Regards, Ivan
Posted on 09/25/2002 1:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Let's leave the military aspects to one side for the moment - the tactical questions of Iraqi weapons and their possible uses are a matter for the defence experts. Let me deal here just with the moral arguments, which have filled columns of newspaper print and hours of broadcast airtime.
I have spent a good portion of the past 48 hours locked in televised confrontations with critics of the United States. The shrillness of their accusations seems to rise in direct proportion to their incoherence. Even by the usual standards of political doublethink, there is something very desperate and unscrupulous about this case which so ostentatiously claims the moral high ground. It is as if the anti-American reflex came first and the need to substantiate it followed as an afterthought.
The propositions that have been put forward purporting to damn American intervention against Saddam (and British support of it) fall roughly into two categories: the wilfully obtuse and the crassly opportunistic. The first type includes the naive but sincerely conscientious objections of churchmen and undeviating pacifists who feel that there can never be any good enough reason for going to war. I will leave them out of this because their position is not specific to this situation and they are, at least, consistent with their own past views.
The rest of the obtuse lobby puts forward a cocktail of confused assertions which do not stand up to even cursory examination. The first, and most strenuously repeated yesterday, is: we don't have any incontrovertible evidence that Saddam has (or is developing) weapons of mass destruction, and/or even if we have, we have no proof that he intends to use them.
The two parts, or two forms, of this proposition are absolutely essential to its plausibility because they are used interchangeably. The mantra, "We have no evidence", can conveniently slip from being a question of the physical existence of weapons (which can be established by the sort of photographs published yesterday in the Prime Minister's dossier) to a demand for the utterly unprovable: that Saddam intends to use them for nefarious purposes.
What would count as proving the existence of such an intention? Presumably, an affidavit that read, "I plan to attack Israel, Cyprus, or wherever else I can reach with my armoury of ballistic missiles during the next 12 months. Failing that, I will at least equip as many freelance terrorists as I can find with the necessary hardware to do as much damage as possible," signed S. Hussein, in the presence of witnesses (see signatures below), dated September 10, 2001.
When common sense tells us that there can be no evidence of a legally watertight kind, we usually look to past events for indications about likely behaviour in the future. Saddam has, in the recent past, invaded a neighbouring country in the interests of territorial aggrandisement. (Somebody ought to tell Charles Kennedy that this is what "imperialism" actually means.) He has also used the most hideous chemical weaponry against racial minorities within his own population in a blatant attempt at genocide.
When the obtuse camp pleads for concern about the innocent Iraqis who may suffer in an American attack, I wonder about the innocent Kurds who have suffered under Saddam's homicidal persecution. When the obtuse-niks plead for more time for hapless United Nations weapons inspectors to be fobbed off and obstructed, I wonder if they would be so blithely passive about racist mass murder in other countries? Would George Galloway have spoken so assiduously against military intervention if the old white regime in South Africa had gassed Soweto?
This brings me to the other fork of the anti-intervention case: the slippier, opportunist one. A contention that was put to me on air at the weekend was that America cannot be justified in taking action to displace Saddam now because it failed to do so after the Gulf war. So why now and not then?
Because "then" was a mistake. The United States made a serious blunder at the time - due largely to its reluctance to appear "imperialistic" - and it now intends to rectify it. This is because September 11 has made it clear that the support of terrorism by rogue states presents more of a threat to world security than was thought and so the risk of being labelled "imperialistic" by idiots such as Charles Kennedy is worth taking.
Tacked on to this charge of inconsistency, there is usually a taunt that America once supported Saddam and helped to arm him against Iran. True enough. At that time, the danger from a militant Islamic fundamentalist state seemed greater than from Saddam's secular one - especially after Iran took Americans hostage at the American embassy. Everyone knew that Saddam was a bad guy but he seemed the lesser of the two evils. But how does that undermine the ethics of the present policy?
Do the people who argue this way also claim that Stalin's contribution to the Allied war effort and the sacrifices of the Russians at Stalingrad were morally illegitimate because Russia had earlier signed a pact with Hitler?
