Reasons for War
The Great Quail
quail at libyrinth.com
Thu Apr 10 17:03:41 CDT 2003
Cfa,
>> 1. To disarm Iraq. The weakest reason, I agree: Iraq's chemical
>> munitions aren't really that threatening to the US. But nevertheless,
>> this gives us the *pretext* for "legal," UN-sanctioned war.
>
> No, it would give such to the UN.........and that is why Scrub's
> action lacks UN sanction.....
Right, I mean, that didn't happen, but we went ahead anyway. And let's face
it, even with a UN sanction, there wouldn't be all that many non-US and
British troops.... Personally, as an American, I'm ok doing this without
their approval. Three out of five members of the P-5 couldn't even abide by
their own post-war sanctions. I find the UN to be incredibly ineffectual and
corrupt at times, and Russia and China??? Well.
> THis again ignores the fact that Russia and France weren't the
> only countries opposed to Scrub's effort,
But they are countries not on the P-5 and lacking in veto power. Of course
there are countries opposed to this -- most of them. Who wants to see the
world's leading power just unilaterally invade a nation and win the war
within a month? (Well, aside from many Kurds, Shi'ites, and some oppressed
Iraqi Sunni, I mean.) It's just such an outrageous, open, arrogant display
of raw power.... But that in itself is not reason enough for me to flatly
oppose it. (Yes, even as a liberal and a Pynchon fan!)
> in fact, it would be
> difficult to find 1st world democracies of any consequence, other
> than the UK and, barely, Spain (where domestic opposition runs
> over 80%) who committed to that line.....
Well, there's not that many 1st world democracies who *could* do this, or
have any real feeling that their security is threatened.... We just disagree
about the whole unilateral thing. You see it as reason not to go to war, I
do not. That's all.
We can both agree, I am sure, that the diplomacy -- to even call it that! --
was mishandled. And that we should really start working on our national oil
addiction.
>It has become a critical
> part of the propaganda cloud to focus on France and Russia as if
> THEY stood well outside a consensus....
Again, they are veto-enabled P-5 members with vested interest in Iraq. And
it was France who claimed 100% that they'd veto any use force. It's more
than just a cloud of propaganda.
> Fine.....But the subject of any such threat is also capable of
> flining nukes and likely worse. Hence what you fear is no more
> threatening than the current stalemate twixt India and Pakistan....
I am sorry, I cannot agree with that. First of all, the threat of nuclear
weapons is quite powerful, and enough to give Iraq unprecedented influence
in that region. Second of all, the US or Israel flinging nukes back is
hardly a good response; better never to get there in the first place. And
third of all, India and Pakistan are not really in the same ballpark here.
They are not planning on "redrawing the map of the Middle East," as Saddam
has claimed he'd do with nukes, or destroying Tel Aviv. They would not be in
danger of possessing a significant amount of the world's oil supply. Nor
would they suddenly lob an unprovoked nuke at, say, Israel or enable one to
get to NYC. They are two nations engaged in an insane conflict with each
other. So I disagree, what I fear is far more threatening to me, to the US,
than the Kashmir problem.
> This is asserted over and over as if it had ever been made
> manifest....Does Saddam sponsor hoods in the 'hood? Sure, they
> all do...
That's the oldest excuse in the book -- "But Mom, all the other kids are
doing it!" It doesn't make it right. And -- you have to start somewhere. And
he has supported it in the past, from Abu Nidal to the awards for the
parents of suicide bombers to the call for jihad to training camps allegedly
training terrorists in ways to, say, take over planes. Does that mean
there's a direct link to al-Qaeda? No, but it's a better situation for us if
Iraq stops supporting terrorism of any kind. Simple as that. While this may
not be a reasonable single cause for the war, it's worth adding to the pile.
> We certainly worked hard to ELEVATE him to his recently
> surrendered status of one of the principal military powers in the
> region......SO anxious was Scrub's dad to do so that export credit
> fraud was not only encouraged but cultivated.......these "agricultural
> credits" guaranteed the payments to vendors of WoMD, US and
> foreign......
