At 11:49 PM 2/22/02 +1100 Brett Coster wrote:
>> This is
>> especially true, given that Europe is currently advocating the same sorts
>> of tired policies that have failed for the past 50 years, that failed to
>> keep Iraq from getting within weeks of having the bombs, that have failed
>> to get Hussein to reveal his stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons
>> aimed at Israel, nearby nations, and US troops, and have failed to present
>> a credible alternative for freedom-loving nations to protect themselves
>> from large-scale terrorism.
>>
>
>Is there any PROOF that Iraq is behind the 11 September terror? If so, put
>it before the world. If not, don't include it in your list of grievances.
Ok, I guess that here is where we differ. I don't think taking out Iraq
requires even the slimmest connection of Iraq to the events of Sept. 11th.
Iraq is *evil* (is there any doubt?) The Iraqi people are *desperate*
to be freed of the Iraqi regime. The Secuirty of every nation in
Western Civilization will be improved by taking out the Iraqi regime.
And finally, 10 years of the msot intense sanctions, inspections, and
diplomacy humanly possible by peaceful means have utterly failed to keep
Iraq from being a menance to its own people and to Western Civilization.
I'm not sure that there is really any doubt about the above facts - and the
only logical conclusion from the above facts is that eliminating Iraq
should be a no-brainer.
Yes, as you point out - some policies advocated by the US have failed with
Iraq, as much as those of the Europeans. Yet, the US has been able to
admit failure and begin advocating something different - I think that our
frustration with the Europeans stems from the fact that they have *no* new
proposals, just opposition to ours.
>The "Axis of Evil" is nothing more than a Bush PR stunt. It has zero
>validity outside of US Republican circles.
Au contraire - it has validity because it is true, and the truth has its
own validity, whehter it is popular or appealing among the international
intelligentsia or not.
>I may or may not agree with you, but I see no case justifying a US invasion.
>Now, it would be a completely different matter if a UN sponsored,
>multi-lateral excision of Saddam was to happen for crimes against humanity,
>for example. Maybe waiting for the outcome of the current Milosevic trial
>would be a good idea to see if perhaps that can provide a case precedent?
But what about when the UN is paralyzed to act because of the presence of
evil and other nations in positions of power in the UN? For example,
China has a veto in the Security Council - which makes it very likely that
China will prevent the UN from recognizing certain instances of evil in the
world and endorsing appropriate responses.
Should Western Civilization be truly beholden to the whims of Red China in
making its decisions?
>Liberation? A US attack is NOT liberation; it is an invasion. It may be done
>for the best of reasons but it still an invasion.
But is not the very core of "liberation" the freeing from oppression? And
wouldn't the elimination of Saddam Hussein's regime be the elimination of
oppression, by definition?
>And, once Iraq is invaded and Saddam captured or killed, what then? What
>sort of government is going to be set up? Is an occupying force going to be
>needed? If so, who's going to be on it? What is going to be done about
>rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure? How long is that going to take and where
>will the money come from? Is the US going to do ALL of that or just blow
>Saddam away and then depart? Is Iraq going to be any friendlier to the West,
>let alone the US, after all of that?
In an ideal situation, I view the New World Order as having a very
convenient division of labor. The US is the Thunder and Lightning of
Western Civilization and concentrates on military offensives. Europe and
the rest of the West meanwhile, concentrates on peacekeeping and
nation-building - ala Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia where the UK and
Germany have taken the lead in those areas following predominantly US-led
offensives.
I think it could be a very workable arrangement - assuming that Europe has
the stomache for it. Unfortunately, the UK is already talking about
abandoning Afghanistan.....
>As Jeroen has said, the US has had one huge external terrorist attack.
>Europe has had decades of intermittent terrorism, some internal and some
>external. More people have been killed by terrorists in Ireland and Britain
>since 1969 than were killed on 11 September, and an awful lot of the money
>for the Irish terrorism came from the US. Germany has suffered from
>terrorist attacks by palestineans, quite apart from Munich in '72.
>
>If anything, it was only when the US was hit that the US decided to do much
>about terrorism, so why should the Europeans feel any extra sympathy for the
>US?
In all honesty Brett, you don't seriously believe this do you? To me it
sounds completely like a red herring, something with the veneer of
seriousness but utterly laughable after a moment's contemplation - but if
you are serious, I will try my best to patiently respond without blowing up
at you......
>>- the US is thankfully long past the
>> point of letting Europeans veto American foreign policy.
>
>By veto do you mean that noone else should have any say in what the US does?
>Sorry to break it to you, but we all live on this one little planet and we
>all have to learn to cooperate. Have you got any brothers or sisters? Well,
>the US has brothers and sisters - they're called nations.
What I mean is that Western Civilization was attacked on September 11th,
and the US is now prepared to defend Western Civilization - and whether the
US acts unilaterally or with the cooperation and consultation of our allies
is predominantly determined by the decisions that our allies make as to
whether or not to stand with us, or ultimately to stand on the sidelines.
>> Ba'atha Delenda Est.
>>
>
>So, Syria is next on the list, is it?
I can only hope.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
