Second part of reply, much abbreviated as I'm trying not to re-hash stuff too much. <wry> I'm sure I'll be corrected if I misremember something. ;)
--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The article is certainly slanted against the > Admin's > > position, but many of the points/questions are > valid. > > The question still remains, what if we had done > nothing? I prefer, "What if we had made a determined, strong-arm-under-the-table-if-necessary, effort to get the UN Security Council to enforce the Resolutions on Iraq from the beginning of this administration, instead of in the latter half of 2002?" I didn't advocate 'nothing,' but noted that a UN-led force would be better (less "crusade" effect, more to share costs, etc); we will never know if an early-on genuine diplomatic effort - instead of the arrogance and isolationism displayed - by the administration would have succeeded in getting the Security Council to back up UN resolutions with force. There was a lot of discussion about intervening on 'moral' grounds; I noted that the US hadn't intervened in Rwanda etc., and had supported SH in the '80's, but have to agree that "bad decisions then shouldn't stop good decisions now." I brought up Vietnam as an example of a determined 'people's opposition,' but that hasn't been much of a factor so far (the current sniping, though very sad for the lives lost, doesn't count in the 'big picture'). And assassination apparently just wasn't possible; normally I'd say it shouldn't even be a consideration (and is against official US policy), but for truly cruel, murderous men such as Saddam, Idi Amin, etc. - quiet exceptions are the lesser of evils, IMO. Relations with those nations/regimes who opposed intervention in Iraq are slowly being rebuilt, and maybe the UN can be altered into a more effective and coherent force (I must agree that the single-veto power of UN SC members really makes enforcing resolutions a joke -- an overhaul is definitely due!). Publicly exposing - and repeating as necessary - the ties/interests that regimes have WRT non-intervention in human-rights violators seems one of the most valuable services the media can supply. Some do try. Not that the families of the Laci Petersons of the world don't deserve our sympathy, but for real news I check the BBC and The Economist (well, I have in the past half-year or so -- I'm trying to treat "real news" as difficult to find as good studies on alternative medicine: very annoying!). > Iraqis would still be under a ruthless dictator. Is > that what you want? One of those "hosed any way you answer" questions, but good from a lawyer's POV (I'm slowly learning to think along legal lines - very different from medical!). No. Not that what I want has any bearing on reality, such as whether Ashcroft gets his 'Patriot II.' (Annoying, isn't it, when an issue is twisted into another one? ;} ) > Iraq didn't keep it's agreements which we required > to seace hostilities. > We made repeted requests and atempted to resolve the > issue though ambasidors and inspecors. > They kept cheeting. > We did exactly what we said we would do if they > didn't follow the original agreement. See above re: genuine diplomacy WRT the UN, which I suppose was a moot point by that time (roughly last spring), although it shouldn't have been. Still, it's possible that even a true effort would have been stymied by France, Russia or Germany; maybe that's one of the factors that prevented Clinton from acting on Iraq (can someone remind me of when that was? '97 or 8? An article was posted on-list, IIRC). "Muddling along" is very emotionally unsatisfying, but sometimes it's the best of multiple lousy choices. As for credible, immediate and significant threat, a nation has the right to defend itself -- but it had better have hard evidence to back up any pre-emptive strike. Which I said in roughly those terms last summer. Debbi PS - Sorry for not labeling the last one [L3]; it read as 9K in my Draft file, but 11K on-list. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
