaths of million during World War II? Do they wish to see history repeated?
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 01:39 PM(1) Ah, David Thomson the sage weighs in with the old "Arabs respect brute power" argument. I guess this explains why they have given up and stopped fighting Israel? I guess this is why, after the US pummelled Iraq in GW1, they all turned lovey-dovey towards the US?
Exactly what does this mythical "respect for brute power" mean, and can David point us to a particular example. Bare in mind that the REAL problem we are trying to deal with here is terrorism, so what we want is an example of where this brute power stopped some terrorists in their tracks and persuaded them not to do what they planned to do.
(2) France is perfectly entitled to feel superior to the US concerning this mess. France gets 80% or so of its electrical power from nuclear energy. They have been working damn hard to ensure that THEY'RE not part of this situation that makes the entire world care what some nutcases in the Middle East do. Meanwhile the US, in spite of decades of warnings, has done buggerall to reduce its dependence on oil.
(3) It's a bit early, isn't it, to assume that Afghanistan isn't going to be a disaster? What do you imagine the naysayers had in mind? That American soldiers would somehow die in the millions? The issue there, JUST LIKE the issue in Iraq, is NOT the military conquest, it is dealing with the political aftermath. It's still not at all obvious that any sort of united government (let alone democracy) will take root in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, thanks to the war all sorts of underground forces are at work in Pakistan. Right now the dictator in Pakistan is friendly. Do you really think the US can arrange things to ensure that the next dictator, and the next one, and the one after that indefinitely will all remain friendly? Especially given the way they have behaved in Afghanistan and are behaving in Iraq and towards Israel/Palestine? Sometimes the issue is not about what is being done, it is about how it is being done. And every single thing the Bush administration does, from its Christian sermonizing in the US to its unconditional support of Israel to its lack of concern about how many Iraqis will die in a vanity war to its apparent belief that the oil in Middle East is the US' property send out one constant message to Arabs and Muslims (including especially Pakistan) namely "We despise you, we think you are subhumans whose lives mean nothing, and if we ever appear to be befriending you, believe me, it's only because we want something from you and will toss you as soon as we've got it."
Posted by: Maynard Handley on January 25, 2003 01:46 PM>>Just so everyone knows, that's not just the view in Europe, non-UK Europe, but also in the UK.<<
And now Canada as well. It appears some 85% of Canadians don't want Canada in Iraq if the UN won't sanction it. That joins the - what is it now? - half of Americans who are opposed.
When you can't even get Canada on your side, it's time to think about what you're doing.
>>The Arab militant mindset respects only brute power. <<
The American militant mindset only respects money and nukes. Seeing Bush stymied on every front will intimidate these bitter and envious folk. There is little hope for America until the moderate American majority (and most Americans do desire peace) no longer have to fear their more radical compatriots. They need their own European style anti-militant reform. They require a few more Kennedys to lead them out of political and ideological extremism.
I am so glad that my wife and I left America last year. This nation is so contemptible and responsible for so much horror. The same, of course, is true for their fellow weasel nation, Britain. They definitely deserve each other.
Sound like a Guardian editorial?
There is, of course, a word for this kind of thinking. It's routinely called bigotry when someone says it about the US or Israel, and making the subject Arabs, French or German doesn't make it less bigoted.
>>Neither France, Germany nor the UN is operating from a position of altruistic disinterest.<<
and:
>>Gee, then think how unfair it was for these very same Europeans to so insist that the US bomb poor Milosevic and all those Serbs.<<
For years now, I've had American hawks tell me that pointing out the abundant hypocricy in American foreign policy doesn't constitute grounds for opposing US action. Yet, I am now expected to accept this very same argument with regard to France and Germany.
There is a word for this too: duplicity.
Indeed, if the lack of pure motives on the part of American politicians isn't a good enough reason to reject American actions, how does the possiblity of impure motives license rejecting European actions?
Posted by: Scott Martens on January 25, 2003 02:44 PMMaynard,
Bare in mind that the REAL problem we are trying to deal with here is terrorism
I really don't think so... Terrorism is not the root problem, it is a consequence of lack of opportunity for a young man with an above-average intelligence in the present-day Arab world. I live in the U.S. and have quite a few friends of Iranian descent, whose fathers emigrated to the U.S. after Khomeini took over. Except for a couple of physicians, almost all of them (I mean, my friends' fathers) are textile engineers who used to run Iranian textile industry, which was mostly export-oriented. Now, if you're intelligent enough to be a textile engineer in today's Iran, what do you do for a living?
In a similar vein, what's Pakistan's (or Bangledesh's, for that matter) real beef with the U.S.? Why, it's the Multi-fiber Agreement that sets quotas on textile imports into the U.S.
Let's run a thought experiment. Assume that tomorrow the U.S. imposes seriously restrictive quotas on Indian software. Between three largest vendors (Tata Consultancy, Wipro, and Infosys), the total number of jobs affected would be about 50,000, mostly highly-skilled software professionals. What effect would it have on already not-so-wonderful U.S.-Indian relations? How would the bitterness of tens of thousands technically competent people (whose incomes used to put them into the top 10% of population, but no longer do) manifest itself in the long run? What message would it send to the Indian college and secondary school students? At best, that career is only possible within the government; at worst, that the U.S. is the enemy that seeks to destroy the well-being of Indian people, in particular those who are capable of competing directly with their American counterparts... Why then are we surprised that some Pakistanis feel that way today?
I sometimes wonder how far the U.S. would go economically, if European countries had quotas on agricultural products in the 19th century...
Posted by: Nikolai Chuvakhin on January 25, 2003 02:46 PM“(2) France is perfectly entitled to feel superior to the US concerning this mess. France gets 80% or so of its electrical power from nuclear energy. They have been working damn hard to ensure that THEY'RE not part of this situation that makes the entire world care what some nutcases in the Middle East do. Meanwhile the US, in spite of decades of warnings, has done buggerall to reduce its dependence on oil.”
Excuse me, but what in heaven's name are you talking about? The United States has only the radical Left to blame for its limited use of nuclear power. Conservatives were long advocating this form of energy. it is almost totally the fault of the Democrats that America is far behind the curve in this respect. Alas, people like myself are doing our best to make sure that the Liberal extremists don’t cause anymore harm to this great nation.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 02:56 PMNikolai, I was with you about "Terrorism is not the root problem, it is a consequence of lack of opportunity for a young man with an above-average intelligence in the present-day Arab world," but you lost me when you went into blaming this on American textile import restrictions.
If that's the problem, then how do you explain the difference between American-Indian relations and American-Pakistani relations? How do you explain the fact that Pakistan is still depending on textile exports while India is now depending on foreign investment and software?
And besides, textile exports are important, really, as a way for Pakistan to generate foreign capital so that it can afford modern machinery purchases, and hopefully switch to higher-value products. In other words, to do what India is doing, and what South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, China, America (as you pointed out in your post) have done. But if the problem is textile import tariffs, then what explains the fact that the Arab states, which had a huge amount of foreign capital in the 70s and 80s, still didn't modernize, despite being able to purchase machinery and know-how from overseas?
No, the problem is not a tariff quota. The problem is a lack of democracy. You can modernize without democracy, but it's much harder, and generally doesn't work as well.
Posted by: Joshua Galun on January 25, 2003 03:02 PM“I really don't think so... Terrorism is not the root problem, it is a consequence of lack of opportunity for a young man with an above-average intelligence in the present-day Arab world.”
