|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Just as I feared. (Reply to this comment)
by trohricht
Recent events (i.e. the bombing of the UN HQ in Iraq) caused me to think back on this essay of yours LG.
Iraq is rapidly descending into Afghan-style anarchy. Women are being kidnapped/raped on the streets. There is no power, no water, no security, no employment. Frightened 18-year-old kids from Kansas are firing into crowds of civilians. Foreign terror organisations are gleefully setting up camp throughout the country, inciting revolt, recruiting the powerless, destroying infrastructure, and otherwise spreading their unique brands of joy.
In short, America's leaders were horribly ill-prepared for the collapse of government in Iraq (even though they invaded the country with the stated purpose of collapsing the government). Once again, from where I sit this failure to plan for the well-being of the Iraqi people speaks volumes about the real priorities there ... the real reasons for invasion.
I'm curious Lobstergirl. Do you still think this has been a benevolent intervention? If so, how many more months of anarchy would be "too many" in your opinion? At what point does incompetence cross the line to negligence?
|
Aug 19 '03
2:13 pm PDT
|
|
Re: well.. (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Lots of people failed to see the true reasons behind the invasion. Liberators come overthrow dictators and leave. Conquerors bomb hospitals, independent reporters, replaces dictators and stays to take over the oil. Where do you stand now?
In the same place I stood when I wrote this essay, you'll probably be disappointed to hear. The way I'd describe the U.S. forces in Iraq is as liberators, and occupiers. We are an occupying force, there's no denying. Nor can I see how you can argue with the fact that we liberated the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorship. Hopefully our occupation will be successful, and relatively brief.
|
Jul 13 '03
7:36 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well.. (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
We've both made our positions clear, and there's no reason to bother lobstergirl with our respective errors..
You're wrong. :-P
|
Jul 09 '03
6:22 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: well.. (Reply to this comment)
by isdexecutor
The Reuters agency is hardly the kind to place between quotation marks. The reporters that provided footage of the attack on civilian buildings were of all nationalities except US. (Yes, even Japanese.) And a target like the Palestine Hotel cannot be bypassed for the simple reason there’s nothing to bypass it to: it’s the end. As for the oil: what is the international LAW (maybe you can look that up in a dictionary) stating? (Yes, that law that was broken by the invasion on doctored premises.) However, Sir, since we are both well aware of the other’s sources of information on the matter I consider there ABSOLUTELY nothing I can say to make a change for you. The question made was addressed to Lobstergirl. Have a nice afterwar.
|
Jul 08 '03
12:10 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: well.. (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Point by point:
I'll take your word for it that those hospitals didn't contain munitions. Some did.
Independent reporters are not supposed to be targeted, but a target otherwise selected is not supposed to be bypassed because there are independent reporters there. (Furthermore, any "independent" reporters invited by Saddam would be suspect.)
As for the oil: I agree that the oil belongs to Iraq. I would assume (I know, I may be naive) that some of the oil revenues are set aside for aid to Iraqis or as part of the oil-for-food program which was never technically cancelled, and to be turned over to the Iraqi government when one is established. Or are you claiming that oil royalties should still go to Saddam?
|
Jul 08 '03
6:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: well.. (Reply to this comment)
by isdexecutor
Dear Arthur.Robin
We crossed paths before; I already know that your ability of turning a blind eye to truth and legality is only paralleled by your inability of changing the TV channel. Three such channels (Greek) dared having reporters taking images of a hospital. The very hotel hosting nothing but accredited independent reporters was shot upon by a tank. Reuters still goes around with images of Geneva Convention violations. And, stupid me, I thought that oil belongs to Iraq, liberated or not. I hope this answers your question marks but I expect it will not. The easiest solution is to consider me an insane terrorist-loving b@stard, feel free.
|
Jul 08 '03
3:06 am PDT
|
|
Re: well.. (Reply to this comment)
by Arthur.Rubin
Lots of people failed to see the true reasons behind the invasion.
Including you.
Liberators come overthrow dictators and leave. Conquerors bomb hospitals, ...
containing munitions facilities ...
independent reporters,
???
replaces dictators
Well, if it comes to that, so do most "liberators".
and stays to take over the oil.
