Gee, Terrence, I think I liked Carroll's column more than you did. I would give him a B+, partially for his clever remark about Saudi Arabian life making Iraq look like Sweden, which I loved, but more particularly just for providing a different view of reality.
JON CARROLL
Friday, February 6, 1998
The world is littered with heads of state who are
not swell guys, and yet we fail to bomb them. The
world is littered with governments that have
''weapons of mass destruction'' (a conveniently
vague term that can mean whatever we want it to
mean), and yet we fail to bomb them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons of mass destruction can be defined as thermo-nuclear weapons, nerve
gas, bio-chemical agents and biological weapons. It is not a "vague term".
THE POINT IS THAT OTHER NATIONS--SOME OF THEM QUITE UNRELIABLE AND UNSTABLE--HAVE THESE, BUT WE ARE NOT GEARING UP FOR WAR WITH THEM. SECONDLY, THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPOSITION, NOT ABSOLUTE FACT, ABOUT WHICH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SADDAM ACTUALLY HOLDS, AND WHETHER HE HAS EFFICIENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR THEM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of Saddam's neighbors fit into that category.
Israel has weapons of mass destruction and seems
content to break its promises to the United Nations
with cheerful vigor. But Israel is our friend. Turkey
is butchering its Kurdish minority (indeed, the same
people Saddam Hussein is murdering), plus
torturing dissidents in its jails. But Turkey is also
our friend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam's hero is Adolf Hitler - he has oil paintings of Hitler hanging in his palaces.
Plus, Saddam has indicated more than once that he wants Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
and the other UAE states. He believes they should not be sovereign countries, but
under one heel - his - as Iraqi provinces. Does Jon Carroll ignore this as
insignificant?
WHERE HAS SADDAM SAID HE WANTS TO CONQUER SAUDI ARABIA? I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. CARROLL'S POINTS ABOUT ISRAEL AND TURKEY ARE WELL TAKEN. MANY OF OUR ALLIES HAVE HORRENDOUS ATROCITIES HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, AND WE LOOK THE OTHER WAY. I THINK OUR DEFENSE OF ISRAEL MAY EVENTUALLY RESULT IN WORLD WAR THREE--A HOMELAND FOR THE JEWS WAS A VERY NICE IDEA, AND THEY WERE CERTAINLY QUITE PERSECUTED AND DESERVED A PLACE TO LIVE, BUT NOT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ARAB STATES. ISRAEL IS ABSOLUTELY RAMPANT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, INCIDENTALLY, AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS, WHOSE LANDS WERE CONFISCATED. ESTABLISHING A STATE WHICH MIMICS THE WAY THE JEWS WERE TREATED HISTORICALLY IS SOMETHING LESS THAN A CLEAR VICTORY FOR THEM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's the kinder, gentler Iran, whose current
rhetorical position is something like ''America is the
great Satan, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.''
Iran has been funding terrorism for a few decades
already, something the vile Saddam Hussein has not
done. Yet it would be inconvenient for us to bomb
Iran just now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran is not as much a threat to its neighbors and US security as Iraq at the moment.
Plus, Iran has not threatened to use weapons of mass destruction on its neighbors in
a unilateral offensive attack.
I AGREE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOT TO FORGET our beloved allies, the creepy
monarchs of Saudi Arabia. Their internal policies
make Iraq look like Sweden. But we love them like
crazy, even though -- here's a neat twist -- they
won't let us use their airfields for bombing missions
against Iraq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does Jon call them "creepy"? Because they're Moslem?
I DON'T THINK JON IS CALLING THEM CREEPY BECAUSE THEY ARE MOSLEM. PERHAPS IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH STONING PEOPLE TO DEATH FOR WHAT WE CONSIDER MINOR CRIMES, OR OFFENSES LIKE ADULTERY.
AND IF SADDAM REALLY WANTED TO CONQUER SAUDI ARABIA, WHY WON'T THE SAUDIS LET US USE THEIR BASES? ---------------------------------------------------------------------
They're hoping for a diplomatic solution. Indeed, all
sane people are hoping for a diplomatic solution,
because who really wants death and destruction?
Who really wants nice Iraqi lads killing nice
American lassies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All sane people hoped for a diplomatic solution with Hitler and Nazi Germany too.
But there does come a time if a leader and his nation become an outlaw state that
poses a real threat to the safety and stability of the rest of the world, that that leader
and his followers be met with ultimatums - backed by force if necessary. It was
Teddy Roosevelt who said, when once asked about US foreign policy, that we
should ". . . walk softly, but carry a big stick".
YES, APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK, AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE A VERY FIRM STAND. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT THE NATION BUT A SEEMINGLY PSYCHOTIC LEADER WHO IS THREATENING OUR SECURITY. IRAQ THE COUNTRY IS REALLY NO THREAT AT ALL. I THINK THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING A DEBATE IN CONGRESS ABOUT CHANGING THE LAW THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR THE U.S. TO ASSASSINATE THE LEADER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, all the old white guys who gravely shake their
heads on national television and say war is
inevitable -- they are apparently willing to accept
death and destruction. Not their personal deaths, of
course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotional arguments. And why the "old white guys" phrase? What has race or age
got to do within the context of a rational discourse about whether the use of force is
a valid option or not?
I THINK THAT IF THE OLD WHITE GUYS THEMSELVES HAD TO DO THE FIGHTING, THERE WOULDN'T BE VERY MANY WARS. IT IS EASIER TO PLAY WAR IN THE STRATEGY ROOM THAN GO INTO THE DESERT AND EXPECT TO PERHAPS DIE HORRIBLY IN HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT. THE RULERS DO SEEM TO BE OLDER AND WHITER, ALTHOUGH THAT IS SLOWLY CHANGING. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
So the next step up from an air war is a land war.
A land war in the desert! Doesn't that sound like
the modern equivalent of ''We'll be in Moscow by
Christmas, don't you worry''? And we'll fight hand
to hand all the way to Baghdad in order to topple
Saddam Hussein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was this guy during the Gulf War? What type of terrain does he think we
fought that one on? It's the same land! Geez - was this guy snorting cocaine back
then, or what? His memory ain't too good!
WELL, WE KILLED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 100,000 AND 200,000 HASTILY CONSCRIPTED YOUNG IRAQIS--YOUNG MEN WITH FAMILIES--BY BURYING THEM ALIVE IN THE DESERT AS THEY WERE TRYING TO RETREAT. I THINK WHAT CARROLLL IS SAYING IS THAT THIS TIME, WE CANNOT JUST BOMB THEM FROM THE AIR AGAIN LIKE WE DID THEN. DESERT IS DESERT, BUT WE WILL BE CLOSER TO THE SAND THIS TIME. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gulf War last time didn't actually do much, but
everyone involved in it was damn popular. All those
crispy bodies in the desert -- wasn't that a proud
moment for Americans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it was a proud moment for Americans. The events unfolding then could have
lead to a WWIII scenario within 24 months if we hadn't gotten involved. Plus we
freed a sovereign nation that had been overrun by thugs, murderers and rapists. We
were right on all counts: politically, morally and economically.
THAT KIND OF WAR IS NOT A PROUD MOMENT FOR AMERICANS LIKE ME. I WAS ASHAMED. IF SADDAM HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED OUR PROBLEMS WOULD BE OVER, BUT HE WAS NOT. SO IT WAS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF BLOODSHED FOR NOTHING, REALLY, EXCEPT TO TEST OUR NEW WEAPONS SYSTEMS, WHICH WEREN'T ACTUALLY AS SMART AS WE THOUGHT THEY WERE. |
