--- In
lote-p@yahoogroups.com, Rusty Wallace <jrustyw@i...> wrote:
> This
> also leaves unaddressed whether it is a better or worse thing to
> intervene and replace Sadaam now or wait and see what replaces
him.
Replace him with what?
> It
> seems entirely possible that an intervention now would result in
less
> trouble for Iraq, the region and the west.
An erosion of America's already plummeting prestige? Confirmation of
it's imperial ambitions? An alienation between it and the populations
of most other Western countries? Blair notwithstanding, even the
Brits are deeply ambivalent. For what?
For some empty Katushya rocket shells? Iraq is a shell of it's
former "glory". There are bigger fish to fry and this ain't it.
> and it isn't clear to me that the fact of human rights abuses
> in Turkey against their kurdish population is a good reason to turn
a
> blind eye to similar problems in Iraq.
This completely renders the very concept of human rights useless. You
either subscribe to them or you don't. If you pick and choose where
they apply, then they're useless as an idea.
To those already ambivalent about the United States, it will look
like anotehr hypocritical swinging of a moral club against its foes
while turning a blind eye to abuses by its friends. No one will take
anything you say and face value.
> As to past US policy on Iraq going back twenty years and more - how
long
> is long enough before you can change your mind about something?
What has changed? The strategy of the U.S. supporting repressive
regimes worldwide hasn't changed. It is only confirming when those
regimes are no longer useful they will be removed, by force if
America finds it in their interest.
The United States had a golden opportunity to get rid of him 12 years
ago, and choose the "realpolitik" option of maintaining his regime as
a counterweight to Iran.
That many thousands of Iraqis died in the uprisings directly urged by
George Bush Sr. is morally disgusting, but sadly par for the course.
> We are in agreement here. If a US attack will topple Sadaam and
holds a
> clear promise of improving conditions for Iraqis and their
neighbors in
> the long term then it may be the best course of action. My personal
> opinion is that this is indeed the case.
Possibly. Or a regime just as authoritarian might be chosen by "the
powers that be" in order to maintain the cohesion of the Iraqi state.
IE. This artificial country won't be allowed to fall apart into its
component parts to be scooped up more of America's real and perceived
rivals. Some nameless Iraqi General perhaps, whose only difference
from Saddam is that he will play Washington's tune? As far as I can
see, there is no realistic and palatable government in waiting.
> There is a distinction between a war crime and an act of
terrorism. We
> have mechanisms for addressing the excesses of war. They don't
always
> work - I think a war crimes charge againt the general who ordered
the
> firebombing of Dresden might well have been warranted.
Why the general? Wasn't he under orders too? Wouldn't the decision to
utilize firebombing as a tactic be that of the Allied Supreme Command?
But if you can't
> see the moral difference between Dresdan, Tokyo, Atlanta and the
like
> and the 9/11 attacks then I'm not sure we really have much common
ground
The moral difference is the one we wrote ourselves. We, the
industrialized West, wrote the rules of what constitutes "civilized
warfare" and tailored it to suit our arsenals, our needs, and yes,
sometimes even our values. Those that do not have or are denied
access to such things, or who see the world in different terms than
ourselves would argue these rules have been skewed to favour those on
top.
There will be a peace march starting at my workplace tomorrow. I will
tell you how many people showed up.
Install the new Firefox