Well, somebody had to. We couldn't let the French take over the oil, could we?
Where do you stand now?
If that's the best you can do, a little closer to the "liberator" side.
|
Jul 07 '03
5:36 am PDT
|
|
well.. (Reply to this comment)
by isdexecutor
Lots of people failed to see the true reasons behind the invasion. Liberators come overthrow dictators and leave. Conquerors bomb hospitals, independent reporters, replaces dictators and stays to take over the oil. Where do you stand now?
|
Jul 06 '03
11:30 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Well Reasoned..... (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Thanks, Tombarnes.
|
Apr 20 '03
5:08 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ~~~ (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Teresa, I hardly think that was self-indulgent crap. You make excellent points, and most of them I don't necessarily dispute.
Down to the human scale, I can only ask this: if you, as an innocent civilian, had a son, daughter, father, sister, or whole clan of relatives and a slew of friends etc. be severely wounded or die as a result of the invasion of Iraq, would you find sufficient comfort in the fact that millions of others benefited from their maiming and deaths? When you did not exactly invite the invaders in? Such unintended sacrifice may be accepted by some really generous, selfless souls, to be sure. I also don't buy the argument bandied about by a few that 'if they didn't die during the invasion, well, Saddam might have tortured and killed them anyway,' which smacks of an appalling coldheartedness.
No, I probably wouldn't find sufficient comfort. But I don't believe we did the wrong thing to fight this war. I really do believe that the U.S. tried to minimize civilian deaths.
The whole 'liberation' idea fits in so perfectly with the grand 'New American Century' plans of Rumsfeld et al. It's the hypocrisy and arrogance of the administration that revolts many who have opposed the war.
I wouldn't argue with this.
If a liberation of the people results, then well and good, that would be a nice extra and put the shine on their names, too. It IS a good thing, but one cannot simply stop there and sit back and admire such a positive outcome without also looking into the rest of the rubbish involved...
Agreed.
As for the casus belli? Yes, it's still too early to be definite about it, but so far no WMD have been found. And what is the deal with calling the proposed Iraqi leader a 'viceroy'? Those not-so-veiled threats against Syria? What happened to candidate W's statements about having a 'humble' America, not 'telling other countries what to do'?
If there are WMD there, it may take a long time to find them. I think we need to reserve judgment on this for awhile. And there's no question that GWB today is a completely different animal than the one that ran for office.
While the oilfields were secured, the museum of precious antiquities was not--was that a more difficult task, or were historical documents and artifacts of low priority?
This makes me ill. I'm afraid that the antiquities were low priority; how else can you explain it? Yet the Pentagon was briefed specifically, by scholars of ancient civilizations, on the need to safeguard those exact buildings and museums. Clearly we haven't heard the last of this. I'll be very interested to see the results of whatever investigations eventually look into it.
Whatever good has come of this is tainted with suspicious motives and plans, I'm afraid. To me, Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz are the most cynical about things here, and they're the ones running the show, pushing more level-headed moderates like the hapless Colin Powell to the sidelines.
Well, I'm definitely having a difficult time reconciling my support for what I feel were legitimate reasons for waging war, with the suspect motives of the neocons. Maybe they don't need to be reconciled. Can't I be someone who thinks it's important for the U.S. to stand up to rogue states that probably have WMD, and to states that sponsor or support terrorism, without morphing into a supporter of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz? I think there are a fair number of people out there like me, whose support of the war just happens to coincide with these rather unpalatable neocons.
|
Apr 20 '03
5:06 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh LG... (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Pretty harsh to drag Pat into this, LG. BUT HE'S RIGHT. Someone here posted that newamericancentury link. These are the plotters. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and William Kristol.....
I know, I'm aware of this stuff. I guess my response is, if there are/were strong and legitimate reasons for this war, the fact that a neoconservative cabal is constantly searching for pretexts to go to war shouldn't be a reason not to go to war. You know that the person I consider my leader is Tony Blair; he isn't in the thrall of these crazed Likudniks, but he saw plenty of reasons to back this war, as did many other highly intelligent, well-spoken experts on both sides of the political divide.
