Erik Reuter wrote: > > Fairly calm? > > Then we might as well agree to disagree on this point. :) > > I consider neither the Afghanistan chapter of the TWAT nor > this new Iraq > > campaign to be a 'calm' reaction. For that is all it is, y'know, an > > emotional reaction to 9/11. > > No, I don't know. Afghanistan was carefully planned, definitely not a > snap emotional reaction, and it achieved not only the goal of reducing > the resources of future terrorists, but also liberating a horribly > oppressed people, all the while minimizing the number of civilian > casualties.
Carefully planned, yes. Certainly not a snap emotional reaction. But, imo, it was carefully planned operation based on an emotional reaction. Those other factors - terrorists, oppressed people etc. existed earlier and people knew about them too. > > As for the response from other nations, well, they all have > their own > > valid, legitimate reasons, y'know. They still tend to worry about > > concepts like 'national sovereigniy', > > You mean like when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Well, you can hardly claim that the response of the other countries was disappointing back then. > > unstated-but-clearly-evident American claim of a Manifest Destiny to > > rule the world'.... silly stuff like that. > > Yes, it is silly. Surely you can see the difference between a fascist > dictator and a democractically elected government? Why should > the former > be protected? Especially when the former has repeatedly disobeyed > instructions of the United Nations? I am not claiming that the former should be protected. But just that there are proper channels to take these actions. And that when these channels are ignored, things worsen. They don't get better. At least not for the non-Americans. As for Iraq disobeying the UN, well, now it is willing to allow inspectors. At least that option has to be excercised. Dismissing it out of the hand seems a bit extreme to me. > > Another factor in this regard could be best summed up by > the phrase 'As > > you sow, so shall ye reap.' > > <g> > > Would you really grin if you spoke that phrase to me face to face in > this context? Well, I probably would. Y'see, I find it extremely amusing that the Indian government actually *believed* the policy pronouncements of Rumsfeld and co. when they initally set out to garner international support for the Afghanistan campaign. And I found their petulance at the later events amusing. So, for me, this issue is inextricably linked with the sheer naivete of the BJP govt. So, I probably would grin. Not because I have any snide thought about America or its govt....but because I have a lot of thoughts about BJP et al. > > If other countries had found the American response less > > 'disappointing' in recent past, they would take America's > > idealistic-sounding claims more seriously. > > Maybe the other countries need to do their part rather than watching > idly while the US shoulders the burden of enforcing UN agreements and > protecting the world from terrorism? How do you define doing their part? By protecting its territory? By collecting information that implicates a neighbouring country in a significant number of terrorist acts? By handing over that same information to the Atlas-like US in the hopethat someaction would be taken? Maybe not a military action, but at least a cessation of the US military and economic aid to the implicated country? And if after all that there is no help other than verbal assurances while US aid continues pouring into the terrorist-sponsoring countries what is one to do? Certainly not emulate what the US did to Afghanistan...for that is suddenly 'irresponsible' and 'inconvenient'. > Granted no other country has the > military resources to do it, <chuckle> Our military resources are sufficient for the task at hand. But the issue doesn't seem so clear cut in the minds of the US govt when the target is an ally or at least a helper of the US. And while I am still harping on the subject, the point you raised earlier, about the difference between a democratically elected government and a dictator...well, that is a question I have always wanted to ask the US policy makers when I view their policies and statements on South Asia. > You suggested "accepting" Iraq's "offer". If you don't see > what credibility > has to do with that, you must be hopelessly naive or > willfully ignoring > the facts of the situation. No. I don't think either of the definition applies. You accept Iraq's offer not because you trust Saddam or have faith in him, but because there is a 'due process of law'. Or should be, anyway. You can not summarily decide that someone is a threat, demand that he/they surrender sovereignity, refuse all counter-offers, declare an intention to attack...and still hope to be considered reasonable. > > No, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Iraq. > All this has to > > do with is the US threat perceptions and the US might to act on the > > same. > > We were discussion weapons inspectors. The likelihood that these > inspectors would be accorded the opportunity to conclusively determine > whether Iraq has any WoMD. That has a lot to do with how Iraq has > behaved towards inspectors in the past, and a lot to do with Iraq's > credibility. It has very little to do with US "threats", so > your comment > makes no sense. I thought we were discussing why American actions can easily be perceived as 'arrogant' by many people, all over the world. My comments make perfect sense in that context. Especially since this particular paragraph was preceded by one where I mentioned how much [or little] the 'credibility' of the claimant has to do with the actions taken by the US govt. > > However, I question your assumption that they'd be > >glad of any > > American action to 'topple the regime'. > > That, of course, is an emotional response, not a logical one. In fact, > it is quite illogical. Who was accusing who of emotional responses? Why is my questioning of your assumption illogical? Or emotional? The culture of that society places emphasis on ethnocentrism...has for centuries. Why would I assume that that has changed? Of course there would be people who'd be glad to see Saddam go...but I am not certain of the number. But given the effect of the last UN/US engagement in Iraq, I doubt that too many common people have ambivalent or positive views about these forces today. > > See, as an Indian, I do not relish living under the BJP government. > > However, any attempt by any other country to bring about a change in > > *my* country's regime [unless they have been specifically invited to > > do so] would evoke only one reaction, > > You think Saddam and BJP are comparable??? Have you any conception of > how Saddam has "ruled" Iraq? Some idea but not the comprehensive details. But I still think that the two are comparable. The breach of trust effected by the BJP is Gujarat and other places is no less heinous. The atrocities commited by them are not insignificant by any standards. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
