Gautam Mukunda > > --- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gautam Mukunda > > So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq > > out of a deeply felt > > need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, > > not cos of issues > > over oil? > > Again with this? Why are people who think _George > Bush_ is dumb unable to understand the concept of > doing things for more than one reason? >
Umm, Doh... You were the one going on about George's deep humanitarian concerns. I was just objecting to the weight you were placing on it. Perhaps we got an odd slant from the media down here, but it was WMD, WMD, imminent end of the world, WMD, WMD, ohh and by the way he is a bit of a bastard. > > Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex > > intertwined > > reasons. > > So please leave a little of the high moral ground > > for others to stand > > on. > > Why, when they're abandoning it as fast as possible? > Moral calculations are part of international > relations. They are one of the most important parts. > They are not the _only_ part, but that's not the same > thing as saying that they aren't one part. It is > possible to do things that are in your interest _and > have them still be moral acts_. /me leaps a bit deeper into the pits of hell and immorality Yes, I know. I never suggested otherwise. > > Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at > > night in bed over > > the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is > > a bastard, but just > > that I doubt it was top of his list. And it > > certainly was not the thrust > > of the argument put to justify the war. > > It was, however, _a_ thrust. The argument before the > UN was largely about WMD, because that was a legal > argument. When the President spends time on an issue > in front of Congress, it's a pretty major focus. Now, > by David Brin standards, what you wrote above was a > lie, because it's a misstatement of fact :-). But I > don't operate by David Brin standards. It's just a > mistake. President Bush spent lots of time talking > about humanitarian reasons for invading. He spent > more time on WMD. That doesn't mean that they weren't > both important. It really just means that it's > convenient for opponents of the war to _pretend_ they > weren't both important. > > What did I say that was a lie? I don't mind, I am just curious. And I am sure GWB spent a lot of time paying lip service to the save the children part. It would have been a focus to convince wavering lefties. I am not convinced however that it was really a concern in the briefing papers he got from the Pentagon. Judging by the aftermath, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. > > Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would > > still be being chopped > > off if the war had not happened. How can you say > > that? How do you know? > > Well, because Saddam had been doing it for more than > 20 years and didn't seem to have any intent of > stopping. I don't _know_ that Kate Bosworth isn't > going to walk into my apartment in 30 seconds. I > don't think it's very likely, though. > > <Waiting> > > Nope. No luck. > <grin> Ahh, that's cos she is down in Australia filming Superman Returns ! > > There were other alternatives. That's one of the > > points that we lefty > > extremists keep making and that keeps falling on > > deaf ears. > > That's because it's an absurd point. Kate Bosworth is > going to walk into my apartment. This statement does > not make it more likely that it will happen. > > > > How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that > > planned it properly > > and put in some thought about dealing with the > > peace. That did it with > > the full agreement of the only body that can be seen > > as bi-partisan > > enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons > > i.e. the terribly > > flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was > > hard, those damn > > frenchies.... so much easier just to send in the > > Marines and shoot all > > the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have > > been a consensus. > > Again, this is an argument that flys in the face of > _all_ the evidence. Did you say this about Kosovo? > Kosovo didn't have Security Council approval either. > In fact the only difference between the Kosovo and > Iraq coalitions was the presence of Germany and France > in the former. So if you _didn't_ make this argument > about Kosovo, you cannot consistently make this > argument about Iraq. If you _did_, we can talk about > why you attach such moral importance to the decisions > of two dictatorships. We've had this argument over > and over again. _Three of the five members of the > Security Council_ were going to vote against the > invasion, no matter what. Now, you may feel that > Communist China, a newly dictatorial Russia, and the > French are moral authorities. But I don't, actually. > So your point is - if these impossible things were to > happen, you would have supported the war. This is the > same thing as saying that there was no real situation > to support the war. If I were a billionaire, then I > suppose the odds that Kate Bosworth is about to come > here would be higher. But I'm not, so _in the real > world_, what could be done? > > > Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies > > turning up floating > > in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess > > they all had their > > hands and tongues. > > Well, you know, they appear to have been killed by > supporters of the old regime. Some of us think that's > probably evidence that they weren't such nice people. > > > > And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign > > policy is caring > > for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy > > French and Germans etc, > > whose only interests are oil and power. > > No, but it's _a_ driver. There's plenty of evidence > of just how the corrupting influence of just how > ruthless and amoral French and German foreign policy > is. The difference - to be blunt - is that the Left > hates the US, so it _doesn't care_ about the actions > of those other countries. > > > > Please, climb down from your high horse and discuss > > this rationally. We > > were all there, we know what we were told, and it > > was precious bloody > > little about Iraqi children. At least that part of > > the drivel we were > > fed was honest. > > I am. You aren't. Saying If only the UN had approved > it, absent _any_ evidence that there was any > circumstance in which it would have (and you won't > find any such evidence) isn't discussing things > rationally. So I'd tell you to get off your high > horse and talk about something that vaguely resembles > _this_ universe. > > > > You nor I have any idea what other outcomes were > > possible, because GWB > > rushed into a war that he did not have to, on a > > timing driven by his > > electoral interests. Not, and I repeat, not, cos he > > was losing sleep > > over the fate of Iraqi children. > > Yes, you know that. Sadly, I don't share your psychic > powers, so I have to go on small things like evidence, > the historical record, things like that. It's tough, > and it really handicaps me, but I'll soldier on. He > rushed into a war...over the course of more than a > year. He did it for his electoral > interests...fighting a war that (predictably) cost him > about 5 points at the polls on election day. Not > because of human rights violations in Iraq...even > though he said that in his public statements. > Well, you are obviously capable of reading the minds of members of the UN Security Council. I don't think the US tried hard enough. And it decided it did not care and just did it. I think that was wrong. I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. I hope other countries don't do the same thing. I don't think the USA is an exception just because it is so sweet and lovely and never does anything wrong. You talk about the real world. Lets both go there. I actually don't think we have that different a world view, just coming at it from different angles. > > I am sorry, but you have already suggested that cos > > of my misgivings > > about the war that had a secret crush on Saddam > > Hussien, to now suggest > > that I/we actually wanted to see the tongues torn > > out of Iraqi children > > is too much. > > No, it's not that you wanted to see it. You just > didn't care enough to do the only thing that might > have stopped it. Maybe you just opposed the United > States _more_ than you opposed that - a lot of the > Left seemed that way. But one way or the other, you > can't claim any moral high ground about the people of > Iraq, none at all, because there wasn't another way to > stop it (however much you might pretend otherwise, > because pretending doesn't make it so), and you > opposed the people trying to do that. > I must type really badly. I do not oppose the United States. I do not claim any moral high ground. I think the USA set a really bad precedent. I did not like the way they did it. I did not like how they used lies to get their way. I do not accept the concept of plausible deniability when it comes to starting wars. It's not good enough to shrug your shoulders afterwards and say, sorry, I wasn't told. Not when you are starting wars. > > Anyway, I am sorry for getting emotive. I actually > > wanted to debate some > > things: > > Really? We have gone over all four of your debating > points _exhaustively_ on list, over and over and over > again. Read the archives if you really want to see my > answers to any of them. > Yes, I have, and I still don't agree. But, I too tire of the debate. I am trying to make my issues clearer, not rant on about it, but that is not always easy. > > I will stop there.... as its getting emotional > > again. There are many > > sides to this debate, and none are all right, nor > > all wrong. That, I > > hope, we can all agree on. > > > > Andrew > > No, we can't, actually. None of them are all right, > no. International ANSWER, the group primarily > responsible for organizing the anti-war protests in > the United States, is a Stalinist organiation that is > actively pro-Saddam. They were all wrong. I am sure they marched for many reasons. Some of which, e.g. concern for the pending loss of American lives, I am surprised to hear you consider "all wrong". I love how you have your own conspiracy theories too. But of course, unlike Doug's and mine, they are factually based, and reasonable aren't they. >People who > marched with them should be ashamed of themselves. > Other than that, sure. It would be nice if you acted > that way instead of telling people who disagreed with > you to "get off their high horse". > You were up there riding some horse about how it was all really done to save the kiddies of Iraq. As long as you keep doing that, I will keep asking you to get off it. I love the way the focus changes, this is all part of the spin bullshit that so upsets me about the whole Iraq thing. It's been like a bloody shell game all along. That as much as anything pisses me of. I have tried to sum up my position in another post. I hope it explains a little more. I hope to spend more time reading and typing productive and informative posts. I hope the long term outcome of the invasion of Iraq is positive. I hope the people died for a good reason. I know it will be a long struggle. I hope not too many more people die. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