They've known for a long time that the "war on terror" would bring stuff down on this country and they needed to be able to crack down on perceived threats in the US. The Total Information Act thing has been waiting in the wings for years.
Our war on terror in this country scares the hell out of me.
I wish there were more smart liberals who would step up to the plate on this stuff, but the democratic politicians are all sitting around trying to figure out how to not get voted out of office, and we are left with Susan Sarandon to fill the rhetoric void.
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic. I saw Jessica Lange doing her anti-war thing on Charlie Rose. She was tossing her hair around and flopping around on the table like a fish, or like a 4 year old with ADD. It was embarrassing. Her argument, augmented by a lot of really dramatic hand movements, was that war is bad because it involves death and destruction. Do people like her think they're helping the cause?
I guess we could have tried happier ways to stabilitize the middle east rather than propping up Saddam. We wanted a secular Sunni to balance Shiite radicals in Iran. When the people of southern Iraq rose up after the gulf war because they thought they had our support we chose to let them be slaughtered by the 10s of thousands because we were afraid of them taking power and possibly contributing to a stronger, more unified radical movement.
Yes, I guess we have Norman Schwarzkopf to thank for that decision.
All the anti-national building stuff Dubya was spouting pre-election. Kills me. If we did a little more peaceful nation building we would not have to do the nation re-building.
True.
Anyway, I too, would like to live a good long time to see how this plays out. If the Iraq experiment works out, then I have some hope. If it doesn't. WOW. WWIII. And it will be long and bloody and bad and evil and scary and horrible. Here, there, everywhere.
My view is not quite that pessimistic. Still, my worst case scenario is bad enough -- radical Shiite clerics taking over, chronic violence arising from Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds struggling for power. I'm glad to hear what I think you may be saying -- that you hope the Iraq experiment works out even given your loathing for this administration. Some of the anti-warites are not so generous.
|
Apr 20 '03
4:13 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Well thought out and divisive (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Nobody on the liberal side of the fence would begin to admit that they would be cheering Gore on if he had initiated this same action...
Well, certainly some of them would be cheering Gore on. I definitely don't think we would have seen protests of the size we did if Gore were our leader.
Bush is keeping his word about taking down anybody who supports terrorism and those who attacked us, Iraq seems to me to be the first and most obvious on a list. Now that the troops are deployed I think we may make short shrift of several others while we are over there.
Well, I definitely think we need to snuff out terrorism wherever we can. I certainly hope full-scale war won't be necessary to do this.
|
Apr 20 '03
3:34 pm PDT
|
|
I agree with you for the most part (Reply to this comment)
by martytdx
I agree that the war was a war of necessity, but I will never agree with the Bush clan's way of going about it. His 'you're with us or against us' mentality hurt the American attempt to give the war any legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Granted, the Russian and French opposition has many other agendas tied to it (who loses if sanctions are lifted and an open market is instituted in Iraq. You guessed it - France and Russia), but other countries have also spoken of their suspicions of Bush's intentions.
I disagree with the Bush agenda/procedure, and will always reserve the right for ANYONE to comment on how stupid the man can be. However, once the war started, the protestors were doing 2 things I DON'T support:
1) Our troops are out there fighting to free a people where a MINIMUM of 1,000 people died every year at the hands of Saddam's government. They deserve to be supported, regardless of your view of Bush and the events leading to the war.
2) If we have 500 cops baby-sitting 10,000 protesters, who is watching our streets, shops and airports for the real criminals?
I don't pretend to think that now that we have removed Saddam that life in Iraq will suddenly be roses. The protests, the looting, and the fighting over who has the right to help Iraq get on its feet (shouldn't IRAQ retain that right? Just wondering.) are evidence enough that they are in for a struggle to create a new life in the vacuum of a totalitarian regime. But I do fear HOW we will let them go about the process.
Hearing that the administration wants to put ex-military and an ex-CIA director in charge of the interim government frightens and aggravates me. The fact that Colin Powell's view that we let administrators and ambassadors do it seems so much more reasonable and is being squashed by Bush's government is mind-boggling. I can only hope that in the end, they do the right thing and help Iraq become a free government OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING and then get the hell out of the country.
