What seems to me to be of supreme interest is the seriousness of the debate about how to 'get at' Iraq. Bush and his cohorts have set up a framework of discourse, and even the people who should be most sensitive to unbalanced marketing hype are drawn into a quasi-serious discussion of how and when to 'do' it. All the experts in the know report that Iraq is much weaker today than it was in 1990. The Iraqi reactions to the wild threats show that as well. Furthermore, when Iraq was pummeling Iran for 8 years, nobody interfered. On the contrary, Sadam was helped by the very country that is so interested in wiping him out now. Iraq is not threatening to invade any country. Iraq is far from being the only country in the world with weapons of mass destruction (for starters, how about India, Pakistan, and you can take it from there). Iraq is certainly not the only ruthless dictatorship in the world (how about Zimbabwe?). The US has not succeeded in instituting 'freedom and democracy' in any of the places that it / she / they have intervened. So what is this about? Trying out new weapons? Giving the armed forces a chance to do their thing? Is it time to thin out the population of the world, especially the inadequately white population?
I wonder about the criteria for rationality and how they are applied. Devorah Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:06 PM Subject: RE: Failing to make distinctions > Arthur, most rational people would agree that Iraq is stalling. The > question remains how far do you go to enforce and then correct a dangerous > situation? > I think that Bush should play out the diplomatic string to its conclusion. > Like prosecutorial evidence, it will make the difference to the jury at > decision time. If Hussein is foolish enough to make it difficult for his > erstwhile Arab supporters to stick with him, then it will be much easier for > us in battle and afterwards. > > For now, there does not seem to be much developed about an occupation, and > this is worrisome, leaving the Bush and Blair administrations open to > suspicious that they are myopic and jumping from one hotspot to another > without changing the lasting conditions. > > There are parallels in recent history that suit both sides of this debate. > How do we tell which are relevant and which are sentimentality at work? > Karen > > Arthur wrote: I sometimes wonder about the on again off again protracted > inspector issues > in Iraq and the comparisons with Japan leading up to Dec 7, 41, with the on > again off again negotiations culminating in the attack. > > What is Iraq trying to accomplish? Assuming rationality of course. Either > they are developing weapons, in which case negotiate and slow things down. > Or they are not, in which case throw open the borders, let the inspectors in > and anywhere and everywhere---all of which will lead to removing the > sanctions. > >
