it's all talk
4.07.2003
First, if you do not want me to compare the current world state to past international war scenes, I’d appreciate if you would refrain from calling America “imperialist.” You sound like a writer for the Worker’s Vanguard.
And well, I do think that we are more on the same track that you want to believe. As I posted, multilateralism has been dealt a huge blow – who knows what sort of agency the UN will be after this crisis, who knows if the UN will even be interested in working with the U.S. on regime change once the war is over (I wouldn’t be surprised if the council just washes their hands clean of the matter completely).
I wish with all of my heart that multilateralism had been the buzzword in Washington.
But I do wonder whether a peaceful removal of Saddam, backed by Blix’s magical weapons inspections, would have been truly possible. I have family in Iraq right this moment who have reported back that while inspectors looked in one direction, trucks loaded to the brim with *something* drove out the back door. Just today the U.S. found traces of chemical weapons. I highly doubt that Saddam would have disarmed honestly.
In regards to the recession at home – I agree with you; I think you’re painting me as the conservative that I’m not.
And, if liberals are going to place so much blame on the United States for giving Saddam the power that he has today, I believe that it is then the U.S.’s responsibility to curb that power. It was a stupid thing to do to begin with, but the U.S. should rightfully take responsibility for their actions and get Saddam out.
In regards to Osama bin Laden claiming no ties to Iraq – I think it’s foolish to believe what the leader of a terrorist network says about his alliances. That’s the aim of terrorism; to have no alliances, no targetable group. Duplicity is a main tenet of terrorist ideology. Bush isn’t my favorite guy, but I’ll take his word over the word of al Qaeda.
And in regards to oil – if oil was the sole reason this war was being fought (economic interests are always at stake, understandably so – every nation is a rational actor, after all) the U.S. could have just as easily dismissed the UN economic sanctions placed on Iraq after 1991 to get all the oil they wanted. That would be a much more cost efficient way of getting that oil that going to war, after all. Oil isn’t all that this is about.
Lastly, I am appalled at your determination of American culture as inferior to Iraqi culture. Iraq’s government is riddled with corruption, far, far greater than that of any Enron! These free educations you speak so highly of consist of censored, rewritten history, Saddam’s own version of utopian revisionism. I wouldn’t call a fascist society modern, or stable, or egalitarian.
Democracy is what will give Iraqis a choice. Honestly, this whole situation should have been cleaned up in one sweep during 1991. But that didn’t happen; unfortunately something must be done now, grossly late in the game. But I do believe in war for peace, and I do believe that this conflict can achieve good ends.
¶ 18:23
And well, I do think that we are more on the same track that you want to believe. As I posted, multilateralism has been dealt a huge blow – who knows what sort of agency the UN will be after this crisis, who knows if the UN will even be interested in working with the U.S. on regime change once the war is over (I wouldn’t be surprised if the council just washes their hands clean of the matter completely).
I wish with all of my heart that multilateralism had been the buzzword in Washington.
But I do wonder whether a peaceful removal of Saddam, backed by Blix’s magical weapons inspections, would have been truly possible. I have family in Iraq right this moment who have reported back that while inspectors looked in one direction, trucks loaded to the brim with *something* drove out the back door. Just today the U.S. found traces of chemical weapons. I highly doubt that Saddam would have disarmed honestly.
In regards to the recession at home – I agree with you; I think you’re painting me as the conservative that I’m not.
And, if liberals are going to place so much blame on the United States for giving Saddam the power that he has today, I believe that it is then the U.S.’s responsibility to curb that power. It was a stupid thing to do to begin with, but the U.S. should rightfully take responsibility for their actions and get Saddam out.
In regards to Osama bin Laden claiming no ties to Iraq – I think it’s foolish to believe what the leader of a terrorist network says about his alliances. That’s the aim of terrorism; to have no alliances, no targetable group. Duplicity is a main tenet of terrorist ideology. Bush isn’t my favorite guy, but I’ll take his word over the word of al Qaeda.
And in regards to oil – if oil was the sole reason this war was being fought (economic interests are always at stake, understandably so – every nation is a rational actor, after all) the U.S. could have just as easily dismissed the UN economic sanctions placed on Iraq after 1991 to get all the oil they wanted. That would be a much more cost efficient way of getting that oil that going to war, after all. Oil isn’t all that this is about.
Lastly, I am appalled at your determination of American culture as inferior to Iraqi culture. Iraq’s government is riddled with corruption, far, far greater than that of any Enron! These free educations you speak so highly of consist of censored, rewritten history, Saddam’s own version of utopian revisionism. I wouldn’t call a fascist society modern, or stable, or egalitarian.
Democracy is what will give Iraqis a choice. Honestly, this whole situation should have been cleaned up in one sweep during 1991. But that didn’t happen; unfortunately something must be done now, grossly late in the game. But I do believe in war for peace, and I do believe that this conflict can achieve good ends.
¶ 18:23