Why are you focussing solely on the young men? What about the women of the Muslim world who are usually treated as second class citizens? You are right to take to task the hypocrisy of some of America’s trade policies. However, this is a very minor reason for the backwardness of the Muslim world. Most of its troubles are due to reactionary cultural values and pervasive anti-intellectualism. The Muslims need their own protestant reformation. Little is accomplished by your scapegoating the United States. The Islamic world was once the preeminent power on this planet. Around some 500 years ago, the Muslim leaders opted to embrace a “stop the world, I want to get off” attitude. This is nobody’s problem but their own. So-called Western imperialism is not at fault.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 03:17 PMhttp://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html
So TIME asks you: which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?
North Korea 7.6 %
Iraq 8.6 %
The United States 83.8 %
Total Votes Cast: 292339
Posted by: Old European on January 25, 2003 03:33 PMI thank Instapundit for pointing out David Warren’s perspicuous insights:
“Opinion polls show that the whole world, including Americans, would feel decidedly more comfortable about his going into Iraq if Mr. Bush had U.N. backing. To be charitable to world opinion, I think this is because there is very little real appreciation of what goes on in there -- of the degree to which the U.N. is itself not an embodiment of noble ideals, but more simply the corrupt and dissimulating reflection of its largely illegitimate and despotic membership.”
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Jan03/index111.shtml
>>The Muslims need their own protestant reformation. Little is accomplished by your scapegoating the United States. The Islamic world was once the preeminent power on this planet.<<
Well I think that if I was trying to recruit people to die for my cause and deflect attention from the repressive nature of my political views and the failure of my economic system I would be grateful for the US for making my life so easy. None of that hearts and minds stuff from the US, just dead relatives and racial slurs.
>> Around some 500 years ago, the Muslim leaders opted to embrace a ?stop the world, I want to get off? attitude.<<
Well I'm sure that the Sublime Porte would be bemused to hear this.
This is really totally solipsistic Your arguments will cut no ice with those who obviously disagree with your analysis.
Posted by: Jack on January 25, 2003 03:40 PM"This is really totally solipsistic Your arguments will cut no ice with those who obviously disagree with your analysis."
O.K., I will throw the ball back into your corner. Please inform us of even one major accomplishment of the Islamic world in the last 500 years?
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 04:04 PMI am suspicious of French and German complaints about our war focus for the same reason that many people are suspicious when Bush says that we should remove the Taliban to protect women's rights.
The fact that we are really not removing the Taliban to protect women's rights doesn't change the fact that it might be a good idea to help womens rights in that way. Similarly, the fact that the French and German give us this advice doesn't mean it's not a good idea.
But it's also hard not to notice the fact that the people who suggest it would be better to focus on Bin Laden, not Iraq, tend to be the same people who wanted us to not attack Afghanistan, but consider using international police work instead, tend to be people who oppose invading Iraq under any circumstances, etc.
In other words, I am suspicious that France and Germany are really concerned that we need to not divide our focus. I think they just don't want us to make any war, and will adjust their arguments to whatever seems to make the best case against it - whether that is the reason they really believe or not. Just like Bush would make war on the Taliban regardless of women's rights, but he'll use that as a reason if it helps his case.
Posted by: Joshua Galun on January 25, 2003 04:15 PMThe entire Ottoman Empire1517-1917? Will that do?
In any case the point is that if I were a moderate Malaysian muslim say, would I think that I was backward or that American are violent hypocrites who think that I can only be persuaded to see reason by force?
Sorry 1512-1917 starting from the reign of Selim I.
Posted by: Jack on January 25, 2003 04:51 PMand the Taj Mahal!
Posted by: Jack on January 25, 2003 05:09 PMI think it is fair to say that the French official is probably wrong when he/she asserts that the Bush admin.'s drive to war is a result of a need (or desire) to kill an easier prey in face of the inability to locate Bin Laden.
Clearly the Bush admin. had designed an invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11/01. Most likely the motive is the most obvious and most crude.....securing oil and the enrichment of the House of Bush.
All other arguements are a thin smoke screen; believed only by the most unthinking Republican cheerleaders, and seen through by the rest of the world.
As for Afghanistan, not much has changed there. Opium and hashish production have resumed to levels at least equal to pre-American presence. Militarily speaking, sections of the country are still quite fluid. There is little reason to claim success of any kind, to date. And of course Bin Laden is at large. Most likely he escaped when his route out of Torra Bora was covered not by U.S. troops, but by Afghan "allies" who apparently accepted bribes to let Taliban through (that was a first class strategic blunder).
The risk of massive causalties, both combatants and civilian, in Gulf War 2 is absolutely greater than it was in Gulf War 1. This time the fighting will be in the urban centers ;where Saddam has already placed his troops. Furthermore, factions within in Iraqi population may well begin infighting as U.S. troops slug it out with Iraqi troops in the urban centers, thus adding to the carnage and chaos and death toll. (Sorry, I can't resist a little topic drift here)
Anyhow, regardless of the scenario, the action will be like nothing we have seen scince Tet '68 or WWII.
Colin Powell is telling us that just because the job of invading Iraq is tough and risky doesn't mean that we should shy away from it. What a joke! He then tells us that we can negotiate with North Korea and he appears unconcerned with Pakistan (calling it our ally, our partner in the war against terror). Both those countries are known to trade in WMDs with anyone who has the cash. Pakistan could fall to a radical Moslim coup any day.
It seems the Europeans are reading us like a bad dime store novel. How could they not.
And David T., I too would like to have you present an example of any people throughout history, let alone Moslims, who were cowed by the respect of brute force. Typically, people have been agitated to revolt, terrorism, and out right armed resistence to the last when brute force is applied to them; particularly if the application of the force is arbitrary and if it is possible to spin the situation into a clash of religion and/or race. It is only a matter of time.
Posted by: E. Avedisian on January 25, 2003 06:01 PMSorry...but I'm prepared to let David Thompson talk about America. We assume he's some tins-of-beans, shotgun under the bed nutter.
But when he talks about Europe, something I know a lot about, one realises he just has no idea, indeed no idea to the point where you feel that perhaps it would be better if people more qualified than I took down his ravings and tried to make sense of them, and then let us see them.
Oh dear oh dear. What a bigot.
MJT
Posted by: Matthew on January 25, 2003 06:43 PM“and the Taj Mahal!
Posted by Jack at January 25, 2003 05:09 PM”
I think you might need to find another example:
“That the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) has been researching the evidence that proves the Taj Mahal and many other buildings were not of Muslim origin, and that they know this information but remain silent about it.”
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 06:58 PMPerhaps it’s best that we back “on topic.” Thus, this following article might be most interesting and extremely relevant:
“Most important perhaps, the faux-hawkish multilateralists will not be able to hide behind Colin Powell anymore. Secretary Powell has taken a clear stand. Having given Saddam one last chance to disarm peacefully, and having sincerely tried to work with the French, Powell is ready to move forward with the disarmament of Iraq by force and without a new U.N. authorization. In response to French and German demands to give more time to the inspectors, Powell last week insisted, "Inspections will not work." (We wonder if Powell will now suffer the same widespread condemnation that Cheney did when he said just this five months ago.)”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/161stpqp.asp
Posted by: David Thomson on January 25, 2003 07:37 PMTo add to the Canuck and the Brit, a recent poll showed only 11% of Australians support our involvement in an Iraq war without UN sanction. Only 48% supported it even with UN backing.
It's far from just the French and Germans who think that the US is being very foolish. Even those countries that are traditionally your very closest friends (clients?) - UK, Canada, Australia do. Their govts are almost certainly defying their public's opinion out of pure realpolitik - they hope for lovely gifts from their rich Uncle Sam afterwards (in our case, trade policy).