In the eyes of many of its critics, the Americans can do no right. If they intervene, even to overthrow a criminal who kills his own people, they are "imperialistic". If they fail to intervene - using the obfuscations of endless United Nations debate (in which one tinpot dictator after another stands up to pillory them) as an excuse for delay - then they are selfish isolationists.
The obtuse and the opportunistic tribes concur on the demand that Saddam must start a war before we can attack him. Don't they see that he already has? This is a new world and a new kind of war which has no rules and no formulaic patterns, in which terrorists routinely target civilians. It is a greater threat to free and democratic societies than a set-piece invasion by massed armies.
Regards, Ivan
It's not a "new world", it's a new America - one in which many conservatives have become so rabidly vicious that those who would start a war for personal gain have little trouble carrying out the bit of rhetorical akido necessary to bring it about.
True conservatives are as conservative, and thoughtful, about issues of life and death as they are about economics.
Piffle. This is mere rhetoric designed to justify doing nothing without giving any factual justification for doing nothing. Given the avalanche of evidence that has come out in light of the dossier, one would hope that people know better.
Anti-war arguments are specious at best, usually reaching for a justification from unrelated matters - e.g., since the USA didn't intervene in Rwanda, it can't intervene in Iraq, etc. The point remains - Iraq is armed, dangerous and led by a dictator who has shown no hesitation in trying to bully and invade his neighbours and support terrorists. There is no reason he should be allowed to remain where he is, apart to salve the conscience of some left wingers and their fellow travellers.
True conservatives are as conservative, and thoughtful, about issues of life and death as they are about economics.
I smell a peacenik. How typically left wing you'd even begin to suggest that going to war with Iraq is something that is being taken lightly, and without due consideration. It's not.
Ivan
This is what makes me boil with rage. Appeasement, doing nothing has such a dreadful history and people are being like stubborn children in refusing to learn for it. Saddam Hussein is a threat. Some people need to bloody well grow up and face the responsibility of dealing with it, maturely, sensibly and with a minimum of bloodshed - i.e., get rid of him now before he actually does get the bomb.
Regards, Ivan
Indeed. I'm reminded of an important concept we'd do well to remember (from Hua Kuo-feng, Mao's successor, of all unlikely sources):
"Peace cannot be attained by begging. War cannot be avoided by yielding."
And we're going to rectify it ... by removing the tested and admitted nukes, just one presidential bullet away from falling to al-Qaida, of Pakistan? No.
By turning off the Saudi money spigot to al-Qaida? By quashing a government that funds suicide bombers openly and, unlike Hussein, fervently supports Islamicist fundamentalists? No.
By throwing everything against the weakest military power in the Middle East, where scores of thousands (only the zeroes are in dispute) have died from an embargo just as genocidal as the one that Ivan's country imposed on the Germans to force them to ratify Versailles? Where the U.S. civilian planners simultaneously say that it's an imminent threat to three continents, AND that it can be mopped up in a few weeks, in doublethink that would have made the Ingsoc Party in Nineteen Eighty-four proud? ... Yep.
One of the few things worse than Empire is stupidly conducted Empire. Because many more are going to die from it. Ivan could undoubtedly supply commentary and comparative examples, say, of the British imperial efforts from the 1820s to 1840s, as against that of the years immediately before World War I. I don't think he's inclined to do so, though. We've got, on this side of the Atlantic, not a Wellington and a Gladstone, but a pusillanimous, frightened (Lloyd) George.
Oh dear God, we hear from the "Give Peace a Chance" crowd once more. Listen very carefully. Pakistan is presently run by a government that has been largely helpful in getting rid of Al Qaeda. Yes, them having nukes is not wonderful, thank you for reminding us - but until such time as their regime is as despicable as Iraq's, or indeed, until such time as becomes certain that it will become as despicable as Iraq's, there is no basis for action.
By turning off the Saudi money spigot to al-Qaida? By quashing a government that funds suicide bombers openly and, unlike Hussein, fervently supports Islamicist fundamentalists? No.
