--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Trick? How about intimidate, which doesn't require > any action, necessarily? > How many nations dare stand up to the only > superpower left? That's a danger > in being in that position. This is not about facts, > it's about politics, > which I have to believe you really do understand, > given your background.
If they were so good at intimidating other countries, Nick, do you want to explain France? Other than France's historic general policy of being in favor of tyrants, despots, and other unsavory folk anytime, anywhere, does French policy make any sense _at all_ except in their (probably correct) belief that standing up to the United States can have great benefits and few costs. Quite clearly a lot of nations were willing to stand up to the only superpower. It is about politics, and I do understand politics. One of the things I understand about politics is that when a country is declares its opposition to UN resolutions we support _faster_ than the country those resolutions actually target does, they're probably not that intimidated. There's also Germany, Canada, and a bunch of other countries. None of them seemed all that intimidated. In fact, the only threat anyone in the West issued was issued (again) by France - which threatened the Eastern European countries with economic consequences for opposing it (not, note, the US). Again, not exactly an example of how the US intimidated other countries, but it is a pretty good example of how its opponents were willing to intimidate people. > > > You would have to believe that after expelling the > > inspectors in 1998 Saddam Hussein _chose_ to > destroy > > the WMD that he already had, and then chose not to > > tell anyone, maintaining the sanctions on his own > > country. > > > > You would further have to believe that, after > > expelling the inspectors, Saddam made no efforts > not > > to reconstitute them, despite his decades-long > > attempts to acquire them, and his demonstrated > > willingness to use them. > > These "have-to-believes" are only necessary if one > accepts the straw man above. Only to the extent that the possession of _any_ WMDs by Iraq immediately makes the war fully legal under international law. Any at all. That's the way the resolution reads. Particularly since no one has even constructed a vaguely plausible case that the President lied about _any_ of the evidence. Might some of it have been wrong? Of course. Intelligence is tough. After 9/11, underreacting to perceived threats is an unforgiveable offense, not overreacting. > There's quite a difference between a deception in > support of a war and a war > that is based entirely on deceptions. Again, I'm > not familiar with anyone > who is arguing the latter, other than some nameless > folks I've seen > protesting, who claim it was all about oil. > > Nick Except that no one has even approached proving either case. So what, other than pure partisanship, is this about? ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