As for David Thomson's ignorant bigotry, this is the norm in his comments, especially when talking about Europeans.
Posted by: derrida derider on January 25, 2003 09:32 PMI don't understand why so many people think that UN support adds crediblity to anything. Libya (!) has been elected head of the UN human rights commission, with the Europeans abstaining. The UN deserves nothing but contempt.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on January 25, 2003 11:01 PM"Secretary Powell has taken a clear stand. Having given Saddam one last chance to disarm peacefully, and having sincerely tried to work with the French, Powell is ready to move forward with the disarmament of Iraq by force and without a new U.N. authorization."
Exactly what weapons is Saddam to surrender in order to appease Powell and Bush? Please be specific, make, model, location, etc.
Now if we were talking about the Isreal or N.Korea or Pakistan, or India, Iran, or the United States or a dozen Soviet orphan countries, we could point to tangible exaples of ordnance of mass destruction. We could site the location, the specs, satellite images and other forms of intel.......
How curious that we are unable to do this with Iraq, which for the last ten years has been one of the most intensely scrutinized areas on the globe (U.S. intel assetts).
Again, I ask, surrender what weapons? If we are so sure they are there, then have the inspectors pick them up. It's that simple.
“As for David Thomson's ignorant bigotry, this is the norm in his comments, especially when talking about Europeans.”
My complaints are directed at the parasitical European nations like France and Germany. Bigoted? Yep, that’s me---a self hating ethnic German. It's not my fault that these Europeans have no shame or integrity. This morning Instapundit highlighted these following comments:
“It is not America's unilateralism that relegates Europe to the kids' table. It is Europe's budget priorities. Europe spends $2.50 a day on every cow that grazes happily on the grass of the EU. Yet defense spending lags. Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of government at Harvard University, estimates that "the United States spends five times more on military R&D than all of Europe." Europe's soldiers cannot fight beside their U.S. comrades-in-arms because they lack technology such as the AN/Pvs-7 night vision goggles; the U.S. Army has 215,000 of them. European forces have 11 heavy military transport planes; U.S. forces have 250.
The United States will accept Europe as a real equal when it sees muscle behind diplomacy. However much Europeans dislike Uncle Sam's war machine, they forget that Europe can't fight without it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41417-2003Jan25.html
Posted by: David Thomson on January 26, 2003 07:28 AMIf the european countries spend less on military matters than the USA, it is because they care more on their citizens.So I cannot believe the USA are remotely interested in the establishment of a democracy in Iraq, whose inhabitants are not even USA citizen. In fact the low level of state-building help from the USA in Afghanistan does not bode well for the future of Iraq.
DSW
Posted by: Antoni Jaume on January 26, 2003 02:10 PMExactly what weapons is Saddam to surrender in order to appease Powell and Bush? Please be specific, make, model, location, etc....<<
>>Again, I ask, surrender what weapons? <<
The recent UN Resolution 1441 passed by a 15-0 vote specifically requires Iraq to either account for or surrender the weapons that the Inspectors had identified it as possessing at the time they were forced out last time. A partial listing of these includes...
*More than 3,000 tons of chemicals used for weapons.
*Biological agent growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax, 1200 liters of botulinum toxin, and 5500 liters of clostridium perfrigens.
*5,000 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
*26,500 artillery rockets used for delivering nerve gas
*30,000 munitions capable of being filled with chemical agents
... among much more. Are those specific enough for starters?
Now, that's what the 15-0 vote on Resolution 1441 explicitly called for -- "a complete and accurate accounting" for those weapons. And being that one does not dispose of or simply "lose" 3,000 tons of chemicals for weapons, 5,000 shells filled with mustard gas, 26,500 artillery rockets, etc. and so on, without keeping a paper record or two on them accounting-wise, that doesn't seem an *entirely unreasonable* request.
Iraq's response has been "Chemicals? Mustard gas shells? 26,500 artillery rockets? We don't remember anything about any of that. Records of them? Must be lost. Can't say."
And then people like you say, "Well, gee, then obviously they don't have any such weapons!! So let's tear up Resolution 1441 -- nobody really meant it when that 15-0 vote said they had to *account* for anything at all! How can Saddam possibly be expected to account for thousands of weapons that he says he doesn't remember? That's not fair. And who wants to take the UN seriously anyhow?"
>> If we are so sure they are there, then have the inspectors pick them up. It's that simple. <<
Sure -- hey, dang, here's the thing, the inspectors must have forgotten to *ask* Saddam where those weapons are! If they'd just *ask* then obviously he'll tell and we can send UPS to pick them up.
You know, every time I feel some qualms about invading Iraq I listen to the quality of the arguments coming from the other side for a while...
God help me, I'm actually giving neocons advice on prosecuting a war, but: isn't "the French and Germans oppose invading Iraq solely because they do a lot of business with the Very Evil Saddam" the most effective line out there? Is it not used because of ideological complications?
Nikolai, I don't think the economic determinist argument, at least the "we're preventing them from opportunities" one, holds up too well for Saudi Arabia, which produced the majority of the hijackers.
And contrary to all the UN bashing: people feel safer about a UN-backed war because that makes it mostly a *consensus* war. Spreads around the risk.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on January 26, 2003 04:32 PMJim by now we should be talking about the discrepancies between the account Iraq has given and what was mentioned in the resolution.
The point being made is that the inspectors have only found a small number of WWI style shells while the US and UK keep saying that they know of breaches but won't share that information with the inspectors.
Posted by: Jack on January 26, 2003 06:00 PM"And contrary to all the UN bashing: people feel safer about a UN-backed war because that makes it mostly a *consensus* war. Spreads around the risk."
That's simply nonsensical. Have you already forgotten how the European Union disgraced itself during the Balkans crisis? It is always the United States who carries the larger burden. The parasitical nations barely spend a few pennies for their own defense. They have little to offer when things get rough.
"If the european countries spend less on military matters than the USA, it is because they care more on their citizens."
Yup, I guess that why over 200,000 people were murdered in the Balkans before the United States came to the rescue. Those parasitical European countries sure know how to "care more" for their citizens.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 26, 2003 07:37 PMUm, Jim, UN Resolution 1441 does not contain the list you presented in your post. 1441 does refer back to the original 1991 resolution that does mention the WMDs you posted.
The signifcance being that since 1991 the vast majority of the WMDs you refer to have been located and destroyed. True, some small fraction have not been accounted for, but that may be due to an inaccurate accounting in the first place. Or the fact that the weapons components were thoroughly demolished in the war and insufficient remains were present such that their existence cannot be determined.
Regardless of the status of the small unaccounted for portion of the list, it would appear that Saddam has been disarmed to the point that he no longer represents a clear and present danger to anyone.
Certainly, the Europeans recognize this drive to war as nothing more than naked U.S. agression. They know better than most U.S. citizens that the folks that comprise the Bush admin. have been planning this action since at least 1998.
Why should the Europeans support an U.S. colonization of the OPEC countries?
If this war is about anything else, then this citizen would like to see the evidence.
Posted by: E. Avedisian on January 26, 2003 11:35 PM//
"If the european countries spend less on military matters than the USA, it is because they care more on their citizens."
Yup, I guess that why over 200,000 people were murdered in the Balkans before the United States came to the rescue. Those parasitical European countries sure know how to "care more" for their citizens.
//
In another post you said you did not say anything xenophobical, think again: people who qualify whole countries as parasitical are xenophobs.
