--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My understanding of the 17th was that there was an > implied clearance for military action if Iraq failed > to cooperate...? Is that incorrect?
No, that is correct. That's exactly what 1441 said. Actually, it said that anything short of full and complete cooperation from Iraq would get clearance for action. It's just that _the same people who voted for 1441_ are now ignoring it. They don't care what it says. This shouldn't surprise you. > I think I addressed this a little earlier - > basically, > that the Admin needs to provide *convincing* > arguments. Reading Dan's post of the UK poll, the > British public doesn't think they've been provided > enough info either. Apparently neither do the > Spanish > people, or the Mexicans, or the Turks. And not a > few > people on this list. > > <snarky comment ;) > > If it was so black-and-white, why do so many > question? > > Debbi Because they don't want to be convinced. This isn't medicine. We aren't all standing around trying to decide what's best for the patient. That's not how this works. If the evidence that (for example) Colin Powell presented to the UN wasn't convincing, then there is no evidence that could be convincing. Which I could have told you long before Powell's presentation. If I was a not particularly bright, extremely short-sighted, entirely self-interested, and very cynical French leader (not that I'm describing anyone in particular, of course <cough Jacques Chirac>) what would I do in this situation? 1. My country has done everything it can to keep Hussein in power for 12 years ===>Suggesting that my country believes keeping Hussein in power is in its interest ===>_Or_ (and here's the interesting bit) it suggests that I don't want Hussein in power, I just want to be seen as: a) Protecting him (and getting the benefits of that in the Arab world) or b) Opposing the US, irrespective of the issue (and gettin the benefits of _that_ in the Arab world) In either case, my actions are unaffected, interestingly enough. 2. The US wants to get rid of Hussein What would I do? I would oppose the US attempts. 3. The US comes to ask me for help to overthrow Hussein. What would I do? I would refuse to give it. 4. The US goes to the UN and presents a clearly worded resolution telling Saddam to obey other UN resolutions which I have, in the past, supported. What would I do? I would vote for it. 5. The US comes to me and says, see, Iraq is in clear violation of the resolution. What would I do? I would ignore it, as I did with all of the previous resolutions. 6. The US presents indisputable evidence that Iraq is in violation of its resolutions. What would I do? I would, trusting in the fact that most people won't pay attention to what is actually happening, and a significant portion of those who do are paranoid fantasists who will believe anything so long as it is denied by the US, proclaim myself unconvinced. 7. The US declares that it will go to war anyways. What would I do? I would oppose it and take advantage of being seen as the champion of Iraq and so on. What has France gained? It has become the champion of the Third World and the opponent of the US in the eyes of the Arab world. When Islamic terrorists get their hands on a nuclear weapon, it might go off in New York. It might go off in DC. It might go off in London. But it won't go off in Paris. At least, the first one won't. Given these incentives there is, very simply, no chance whatsoever that I would actually support the US in overthrowing Saddam. If the US tries and succeeds without my help, Saddam is gone (I'm okay with that), I get credit for opposing them, and I've decreased my vulnerability to terrorism. If the US tries and fails (without my help) the US is crippled, Saddam stays in power or is overthrown and replaced by someone equally bad, and I _still_ get credit for opposing them and I've decreased my vulnerability to terrorism. But if the US tries and succeeds with my help I get little or nothing. If the US tries and fails without my help, I get caught up in the wreckage. So let's rank order my preferences: 1. The US tries and fails, and I oppose ===>Benefits: American power and prestige are crippled, mine increase dramatically, my vulnerability to attack is decreased, the US's increases ===>Costs: The US is pissed at me. But the US historically has done nothing about that, so no real costs. Plus, the current US Administration will lose the election, so at most I'd have to deal with it for a year. 2. The US tries and succeeds, and I oppose: ===>Benefits: My position with the Third World improves, my vulnerability to attack is decreased ===> Costs: The US is pissed at me. But the US has historically done nothing about that. 3. The US tries and succeeds, and I support: ===>Benefits: Saddam is gone. But that's not a concern of mine, so strictly marginal. The US is happy with me - so what? It can hardly treat me better than it already does. ===>Costs: My vulnerability to terrorism increases because I'm seen as an ally of the US and I have a large and unassimilated Muslim population. 4. The US tries and fails, and I support: ===>Benefits: None ===>Costs: I'm screwed. N.B., this isn't just true for France. It's true for damn near everyone (except Britain, which derives much of its international prominence from the "special relationship"). So why would I support the US? What evidence could possibly convince me to support the US, when there's no incentive for me to do it? This isn't medicine. I'm not interested in what's best for Iraq, or the world. I'm interested in what's best for _France_ (or Germany, or Russia, or China, or what have you). This is why saying "We need a coalition" is fantasy. We're not going to get one, because it's not in _anyone's_ short-term interest. If we do, it will be because people back a winner, and the Bush Administration (by demonstrating it's unshakeable resolve) will have shown that it's a winner. But that's it. So how do you propose getting support from people who aren't interested in a rational debate about whether or not this is a good idea for the world - since that's not their concern anyways? Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
