> -----Original Message----- > From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 05:52 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: EU Warns Iraq It Faces 'Last Chance' > > > > --- "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Too bad that there is no WMD research or acquisition > > going on, and that we're going to be hard-pressed to > > set up a democracy there. We're going to be there > > for far long than anyone seems willing to admit - > > far more, in any case, than the 18-24 months that > > most pessimistic commentators in the administration > > seem to think. > > You believe that there is no WMD research going on in > Iraq?
I don't believe that there is a major WMD program in Iraq that is an immediate threat on the scale the White House claims it to be. > What do you think about what Colin Powell said to the UN? If we had serious evidence, we would've (or should've) presented it to inspectors long ago in order to make the process work, not pull an "october surprise" in front of the UN in order to stymie the process. Further, Blix has refuted a number of Powell's points - has anyone else been following the story of CNN's censorship of Blix's report? > For that matter, not a single country on > the UN Security Council claims that Iraq is _not_ > working on WMD - why do you think they're all wrong? I don't think they're wrong. I agree with them about process and their assessment of the immediacy of any Iraqi threat. > Why do you think Saddam, after spending 12 years > continually trying to acquire them, has suddenly > changed his mind? I don't think that he has. However, I don't see this administration's posturing as offering any amount of choice; indeed, I think their position exacerbates the problem. > > > Destabilization of Saudi Arabia? When has anyone > > in the > > > govenerment stated this? > > > > Quite clearly. I refer you to Richard Pearle's > > analysis and subsequent comments from Wolfowitz, > > Rumsfield, and Cheney. > > Out of curiosity, given what a crappy government Saudi > Arabia is, why do you think this is bad? I don't think its bad per se, I just don't think that we should blithley anounce that one of our goals of intervention is to topple someone we're calling a "trusted ally". It casts our actions in an even harsher light. I also don't believe it is our mission to force people into freedom through tanks and bullets. > > No, because a) disarmament is no more pressing an > > issue on 9/12 than it was on 9/10 b) inspectors > > aren't turning up much of anything, c) if we had > > intelligence on a WMD program enough to kill > > multiple people over, why aren't we sharing it with > inspectors, a d) > > there's no proof of Iraqi involvement with AQ. > > a) Why? The major argument made by every terrorism > scholar I am aware of for why we had not yet been > attacked by WMD is that terrorist groups did not have > the incentive to cause that many casualties. 9/11 > spectacularly proved otherwise. ..then your scholars are worthless. Terrorism is directly about creating publicity, and nothing makes the news like dead bodies. 9/11 didn't change that, nor does it change the goals of terror. > b) So what? 150 people led by Hans Blix in a country > the size of Texas where the government is actively > hiding them, and you think they'll find stuff? Why aren't we giving them the intelligence that we claim to have? Why aren't we supporting the process in a positve fashion? We're running roughshod over the UN, destroying NATO, and digging a hole for ourselves internationally, and all in order to topple one aging nutjob in the desert? That doesn't sound like smart policy to me. > c) The job of the inspectors is not to find weapons. > It is to _verify Iraqi disarmament_. How exactly do they prove a negative? > d) So what? I disagree, but so what? Its one of the murmered reasons for this entire operation. You can't link this action in Iraq with terrorist groups having WMD without claiming there's a connection. > > ..and look how long we procrastinated when there > > was actual bloodshed on the ground, at how we ran at > > the first sigh of blood -- and for that matter, what > > about other humanitarian crisis' that have occured > > or are occuring around the world? We're not > > intervening there, are we? > > So what? The argument that we let black people die in > Africa so we need to let Arabs die in Iraq is a > profoundly surreal type of affirmative action. That's not my argument. When these points are raised by those who actually do care about human rights, its to make us evaluate and think about the action we're taking, not to cast it as you would attempt to, an attempt to tar the speaker with the brush of racism in order to spin your own politics. > If it > is humanitarian _and_ in our interest to do something, > why not do it? ..and /why/ is intervention in Iraq and not East Faroffistan in our interest? Oil? The argument "I'm tired of hearing about blood for oil" is crap - of course its about oil, how can it /not/ be.. and you know, as I've said before, I think oil is a damned important thing, something worth