I have read that US citizens were geographically challenged, by the National Geographic no less, and that is accurate if one limits to you: Balkans are not in the EU, so they are not EU citizens. Hard to grasp?
DSW
“Balkans are not in the EU, so they are not EU citizens. Hard to grasp?”
Why are you dodging this issue? The irony is that even Brad DeLong is forced to admit that the Clinton administration finally had to give up on waiting for the European nations to militarily resolve the Balkans issue. Over 200,000 people were murdered while the parasitical French and Germans essentially sat on their hands.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 27, 2003 06:59 AMPosted by: Old European on January 27, 2003 07:00 AM
The Old European should not forget the following:
"WHEN POLICY KILLS -- U.N. complicity in mass murder in the Balkans:
The Bosnian Muslims were told by the U.N. that they didn't need weapons of their own; instead, they would have immediate access to the upper echelons of U.N. and NATO "peacekeeping" forces. As noted in U.N. documents, Bosnia-Herzegovina president Izetbegovic "was in favour of the UNPROFOR [United Nations Protection Force] proposal, which, as he understood it, meant that the Bosniacs would hand their weapons over to UNPROFOR in return for UNPROFOR protection." . . .
By the summer of 1995, the population of Srebrenica, a designated safe area, had swelled with refugees. By the time of the massacre, it was an island of Bosniacs in Bosnian Serb territory — an island the U.N. had sworn to protect.
But the U.N. would not honor its pledge. As the BBC later reported, "A former United Nations commander in Bosnia has told a Dutch parliamentary inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre that it was clear to him that Dutch authorities would not sacrifice its soldiers for the enclave."
And, indeed, on July 11, 1995, Bosnian Serb forces entered Srebrenica without resistance from Bosniac or U.N. forces; not a shot was fired. (The Bosniac general in Srebrenica had recently been recalled by his government, leaving the Bosniac forces leaderless.) Ethnic cleansing and genocide followed. The men and boys were separated from the women, then taken away and shot.
"Don't worry -- the U.N. will protect you!" Unfortunately, it seems to devote most of its efforts to protecting dictators from the United States. Why, it's almost as if anti-American dictators are a constituency group within the U.N., while innocent civilians aren't. Say. . . .
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel012703.asp
posted at 09:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) Permalink"
1: wmd determined by un inspectors to be in iraq in 1998 when they were thrown out could not, physically, have been destroyed in the gulf war in 1991 (cause the war was 7 years earlier)
2: these weapons, determined to exist in 1998 (count the numbers) could not have been destroyed or removed or found by inspectors between 1991 and 1998... because they were identified to exist but not found in 1998!!!!!
3: nk has or is reasonably believed to have nukes. no one really wants to test tht out, especially people in seoul and tokyo... no kidding right?
4: iraq has wmd programs (as confirmed by french diplomats) but does not yet have working nukes... it has used bc weapons in the past but those should be controllable (and use of bc weapons is unlikely to cause catastrophic damage to the us or its allies, nukes are likely to cause unrecoverable damage to us and or allies, and result in different behaviours)
5: the un just killed 2 people over the weekend. there were 2 attempted defectors and the inspectors had security get them out of their cars.. they can now be found in lots 9 and 10 of baghdad acid factory's hydrochloric acid production!
Posted by: Libertarian Uber Alles on January 27, 2003 09:25 AMAntoni Jaume said So I cannot believe the USA are remotely interested in the establishment of a democracy in Iraq....
Speaking as a US citizen, with thus 1 vote on US policy, I certainly would be interested in seeing a democracy established in Iraq. The hypothesis that we suffer from Arab terrorists primarily because the Arab world suffers from non-liberal government and polity seems sufficiently compelling to test. If democracy can be established in Iraq, that would certainly be at least a good thing. OTOH, Antoni is correct to imply that establishing such a democracy would be a very large undertaking (if even possible). I think the effort would have to be comparable to the US occupation of Japan, or [more worryingly] the US occupation of the Philippines.
Posted by: Tom on January 27, 2003 11:09 AM//
Speaking as a US citizen, with thus 1 vote on US policy, I certainly would be interested in seeing a democracy established in Iraq. [...]
//
To make my position clearer, I've no doubt that a large constituency of USA citizenship would gladly have their country to undertake that endeavour, still the way elections are carried over in the USA , and the militant monied class that abhor social spending and prefer military spending, are more than enough to waste such policies. The irrational phobia to communism and socialism plays in the hands of dictators to their satisfaction. Since any such one will have communists against, the USA Government will not pressure him to open to democracy for fear those would get to the power.In the end most people see that the USA behave as if democracy was only their to enjoy, and concludes that such condtion is not different from tyranny.
DSW
Posted by: Antoni Jaume on January 27, 2003 12:00 PM"The irrational phobia to communism and socialism plays in the hands of dictators to their satisfaction."
There is no such thing as an irrational phobia towards Communism. This evil ideology is responsible for the deaths of millions. My guess is that you don't believe there is such a thing as an irrational phobia towards Nazism. Why is that?
Posted by: David Thomson on January 27, 2003 02:53 PMRegarding all this issue of the war on Irak I don´t think we can sincerely doubt the existence of those WMD. They were there when the inspectors left the country in 1998 and there´s no evidence that they have been destroyed (nor has the iraqui regime had any motivation to destroy them). If it were really true that Irak has no WMD why did take the credible threat of war for it to readmit the inspectors? And why is making their work so difficult since they returned?
That´s not the real point of disagreement between the US/UK and continental european governments. The latter know perfectly well that the weapons exists, but they don´t think they pose such a threat as to justify a war. It is that what people can debate ad nauseam without ever reaching an agreement because nobody really knows. George Bush and Tony Blair beleive that an Iraq with an arsenal of chemical, biological and (in the future, if nobody stops them) nuclear weapons will turn sooner or later into serious problem for world security, and that it must be stopped before it´s too late. On the other hand Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schoreder beleive that no matter what weapons Irak accumulates it will never become a serious threat to the west.
The current hunt for weapons is just a farce. Saddam will never disarm peacefully. The french and the german also now it but they don´t care. In the meantime the absence of "proof" serves them as an excuse to oppose the war. But they´ll have to face the real issue sooner later. As the american president knows all too well being the leader of an international power forces you to take difficult decisions.
Writing from (continental) Europe
>> the vast majority of the WMDs you refer to have been located and destroyed. True, some small fraction have not been accounted for, but that may be due to an inaccurate accounting ... <<
Ah, the "Andersen defense" for Saddam, very amusing. ;-)
But here's a little of Blix today on what's unaccounted for... "there is a discrepancy of 6,500 [chemical] bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons." That's a "very small" accounting discrepancy to you, I take it -- but I doubt even Andersen would miss that.
"I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax ... Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent ... Iraq has provided no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared ...
"Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media ... I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax..."
And on and on, etc. Dang, you'd think a ruthless dictator like Saddam could find better bookkeepers, wouldn't you?
Hey, look, if you really want to reduce the UN to an impotent laughingstock incapable of doing *anything* to enforce its own explicit 15-0 Security Council Resolutions as per the world's worst dictators, and you want to so emasculate it in the name of "peace" and your own claimed moral superiority, be my guest. Just be aware of what the inevitable consequences will be.
>> Why should the Europeans support an U.S. colonization of the OPEC countries? <<
Remind me again, why did the Europeans want to colonize Serbia and so insist that the U.S. bomb it into "regime change"? Was Slobodan stockpiling anthrax? Had he invaded all his neighbor countries and used poison gas against them, as well as his own civilians? Had he defied a dozen years of U.N. resolutions that had told him "or else"?
