Something else to remember when and if Al Qaeda unloads its nasty spoils of a deposed Sadaam on western cities is . . . . OBL would have obtained these eventually, and probably already had them (Cheney may have wanted a quick engagement with Iraq without UN consultation to avoid as much of this fallout as possible). The question is simply what stage he'll use to further inflame anti-American sentiment. He'll use WMD, but only if it's to his political advantage. Were we to not declare war on Iraq, pull our military out of the region, and leave Israel to flap in the wind, OBL's provocation, especially in response to signs of weakness that makes jihad seem divinely inspired, would have been some other ongoing tension between modernity and the backwards Islam he requires for his autocracy. And since it doesn't appear AQ or other Islamic radical groups can exist without violence, he'll certainly find his bone to pick.
posted
No doubt both AQ/OBL and other terrorists have either WMD's of their own or the capacities to manufacture/acquire same. We do more broadly conceive of the terror threat, though, than just AQ. And having WMD's in commerce whatsoever and to whomsoever is something that must be stopped whenever and wherever it is found. Our worldwide vigilance will not end with AQ/OBL and/or Saddam being taken out.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The European Union has well acknowledged that our buildup of forces has been instrumental in getting Saddam to cooperate as much as he has. I do have some concerns that we have abandoned the prudence of Speak softly but carry a big stick ! The rhetoric, to me, could be toned down considerably. At the same time, there is a fine line between acting like a rogue Cowboy administration and, on the other hand, failing to call evil EVIL.
The character and goodness of Pope Pius XII has been mercilessly attacked by those who suggest he should have been more outspoken about the Nazi atrocities. His chief defense has been that he did not want to further aggravate existing hostilities or further inflame the evil passions of the existing evil regimes, thereby hurting the very people he labored so to protect. If Bush, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld resorted to quiet dimplomacy and cloak and dagger shuttle diplomacy with Iraq and North Korea, the next generation of left wingers would attempt to bury their legacy and smear their good names for having been aware of such grave evil while not sufficiently confronting same and trumpeting same to the world. George Bush is a man of tremendous conviction and courage. Those who suggest we shouldn't do this or shouldn't say that because the terrorists are going to get mad are inadvertently but surely handing the terrorists the victory through their simple-minded capitulation and counterproductive appeasement.
To say Saddam is evil and must be disarmed, just not yet, is a legitimate position. For some, yet will never arrive; for others, it may already be too late as he surreptitiously offloads his biological, chemical and radiological WMD's to sympathizers elsewhere, even as inspections are underway. We're talking vials and litre-sized containers that can inflict untold casualties. He has NO CREDIBILITY. For some, yet is just around the corner and will be more narrowly defined, hopefully, in the upcoming UN resolution. This will allow the seemingly intransigent European leaders to marshall the support they need amongst their populations.
MARK MY WORD. Some mindless obstructionists will MOVE THE GOALPOSTS, vis a vis their present objections to war, even after the next resolution! These are the ones who I am afraid will be attempting to politicize the struggle, positioning themselves to profit from any undesirable consequences. These are the same ones who will politicize Homeland Security such that, in the event of the next terrorist attack at home, they can attack the administration. I think they may serve a useful purpose in getting us to bolster spending on same; otherwise, I think they are despicable.
I must say, particularly since I razz you so bad about the incomprehensibility of some of your posts, that that is well said, quite eloquently so, and is chock full of wisdom and erudite analysis. That I agree 100% with just about everything is neither here nor there but I do.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A declaration of war.. does several things... it accepts the responsibility first of all that a war brings. If no one officially declares a war.. can anyone be officially or even unofficially held responsible for the consequences?
You’ve got a point, Wanda. Things have changes somewhat, particularly with the dawning of the nuclear age which required the President to have unusual powers not initially granted in the Constitution. Congress lawfully later gave them to him. I believe it was the The War Powers Act of 1973 that did this although I might not have my history straight and/or the purpose for this act may have been different. But nevertheless, because of a changing world it was thought that the President needed greater latitude in dealing with threats to the United States – threats that couldn’t always wait for Congressional approval. And if any country thought the U.S. couldn’t immediately and with full force respond to any situation it might make it more temping for a hostile country to launch a first strike. If one looks at the way Saddam has played the slow-moving U.N. like a fiddle you might see that there was some wisdom in this.
In this instance with Iraq, because of U.N. involvement, the declaration of war is sort of a function now of the U.N. But I’m certainly VERY sympathetic to the notion that if the U.S. is going to go to war that Congress should declare it, particularly in a case like this in which there has been plenty of time for debate. But one should note that Congress has through the years been a willing partner in avoiding making tough choices of all kinds. Remember a few years ago when, instead of taking the heat and making the decisions themselves, they appointed a sort of independent committee for base closures around the United States?