fighting and dieing for; let's not dress up our motivation in this "we're out to help Iraqi's" crap. If we wanted to help them, we would've helped them 12 years ago. Instead, we choose to let them live under this sandbox dictator, we choose to let them starve, we choose to ignore their pleas for help. It is hardly reasonable to argue that > the only legitimate use of force is whne it is _not_ > in the interests of the United States. I am not > casual with the lives of American soldiers, and > therefore am not enthusiastic about sending them into > battle when it's not in the interests of the US. But > here we can do a good thing _and_ we can protect the > security of our country. That sounds win/win to me. I would agree with you, except that I'm not convinced that the security of our country is threatened by Iraq. I've seen nothing that makes me feel threatened.. nor has Europe, apparently. You know what I do feel threatened by? A nutjob in N. Korea who has nuclear bombs, a missile that can reach my city, and an administration that knew about all this for 2 years, but couldn't be prompted to act. N Korea - we can do a good thing by alleviating the wholesale starvation and subjugation of their peopl, _and_ we can protect the security of our country. So why don't we win/win there, too? > You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that we > should do nothing because of consistency, and > consistency isn't even a moral principle. That's not what I'm saying at all; I hope I've made this a little clearer. As I often write, email is not my prefered format of communication (I suck at it), but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the discussion. A little less academia-based argumentative debate, and I'm willing to participate. > > > We can't do that, because of the aftermath of the GW > > and the political actions since. > > Why not? If the Bush Administration were as evil as > you seem to believe, what's stopping them? Everyone > in the world except Britain and us was in favor of > lifting the sanctions and buying Iraqi oil - why not > just go along with it? The political cost, perhaps? > It's not about oil, except > insomuch as oil gives you power. It's about power. > It's always, always, always about power. Sure, and power is an important commodity.. important enough to send troops over to shed blood about. Please don't misunderstand me - "its about oil" from my lips isn't an indictment, its an acknowledgement of the incredibly important role this resource plays in our financial and political economy > > Yes, we /could/ have, however that was an untenable > > position to have taken during the 95th hour of the > > invasion. Read "Crusade" for a basic intro to these > > issues. > > I have. Also _The General's War_ (I know Mick > Trainor, actually). I'll have to beg an autograph sometime ;) > And _A World Transformed_. I haven't read - you recommend? > I > don't think you are correctly conveying what they were > saying. It was untenable because the opinion of the > Arab world was important to us. But we had the > capacity to do it - with ease. We _chose_ not to > because we thought Saddam would fall without our > intervention, and because we weren't willing to occupy > Iraq for the amount of time it would take. Thanks - you are saying what I was thinking. Can I try again, for error-control? "We didn't do it because we couldn't, but because it wasn't a practical solution or goal given the environment and realities of the situation" > The stakes changed > on 9/11. Before, we thought we could live with > threats like that. Now we know that we have to > eliminate them. That's the clearest I've heard it put, and I can respect that. I respectfully disagree (I imagine) in that I think that the threats were extant before 9/11, and that the government was aware and actively working against such threats before then, but the US public is now aware of what a dangerous place the world could be. > > There are PLENTY of other issues at stake - that you > > can only defend a war in Iraq by attacking one > > platform of the peace movement isn't terribly > > convincing. > > Well, it does seem to be the _only_ platform of the > peace movement. Perhaps I'm listening too closely to the entire damn cacaphony its creating that I'm not hearing the mainstream perception of it. :) > You could argue that it is not in the interests of the > US to do such a thing, but (if I understand you > correctly) that's not what you are doing - because > attacking the motivations of the Administration isn't > that. I think that the argument should be split into 2, about our how our short-term actions and long-term goals effect not only the Iraqi people but Americans at home and abroad as well as the discussion about the Administration's motivations. In fact, I'd like to see such a split happen in the peace movement, if only for their own sakes. It makes the crowd feel good to see a poster of Bush with a Hitler moustache, but it certainly doesn't advance the discussion. Its like those stupid-as-all-get-out PETA ads. -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