And why was it the Europeans bypassed the UN on the whole thing, being sure to keep "world opinion" out of the matter and not let Russia and China use their veto (as they would have)?
Was a little ethnic cleansing in a local civil war really so bad? You don't think Saddam is worse than that?
>> If this war is about anything else, then this citizen would like to see the evidence. <<
Then take your hands off of your eyes and look.
Hey, what the heck ever happened to liberals being instinctually opposed to fascist dictators anyhow? Once even when the odds were against them they'd run off to join the Lincoln Brigade -- and those who didn't admired those who did. Where'd that concern for political victims and that backbone go? Today when confronted with a fascist dictator who gasses his own people their instinctive response is, "Living in our gated community and doing nothing is *morally superior* because that way nobody who matters gets hurt."
It's gotten pretty sad for liberals on the moral superiority front judging by the anti-war arguments they produced in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/magazine/08LIBERALS.html
But at least American liberals still have buried within them a *spark* of wanting to do right, judging by the reaction to the last speaker...
~~
He was an Iraqi dissident named Kanan Makiya, and he said, "I'm afraid I'm going to strike a discordant note." He pointed out that Iraqis, who will pay the highest price in the event of an invasion, "overwhelmingly want this war." He outlined a vision of postwar Iraq as a secular democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens. This vision would be new to the Arab world. "It can be encouraged, or it can be crushed just like that. But think about what you're doing if you crush it."
Makiya's voice rose as he came to an end. "I rest my moral case on the following: if there's a sliver of a chance of it happening, a 5 to 10 percent chance, you have a moral obligation, I say, to do it."
The effect was electrifying. The room, which just minutes earlier had settled into a sober and comfortable rejection of war, exploded in applause. The other panelists looked startled, and their reasonable arguments suddenly lay deflated on the table before them.
Michael Walzer, who was on the panel, smiled wanly. "It's very hard to respond," he said.
~~
It's very hard for American liberals to respond, that is. They are troubled.
European liberals OTOH seem to have morally imploded while intoxicated by self-righteousness, and have no trouble at all keeping hands over eyes to preserve the feeling.
As one of them said earlier in this thread, after having the US do all their military work for them from 1945 through Serbia, the fact that their military budget is smaller than the US's proves they are morally superior because they spend less on war. How much blindness does a claim to moral superiority require?
One more thought...
>> Why should the Europeans support an U.S. colonization of the OPEC countries? <<
Perhaps in the hope that the U.S. would bring the same ruin and tyranny to Iraq that it brought to Western Europe after colonizing it by military force in 1945? ;-)
Posted by: Jim Glass on January 27, 2003 03:48 PMVery long post, but I felt the need to discourse:
>>>...the backwardness of the Muslim world. Most of its troubles are due to reactionary cultural values and pervasive anti-intellectualism. The Muslims need their own protestant reformation. Little is accomplished by your scapegoating the United States. The Islamic world was once the preeminent power on this planet. Around some 500 years ago, the Muslim leaders opted to embrace a “stop the world, I want to get off” attitude. This is nobody’s problem but their own. So-called Western imperialism is not at fault.<<<
>>>O.K., I will throw the ball back into your corner. Please inform us of even one major accomplishment of the Islamic world in the last 500 years?<<<
Time for a history lesson for the uninitiated (not David T., who is if anything over-initiated).
Perhaps the muslim countries do need a Reformation, though in their case against the absolute power of revealed tradition and in favor of scripture (the Koran) on one hand and philosophy/science on the other. Right now Islam is in its Crusading rather than its Reformation phase--they still have a way to go.
It is true that 700 years ago, the leaders of the Muslim world definitely turned rigid, ideological, and anti-intellectual (note that in conservative circles in the U.S., the word "intellectual" is a term of abuse) and that this change in outlook doomed the Islamic world to economic (though not cultural) stagnation for many more centuries. However, what many people may not know is that this this change in outlook occurred at approximately the same era that the Islamic world began to suffer from terrorist attacks.
In 1095, a group of murderous christian terrorists who called themselves Crusaders broke into Jerusalem and slaughtered thousands of Muslim residents, and not a few Jews and Christians into the bargain. Little more than one hundred years later, pagan terrorists from Mongolia completely obliterated Baghdad and brought the Abbasid caliphate to an end, and incidentally also slaughtered thousands upon thousands of Muslims.
In the aftermath of these attacks, it was probably not uncommon for many Muslims to curse the European Christian and Mongol rulers as murderous fanatics who had to be ruthlessly exterminated for the good of civilization. It was also probably common for Muslim rulers to declare that from then on all ideas even remotely related to the European countries were anathema and that these light-skinned fanatics from the cold continent must either accept conversion to Islam or the consequences of holy war. (The Mongols who settled in the Muslim countries eventually converted).
Not surprisingly, many Muslims in Egypt, Turkey, and the future Iran and Iraq pointed to Europe as a backward, benighted land of terrorist fanatics who had not produced anything worthwile by way of technology or learning for over 500 years.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
Let me spell it out: Islam stagnated and regressed economically because it came under the political control of rigid, unbending, callous fanatics who will always be as they are whether they call themselves communists or national socialists or libertarians, or whatnot.
In spite of this, Islam in the past 500 years has a better record of civilization than most yahoos in this country are willing to give it credit for, though the Taliban and Hamas have begun to jeopardize it. Here's a long list:
(1) Music. Even popular arab or Iranian music today is infinitely better to my ears than rap or heavy metal music. Some of the best Arab singers (e.g. Firuz) can only be matched by European classical or Celtic music.
(2) Architecture. Hagia Sophia. The Blue Mosque of Samarkand. The Taj Mahal. Need I go on? the fact that these buildings were influenced by previous civilizations (Hagia Sophia is a converted cathedral) does not diminish from these achievements.
(3) Writers. I am acquainted with Nazim Hikmet, Kahlil Gibran, and Salman Rushdie, and I'm sure there are many others.
(4) Toleration. Yes toleration. Even in the 1500's and 1600's, Europeans were routinely slaughtering Jews and their rulers were routinely expelling them from their realms. By contrast, both Jews and non-crusading Christians enjoyed peace and stability in Islamic countries. Islamic anti-semitism almost entirely dates from the creation of Israel, and many writers have tellingly pointed out that to give some intellectual justification to anti-semitism, Arab countries today have had to import European tracts like the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_.
(5) Genocide. Islam has not (yet?) spawned murderous totalitarian ideologies such as fascism or communism. The only known genocide to have ocurred in the Islamic world can be traced to Enver and Talaat Pasha, two secularist politicians who definitely did not use Jihad language in their murder of the Armenians.
Over the past 500 years, Europe has a much worse record of genocide (including not just the 20th century but also the Thirty Years' War) than the Islamic world. Muslims have only just now turned to terrorism, and if we act quickly we can still hope to repair the breach between Islam and the West before another Taliban-like regime gets its hands on nuclear weapons.
As for the Europeans, Europe over the past 500 years has progressed through fits of barbarism and technological progress (by no means mutually exclusive) and, having killed off all their warmongers in the first half of the century, I think they are in much better condition to run international affairs than our government, which seems to be suffering from a dangerous bout of hubris following the collapse of communism. The Balkans is not the first time the Europeans have erred on the side of caution. After all, they could have intervened in the 19th century when Americans were engaged in the ethnic cleansing of their aborigines. They could also have lent military assistance to the Union to fight off the Confederate revolt and thus shown they were unequivocally against slavery. But one should expect such pusillanimous non-intervention by a bunch of pacifists who went on to immolate 30 million of their own people in the first half of the 20th century. It would also help if they had a central government so that they could agree on when they should intervene.