A declaration of war says that we the people through our representatives declare this war... so it can no longer be their war or his but our war.
I have grave reservations of handing any of this kind of power to the U.N. I think if one is going to kill people then one should have the guts to stand up and say so or else things tend to get very muddy as responsibility gets shifted around so much that the goals and objectives become blurred. Right on, Wanda!
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I must say, particularly since I razz you so bad about the incomprehensibility of some of your posts, that that is well said, quite eloquently so, and is chock full of wisdom and erudite analysis. That I agree 100% with just about everything is neither here nor there but I do.
Thanks ole buddy. Really, I think the trick, when I write, is simply to quit imagining I'm having tea and crumpets with Aristotle and Aquinas as I address metaphysical subject matter (way way way too esoteric for almost everybody).
This is not to say I won't fall off the wagon a couple of times a year when corresponding with Phil, imagining we are eating fried oysters and sucking down Michelob Ultras.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have grave reservations of handing any of this kind of power to the U.N.
You know, Brad, I know that I mouthed this sentiment before and enlarged on it even. Curiously, I think the advice of such folks as Kissinger (coupled with the original stance of Powell) sent the Bush Administration to the UN on Iraq. Perhaps we can open another thread on just the UN, later, and seriously examine when it is useful and when it is useless. In a few short weeks, much evidence in favor of either side of this issue is going to materialize.
I know one thing Kissinger said was to treat the Iraq situation as an isolated case and not to extrapolate major foreign policy or defense posture paradigm shifts therefrom. I think this approach is being heeded insofar as it appears the administration is going to deal with North Korea in a distinctive way and Iran in yet another way (with its budding democratic sentiments). Finally, I think the characterization of the Iraqi struggle as a pre-emptive war is misplaced.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, I think the trick, when I write, is simply to quit imagining I'm having tea and crumpets with Aristotle and Aquinas…
Yes. It does help if you think of me as Beavus (or Butt-Head). I can’t speak for the others.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Brad, I know that I mouthed this sentiment before and enlarged on it even. Curiously, I think the advice of such folks as Kissinger (coupled with the original stance of Powell) sent the Bush Administration to the UN on Iraq. Perhaps we can open another thread on just the UN, later, and seriously examine when it is useful and when it is useless. In a few short weeks, much evidence in favor of either side of this issue is going to materialize.
I think it was mentioned somewhere at SP, or perhaps I read an opinion in the newspaper, that the U.N. is kind of out of kilter to begin with if one considers that France has veto power while a country with the population of India is just another member. (I think it’s France, U.S., Russia, China and Great Britain that have veto power in the Security Council.) It needs a lot of work to avoid the fate of the League of Nations.
I know one thing Kissinger said was to treat the Iraq situation as an isolated case and not to extrapolate major foreign policy or defense posture paradigm shifts therefrom. I think this approach is being heeded insofar as it appears the administration is going to deal with North Korea in a distinctive way and Iran in yet another way (with its budding democratic sentiments). Finally, I think the characterization of the Iraqi struggle as a pre-emptive war is misplaced.
I agree. If you look at the history of warfare you’ll see that tactics change all the time. There are those who build a Maginot Line and there are those who simply go around it. New enemies require new tactics in order to stay ahead of the game. We could simply react to every terrorist attack after the fact or we can get more proactive. There was a famous (forget the name at the moment) Navy admiral in the 30's who was instrumental in the development of air power but because he was so insistant on it and it was so resisted at the time he was eventually clobbered by the brass. He proved to be correct though.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
<<Really, I think the trick, when I write, is simply to quit imagining I'm having tea and crumpets with Aristotle and Aquinas…>>
Yes. It does help if you think of me as Beavus (or Butt-Head). I can’t speak for the others.
LOL! Well, I'm glad they left us out of that one, w.c.
------------
Riding around between appointments, meetings, and errands, I happened to listen in on a bit of Rush and caught this expose' of Chirac that's been published on several web sites and in a few European newspapers. Turns out that he considers Saddam Hussein a close friend, and helped him back in the 70's to get a nuclear power plant going, providing *weapons-grade uranium* to source the energy when a lessor grade would do. When French higher-ups found out about it, they pushed for lower grade Uranium, but Hussein objected . . . and Chirac agreed! The Israelis took that project out of its misery in 1981, after which Chirac began communicating with Hussein again about how to restore the project. Etc. etc.
