Evolving writes:
I'm flattered by the mixup, but I'm not sure that Evolving would be.
Yes, you would. But would those whose "goal is something far grander than that--nothing less than a clash of civilizations. A massive war in the middle east, a world-wide clash between Islam and Christianity," give it similar support? I don't believe they would, and I don't really think you do either.
I think you missed my point. The point is that there are probably many people who are NOT YET in that terrorist frame of mind, but who would ADOPT IT once they came to believe that America was running amok. An attack on Iraq WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF KEY NATO ALLIES AND THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL would be enough to do the trick. Terrorists are not BORN as terrorists, you know. Terrorists are MADE as a reaction to certain historical forces. Action, reaction.
Surely you are not saying that the ONLY reason to justify military force against a nation is that they have been proven to harbor terrorists? The Al-Qaeda "connection" is just one of many reasons Bush has enumerated for taking action against Iraq now, and it is a very recent reason at that. The original (and still strongest) reason was Iraq's non-compliance with the surrender agreement.
First of all, there IS NO Al-Qaeda connection. If there were, the administration would have presented proof of it by now because it would have immediately saved them months of trouble. Whatever Powell presents this week is unlikely to be convincing evidence of a direct link.
Secondly, the US does and always has picked and chosen which international agreements to pay attention to and which to ignore. If non-compliance posed a serious threat to the United States or to neighboring countries, there would be a reason to take it seriously. As it is, Saddam is contained and always has been. Non-compliance is hardly a good reason for unleashing the hellhounds.
Entirely possible. Perhaps even probable. So where does that leave us? At the mercy of a cheesy little sociopath too stubborn to step down from power -- one who isn't even really a Muslim except by birth. One who has even been offered the chance to relocate to some other place in exile (obviously retaining his Swiss bank accounts) in safety. We are to allow THIS miserable waste of human flesh to dictate the course we must follow?
This is a completely irrational paragraph, pinky. We're talking about geopolitical realities and world security, not about "saving face" in front of Saddam or whatever or punishing him for being a bad guy or whatever. You're beginning to sound like W. when he said, "This guy tried to kill my dad!"
Saddam is 65, he apparently has a number of serious illnesses, and, as the editorial pointed out, if we knew were he was spending JUST ONE NIGHT that building would be vaporized by a cruise missile in a New York minute.
I take it that you are not one of the naifs who believe he has destroyed all his stocks of chemical and bio weapons, then?
I'm sure he's got small quantities of it hidden away here and there, but once again, this is a moot point. The terrorists don't need Saddam for that because there are numerous other avenues (such as Russia and Pakistan) that Bushy-wushy and his gang aren't doing jack shit to protect properly.
Not impossible. Difficult and time consuming, yes. Al-Qaeda has lost a number of key men already.
Key men who have already been replaced, long ago. Don't be naive, pinky. The strongest nation in the world, with the cooperation of most of the world's governments, has been trying to destroy this organization for the last ten years, at least (since the first WTC bombing). They've spent the last 18 months going after it with full force, and it is still around. For someone who constantly points out the ineptitude of government agencies, you certainly have an inordinate amount of faith in the capacities of their security services. The only way terrorism can be DESTROYED, once and for all, is for the entire world to become a police state. The only acceptable option, then, is to take the high road of MINDING ONE'S OWN BUSINESS in world affairs.
That SHOULD be what occurs, yes. How realistic is it that it WILL occur? In the very few instances when it DOES occur, as it has in the case of such "friendly" Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, the Islamist terrorist direct their activities towards their own heads of state before bothering with the West, because they perceive those men as traitors to the cause. Result? Leaders of Muslim countries are (understandably) reluctant to make any gesture that might be remotely interpreted by their hotheaded citizens as conciliatory towards the West. They (again understandably) place their own survival ahead of any other consideration. The only Islamic leaders who have the courage to take such a stance are the ones that the US is constantly criticized for dealing with -- those who rule their people so harshly they believe they have nothing to fear from any dissidents.
*Sigh* How quickly people forget. Right after 9/11, the United States had a TREMENDOUS fund of good will on the part of all of our allies as well as on the part of much of the Islamic world. By showing patience and restraint in terms of the reaction against the Taliban, the US was able to maintain most of that goodwill. But with this Iraq business, that goodwill was completely squandered to the extent that even our close NATO allies Germany and France think we're fucking out of control, so surely our quasi-allies in the Middle East aren't exactly going to be enthusiastic. We COULD HAVE used the momentum of that goodwill to prod things in the right direction, but we didn't.
I submit that the approach of appeasement won't work either. There will be an endless list of demands, each more loony than the last, until all nations on earth are fundamentalist Islam theocracies, and even then the strife will continue as they kill each other over interpretations of the Qu'ran. At which point is it correct to say, "Enough!"
Off topic, and a slippery slope fallacy to boot. First of all, let me repeated YET AGAIN, that terrorism and Iraq are TWO SEPERATE ISSUES. I've never suggested "appeasing" terrorists. Just because you've been taken in by the Bush administration's shell game confusing the two issues doesn't mean I have to. Second, NOT INVADING Iraq is not the same thing as APPEASING Saddam Hussein. Listen, if Bush has the sense of mind and restraint NOT to invade, I will credit him with being a brilliant statesman. By TALKING TOUGH he forced Saddam to open up to unconditional UN inspections. That's a fantastic accomplishment. He has Iraq encircled and Saddam is basically contained. If he's smart enough to maintain this status quo, he has succeeded, and succeeded brilliantly. But of course, he WON'T stop there. By talking tough he's backed himself into a corner where either he invades or he looks like he's just full of shit. It was this same kind of "face saving" nonsense that kept the US embroiled in Vietnam for so long, and that actually starts most wars.
Sometimes there are no alternatives that aren't ugly. This is one of those times.
FALSE CHOICE! You make it sound as if the only choice is either to lay down and play dead, or to go launching foreign wars of imperialist conquest. I repeat: FALSE CHOICE! The two-dimensionality of your thinking really gets trying at times, pinky, and this is really one of those times. Reality is THREE-DIMENSIONAL, and only thinking that tries to address the multiple issues and choices involved is adequate to the task.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom
EchoVortex 
angryshroom 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Zahid
Ellis Dee
