MikeM,
First, I count that as a hostile post not one which asks for a conversation. I'm going to reply to you and invite you to reply to me. But if the hostile tone continues, I will not make any future replies. I consider such hostility inappropriate for this thread.
Whose point John? Why should "global perceptions" even enter into the equation when the self interest is clearly linked with survivability?
I don't consider the present Iraq situation as one about "survivability" at all. I do consider Saddam dangerous, a tyrant, you name it, but the Bush folk have not convinced me nor a great many other citizens of the globe that he constitutes an imminent threat. Read the Mearsheimer and Walt piece that has been posted to this thread frequently to see some quite serious arguments about containment. Moreover, the Bush arguments about ties to Al Q have not been convincing. We've argued that extensively here on the thread so I'm not willing to do so again. If you are seriously interested, you can find the most recent versions of them just after the first post of the most recent Goldberg piece in The New Yorker or right after Powell's UNSC speech. So, bottom line, I'm of a view that containment works and no serious ties to Al Q have been demonstrated. Obviously, not your view but one that reasonable folk can argue about. So, let's do so, reasonably.
John, we all choose to believe what we do. What bothers me is how very weak the left's moral imperative has become.
Whoops, you are skipping some gears here. I'll be happy to argue my views with you but I don't consider they represent the "left" nor that the "left" is represented by any one set of views. Like the right, it's all over the lot. So, whose moral imperatives that are weak do you have in mind? Some actual names would help the conversation. Some of them I might agree with; some I might not. Some, even if I disagree, I might be able to defend; some not.
Do you really want UN permission to force Iraq to do what is in our interest? Baloney! At least be honest with yourself if you cannot do so with me. What you want is our President to fall on his face. Perhaps it is because no war is moral to you John. No war is worth fighting. Perhaps its just simply wanting the Republicans to flame out.
Ah, do I wish the Republicans would lose the next presidential election. You better bet, I do. And the last six or seven months have increased that desire. Can you reduce my misgivings about the present Bush foreign policy to that desire? Well, I gather you will do what you will do. But I consider that a way to stop listening to other points of view. Just blame them. They won't go away. But you won't have to think about them.
Do I want UN approval for the US to do what is in our interest? That's a bit more complicated, Mike. I don't consider, as you can see above, an invasion of Iraq as being in our interest. I think it's counter to our interest. Because, as I typed above, there is no imminent threat and because such an invasion will create havoc rather than stability in the ME. It could well lead to Islamist governments in several countries; it will, undoubtedly, lead to a wave of recruits for Al Q; and it will, undoubtedly, lead to much more cooperation between Al Q and governments we don't favor.
As for whether any war is moral for me or not, how could you possibly come to that conclusion from my recent posts opposing this invasion of Iraq; or from the many posts I've made to this thread. Read, read, read, study, study, study; then come and ask. I've made enough posts on these issues for you to do your homework. But perhaps that's not what gets you going. Just want to play the "I'm more moral than you" card.
You know John, I don't frankly care whether the French, the Chinese or the Russians can agree on anything much less whether we should forcibly remove Saddam's WMDs. But I'm bothered that people who ought to know better hide behind such a thin veneer. Sure you are afraid of the ramifications of this struggle. We all are. I may have a son in this struggle in a few years. But the real issue isn't whether there should be a struggle. That has already been decided for us. The real issue is where this struggle will be fought. Hide your head in the sand if you will but it's coming to our borders...to your town and the only thing left is to determine how far along we will allow our enemies to develop their arsenal.
Much hostile talk here, MikeM, but there is a kernel of a problem. And that is the Bush folk have placed themselves so far out on the proverbial limb that folk like Zakaria have begun to argue an invasion is necessary, not because of things in Iraq, but in order to preserve US credibility. For me, that's an indication of just how badly the Bush folk have played the diplomacy angles of this. As for whether, I would join Zakaria, I'm not of a mind to do so. The Bush folk didn't ask for my approval, in any sense of the word, when they stepped out on the limb; so it hardly behooves me to grant it now. At any rate, they clearly could care less about that approval.
The big issue, MikeM, is the level of popular support in the US and globablly for this invasion. If the global stuff stays at present levels, watch out because we know Bush and his folk are going to attack. But the backside will be genuinely tough. And, if the US levels don't give Bush more support than he is getting now, and deeper support, some genuine hesitancy will develop among military leaders.
But, as LBill continually says and I agree, TWT.
Had Hitler tarried in his assault on Poland, most likely he would have been first to develop the atomic bomb.
That has nothing to with anything. |