I didn't want to go to war, and I think that the casualties sustained were a terrible cost. However, the costs of standing still and doing nothing - much as we did in Rwanda - would be higher. Whether Saddam had WMD or not, he was killing thousands every year, and that alone was a reason to go in and remove him. To sit here and despise our military for removing him - and killing a tragic yet remarkably few number of civilians is a bit narrow-minded.
Thanks for writing a review that got people thinking - as you always do. Keep up the good work.
-- Marty
|
Apr 18 '03
5:11 am PDT
|
|
Well Reasoned..... (Reply to this comment)
by tombarnes
As always, intelligent discourse from you. Thank you Peterina. Tom
|
Apr 17 '03
7:10 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ~~~ (Reply to this comment)
by Sordid-1
Teresa,
I'm going to respond to your comment since it truly provoked much thought in me and I have no shame whatsoever about usurping Lobstergirl's comments section and sticking my nose where it doesn't belong (after all, she owes me, she never did deliver on her promise to pet my nethers lo those many months ago.) I know you will probably discount all my words since you are so loyal to the woman who is attacking me (all for the good of humanity, of course), but I will speak them anyway.
I understand and appreciate your cynicism in light of your readily apparent mistrust of Bush's motives and character. Personally, I believe that Bush & Company's bungling of the p.r. aspects of this military action has reached near monumental proportions, and am actually a fence-sitter. It seems a wash to me, the opportunity to topple an oppressive, sadistic regime vs. the ugly face of seemingly imposing our will on a sovereign nation (that is, of course, over-simplification - there are a ton of other mitigating (and favorable) aspects.
Also, I agree that painting the war's justification as "liberating the Iraqi people" was a mere afterthought - something tagged on to win popular support.
But I do believe that it is over-cynical to dismiss the great benefit that can (and should) be imbued upon the Iraqi people by the Baath's demise. This is a regime with a history of brutality, oppression, and hideous, hideous human rights violations. One would be hard-pressed to envision a worst scenario for these people.
Regardless, the action was undertaken, the ugliness of war reared its ugly head, and there is no turning back the clock to handle it a different way.
The true test - the moment of truth - is now. The Iraqui's fate is now in the hands of others (U.S/U.K. & the U.N. if they are allowed to involve themselves.) Now is the time that the world sees whether the vast price (in the life and limbs of Iraqi civilians) was a necessary evil in their own betterment, or merely a lesson in futility - an utter waste and travesty.
It is absolutely essential that the power within that country is handed to a superior, worthwhile regime - one that will set their personal aggrandization aside and represent ALL the people of Iraq, one that will adopt "rule of law" rather than "rule of fear", and destroy the torture/death chambers and somehow refrain from launching chemical attacks on its own citizenry.
The U.S. has a rather poor track record of exerting power and influence to instituting fair, benevolent government in foreign lands (although Japan worked rather well), but it is time - NOW - that that precedent is set. And every hope I have in the matter is geared towards success in this endeavor. Like any decent person, I don't want this to be for naught. I want to see these people benefit, and I think they have great potential to succeed in this regard. Hopefully, after so many years of the most dreadful degradation and fear-based stifling, their thirst for a decent life will outweigh the empty desire for the familiar.
The matter of this conflict was never in question - the U.S. military is the absolute best, and aided by the Brits, the outcome was never in question. The matter of bettering the lives of the Iraqi people, though, is VERY much in question. NOW is the moment of truth, let's see if our government was motivated by ulterior motives & has no true regard for the people of Iraq. Or let's see if they will successfully tackle the "hard part" of the equation and actually deliver the liberation they promised rather than replacing one despotic regime with an equally negative institution.
I'm hoping for the former.
Any repeat of the post-Gulf War scenario where our allies of convenience, the Kurds, were abandoned and left to the cruel mercy of Hussein will put a lot of teeth in the cynical arguments ("it's all about oil", "it's all about revenge", etc.), and it is my sincere hope that this is handled in the best way possible - sans imperialism, sans a mere "puppet government" that would be destined to fail anyway, sans a "well, we really screwed up your country, now it's time for you to fix it - see ya later!" approach.
