02-22-2003, 03:31 AM
Hi,
What point is that? We could have dissolved the growing terrorist problem 'years ago'?
What "terrorist problem"? Except for some sound bites, Iraq and the so called "war" on terrorism are not at all related. However, the present situation in Iraq is due, in large part, to the UN having failed to enforce the peace agreement that ended the '91 war. Specifically, it has failed to bring about the disarmament of Iraq through inspections and economic pressure. Had the UN followed through and enforced the peace agreement years ago (say in '92 and '93), then little action would have been needed then and no action would be needed now.
Of course, the fact that the USA needed a second attack on its soil (and a number of attacks throughout the world) to acknowledge and take action on a world problem that has been of importance for thirty years or more is a disgrace. And that that action was a misguided and largely useless war in Afghanistan is even worse. Especially since that war has apparently failed to achieve its objective, namely to bring one man to trial.
So, I suspect that the American administration being in a position to be ridiculed by the world at large for (1) having gotten into the anti-terrorist game so late, (2) having bungled in true amateur fashion, (3) blowing the hell out of holes and camels (and some friendly forces) but not really accomplishing much in respect to terror, and (4) having some of the biggest terrorist supporting nations as its allies, has decided that to make itself look good, they'll take on a target they think they can beat (after all, his daddy did it).
However lousy those reasons to reopen the war on Iraq may be, however puerile the motivations of the Shrub, the fact remains that either Powell lied to the UN and the world or Iraq is a serious threat. The reports coming out from the UN inspectors tend to support Powell's claims. So, yes the US is probably going into this for the wrong reasons, led by a glory hound fool. That doesn't negate the need to go in and it doesn't absolve the UN for not having taken action long before.
Pacifism does not imply lack of action. It implies lack of violent action, and it has worked in lots of cases before.
No, pacifism has *never* worked in external affairs. It has only worked (Gandhi, MLK, Mandela) in internal affairs and then only when the opposing side either accepted their moral responsibility or was shamed into acting like it had. Rational discussion *has* worked in international affairs, but only when both sides were rational (not often the case with dictators). And even when discussion has worked, it required the knowledge on the part of both sides that each was willing to use force if some mutually acceptable compromised could not be reached. The threat of force is what generated those compromises.
International politics conducted by pacifists fail. The only ones that pacifists restrain are those that don't need to be restrained. And those that don't give a damn except for what they want thumb their noses at pacifists, knowing that there will be no repercussions. That the people they will need to deal with will have to be other than the pacifists. And meanwhile, they prepare for war -- a war the pacifists will be more than willing to let someone else fight in and die in.
Pacifists? Bah. If there were a world wide pooper scooper law, they'd all be in baggies.
--Pete
What point is that? We could have dissolved the growing terrorist problem 'years ago'?
What "terrorist problem"? Except for some sound bites, Iraq and the so called "war" on terrorism are not at all related. However, the present situation in Iraq is due, in large part, to the UN having failed to enforce the peace agreement that ended the '91 war. Specifically, it has failed to bring about the disarmament of Iraq through inspections and economic pressure. Had the UN followed through and enforced the peace agreement years ago (say in '92 and '93), then little action would have been needed then and no action would be needed now.
Of course, the fact that the USA needed a second attack on its soil (and a number of attacks throughout the world) to acknowledge and take action on a world problem that has been of importance for thirty years or more is a disgrace. And that that action was a misguided and largely useless war in Afghanistan is even worse. Especially since that war has apparently failed to achieve its objective, namely to bring one man to trial.
So, I suspect that the American administration being in a position to be ridiculed by the world at large for (1) having gotten into the anti-terrorist game so late, (2) having bungled in true amateur fashion, (3) blowing the hell out of holes and camels (and some friendly forces) but not really accomplishing much in respect to terror, and (4) having some of the biggest terrorist supporting nations as its allies, has decided that to make itself look good, they'll take on a target they think they can beat (after all, his daddy did it).
However lousy those reasons to reopen the war on Iraq may be, however puerile the motivations of the Shrub, the fact remains that either Powell lied to the UN and the world or Iraq is a serious threat. The reports coming out from the UN inspectors tend to support Powell's claims. So, yes the US is probably going into this for the wrong reasons, led by a glory hound fool. That doesn't negate the need to go in and it doesn't absolve the UN for not having taken action long before.
Pacifism does not imply lack of action. It implies lack of violent action, and it has worked in lots of cases before.
No, pacifism has *never* worked in external affairs. It has only worked (Gandhi, MLK, Mandela) in internal affairs and then only when the opposing side either accepted their moral responsibility or was shamed into acting like it had. Rational discussion *has* worked in international affairs, but only when both sides were rational (not often the case with dictators). And even when discussion has worked, it required the knowledge on the part of both sides that each was willing to use force if some mutually acceptable compromised could not be reached. The threat of force is what generated those compromises.
International politics conducted by pacifists fail. The only ones that pacifists restrain are those that don't need to be restrained. And those that don't give a damn except for what they want thumb their noses at pacifists, knowing that there will be no repercussions. That the people they will need to deal with will have to be other than the pacifists. And meanwhile, they prepare for war -- a war the pacifists will be more than willing to let someone else fight in and die in.
Pacifists? Bah. If there were a world wide pooper scooper law, they'd all be in baggies.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?