But what's even worse is the number of credulous, xenophobic, and just plain ignorant masses who are willing to follow their government(the U.S. gov.) into this miasma. Even though liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein will be no small blessing, to seriously believe that it will be accomplished without thousands of civilian casualties, and actually making the Iraqui people better off in the process (will the Bush Adm. install another Saddam Hussein clone who will keep the oil safe and act as a counterweight to Shiite Iran?)is to strain credulity.
In short, we all need to do a long bit of thinking before our country turns inexorably into a backwards, unreformed state reminiscent of the Arab countries today. Christian Talibans take note--this is your century of opportunity.
European liberals OTOH seem to have morally imploded while intoxicated by self-righteousness, and have no trouble at all keeping hands over eyes to preserve the feeling.
Bush has to share the blame, as he's made the most asinine, misleading case for the war imaginable. Today it's lying about Al-Queda links to Iraq! Tomorrow it's lying about the contents of an AEC report! Friday it'll be some nonsense about how Iraq will nuke NYC! Next week, we have some absolutely horrible PR about how Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad. To top it off, he's let the fuckhead faction of the neocons (Perle, et al.) run their mouths all they want, talking about how Saudi Arabia's next, which is the sort of thing that make 90% of the country wonder if the government has lost its goddamn mind. Jesus, invading our allies? Hell, maybe he should just start talking about how he wants to invade Iraq to take their oil; although false, it's the only worse argument I can come up with.
The case for removing Saddam is clear: he's a barbaric dictator who can single-handedly destroy the world economy, and nothing short of war will stop him: sanctions have permanently failed, containment won't work, and deterrence will lead to the Finlandization of the entire region.
God forbid Bush treat us like adults by rationally explaining. You want to know the reason so many liberals oppose the war? Bush has done a horrible job making the case for it. I wish my fellow liberals would take a closer look, but you know what? If someone advocates something good for batshit insane reasons, you can't blame people too much for disagreeing. Even if the guy with the kooky reasons is right.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on January 27, 2003 06:24 PM"Today it's lying about Al-Queda links to Iraq! Tomorrow it's lying about the contents of an AEC report! Friday it'll be some nonsense about how Iraq will nuke NYC! Next week, we have some absolutely horrible PR about how Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad."
What proof do you have that Bush is lying about any of these issues? Still, I should not forget that you will simply keep raising the bar. No evidence will ever be deemed acceptable. You are convinced that the leader of our country is a scum bag--and nothing he can do or say will ever change your mind.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 27, 2003 08:32 PMRe protestant reformation.
Suleiman the Magnificent funded the European one
Re Parasitical Europeans
I thought it was now US foreign policy that it will not allow any other power to challenge its military supremacy. A Europe that "pulled its weight" militarily that did that would certainly do so therefore it is US policy that Europe be parasitical so there should be no moaning from followers of this policy about lazy Europeans.
Re never being convinced
One of the distressing things about the policy that President Bush has pursued since 9/11 is that despite huge outpourings of sympathy from all over the world he has managed to alienate so many people and clearly play into the hands of those trying to destabilise the middle East, ie Al Qaeda. There are maybe a billion Muslims in the world. They are clearly not all revanchist terrorists or even with Israels current 3 to one kill rate there would be no Israelis left and vary many more than the few thousand victims of terrorism would have died.
To see the US intervene in Iraq to oust a dictator that it put in the job in the first place and funded to fight a war against those who revolted against the dictator the CIA installed in a neighbouring country using in the preemptive attack doctrine something that it wold not allow to anyone else (hell Saddam could easily have used it to justify his invasion of those lovely people in Kuwait) and wrap it up in terms (possession of WMDs, breach of UN resolutions, aggression toards and illegal occupation of other countries, suppression of minorities) everyone of which indubitably applies to Israel against which it is taking no action. Well it just looks bad and I cannot imagine it going down well with those billion people.
If the struggle is just between two gangs then fair enough but if it is between benighted extremism and open democracy then President Bush is allowing himself to look far too much like the enemy.
It may well not be wrong to take on Saddam as President Bush has done but the blatant inconsistency of the policy and disregard for the views of the rest of the world will surely have negative side effects that will be exploited by those in Al Qaeda amongst others.
Moreover there are plausible arguments to suggest that President Bush's overwrought rhetoric have seen him pass control of the situation to that Arch Old European France. The lack of effort to win hearts and minds means that it will be very hard for Britain to join an attack without UN approval the gift of which is in the hands of the French. Possibly President Bush would go ahead wihtout even British support but that would really be an unpleasant prospect and the lack of obvious response to the quite negative Blix report so far seems to bear that out.
Obviously the world would be a better place without Saddam but the manner of his removal can be even more important and those who can remember as far back as the 1980s may have a hard time taking US protestations that their actions are for the good of the people of Iraq seriously.
Posted by: Jack on January 27, 2003 09:40 PM“I thought it was now US foreign policy that it will not allow any other power to challenge its military supremacy. A Europe that "pulled its weight" militarily that did that would certainly do so ...”
This is totally a figment of your imagination. American supremacy is due to default, and not by design. Nobody told the Canadians and these goofy Europeans to parasite off the united States. This was their decision.
“One of the distressing things about the policy that President Bush has pursued since 9/11 is that despite huge outpourings of sympathy from all over the world he has managed to alienate so many people..”
We have not alienated everyone---only the utopian Leftists.
“...and clearly play into the hands of those trying to destabilise the middle East..”
We must destabilize the Mid East! This should be our ultimate goal. This area of the world must abandon its reactionary and murderous ways. Only the combination of military might and diplomacy can straighten out this mess.
“To see the US intervene in Iraq to oust a dictator that it put in the job in the first place and funded to fight a war against those who revolted against the dictator the CIA installed in a neighbouring country...”
Even if true, so what? A super power is often forced to make decisions that later may blow up in its face. That’s life, and it sucks---and then you die.
“using in the preemptive attack doctrine something that it wold not allow to anyone else (hell Saddam could easily have used it to justify his invasion of those lovely people in Kuwait) and wrap it up in terms (possession of WMDs, breach of UN resolutions, aggression towards and illegal occupation of other countries, suppression of minorities) everyone of which indubitably applies to Israel against which it is taking no action. Well it just looks bad and I cannot imagine it going down well with those billion people.:
I see that somebody loves indulging in a bit of moral equivalency. This is akin to placing the cop and the robber on the same moral plane. Let’s get this straight: we are essentially the good guys. Who are “those billion people?” Probably a handful of leftist clerics and movie stars who haven’t a clue.
“Moreover there are plausible arguments to suggest that President Bush's overwrought rhetoric have seen him pass control of the situation to that Arch Old European France. The lack of effort to win hearts and minds means that it will be very hard for Britain to join an attack without UN approval the gift of which is in the hands of the French.”
The French government is morally disgusting. We should also not be overly concerned with the anti-Semitic and pro-dictator United Nations. This organization deserves our contempt.
“Possibly President Bush would go ahead without even British support but that would really be an unpleasant prospect and the lack of obvious response to the quite negative Blix report so far seems to bear that out.”
We should go ahead regardless of who supports us. Yup, it’s time to act unilaterally if this is required.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 28, 2003 06:56 AMSo why are we the good guys again?