You're very unsubtle, but that is a common failing among the hippie peaceniks here. A free, democratic Iraq will provide a powerful example to the citizens of Saudi Arabia. On top of that, a free democratic Iraq will more likely be pumping out oil thus reducing the price of crude - a further pillar of the Saudi regime kicked out from under it. Make no mistake, different kinds of war need to be waged against different kinds of enemies - the Saudis power is their oil wealth. Make it worthless or rather, worth less, and they fall.
By throwing everything against the weakest military power in the Middle East, where scores of thousands (only the zeroes are in dispute) have died from an embargo just as genocidal as the one that Ivan's country imposed on the Germans to force them to ratify Versailles? Where the U.S. civilian planners simultaneously say that it's an imminent threat to three continents, AND that it can be mopped up in a few weeks, in doublethink that would have made the Ingsoc Party in Nineteen Eighty-four proud? ... Yep.
Thank you Tarik Aziz. Now let's return to reality for a moment. Here are the things you cannot deny:
This is leaving aside Atta's meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, the fact that Saddam has given money to Al Qaeda and so on. This regime is brutal, militaristic, and is trying to obtain weapons to become a regional power. Given the commodities that come out of the region, a regional power is a world power. I cannot believe anyone can be so blithe about Iraq becoming one.
One of the few things worse than Empire is stupidly conducted Empire. Because many more are going to die from it. Ivan could undoubtedly supply commentary and comparative examples, say, of the British imperial efforts from the 1820s to 1840s, as against that of the years immediately before World War I. I don't think he's inclined to do so, though. We've got, on this side of the Atlantic, not a Wellington and a Gladstone, but a pusillanimous, frightened (Lloyd) George.
Britain ruled 2/5ths of the earth's surface. And I dare say much of the Empire, particularly Africa, would be better off had that rule persisted. But that aside, your bleating about Empire is common among the libertarians / Pat Buchanan crowd that gets more worked up into a lather about what the American government might do in comparison to what a brutal, capricious dictator might do.
It is not imperialism to knock out a threat. It is foolishness to not deal with a threat early, before the price in blood to be paid to destroy it grows to new heights.
Ivan
In effect, if we listen to people like you, more of our finest and bravest will die. You should be treated as such.
Ivan
there are probably a few exceptions, but most, including the creep you responded to,
are simply pussies - period - and not worth the time it takes to squelch their whining.
btw, good to 'see' ya this mornin' MI ...
I have a voice and a possibility (however dilute) of exerting influence on what the American government might do. I have none whatsoever over what Iraq might do. The concomitant of permanent Empire is a permanent police state (and if you don't think that's what Britain and the U.S. were saddled with during both world wars, you don't know your history). Moreover, we -- and you -- are one more mass terror attack away from a suspension of constitutions, written and unwritten, and from dictatorship.
If the soldiers and those upholding their efforts who act in our name are to do something, if "pre-emption" is the order of the day, why isn't Musharraf being forced to give up his nukes? As was done with the former Soviet republics?
I detest this imperial thrust, but I'd rather that it take place, if it has to, against a genuine and tested threat, rather than against someone whom your P.M. hedges in a dossier "might," "is capable of," etc., creating such a threat. Actualities before potentials.
Oh, and as to the notion that Musharraf, or the people he only nominally controls, isn't threatening his neighbors? Ask the 30 people who died today at yet another Hindi shrine that was attacked inside India. Or the forces arrayed stupidly in tripwire lines on the Himalayan plateau in Kashmir, who would, all things considered, rather be in Philadelphia, or anywhere else at all.
Troops in place ready to fire on neighbors, proven nukes, stability constantly threatened (no Republican Guard!), hinterlands filled with outlaw terrorists ... and we're to dismiss someone like Musharraf as being a threat.
Yeah, right. We once were arming Hussein, as well. Look where that got us now.
It is not imperialism to knock out a threat. It is foolishness to not deal with a threat early, before the price in blood to be paid to destroy it grows to new heights.
Your fallacy is in equating anyone who disagrees with your particular war aims with someone who wants to "not deal with threats," period. As I said, there's both intelligent and stupid Empire-building. If we're in the thick of it already, I'd rather, say, that we (and the Indians) take out Musharraf and defuse that time-bomb. He's got the troops in the field with guns loaded, the nukes warm and ready to mount, the populace he rules outraged and restless. Real threats, to a broader peace, not those from a tinhorn murderous despot who, however savage, has been kept in his cage.
