Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:47:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
271 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> It could be argued that NATO and the UN are gaining respect in the
> international community for failing the follow Bush's line. Indeed, it is
> notable that a large proportion of the public internationally will only
> support a war which has UN support [69% in the UK]. 47% of the UK public feel
> the arms inspections should continue.
Honestly, it's hard to say. There's the rabid (and, frankly, fascist)
campaign by the Bush administration to marginalize and demonize anyone
voicing reservations about prosecuting this unjust war, so it's difficult to
assess the actual sentiment of the American people. On the other hand, the
fact that people are willing to be cowed into silence is, in this situation,
tantamount to voicing one's approval for the war.
But what's more important--support of non-US governments or support of
non-US citizens? Much of NATO has already agreed to support the US, even if
those nations' citizens do not themselves support it. I share those
people's grief; I do not support Bush, but he is the President appointed to
us, so he's the one who gets his way. And besides, even if France had
agreed to support the US via NATO, my understanding is that France doesn't
provide military resources for NATO; is this correct? If so, then their
support or rejection is irrelevant, practically speaking.
> Precautions against what; Iraq lashing out in self-defence after being
> attacked illegally?
Although I reject the "justification" for this war, I wish I could agree
that it's flatly illegal. I've heard a number of debates, and it seems that
the actual illegality of the war is at best unclear.
> It is notable that:
>
> 38% of the UK public feel "The United States is a threat to international
> security and peace". Only 45% feel the same about Iraq.
Only 38%? I would have guessed about twice that.
> 46% of the UK public feel "America has singled out Saddam Hussein because he
> is a threat to U.S. oil interests and influence in the Middle East."
46 likewise seems a little low, but I've heard a different, more
far-reaching assessment of our "true" motives.
If you have the time, listen to Episode 229 of This American Life at
http://www.thislife.org/pages/archive03.html
for a discussion, but the relevant part can be summarized thus: Once we
establish our presence in Iraq with corresponding control over Iraq's oil
supply, we will be in a better position to negotiate our demands Saudi
Arabia and other Arab states. Specifically, we can urge those states to
soften the government-sponsored anti-American dogma taught in mosques, as
well as the anti-Israeli campaigns fostered by those governments. That's
not to say our motive is any more "just" in this light, but, for good or
ill, it may be more far reaching (and imperialistic) than "We Want Their
Oil" (which is also a factor, to be sure!)
> 72% of the UK public feel that "President Bush is determined to go to war.
> There is nothing Saddam can do that would satisfy him"
And that's absolutely true. Regardless of his professed motives of world
peace and security, Bush does seem to hold a very personal anti-Saddam
agenda, as we all remember:
http://www.sltrib.com/2002/Sep/09282002/nation_w/2225.htm
I would love for the Bush administration (or for any conservative pundit) to
say "The evidence that would satisfy us is [insert evidence here.]" They've
put up a receding target which is logically impossible for Saddam to achieve.
> Given that the UK is more “pro war” than France, do those stats help explain
> why France does not support your "president"?
Can we pass a law that "president" *always* has to be in quotes when
referring to Bush?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) Have a look at this: ftp://voot.pair.com/...cheese.jpg [Note: “Yurp” is how Steve Bell represents Bush’s pronunciation of “Europe”] (...) ... or a least that's the way Bush can read it. ;) At the weekend we expect 500,000 – 1,000,000 to voice (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) I think the U.S. public is becoming wary of Bush's motivation. They may not like Saddam Hussein, but the Al Queda connection is tenuous at the very best. (...) Those governments that support the US against the wishes of their citizens may find (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) It could be argued that NATO and the UN are gaining respect in the international community for failing the follow Bush's line. Indeed, it is notable that a large proportion of the public internationally will only support a war which has UN (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
