On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:38:41PM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > It seems fairly calm to me. I'd like to see a little more charisma and > > charm from Bush in working with other nations, but I have to say that > > the response from other nations is quite disappointing. > > Fairly calm? > Then we might as well agree to disagree on this point. :) > I consider neither the Afghanistan chapter of the TWAT nor this new Iraq > campaign to be a 'calm' reaction. For that is all it is, y'know, an > emotional reaction to 9/11.
No, I don't know. Afghanistan was carefully planned, definitely not a snap emotional reaction, and it achieved not only the goal of reducing the resources of future terrorists, but also liberating a horribly oppressed people, all the while minimizing the number of civilian casualties. > As for the response from other nations, well, they all have their own > valid, legitimate reasons, y'know. They still tend to worry about > concepts like 'national sovereigniy', You mean like when Saddam invaded Kuwait? > unstated-but-clearly-evident American claim of a Manifest Destiny to > rule the world'.... silly stuff like that. Yes, it is silly. Surely you can see the difference between a fascist dictator and a democractically elected government? Why should the former be protected? Especially when the former has repeatedly disobeyed instructions of the United Nations? > Another factor in this regard could be best summed up by the phrase 'As > you sow, so shall ye reap.' > <g> Would you really grin if you spoke that phrase to me face to face in this context? > If other countries had found the American response less > 'disappointing' in recent past, they would take America's > idealistic-sounding claims more seriously. Maybe the other countries need to do their part rather than watching idly while the US shoulders the burden of enforcing UN agreements and protecting the world from terrorism? Granted no other country has the military resources to do it, but for example, they could be doing a lot more to help transform Afghanistan from an oppressed 3rd world country into a democracy with a thriving economy. Or at least contributing money and resources to help build a better country there. > <chuckle> > What has Iraq's credibility got to do with anything? You suggested "accepting" Iraq's "offer". If you don't see what credibility has to do with that, you must be hopelessly naive or willfully ignoring the facts of the situation. > No, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Iraq. All this has to > do with is the US threat perceptions and the US might to act on the > same. We were discussion weapons inspectors. The likelihood that these inspectors would be accorded the opportunity to conclusively determine whether Iraq has any WoMD. That has a lot to do with how Iraq has behaved towards inspectors in the past, and a lot to do with Iraq's credibility. It has very little to do with US "threats", so your comment makes no sense. > No. I have never talked to an Iraqi, ever. So I have no evidence to > the contrary. I even agree with you that being ruled by Saddam *must* > suck. However, I question your assumption that they'd be glad of any > American action to 'topple the regime'. That, of course, is an emotional response, not a logical one. In fact, it is quite illogical. Who was accusing who of emotional responses? > See, as an Indian, I do not relish living under the BJP government. > However, any attempt by any other country to bring about a change in > *my* country's regime [unless they have been specifically invited to > do so] would evoke only one reaction, You think Saddam and BJP are comparable??? Have you any conception of how Saddam has "ruled" Iraq? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