Turns out this guy is a buddy of Saddam Hussein and has referred to him numerous times as a dear friend--not just in dimplomatic circles with the compulsory charade of politeness. Ugh! Note how he has also gone out of his way lately to bully EU and prospective EU countries about their support for the U.S.
Yeah, some of this could be a smear job, but some of the stories were from Chirac's letters, which he's not denied, only given a different spin. Whatever the case, all the more reason to politely agree to disagree with the French and proceed working with the rest of the Security Council. It already seemed obvious that no report would ever convince the French of significan non-compliance; now I'm sure that's the case.
[ February 19, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re Chirac: I know that we're all supposed to not pre-judge people, but none of this stuff, if true, is the least surprising to me. It fits into the picture I have of some of these European leaders and the ideology of many of their countrymen. One gains a certain sense of things. These senses hardly make for good debating material but they are helpful in interpreting what is behind the events and words of the day. It may be shocking to some just how degenerate and blinding some people's ideologies can be but I'm afraid I'm to the point where I can no longer be shocked. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point remains, however, it is not deserving of absolute deference.
Well, THAT was a non sequitur because, after all, one can use words like always, never and absolute and make almost any statement true or false. One could substitute, in place of the UN, me or Phil or even Condoleeza Rice, for instance, who are also not deserving of absolute deference.
The UN deserves a LOT less deference than it is being paid by way too many and a LOT more deference than is being paid by the extremists who want the US to withdraw from it entirely.
What is more than ironic is when those who claim inspections are working argue against war on the grounds that Saddam will unleash his chemical and biological agents on our troops.
Also, I think it is time that we take to the streets by the millions, globally, to protest Saddam's failure to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors! WHERE is THAT outrage? Makes me want to take my clothes off and lie naked on a hillside with 750 nude Australian women
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) In any case, the Vatican itself encouraged the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo, and has expressly approved the war against the terrorists, although not the war against Iraq.
2) But in what way is the regime of Milosevic in Kosovo less horrific than the barbaric practices of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
3) As a matter of prudential judgment, on this narrow issue of whether there are more reasons to intervene in Iraq on humanitarian grounds than in Kosovo, the evidence points hands down to weightier reasons to intervene in Iraq.
4)In Italy, the Left (which led the intervention in Kosovo) is deeply embarrassed by this evidence, in the face of its refusal to support a humanitarian intervention in Iraq. The Italian Left is willing to allow the poor and tyrannized and tortured of Iraq to suffer indefinitely. The Italian Left's greater passion is to upbraid the United States. In Kosovo, they needed the United States to bear 90 percent of the fighting load, while they lightened their own consciences of the sufferings borne by the victims of Milosevic.
5) The New York Times (no friend of the Bush administration, and no friend of the war in Iraq) reports (Feb. 16) that leaders of the Arab nations supporting an intervention of the U.S. in Iraq (there are at least five of them) are predicting that great jubilation will welcome American and allied troops, and great victory celebrations, and dancing in the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Masul, and other cities. These sights, they say, will change the perception of the Arab streets. The joy of the Afghani after their liberation certainly did.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link to the Novak article, J.B. He’s become a sort of hero of mine. And I appreciate your reflections on the U.N. I’ve become quite superfluous ‘round here. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The demonstrators simultaneously express respect for the U.N.'s resolutions and loathing for America, the only nation that can enforce the resolutions. This moral infantilism -- willing an end while opposing the only means to that end -- reveals that the demonstrators believe the means are more objectionable than the end is desirable. by George Will
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ahhh...that's my favorite line from the column. Now granted, I’ve been caught a time or two in the same act ‘round here. I ain’t perfect. But hopefully I learn. Next paragraph…
For Europe's elites, anti-Americanism is a sterile response to the galling fact that Europe committed semi-suicide in the 20th century. But many of these elites' economic and defense policies are deepening Europe's self-inflicted anemia.
You’d have thought Europe would have learned something from the 20th century. I think I know what Will means. These nations are still far more steeped in nationalism than we are. I submit that in the United States we are more committed, although not wholly or even mostly, to ideals. The end result is that less face saving is needed. If America stands for freedom then if we do something that is counter to this principle we can admit it, move on, and be as intact as ever. In fact, it even reinforces our self-pride. Yep – we don’t always face up well or immediately to past sins. But we do and then we look it straight in the face, try to understand it, and try to make sure it never happens again. That’s moral courage and integrity.