If the Bush administration's goal of liberating the Iraqui people was genuine and more than a dog 'n pony show to curry favor with the international community, NOW is the time they can prove it.
And, as far as I'm concerned, they'd better damn well deliver.
Sordid-1
|
Apr 17 '03
10:50 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Your last paragraph raised the... (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Try this little thought experiment: You are going about your business on an ordinary morning. You open the living room curtains and see somebody standing there staring back in at you. Whose face scares you worst?
It's Donna Shalala's, hands down.
Oh, you mean between Ashcroft and Rummy? Ashcroft. It's not even a contest.
|
Apr 16 '03
10:14 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh LG... (Reply to this comment)
by jazzbocrow
You know, the creepy neocon Likudniks may have been plotting this for years; I'm not sure how much of that storyline I buy into, but at least parts of it. (You and Pat Buchanan certainly make strange bedfellows.) Even if they were plotting, is that enough of a reason by itself to make the war unjustifiable?
Pretty harsh to drag Pat into this, LG. BUT HE'S RIGHT. Someone here posted that newamericancentury link. These are the plotters. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and William Kristol were writing letters to congressional leaders and to Bill Clinton 5 years ago begging for "regime change" (citing the need to protect American interests, increase stability in the region and to prevent the disruption of the world's oil supply). Wolfowitz has been hammering on this for going on 20 years.
The whole loss of civil rights thing is indeed part of this evil conspiracy, though you would hardly need a conspiracy to get someone like Ashcroft to seek unlimited powers for spying and law enforcement. They've known for a long time that the "war on terror" would bring stuff down on this country and they needed to be able to crack down on perceived threats in the US. The Total Information Act thing has been waiting in the wings for years.
I am really not a conspiracy theorist AT ALL. But I am so sold on this one that if someone showed me evidence that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had allowed 9/11 to happen, I would only be a little skeptical.
And whoever in here who said liberals who are against this war would have been cheering Gore if he were waging it is a pathetic non-thinking jingoistic boob. The sad fact is that tons of people who voted for Gore support this war. Does this person forget that Gore won the popular vote in this country? Yet support for the war tops 70%. Take the Naders, greens, and non-voters out of the anti-war people and you don't have a whole lot of Gore people left in there. I wish there were more smart liberals who would step up to the plate on this stuff, but the democratic politicians are all sitting around trying to figure out how to not get voted out of office, and we are left with Susan Sarandon to fill the rhetoric void.
As to what we could have done 10 or more years ago. So many things. I guess we could have tried happier ways to stabilitize the middle east rather than propping up Saddam. We wanted a secular Sunni to balance Shiite radicals in Iran. When the people of southern Iraq rose up after the gulf war because they thought they had our support we chose to let them be slaughtered by the 10s of thousands because we were afraid of them taking power and possibly contributing to a stronger, more unified radical movement. Seems counter intuitive reasoning to me since they hate us and distrust us even more now.
I guess we could have done something about the fact that the UN sanctions forcing Saddam to sell oil at below market prices allowed him to make deals with American and European oil companies (through middlemen) that were profitable even with the giant kickbacks they had to pay to Saddam. This is the money that has funded the military enterprise and any WMD programs.
All the anti-national building stuff Dubya was spouting pre-election. Kills me. If we did a little more peaceful nation building we would not have to do the nation re-building.
Anyway, I too, would like to live a good long time to see how this plays out. If the Iraq experiment works out, then I have some hope. If it doesn't. WOW. WWIII. And it will be long and bloody and bad and evil and scary and horrible. Here, there, everywhere.
|
Apr 16 '03
11:34 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh LG... (Reply to this comment)
by jay1051971
J: But it's naive to think that with a wave of a magic M-16 that we can solve all of these problems overnight.
LG: No one, anywhere, thinks this.
I'm sorry, Lobstergirl, but that is exactly what the War Party is saying. We are saying that by the use of military aggression we can solve the world's problems, and live happily ever after.
|
Apr 16 '03
10:12 am PDT
|
|
Re: Well thought out and divisive (Reply to this comment)
by trohricht
Bush is keeping his word about taking down anybody who supports terrorism and those who attacked us, Iraq seems to me to be the first and most obvious on a list.
