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
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.
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.