--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:38:03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > I wasn't talking about arresting him, I was talking > about inspections.
Inspecting what? His children's prisons? You're conflating two issues. I was talking about the humanitarian case towards Saddam, and now you're talking about inspections, which were about WMD. Furthermore, you're engaging in a remarkable bit of presentism on that issue, since virtually no one thought that inspections were working _before_ the war. But leave that aside, it's not even germane to the issue. > > And what about South Africa and India? Are they not > examples of regime > changes that were accomplished without war? Today, > are we open to such > possibilities, which seemed impossible to most > people before they happened? Well, first, no, India is _not_ an example of a regime change without war. Not at all. India is an example of a country gaining independence without war, which is a different thing. South Africa reformed under F.W. De Klerk. India escaped from British rule. De Klerk is so open on racial topics that I was in the room when he said "I would have no problem were my daughter to marry a black man", which shocked the hell out of me when he said it and is something that might well put him in the minority among whites in the US, and would surely do so in Europe. Lord Louis Mountbatten was a decent guy so phlegmatic he apparently didn't mind that his wife had an affair with Nehru. Neither of these regimes had much in common with Saddam Hussein's. > What about the strong consensus among other > constituencies that the war was > wrong? I refer to the churches and nations of the > world who opposed or failed > to support it. While they may be wrong, it seems > unreasonable to give any > special weight to an academic or policy-maker > consensus. But I wasn't talking about whether the war was right or wrong. You're just confusing the issue again. There's nothing wrong with saying the war was wrong. My two most important mentors were _fierce_ opponents of the war. Huntington called it "a very stupid idea" and Hoffmann was probably even stronger on the issue. The point was that they acknowledged that war was necessary to remove Hussein - they were honest in acknowledging the costs and benefits, they didn't pretend that there was some magic option which could provide all good things. _There's nothing wrong with opposing the war_. Knowing what I know now about the competence of the Administration, I don't think _I_ would have supported the war (not knowing then what I know now, I don't regret my stance then - it was impossible for me to know then what I know now). What's wrong is pretending that _not_ going to war didn't also have costs. > You're making so many assumptions. Why would we > send "lightly armed" police > into such a situation? When the United Nations > undertakes a police action, it > doesn't mean the troops go in lightly armed. It > means that the goals and > rules of engagement are dramatically different than > in a war. Like in Korea? What is the historical parallel for such a police action? Can you provide _one_ example of such a thing ever occurring? > Because that was the only thing that would work? > Again, arguing from your > conclusion, aren't you? South Africa. India. Neither of which are even vaguely similar situations. He's not arguing from his conclusion, he's arguing from reality. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