Excellent point, aside from the fact there are no links whatsoever between Iraq and the events of September 2001. I find it both bizarre and frightening that the American public have embraced this little piece of fiction with no critical thought at all. This does not bode well for the future.
|
Apr 16 '03
9:24 am PDT
|
|
Well thought out and divisive (Reply to this comment)
by deaser26
Nobody on the liberal side of the fence would begin to admit that they would be cheering Gore on if he had initiated this same action...not that one man possibly can truly initiate something of this magnitude.
I say again, as I have in numerous comment sections before this, that Bush is keeping his word about taking down anybody who supports terrorism and those who attacked us, Iraq seems to me to be the first and most obvious on a list. Now that the troops are deployed I think we may make short shrift of several others while we are over there. Those same liberals and conservatives both who cheered George on 9/12 for vowing to get some payback are now wincing as they watch it happen.
At least in my view being anti-war is chic, it's hip and it makes you the sensitive and compassionate one. The real motivator for being anti-war is to get laid, it's nothing more than a pick up line. Probably that is the ultimate motivator for most political positions and global truth anyway...ahhh the power of the poss.
just my view
cheers
deas
|
Apr 16 '03
8:41 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: It comes down to trust (Reply to this comment)
by trohricht
I agree, that was an abominable lack of foresight. It's hard to believe that no one at the Pentagon imagined that looting, ransacking and civil disorder might happen. They always plan for the worst case as well as the best case scenarios, at least if you believe what you read.
Nobody dropped the ball. It was a conscious decision to "get this thing done" quickly even at the cost of human life or the destruction of antiquities.
I saw this all coming the instant I first heard the words "bogged down" reported in the news. It would have been political (both domestic and international) suicide to brook further delay. To their credit, I think the U.S. commanders entered the war intending to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. However a decision was then made to rush to Baghdad immediately, and that the political fallout from increased civilian deaths was less costly than the fallout from a long campaign with many dead soldiers on both sides.
|
Apr 16 '03
7:40 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Your last paragraph raised the... (Reply to this comment)
by trohricht
I think John Ashcroft is the scariest person in Washington.
I think Donald Rumsfeld is scarier.
Try this little thought experiment: You are going about your business on an ordinary morning. You open the living room curtains and see somebody standing there staring back in at you. Whose face scares you worst? (bonus question if you live in an apartment: this means the person has mastered the dark art of levitation.)
|
Apr 16 '03
7:22 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: It comes down to trust (Reply to this comment)
by trohricht
Well, it's a hell of a lot better than things were under the Taliban. Remember them, the people who executed mothers in soccer stadiums?
No need to remember the Taliban fondly LG, you can still admire them in the present tense. They are actively regrouping in the power vaccuum left when dubya lost his concentration and took his marbles to Iraq. Outside Kabul the country is essentially lawless, or more accurately it is subject to the laws of individual warlords. To me, it is a foregone conclusion that the people of Iraq (and by that I mean the people ... the 24.5 million who don't grease the wheels of foreign investment) will be abandoned. Their longterm plight is simply irrelevant.
Is today's Afghanistan better than what existed under the Taliban? Yes, probably for many people but certainly not all. Will Iraq become better than what existed under Saddam Hussein? Yes, probably for many people but certainly not all. In neither case do I trust U.S. intervention. The majority of people in Iraq are poor, and so for reference I look toward dubya's attitudes on poor people anywhere else in the world. Take a moment to shudder quietly if you wish.
Hmm: sweatshops; people being fed into shredding machines. You're right; sweatshops are worse.
Fair enough. Multinat crimes are a hobby horse of mine and I slipped them into a discussion where they really have no business being. More than anything else, I don't trust the Bush administration to genuinely make things better for the vast majority of people. At best, a Musharraf-style leader will ultimately find his way to power to maintain control over all the ethnic divisions. At worst ... well, a few hundred people in a plastic shredder might start to look like a Sunday picnic.