We can (and did) fund and train Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, we cosy up to the Saudi's, we allow ourselves to fall into the hands of the morally disgusting French (is that all 60 million of them?). We can do stuff that's wrong even if it doesn't have a good outcome because...
Our intentions are good?
We've got the biggest guns?
They are savages?
Will a destabilised middle east really lead to a solution? Will all those unoppressed Kurds and Palestinians somehow become pro American when released from their oppression? Will the Saudi People rise up and guarantee cheap oil? Will Turkey get on with Syria? Will Iran restrict itself to providing aid to Iraqi Shiites? Will we rejoice when a pro-Iranian Shiite dominated democratic Iraq be a wonderful thing? WIll everyone be nice to Israel? Will everyone play nice with the oil fields?
It'll be great.
It really is astonishing that a country can make itself so unpopular with people it spends most of its time giving money to.
Posted by: Jack on January 28, 2003 08:30 AM“So why are we the good guys again?
We can (and did) fund and train Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, we cosy up to the Saudi's, we allow ourselves to fall into the hands of the morally disgusting French (is that all 60 million of them?). We can do stuff that's wrong even if it doesn't have a good outcome because...
Our intentions are good?
We've got the biggest guns?
They are savages?”
Once again, and please pay attention. The United States also partnered with Stalin during WWII. A nation state is often compelled to form alliances with less than admirable people. It is childishly immature to think otherwise. We simply have to clean up any mess we might have inadvertently caused in the Middle East. That’s just life in the fast lane. Did somebody ever promise you a rose garden? If so, they lied to you!
Many of the French, if not most, are jerks of the first order. This is a nation of cowards and intellectually mediocrity. They are back stabbers who cannot be trusted. The French have a long history of kissing the rear ends of dictators. After all, what can you expect of a nation that gave homage to Jean Paul Sartre and Michael Foucault.
“Will a destabilised middle east really lead to a solution? Will all those unoppressed Kurds and Palestinians somehow become pro American when released from their oppression? Will the Saudi People rise up and guarantee cheap oil? Will Turkey get on with Syria? Will Iran restrict itself to providing aid to Iraqi Shiites? Will we rejoice when a pro-Iranian Shiite dominated democratic Iraq be a wonderful thing? WIll everyone be nice to Israel? Will everyone play nice with the oil fields?
It'll be great.”
The odds are pretty decent that this is exactly what will occur. Alas, there are no absolute guarantees. However, the current status quo is not sustainable. We have no other realistic option but to go ahead and knock off Saddam Hussein.
“It really is astonishing that a country can make itself so unpopular with people it spends most of its time giving money to.”
This is actually the norm in all human relationships. Parasites inevitably hold their host in contempt.
Yeah, but when do the good bits happen?
Posted by: Jack on January 28, 2003 10:10 AMJim Glass writes:
"Perhaps in the hope that the U.S. would bring the same ruin and tyranny to Iraq that it brought to Western Europe after colonizing it by military force in 1945? ;-)"
-Well, to compare the two is quite useless, since the situation, as you also know, is completely different. Maybe some of us realise that it is more likely that the US will bomb Iraq to the ground, and then rely on Europeans to try to assist the Iraqis to rebuild their country again.
(Last time the US was in Iraq you guys left such amounts of depleted uranium in the ground that the cancer-rate in certain areas today, are disgustingly high, causing immense suffering for Iraqi childs. The US doesn't care about the people of Iraq, of course, so don't even try to make us believe that it should be about "freeing" the iraqi civilians.)
Posted by: Mikael S on January 28, 2003 10:37 AMDavid Thomson
"Over 200,000 people were murdered while the parasitical French and Germans essentially sat on their hands."
(Great joke or provocation?) Oh, i am just a parasite. Why don’t you use the other common nazi-style expressions Drohne or Untermensch?
"The Old European should not forget the following"
Do you think that I am pacifist?
Do you want to talk about non-existent European Balkan policy during the early years of the conflict?
Posted by: Old European on January 28, 2003 02:18 PMJack
I thought it was now US foreign policy that it will not allow any other power to challenge its military supremacy. A Europe that "pulled its weight" militarily that did that would certainly do so therefore it is US policy that Europe be parasitical so there should be no moaning from followers of this policy about lazy Europeans.
For example:
Franco-German alliance raises US fears (Financial Times, January 26)
US envoys in Europe are putting pressure on European Union countries to weaken the deepening Franco-German alliance, fearing it will lead to a more independent European defence and foreign policy.
(...)
The US questions two aspects of the Franco-German proposals. Diplomats say Washington dislikes plans to set up a defence procurement agency that could lead to better co-ordination in spending, research and the kind of military equipment either purchased or produced by EU countries.
What particularly annoys the US, officials say, is that even Britain, its most loyal European ally, tacitly endorses these plans.
"It is strange how the US reacts," says a European military officer. "We are trying to improve our capabilities and improve co-ordination, yet Washington really worries about the defence procurement agency. Perhaps it would lose out on contracts." (...)
Jorge Garcia
On the other hand Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schoreder beleive that no matter what weapons Irak accumulates it will never become a serious threat to the west.
Excuse me, this is BS. Perhaps, you’ve to learn the difference between preemptive war and ultima ratio.
Posted by: Old European on January 28, 2003 02:24 PMDavid,
The French came to our aid when nobody else did. Remember 1776?
You are fast running out of room to talk about jerks.
"...the odds are pretty decent this is exactly what will occur..."
At this point I stop taking you seriously.
Posted by: John K. on January 28, 2003 03:29 PMI just love the way the war mongers, represented on this board most vociferously by David T. and Will A., segregate anyone against this particular war as being some kind of archetypical hippie pacifist and therefore relegate their arguements against this war to being knee jerk reactions not worth serious discussion.
Hell, I have an M16 hanging on my wall and I'd gladly take it down to put a burst into Bin Laden, if I knew where he is, OK?
The reason that I believe that the coming war against Iraq is a colonial action is that virtually everyone in the Bush cabinet has been advocating a colonial move into Iraq since at least 1998. It is a matter of fact. Signatories of the "project for the new American Century", a plan that includes, among other things realpolitik, the "completion of the unfinished business of the first gulf war" and an establishment of a strong military presence in the mid east "to protect our interests", are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Perle, Armitage Khalilzad.............
This mind set has been searching for a home since 1998 and, it would appear, has finally found one.
Truly amazing stuff. More amazing is that Bush would think that in this age of instant communications and large databases that people, whether they be ordinary citizens or the leaders of nations, wouldn't tune in.
Maybe Iraq does indeed pose a risk to the security of the United States. I think it's a tough case to make, but maybe, just maybe, it can be done. Still, one has to weigh the risks and costs of war against the risks and costs of other courses of action. Calculating the benefits of war to exceed those of alternatives seems, to me, a very unlikely equation.
However, an important point, as Jason noted, is that Bush has put himself in a position - through verbose antagonistic statements, by appointing hawkish cabinet members with strong priors, and by some dubious assertions - where he casts doubt on the purity of his intentions and motives.
If he was a capable well intentioned politician he wouldn't have done the above. If we take him as a straight forward nothing to hide kind of guy, then we know he's been angling for Iraqi oil since before he was elected and that he will have it at any cost.
Bush has muddled the picture, at best; and at worst, lied to the American people and used the office for his personal enrichment.
Either way, I don't feel confident following his lead into war. The reasons for hesitation on the part of Europeans should be obvious.
P.S. all these analogies to allies failing to check Hitler in the late thirties are mindless and annoying. Is that the only history you know? How about the domino theory and Tonkin? How about N. Korea today? How about the Cuban misile crisis? All relevant to the current Iraq situation in their own way and all just as irrelevant, as well.
