Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:31:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
398 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Those governments that support the US against the wishes of their citizens
may find out the importance of listening to the electorate come election
time. In the short term, though, it's the support of the governments that
counts.
>
> > 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.
Legal war? Seems to me an oxymoron. Justifiable, maybe - I suppose a war
against any tyrant like Saddam is justifiable from some standpoint. But if
it is, why now? Why us? If Bush can't get the world to side with him, will
it be worth the price?
>
> > 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.
I find it amazing that a certain someone gives evidence that Iraq is a
greater threat to international security and peace than the US. ;-)
>
> > 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!)
I think it more likely Saddam is being singled out because he is a cheap and
easy *stationary* target. Though, of course, no where near as cheap and
easy as Bush had hoped. The oil explanation is the easiest for the public
to understand, be it for direct control or extortion (which I doubt more
than the direct control).
>
> > 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 the current "inspections", it would seem the logically impossible
"receding target" is the likely intent. Whether more stringent inspections
can be put in place swiftly enough (or at all) to head off Bush's "Stampede
to War"™ is highly questionable.
But the claim that there is nothing Saddam can do is absolutely false
(though realistically true). He can leave power. Now why that would
satisfy Bush I'm not quite sure since it would leave the exact same power
structure with a Saddam-of-a-different-name in control. Given that Saddam
would be willing to lose 90% (a low estimate no doubt) of the population to
retain power (and would lose no sleep over it) it ain't gonna happen. If
this was restated so that there is nothing Saddam can do on the subject of
WoMD (weapons of...) to satisfy Bush, yes, I agree.
>
> > 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?
The French have bitterly resented the U.S. leadership in NATO fairly
consistently, so I must say I pretty much dismiss their opinions out of
hand. But to be fair, I pretty much dismiss Dubya's opinions out of hand, too.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) I saw a poll the other day (cited on CNN, but I can't remember the uber-source) that showed that about 45% of Americans believed that the Bush administration would intentionally falsify information to make its case, and something like 58% (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