What Musharraf doesn't have is oil. I would've thought that this syllogism, for where the focus is and is not going, you could complete for yourself, but given your vacuous cheerleading for war on an unworthy target, I'm not going to risk it. And will at least say this: A crusade to secure and occupy the Oil Patch is not the proper business of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy.
Does all that make me a pacifist against all sense? No. It makes me someone who is skeptical about the war aims toward Iraq as even attempting to solve the real problems. That, though, to you, clearly borders on treason, to not share your war aims and estimations of proper strategy. If you don't mind (or even if you do), I'll join a slowly awakening American public and demur from that.
I see. So the mugger that draws a knife in the back alley, you are not justified in shooting him in the head until he actually stabs you. Logic is lacking here - if you are threatened by someone, you deal with the threat, rather than bleat and whinge and moan about rules of engagement.
If the soldiers and those upholding their efforts who act in our name are to do something, if "pre-emption" is the order of the day, why isn't Musharraf being forced to give up his nukes? As was done with the former Soviet republics?
Fallacy. So long as Musharraf remains relatively secure and on side in the War on Terror, there is no dire urgency associated with taking his nukes. In any event, you are falling into the tired, old leftist trap saying: "Just because we don't remove Musharraf's nukes, we cannot remove Saddam." The two scenarios are not connected in any way, shape or form, except as an elaborate self-justification for the perpetuation of cowardice.
Troops in place ready to fire on neighbors, proven nukes, stability constantly threatened (no Republican Guard!), hinterlands filled with outlaw terrorists ... and we're to dismiss someone like Musharraf as being a threat.
Musharraf has co-operated with the West in the War on Terror. Your attempt to suggest that he is in the same league as Saddam Hussein is absurd. You merely display your disassocation from the facts in order to further your political point of view, which is, "no matter what, no war is justified".
Your fallacy is in equating anyone who disagrees with your particular war aims with someone who wants to "not deal with threats," period. As I said, there's both intelligent and stupid Empire-building. If we're in the thick of it already, I'd rather, say, that we (and the Indians) take out Musharraf and defuse that time-bomb. He's got the troops in the field with guns loaded, the nukes warm and ready to mount, the populace he rules outraged and restless. Real threats, to a broader peace, not those from a tinhorn murderous despot who, however savage, has been kept in his cage.
What did Musharaff do precisely to threaten America and Britain? I can answer that - nothing. Hussein on the other hand has engaged in absurd activities such as trying to assassinate former President Bush, an act of war on its own. "Kept in his cage" indeed. If that's your definition of "kept in a cage", one can only wonder at the mindless anarchy that you would define as being its opposite.
Does all that make me a pacifist against all sense? No. It makes me someone who is skeptical about the war aims toward Iraq as even attempting to solve the real problems. That, though, to you, clearly borders on treason, to not share your war aims and estimations of proper strategy. If you don't mind (or even if you do), I'll join a slowly awakening American public and demur from that.
You sound like the French and Al Gore. Taking out a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein is necessary. Now, we are in a pre-war situation, so I merely regard you as a coward and a charlatan at this point. When the bullets do start flying and you try to undermine morale at home, then indeed, the epithet traitor will apply.
Ivan
Now just where did that come from?
So do a number of other nations... Let's take 'em all out. Why just Iraq?
Iraq has used chemical weapons; particularly against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War
During which time Iraq was the darling boy of Washington.
Iraq has invaded two neighbours already in an effort to bolster its power
Both time with at least the tacit (Kuwait) approval of the US.
Iraq has been working on a nuclear programme since the 1970's, when they purchased their first reactor from the French (the Israelis blew it up)
Once again, so do others. So let's go get India, North Korea, the Pakkis, et. al.
Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism: from harbouring Abu Nidal, and subsidising Palestinian suicide bomber families to $25,000 a pop.
And let us not forget where the vast majority of the 9/11 perps came from... that's right... Iraq's neighbor to the south.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.