Deal with the present as it presents itself. If you draw on sea of history for guidance, the cast a wide net.
Posted by: E. Avedisian on January 29, 2003 01:45 AM...David T. and Jim Glass...... not Will A.
Two sixteen hour days in a row of database filtering and number crunching does wonders for the synapses.
Posted by: E. Avedisian on January 29, 2003 09:13 AM"The reasons for hesitation on the part of Europeans should be obvious."
This is not exactly accurate. Many European leaders do support President Bush. It is the pacifist anti-American Left that is opposed to invading Iraq. These are also the same people who were soft on Communism during the Cold War years.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 29, 2003 09:18 AMMany European leaders do support President Bush.
Great Brtain, Italy, Spain, Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Poland, and the Czech Republic are all supporting the US. Russia is starting to lean our way. If Bush continues to show the determination and moral leadership he has so far there will be more.
Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he has one big advantage in the current debate: he's right. Seldom was there a cause more just. Let the tyrant tremble and the downtrodden take hope.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on January 29, 2003 01:08 PMI'm glad to see you've dropped that ugly, insulting tone from your previous post but you are truly misinformed or disingenuous to characterize people opposed to Bush's imminent threat of war as anti-American or pacifists.
"I'm glad to see you've dropped that ugly, insulting tone from your previous post but you are truly misinformed or disingenuous to characterize people opposed to Bush's imminent threat of war as anti-American or pacifists."
Nope, I don't think that's the case in Europe. The majority of these folks are indeed motivated by pacifism and anti-Americanism. I obviously, however, can't claim that about some of these dissenters in the United States. After all, General General Norman Schwarzkopf is certainly not an anti-American pacifist!
Posted by: David Thomson on January 29, 2003 04:44 PMThe administration is seeking to carry out an audacious and visionary plan for remaking the entire political map of the Middle East. Christopher Hitchens calls it "political slum clearance". The idea is that the fall of Saddam Hussein will encourage democratic forces in Iran and maybe even Syria. With a foothold in Iraq, the US can read the riot act to the degenerate royal family of Saudi Arabia and force them to end their support for fundamentalist terrorism, or barring that, to start the process of regime change there. It is the domino theory in reverse.
There is a civil war going on in the Islamic between the reactionaries allied with the fascists on the one side and the modernizers on the other. The US has decided to give the latter a boost. It's about time.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on January 29, 2003 08:01 PMby "audacious" do you mean something like betting the family farm in a craps game?
There is nothing in history, political science, anthropology, military science or human psychology to suggest that an invasion of a relatively homogenous region by a group of outsiders with a different religion, language, skin color, culture in general, and a perceived long history of negative interactions can translate into acceptance and adaptation of the invaders' way of life by the invaded.
Yes, Japan in the late '40s and '50s, but Japan had been totally annihilated and, more importantly, the Japanese were able to admit that they had been wrong; that they had fallen under the Emperor's spell. Even so, Japan is unique in the anals of history; or unique enough that Bush shouldn't be relying on Iraq to turn out in a similar fashion.
Backers of Bush (Republicans in general) have this driving notion that inside every foriegner is an American just aching to come out in full bloom. It's nice to believe so completely that we are so excellent in every way that the only explanation for why the rest of the world has not flattered us through imitation is only that they haven't had the opportunity. Alas, the "ugly American" is alive and well. There are, in reality, so many reasons that others are not willing or able to copy our way. We have neither the right nor the ability to force it on others.
If a substantial number sincerely asks and conditions are right, then we should help. And when we do help, it should be with no strings attached.
Iraq has not asked, nor are conditions right for democracy.
Bush should not be playing craps with American lives, American relationships within the global community, our economy, or regional stability in the Middle East.
E, do you think that Iraqis like living under a tyrant who has started two wars in which over a million people died? Who has murdered humdreds of thousands of his subjects. Who has driven millions of Iraqis into exile. Who tortures the children of his opponents in front of them. Whose favorite form of entertainment is watching videotapes of his enemies being tortured.
Who builds 100 palaces for himself and drinks cognac and eats lobster while many Iraqis go without food or medicine.
You have a very low opinion of Iraqis, don't you?
The left's love of psychopathic fascist dictators is truly puzzling to me.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on January 29, 2003 11:26 PMJapan is not unique. Compare West Germany to East Germany, Western Europe in general to Eastern Europe, South Korea to North Korea, Taiwan to China. The placea that have have been most under American influence, have, with some exceptions, become the most prosperous and in many cases democratic. Even our former enemies Russia and China are seeking to emulate features of our system.
If the Arabs were happy under the status quo that would be fine. But they aren't happy. Otherwise why would so many of them be obsessed with murder and suicide? Nobody can be happy living in an ocean of tyranny, bigotry, poverty, ignorance and disease. It is contrary to human nature.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on January 29, 2003 11:44 PMIt's possible that many of the Arabs regard Saddam as an American stooge and others may be upset at being left high and dry last time they were promised some American help.
One thing the list of countries you mention have in common is that but for a war they were doing pretty well before America intervened. Also there was competition between benefactors. Other places were not so lucky, Iran for one and not much has been done for Latin America in a century.
The residents of Afghanistan are still waiting for some of that Marshall plan goodness. Even including emergency food aid they are receiving less than a fifth of what Bosnia gets.
“Backers of Bush (Republicans in general) have this driving notion that inside every foriegner is an American just aching to come out in full bloom.”
Just about every foreigner who is half way educated and secular does want to become westernized. These folks may not wish to eat MacDonald hamburgers, but they do desire to reject the reactionary ways of the past. This is especially true for the women who are almost always second class citizens in Third World cultures. E. Avedisian is obviously an unwitting male chauvinist pig!
“There are, in reality, so many reasons that others are not willing or able to copy our way. We have neither the right nor the ability to force it on others.”
You are half right. We merely have the right to force them not to harm us or others. They indeed cannot be forced to adopt Western mores and values. But we should do what we can to assist those who opt for freedom and prosperity.
“Iraq has not asked, nor are conditions right for democracy.”
How in hell do you know that? Are you naively hinting that Saddam Hussein speaks for all of Iraq? This sad nation is not a democracy, and there are no polls to indicate what the citizens really think on any issue whatsoever.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 30, 2003 06:08 AM"The left's love of psychopathic fascist dictators is truly puzzling to me."
Sigh. If I remember correctly, this psychopathic fascist dictator was quite chummy with the Reagan and Bush pere administration in the 1980's--we gave him a lot of intelligence and military assistance so that he could fight Iran. About what you can expect of two left-wing administrations. These left wingers also have left a trail of installed psychopathic dictators with names like Suharto, Pinochet, and Videla, among others.
Now we who are truly on the left are being asked to believe that the same people who helped so many dictators come to power in the developing world will actually overthrow one of these dictators and install a peaceful democracy in Iraq?
Excuse me, but I do not really believe the Bush administration has the best interests of the Iraqui people at heart. If I did, I would support this war. But I find it more likely that the rulers who are intended to succeed Saddam Hussein in Iraq will be as dictatorial, if not psychopathic. Another Shah Rizah Pahlavi (or committee thereof) instead of Saddam Hussein. Of course it has to be so--how else will the Bushies expect to maintain access to Iraqui oil in a country full of people who have relatives that died in U.S. bombing in and since 1991? Not much of a gain considering the massive expected civilian casualties the war is expected to claim.
Posted by: andres on January 31, 2003 02:02 PM