Re: Coalition of the willing

On 19 Feb 2003 at 0:21, James Robertson wrote:

> By backing "peace", you are objectively on the side of Hussein and the 
> loathsome regime he represents.

Objectively, quotha? And just where is the "objective" evidence supporting that 
point of view? I hope you have something better than Tony Blair's plagiarized 
dossier and Colin Powell's Phuzzy Photos of Random Buildings [tm]. Perhaps you 
didn't hear about the plagiarism? That wouldn't be surprising, since almost at the 
same moment the plagiarism story was breaking in the European press, our 
Department of Homeland Security was busy issuing--and our media were obediently 
giving over their front pages to--a Very Scary Orange Terror Alert, which later 
turned out to be based on--ahem--unreliable sources. But do yourself a favor and 
look this up:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,891577,00.html

You would think they could do better than this, if they actually had anything. You 
would also do well to wonder what other news your TV is neglecting to inform you 
of. Think you can trust CNN? Then why, last week, did they omit a long, crucial 
passage from the transcript of Hans Blix's report to the UN Security Council?

  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1434.htm

(That's the kind of thing I would expect of Fox News, but this time at least, they 
seem to have provided a complete report)

> Give sanctions and inspections more 
> time?  

You're grossly oversimplifying a complex issue. Inspections? Absolutely. The 
previous inspections regime succeeded in destroying most of Iraq's WMD program 
before the inspectors were recalled in 1998 to make way for a US bombing 
campaign (which "just happened" to coincide with Bill Clinton's impeachment trial). 
As for sanctions, well, one of the reasons the current sanctions haven't worked out 
too well is that they have caused tremendous suffering among ordinary Iraqis (by, 
for example, blocking basic medical supplies). Not a good way to win over hearts 
and minds.

> Opinion polls in 1938-1939 also showed great public reluctance in Europe to 
> face evil.

As historical analogies go, comparing whomever you dislike to Hitler is about the 
cheapest shot there is. Perhaps it is valid to compare Saddam Hussein's mind to 
that of Hitler. But that's about as far as the similarity goes. Hitler ruled over Europe's 
strongest industrial power. Saddam Hussein's Iraq is mostly in ruins. You might also 
note that Saddam hasn't attempted to invade anyone since 1990, and none of his 
neighbors are eager to support the US war effort (especially Iran, which is surely 
more than a match for today's Iraq).

One final question to ponder: if we're really so concerned about weapons of mass 
destruction, how is it that North Korea can wave its nukes in our face ... with no 
consequences to speak of?

--
Matt Gushee
Englewood, CO USA