On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:32:17PM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote: > > > At 01:00 AM 3/5/2003 -0600 Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: > > > > >Saddam is as guilty as sin but if containment can keep him as > > >relatively weak as he is now, then perpetuating that state of > > >affairs is the lesser evil > > > > Two questions for you Marvin: > > > > 1) Do you consider the ability to use massive amounts of anthrax and > > nerve agent in chemical and biological attacks upon the US to be > > "relatively weak?" > > First of all, I'm not convinced that Hussein has the ability to use > massive amounts of anything against the US. I don't doubt that he > has stockpiles of the stuff, but that's not the same as being able > to deploy them in any significant way against the US. It seems to > me that in order to be able to "use massive amounts of anthrax and > nerve agent" against the US, Hussein would have to be able to fly > planes over the US or else to target us with ICBMs or maybe warships > or something else comparable. He can't do that right now.
How about cargo containers? > Weak enough so that we could have spent another year on diplomacy to > try to build support instead of announcing ahead of time that war is > what will happen no matter what anybody else says and then reluctantly > going through the motions of negotiating with the UNSC. I agree that would have been far preferable, but the problem is, we don't have it to do over again. While I think Bush COULD have done it that way if he started a year ago (and weren't so inept at persuading Europeans to his viewpoint), I think that it is virtually impossible for him to persuade Europeans now, even if he were transformed into a brilliant and charming diplomat tomorrow. There has been too much conflict over this issue for any chance of changing most Europeans minds. So, the important question is what to do NOW. Personally, I'm supporting the war in Iraq, even more strongly supporting nation building after the war, and I'm also going to pay a lot of attention to foreign policy and diplomatic ability of presidential candidates when I vote in 2004. > Secondly, please note that you quoted me out of context above. The > quoted statement was originally part of a hypothetical designed to > explain why some people might think Hussein in his current state is > less dangerous than a United States, power unchecked by any rival, > armed with the precedent that preemptive warfare is a legitimate > principle whenever our interests are at stake. I believe Erik > described this perspective as a selfish ivory tower paranoid fantasy. > :-) You forgot irresponsible :-) > Personally, I think it's just the historical cliche that power > corrupts applied what appears to be the current trend: that the United > States seeks to be the unrivaled economic, military, and political > force on earth. The fantasy - that is, the yet-to-be-tested article > of faith - is that America's values and political institutions will > prevent power from corrupting the exercise of its unchecked hegemony. > That theory will only start to be tested now that the Soviet Union has > fallen and we have a motivation for being militarily aggressive on the > world stage in the war on terror. I think it's perfectly natural for > someone trying to think about the "big picture" to be more concerned > with containing America - the larger long-term issue - than with > Hussein, the smaller short-to-medium term issue. We can't assume that > everyone - especially citizens of other nations, even the ones that > generally like the US - will assume by default that a unipolar global > American hegemony will be the best of all possible worlds. Hmmm, maybe I didn't express myself clearly before. I'm not against others trying, in general, to limit the power of America in the future to dictate world events, and I can certainly see how America dictating world events with no checks and balances would be a bad thing, not the least of which because Americans would have a vote and be protected by the Constitution, but foreigners would not. But I fail to see how opposing America on Iraq is likely to limit America's future world power, and it is probably more likely to increase American hegemony. As I said in my previous post, people who are concerned about American hegemony (and I am, although not to the extremes of the viewpoint you mention) should work to create balance in a positive manner, for example, by trying to establish a League of Democratic Nations to provide a vote and something similar to the protections and freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution to all people in the world. > However...having said that, I want to say this: I've been silent > in this thread since the post quoted above because I found Erik's > response to be very powerful, powerful enough to make me decide to > shut up and sit and listen and read what others have to say and think > for a while. Sorry, I didn't mean to shut you up! I like to hear what you have to say, although I would rather you were using your considerable persuasive writing powers to influence events positively, for example by discussing how to rebuild Iraq after a war or how to check future American excessive power expansion while simultaneously increasing freedom and democracy throughout the world. > I think the US has handled this issue about as badly as possible > on the diplomatic front - by our bluntness placing at needlessly > increased risk the very leaders, like Tony Blair, by whose support we > hope to gain international legitimacy. I completely agree. Why do you think Bush is so inept at this sort of thing? He certainly seems to have charmed millions of Americans, why can't he do the same with Europeans? > So at this point I'm thinking that if war comes to pass, as it almost > certainly will, I'm going to bite my tongue and hope and pray, in my > strange and godless way, that everything works out for the best. Any ideas on what we could do, personally, to increase the chances of success in nation building after the war? (I'm thinking along the lines of charities, lobbying groups, spending time on the weekends, writing letters, etc. -- I'm not sure I'm committed enough to quit my job and go to Iraq to help) -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
