--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam Mukunda > So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq > out of a deeply felt > need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, > not cos of issues > over oil?
Again with this? Why are people who think _George Bush_ is dumb unable to understand the concept of doing things for more than one reason? > Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex > intertwined > reasons. > So please leave a little of the high moral ground > for others to stand > on. Why, when they're abandoning it as fast as possible? Moral calculations are part of international relations. They are one of the most important parts. They are not the _only_ part, but that's not the same thing as saying that they aren't one part. It is possible to do things that are in your interest _and have them still be moral acts_. > > Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at > night in bed over > the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is > a bastard, but just > that I doubt it was top of his list. And it > certainly was not the thrust > of the argument put to justify the war. It was, however, _a_ thrust. The argument before the UN was largely about WMD, because that was a legal argument. When the President spends time on an issue in front of Congress, it's a pretty major focus. Now, by David Brin standards, what you wrote above was a lie, because it's a misstatement of fact :-). But I don't operate by David Brin standards. It's just a mistake. President Bush spent lots of time talking about humanitarian reasons for invading. He spent more time on WMD. That doesn't mean that they weren't both important. It really just means that it's convenient for opponents of the war to _pretend_ they weren't both important. > > Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would > still be being chopped > off if the war had not happened. How can you say > that? How do you know? Well, because Saddam had been doing it for more than 20 years and didn't seem to have any intent of stopping. I don't _know_ that Kate Bosworth isn't going to walk into my apartment in 30 seconds. I don't think it's very likely, though. <Waiting> Nope. No luck. > There were other alternatives. That's one of the > points that we lefty > extremists keep making and that keeps falling on > deaf ears. That's because it's an absurd point. Kate Bosworth is going to walk into my apartment. This statement does not make it more likely that it will happen. > > How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that > planned it properly > and put in some thought about dealing with the > peace. That did it with > the full agreement of the only body that can be seen > as bi-partisan > enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons > i.e. the terribly > flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was > hard, those damn > frenchies.... so much easier just to send in the > Marines and shoot all > the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have > been a consensus. Again, this is an argument that flys in the face of _all_ the evidence. Did you say this about Kosovo? Kosovo didn't have Security Council approval either. In fact the only difference between the Kosovo and Iraq coalitions was the presence of Germany and France in the former. So if you _didn't_ make this argument about Kosovo, you cannot consistently make this argument about Iraq. If you _did_, we can talk about why you attach such moral importance to the decisions of two dictatorships. We've had this argument over and over again. _Three of the five members of the Security Council_ were going to vote against the invasion, no matter what. Now, you may feel that Communist China, a newly dictatorial Russia, and the French are moral authorities. But I don't, actually. So your point is - if these impossible things were to happen, you would have supported the war. This is the same thing as saying that there was no real situation to support the war. If I were a billionaire, then I suppose the odds that Kate Bosworth is about to come here would be higher. But I'm not, so _in the real world_, what could be done? > Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies > turning up floating > in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess > they all had their > hands and tongues. Well, you know, they appear to have been killed by supporters of the old regime. Some of us think that's probably evidence that they weren't such nice people. > > And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign > policy is caring > for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy > French and Germans etc, > whose only interests are oil and power. No, but it's _a_ driver. There's plenty of evidence of just how the corrupting influence of just how ruthless and amoral French and German foreign policy is. The difference - to be blunt - is that the Left hates the US, so it _doesn't care_ about the actions of those other countries. > > Please, climb down from your high horse and discuss > this rationally. We > were all there, we know what we were told, and it > was precious bloody > little about Iraqi children. At least that part of > the drivel we were > fed was honest. I am. You aren't. Saying If only the UN had approved it, absent _any_ evidence that there was any circumstance in which it would have (and you won't find any such evidence) isn't discussing things rationally. So I'd tell you to get off your high horse and talk about something that vaguely resembles _this_ universe. > > You nor I have any idea what other outcomes were > possible, because GWB > rushed into a war that he did not have to, on a > timing driven by his > electoral interests. Not, and I repeat, not, cos he > was losing sleep > over the fate of Iraqi children. Yes, you know that. Sadly, I don't share your psychic powers, so I have to go on small things like evidence, the historical record, things like that. It's tough, and it really handicaps me, but I'll soldier on. He rushed into a war...over the course of more than a year. He did it for his electoral interests...fighting a war that (predictably) cost him about 5 points at the polls on election day. Not because of human rights violations in Iraq...even though he said that in his public statements. > I am sorry, but you have already suggested that cos > of my misgivings > about the war that had a secret crush on Saddam > Hussien, to now suggest > that I/we actually wanted to see the tongues torn > out of Iraqi children > is too much. No, it's not that you wanted to see it. You just didn't care enough to do the only thing that might have stopped it. Maybe you just opposed the United States _more_ than you opposed that - a lot of the Left seemed that way. But one way or the other, you can't claim any moral high ground about the people of Iraq, none at all, because there wasn't another way to stop it (however much you might pretend otherwise, because pretending doesn't make it so), and you opposed the people trying to do that. > Anyway, I am sorry for getting emotive. I actually > wanted to debate some > things: Really? We have gone over all four of your debating points _exhaustively_ on list, over and over and over again. Read the archives if you really want to see my answers to any of them. > I will stop there.... as its getting emotional > again. There are many > sides to this debate, and none are all right, nor > all wrong. That, I > hope, we can all agree on. > > Andrew No, we can't, actually. None of them are all right, no. International ANSWER, the group primarily responsible for organizing the anti-war protests in the United States, is a Stalinist organiation that is actively pro-Saddam. They were all wrong. People who marched with them should be ashamed of themselves. Other than that, sure. It would be nice if you acted that way instead of telling people who disagreed with you to "get off their high horse". Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
