> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis > > 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.
Gunboat diplomacy rarely leads to good things, and a US rather than UN sponsored attack on Iraq is gunboat diplomacy. The US is supposed to be above those things. Yes, Iraq under Saddam is a basket case. Saddam is NOT a person who should be in any sort of powerful position. A bit over a year ago I was teaching a bunch of refugee kids, mainly Iraqis, all of whom were proudly Iraqi but had to flee Iraq or risk death. I am aware of the problems in Iraq - Australia, after all was heavily involved in the inspection teams - but it still boils down to a US attack on Iraq being just that, an attack by the US. I see no justification for it. Again, if it is done under UN auspices, that's a whole different thing. But NO country has the right to attack or invade another country. Full Stop. Period. Brett: > >The "Axis of Evil" is nothing more than a Bush PR stunt. It has zero > >validity outside of US Republican circles. John: > 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. Brett again: Axis: requires a linkage. There is NO link between any of the three governments named. Two of them, Iran and Iraq, are all but open enemies of one another. N Korea has few contacts, let alone any other sort of link, with any country anywhere. It is NOT an Axis. Are they evil? Well, I wouldn't want to invite many government members of any of the countries to tea. I will not be sad to see Saddam, and the rest of his totalitarian structure removed and hopefully tried for crimes against humanity. Same for Kim Il Jong in N Korea. I still believe that Iran is, shall we say, fundamentally different to the other two countries. Iran HAS a democratic movement. Human rights in Iran seem to be more solid than almost anywhere else in the Middle East. Womens rights are stronger in Iran than anywhere on the Arabian peninsula, even though they still have a long way to go. Yes, Iran has in the past sponsored the likes of Hamas, but if you can tell me the difference between Iran sponsoring Hamas and the US sponsoring the Contras - both actions which I disagree with and find morally repugnant - then I'm open to listen. Or is it still the US anger at the Embassy being taken over in the Iranian revolution that is driving this? And what about all those other countries that equally fit the criteria? Burma, China, Saudi Arabia, Colombia? Hell, why didn't Bush throw in Fidel? Someone in the Bush Whitehouse thought it was a good idea to portray Iran, Iraq and N Korea along the lines of the German-Italian-Japanese Axis. It was a stupid idea that should never have passed anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together. PR is all it is, and bad PR at that. Very lazy thinking. John > 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. As distinct from the US or Britain or France using their vetoes? The vetoes should have been removed years ago. Same with Britain, France, Russia, China and the US being permanent menbers of the security council. No more. The vetoes have corrupted the ability of the UN to do anything for over 50 years. The only reason the Korean War got through was because the Russians had exiled themselves from the Security Council at the time for some reason I can't recall. (Berlin airlift?) The US and France have both used their vetoes against resolutions that were supported by almost everybody else. It is past time for the veto to go. So, assuming China and Russia cannot any longer veto a move against Iraq over the weapons inspection teams what then stops the UN from getting involved? You'd finally have a chance for a clear international move against an "evil" regime. John: > 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? OK, so what was the problem with Vietnam invading Cambodia to get rid of the Kmer Rouge? Why were US sanctions against Vietnam applied and maintained for so many, many years? Why wasn't Vietnam aided by the US? Cambodians were definitely liberated from evil by the Vietnamese. And now, what about Zimbabwe's actions against Congo? The Zimbabweans claimed they were liberating the oppressed Congolese. So who then gets to decide who else is evil? Only the US or only the West? There was right and wrong in both of those cases, although far less wrong for the Vietnamese. But what a US invasion "to liberate" Iraq does is set the precedent for anyone else to claim they are going to liberate someone in a neighbouring country. Remember Sudetenland, 1938? Germany merely liberated the oppressed Sudeten Germans from the evil Czechs. Read the newspapers. Whether justified by human rights or not, NO country alone has that right, not even the US. It is otherwise back to the gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century. It can only bring chaos in the end, which is why it CANNOT be done unilaterally and MUST be done through the UN. How about looking at it as a separation of powers issue? In the US you have the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Under Westminster rules we also have a separation of government (which includes both legislature and executive, but under a transparently democratic structure) from the judiciary. And the judiciary itself has its powers shared between enforcement (police) and interpretation (judges and juries). So do all the Western countries, and many others. So, no matter how much of an influence for good the US is or can be, I do not want to see it become the world's policeman, judge, jury and executioner. John: > 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..... So if the US has all the donner und blitzen, how then can it be moderated? What entity is there to authorise the use of that military force? Who gets to direct it? Who gets to set the limits as to what is or is not an appropriate level of force being applied? Where is the accountability? And who else would be in any sort of position to MAKE the US back down? Sure, from your US perspective it all looks sweetness and light. Of course the US would never misuse its powers. Of course it would only ever do good for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, very few people anywhere else can afford to be so trusting. John: > 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. There is a difference between standing on the sidelines because you don't want to get involved and refusing to cooperate in something you feel is wrong. What is happening is that many, many governments and peoples are trying to point out to the US government that some things it wants to do are, in our opinion, wrong. Now, when a number of people I know and basically trust keep telling me that something I want to do is wrong or ill headed, I'm inclined to have another think about the idea. Maybe they've seen something I haven't? You never know. Brett
