--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would be interested to hear this coherent > arguement. > The one that demonstrates that Saddan and Iraq were > intimately involved in 9/11.
They clearly were not. > > Or was it the second part you were referring too the > War on Terror? > Is the "Bastion of Democracy in the Heart of the > Middle East" argument? > I think thats part of the Straw Man Doug was talking > about. I can see how one > can make that argument, and the ends I agree with. > There is no doubt in my mind > that a vibrant, successful, secular Islamic > Democracy would be a good thing, and > would probably, eventually, result in less > terrorism. As you quite rightly said, there > is a big gap beween wanting something, and actually > achieving it. An unprovoked > unilateral invasion of Iraq was, in my opinion, not > the way to do it. Well, it was neither unprovoked nor unilateral, but fine. The central question of strategy in this debate - the one people are implying, but not stating straight out, is - is the problem Al Qaeda, or is it Islamic terror. If the problem was Al Qaeda, then invading Iraq was, in fact, a bad idea. If the problem was Islamic terror in general, then this is not the case, because eliminating Al Qaeda would do nothing - there'd just be another group popping up, like the heads of the hydra. In that case, the argument that we do need to establish democracy in the Middle East, and invading a country to establish democracy is _the only way to do it_ has some strength. It's not stupid on its face, at any rate. The only two national free elections in the history of the Arab world will, by the end of 2004, be in Iraq under US occupation and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under Israeli occupation. The only free election in Afghan history was just conducted under American occupation. So it's not clear that there's another way to do it. Maybe there is, but if you've got a suggestion for what it is, I'd love to hear it. > > I read your comments on popularism with interest > too. There is a school of thought > common in my experience among those of the extremes > (left/right/up/down) that holds > that doing something unpopular must be inherently > worthwhile. These people tend to > like to beat their chests and crow about how tough > they are. I dont hold to that school, > and think decisions should be based on something > other than popularism or otherwise. > It worries me that the US/Bush is so proud of doing > something unpopular. It does not > make it right, any less than doing popular things > is. > > Andrew No, doing something unpopular doesn't make it right. I don't think you mean popularism, btw, which has a different meaning, usually. The hardest test for a democratic leader, though, is doing something unpopular. When the leader of a government does something that will cost him votes - and there's no doubt that Iraq is costing Tony Blair a lot of votes, and the best estimates are that Iraq cost President Bush ~3-5% in the popular vote - then there's a high presumption that they're doing it for what they consider very strong reasons, because it's very rare for a politician to do something like that. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