I remember the last 30 years as, in bits and pieces, fits and starts – like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip – the Japanese slowly faced up to their role in WWII. I don’t think they’ve completed the process yet. Europe certainly hasn’t because, as Will suggests, this anti-Americanism is their new scapegoat and it allows them to avoid looking inward. Psychology on a national scale. Brother. I suppose this is more W.C.’s realm. We'll identify it and then W.C. will dress it, filet it and cook it on the barbie.
The curdled arrogance of some European elites, and especially of those clinging to a status that they sense is eroding, was displayed last Monday in Jacques Chirac's dressing-down of Eastern European leaders who support U.S. policy. Speaking of them with the disdain of a duke deploring bad manners among the servants below stairs, Chirac said they were guilty of "not well brought up behavior" -- something like using the fish fork during the salad course -- and that "they missed a good opportunity to keep quiet" because several are still applicants for membership in the European Union.
Chilling.
Perhaps U.S. policy can change European minds by changing facts in Iraq.
Perhaps not. However, America's vital interests are more dependent on those facts than on those minds.
There’d still be a wall in Berlin if not for American leadership. When we were breaking away from England we were thought of as the child and England as the parent – willingly by both parties. Let’s hope we make better parents as this child learns to grow up.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, here's the calculus for war --- well, that's too strong; here's the algebra for war as I see it.
Saddam knows he is going to war no matter what takes place in the United Nations or in the streets of the world's capitals.
He won't destroy the Al-Samoud 2 missiles because, if he's going to war anyway, he might as well keep his missiles. They are thus more valuable to him as weapons than as a symbol of cooperation or a token of disarmament.
Ironically, he will thereby free up China, France and Russia and enable them to avoid vetoing today's UK Resolution. They'll likely abstain (if Russia doesn't, in fact, do an about face). Hans Blix's March 1 quarterly report will thus pave the way for a vote on the second resolution, now closer to the first week of March??? than the second week, perhaps --- though it is by 2nd week that US Admin believes it will have proof positive and irrefutable, so some are claiming no sooner than 10 March 2003.
The UK and US will win a slim majority vote and go to war with UN legitimacy.
Saddam will be spirited away, as the bombs begin to fall, pursuant to a last second Arab League exile agreement. A regime change will be accomplished and Saddam and his cronies will be thoroughly humiliated as tons of hidden WMD's are uncovered. He will thus claim a lasting victory over the imperialists and will trumpet this claim 'til his dying day. And, he will be partly correct, for he will have at least vanquished all leading contenders for the 2004 Democratic nomination except for Dick Gephart.
We're going to need a new thread - on North Korea, before the Ides of March.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Bradley,
You have actually gone and demythologized yourself . . . nice photo. Yep, we'd be aging along the same baby-boomer lines. As for me and my little dog Toto, we're staying behind the Wizard's curtain . . . boy, that was a self-emasculating statement . . .
posted
Brad, go ahead and find a mugshot from the Sopranos to use for w.c.'s avatar. I've been married to the M ..., ahem, Sicilians for years and, try as I may, they still all look alike
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have actually gone and demythologized yourself . . . nice photo.
Well, after harping on JB about the head/heart thing elsewhere (and knowing I have too much head and not enough heart) I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and personalize things a bit.
As for me and my little dog Toto, we're staying behind the Wizard's curtain...
That's just fine by me. Do whatever you're comfortable doing. But be advised that Phil tells me a lot of cool chicks are lurking 'round here. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
JB said:
"And, he will be partly correct, for he will have at least vanquished all leading contenders for the 2004 Democratic nomination except for Dick Gephart."
Likely, I hope. GW needs another term to set a precedent for what works and what doesn't with the new world diplomacy and the war on terrorism.
The turmoil in central Europe is really starting to make more sense to me. Like G.Will said, we were expecting more havoc out of the Muslim street. But as I read and listen, the responses of France and Germany don't sound too surprising, giving their embarrassing history with the U.S. and Britain in both war and world economy. And there isn't a thing that can't or won't be exploited for leverage in global politics. But if JB is correct, and Sadaam pushes the last piece off the chess board, then these two whimpering puppies will start wagging their tails, at least among Parliaments. As for the European street . . . does anybody think that if GW had swaggered less, there might have been less of an affront? That doesn't sound right, even as I say it. But I have a difficult time with the majority of intelligent Europeans championing the cheap antagonisms of their leaders, unless it is seen as a response to Bush's power stance among nations that are still struggling with an identity crisis post WWII.
IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
"That's just fine by me. Do whatever you're comfortable doing. But be advised that Phil tells me a lot of cool chicks are lurking 'round here."
And really quiet . . . just like I like 'em.
IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