The liberation argument is a seductive one, used by imperial generals for centuries, but we are talking about ambiguous outcomes. Empire finds a way of justifying itself, and over time those justifications become increasingly surreal. Iraq is only the beginning. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
|
Apr 16 '03
7:13 am PDT
|
|
Re: Your last paragraph raised the... (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
The problem is, I don't see how we can NOT talk about Halliburton, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc. in the same breath as the freedom and the civil rights of oppressed Iraquis who are going to be far better off in the future almost regardless of whatever happens to them now.
Nick, I think we are saying the same thing. My sentence may have been syntactically confusing. I am in fact saying that we need to talk about all those things in the same conversation. I am extremely alarmed about the ramifications of the war on terror within the U.S. I think John Ashcroft is the scariest person in Washington. My point was simply that the people whose anti-war arguments are based on this alarm, plus what they perceive to be the evils of oil profits, Halliburton, Dick Cheney, etc., should at the very least acknowledge that freeing the Iraqis from this cruel regime is a good thing. It just seems to me as though much of the anti-war sentiment implied, if it didn't actually assert, that nothing good could come from this war. Can't they just admit that something good has already come of it?
|
Apr 15 '03
10:28 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Oh LG... (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
You asked what should we have done, what were the alternatives? By the time we went to war, I would say that we didn't have many alternatives. And I believe the Pentagon, having grabbed Dubya by the testicles after 9/11, backed us in to that corner on purpose. These creepy people have been waiting for YEARS for the right confluence of factors that would allow them to act out their giant poli sci experiment in benevolent hegemony with a big stick.
So, from the perspective of what should we have done on March 20, 2003, I don't have a good answer. The course was charted long before that day.
No, I don't mean what were our alternatives right on the eve of the war. I'm pretty much talking about from the end of the Gulf War on. Saddam was continuing his WMD programs, and he wasn't allowing the inspectors to inspect. I happen to believe that the possibility of WMD getting into terrorists' hands is too dangerous to be ignored. I'm guessing that you believe that in the abstract, but you don't think that would have happened in Iraq. So we may differ on that point. So when I ask "what were the alternatives", the standard anti-war answer was to let the inspections continue. But people who argued that seemed to conveniently forget that it was only having 250,000 troops right on the Kuwaiti border that got Saddam to invite the inspectors back again.
You know, the creepy neocon Likudniks may have been plotting this for years; I'm not sure how much of that storyline I buy into, but at least parts of it. (You and Pat Buchanan certainly make strange bedfellows.) Even if they were plotting, is that enough of a reason by itself to make the war unjustifiable?
I do not believe that being the benevolent hegemon is going to be good for this country. History shows, they don't last. And they don't go down gently.
See, this is why I want to live forever, to see how this whole thing plays out. But I don't want to age, I still want to be young and hot centuries from now.
|
Apr 15 '03
10:12 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: It comes down to trust (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
but were caught with their big shiny panties down when civil disorder broke out. Where was the planning?
I agree, that was an abominable lack of foresight. It's hard to believe that no one at the Pentagon imagined that looting, ransacking and civil disorder might happen. They always plan for the worst case as well as the best case scenarios, at least if you believe what you read.
Well what about China? As a nation, China keeps the folks at Amnesty International and similar organizations pretty busy, and yet the U.S. has a policy of bringing about democracy through trade. Because it is economically advantageous to trade with China, it's okay to wink at the disappearances, the child labour, the illegal occupation of Tibet, and the numerous other human-rights abuses.
I'm with you here. I was horrified when China was awarded Most Favored Nation status. And now they have the Olympics!
How is that Afghan democracy project coming along these days?
Well, it's a hell of a lot better than things were under the Taliban. Remember them, the people who executed mothers in soccer stadiums?
Don't forget about the shades of grey LG.
I never do.
There will also be 15-year-old Iraqi girls working in brothels to service American soldiers, and multinat sweatshops with 80-hour workweeks. Where do those outcomes fall on the moral compass?
Hmm: sweatshops; people being fed into shredding machines. You're right; sweatshops are worse.