First of all, what you speak of happened under the Reagan administration,
and even that when there was a very real fear of Iran taking over Iraq. Now,
like you, I don't think it was great that we removed Iraq from the terrorist
list, gave them agricultural credits, helicopters, and jumbo jets; but it's
not like we rejoiced because he was a thug. In fact, after he gassed the
Kurds, Congress wanted to end support, but Reagan wouldn't have it.
Nor does all this imply that we have no right to now take him down. I *wish*
we spent more time cleaning up messes that we helped create. (Though that is
not to be interpreted as a broad desire to wage global war!)
>> " and no, we weren't the main powers that aided him --"
>
> We weren't?
Oh my goodness, no! France and Russia were Iraq's biggest arms dealers, by
far. 40% of all French arms sales were to Iraq, including Mirage jets and
Exocet missiles. Hell, it was Jacques Chirac himself that was mainly
responsible for selling them an Osiris nuclear plant, even after Saddam went
on record saying he'd make bombs. (And it was the US that put pressure on
France to delay shipments of uranium, and Israel that finally took out the
reactor before it went active.) And Germany built Saddam's nerve gas
factories and bunkers -- in fact, using Nazi-era technology. (You'd have
thought they would have learned.) Yes, we looked the other way at times, and
at times even gave him bacteriological agents; but Saddam is not our tool.
He's not the Shah.
And after the Gulf War, China, Russia, France, and Syria all helped keep
lines open for more commerce of this kind, even though it was against the
sanctions. And the smuggling? Well, everyone got a piece of that: Russia,
France, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Turkey, lower Gulf States....
> Agreed.....Did G*d choose Scrubby as his vessel of liberation for
> the oppressed of the world? I have my serious doubts.....and
> wasn't that one of the principal arguemnts fopr our adventure in
> S.E. Asia? How many times are we obliged to "crash in the same
> car"?
First of all, I don't like Bush, and I don't think God picks anyone, so
let's leave him out of it. You don't think we should intervene, that's fine,
I can accept that -- we think differently. Though I have my doubts as well
-- humanitarian intervention so often turns ugly, as in Somalia. And this
might turn ugly, too, if not handled right.
But to address your second point, we weren't there to "liberate" the
Vietnamese. We were there to "protect" the South from the North during a
civil war, and to prevent the "spread of communism." (And if I may be so
bold, much of our initial involvement was because of the French and their
unwillingness to see reason. Then our paranoia kicked in, added to so many
other terrible factors.)
Iraq is hardly crashing in that same car. Now, Korea on the other hand....oh
boy.
> Apply that thinking to Jordan..................All the benefits, less of
> the risks.........
But Jordan is already one of the most moderate and essentially pro-Western
Arab states. Jordan has not made constant war on its Islamic neighbors.
Jordan has not been actively pursing WMD. Jordan has made peace with Israel,
despite overwhelming mendacity on behalf of the Israelis. Jordan does not
have a police state that has killed hundreds and thousands of people. (This
is not to overlook Black September and the Palestine camps.) Jordan is on
its way, hopefully, to making a slow transition to democracy.
> Whom do we want to scare?
Syria. Iran. Yemen. Maybe even Saudi Arabia and, perhaps, North Korea. Some
Arab friends of mine and many Arab scholars seriously indicate that a show
of strength is often the best way of gaining a certain amount of "respect"
in this very un-Democratic region. I admit it's more a Friedman/Lewis
position than Edward Said, but there it is. I am not saying that this can
backfire -- it may very well backfire -- but from a neo-imperialist
standpoint in this region, a strong US military is more significant than a
weak one. Look, I am not saying you have to agree with this -- it's hard and
cold and I'm not sure I like the sound of it at all -- but I do think that
it's worth noting. Don't you think after all this is over, Asad might be
thinking twice about Syria's involvement in terrorism? We'll see.
> Uh, just cause it bears repeating....This effort was directed by a
> guy with an IQ somewhere in the mid teens.......
That is obviously an exaggeration. I don't like the guy either, but I don't
think he's an idiot, and I don't think this is all his idea. Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, even Powell....these guys have been around for a while
on this one. And I don't necessarily mean this in a good way.
Respectfully,
--Quail
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list