You're setting up a false dichotomy. I have never suggested that the post-war situation won't be problematic. Of course it will.
|
Apr 15 '03
9:42 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh LG... (Reply to this comment)
by Lobstergirl
Look, I'm not saying Iraq's government is perfect.
I'm glad that's established, at least.
But it's naive to think that with a wave of a magic M-16 that we can solve all of these problems overnight.
No one, anywhere, thinks this.
On the otherhand, free-trade and commercial relations have done more to eleviate the suffering of people worldwide.
No one is arguing against this point! You seem to be missing my point that the suffering I was talking about was political torture and human rights violations.
Anyway, a dead horse is being beaten here.
|
Apr 15 '03
9:22 pm PDT
|
|
Your last paragraph raised the... (Reply to this comment)
by NFP
...nub of the issue:
"the human rights issue isn’t even what brought me to support this war. But I don’t see how we can talk about the evils of Dick Cheney and Halliburton, imperialism, oil profits, pre-emptive strikes, civilian casualties, and the civil rights infringements of John Ashcroft’s war on terror, yet fail to acknowledge that freeing 25 million people from oppression and the continuous threat of torture and death is a wonderful and beautiful thing."
The problem is, I don't see how we can NOT talk about Halliburton, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc. in the same breath as the freedom and the civil rights of oppressed Iraquis who are going to be far better off in the future almost regardless of whatever happens to them now.
If I trusted George Bush and the right wing police who govern his movements one iota, I might go along with your conclusion.
But I don't, and I won't. My opposition isn't based on what's best for the Iraquis...it's based on what I think is the worst for Americans like me, and my children, with the war as pretext.
Sranadon's misguided opinions about body bags, etc. are of no cocnern to me; an America I would want to live in is. And there is no question in my mind -- none at all -- that this war(regardless of its origin and impetus) is a pretext for the Bushies to put their stamp on our society.
Frankly, in such a case, I'd rather live just about anywhere else. And I mean it. To me, THAT'S patriotism, NOT the Patriot Act and other Trojan horses of the morality police.
nick
|
Apr 15 '03
12:42 pm PDT
|
|
Hi (Reply to this comment)
by Granniemose
Lobster - I see where you are coming from and I respect your feelings. I am one who protested the war in columns and in letters - I didn't march, but wished I had been physically able to.
When the war started I wrote a piece advising Unity. Unfortunately I also used the words Shut Up - for which I had my ears pinned back mostly by my own family - and others that I admire and respect. I am so sorry I did that.
Yet - when I see the dancing in the streets I am reminded of when Hitler's tanks rolled into the Balkans on there way to Russia, the Slovenian people danced and cheered the Nazis, and held up their babies for the blond, blue eyed soldiers to kiss. They thought they were being liberated, and were cheering the downfall of Stalin. They were celebrating the death of the devil they knew, never realizing that they were greeting another-definitely worse demon. Of course, Russia joined the allies then and the US and Russia became strange bedfellows. I think only some of us remember that George Bush Sr and Chaney were instrumental in getting the Iraqui's "free" once before when the Pshaw was ousted and Saddam replaced him. Saddam hoodwinked his defenders into thinking he would support their control of the oil wells, but instead, he nationalized them - and Hussein's rule was even worse then the Pshaw made it. So I am wondering if we really did "liberate" the Iraqui people. Already Rumsfield is making treatening noises at Syria (I thought it would be Iran or Saudi Arabia, but it is Syria). George Bush, Sr. was head of the CIA at the time of Saddam's rise to power, and Chaney was still active in the oil business.
My heart bleeds for the people of Iraq - and I pray that I am wrong. I hope they can have a stable government and some sort of peace can be restored.
Virginia
|
Apr 15 '03
7:21 am PDT
|
|
An excellent piece. (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
I do in fact stand up, in a brief essay I just posted, for the idea that "opposing rape, torture, and murder" is wrong if Cheney, Wolfowitz et al are doing it. (It depends on knowing the aftermath of prior interventions by this crew) Please check it out. Your piece is honest and invigorating; I hope my own reply is the same.
best,
- Brian
|
Apr 15 '03
6:46 am PDT
|
|
|
|
