Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:39:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
Have a look at this:
ftp://voot.pair.com/public_html/bush_cheese.jpg
[Note: “Yurp” is how Steve Bell represents Bush’s pronunciation of “Europe”]
> 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.
... or a least that's the way Bush can read it. ;)
At the weekend we expect 500,000 – 1,000,000 to voice their concern at a rally
in Central London = ~1% of the UK population. I often wonder what ever happened
to the strong peace movement the US had in the 60's. The Guardian explained it
all to me yesterday:
Left over?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,892977,00.html
==+==
Which raises the question: whatever happened to the left in America? What
became of the political culture that stopped the Vietnam war, brought about
civil rights and very nearly made Jesse Jackson the Democratic presidential
candidate? Where are the popular, progressive forces that could challenge the
Bush administration from within? Ask leftwingers this - people who have devoted
their life to progressive causes - and most of them will laugh. "The left is
not a word you mention in polite company here," says Karen Rothmeyer, an editor
on the leftwing weekly, the Nation. "We talk about the right, but we never talk
about the left."
==+==
> 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.
As far as I'm concerned, all bush appears to be looking for is a fig-leaf.
>
> > 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.
OK. For "illegally" substitute "immorally"... ;)
My understanding is that for a war to be legal it would have to be in self
defence, in response to a real threat, supported by a UN mandate and/or to
avert a
humanitarian crisis. Based on this, even the “no-fly-zone” may be illegal.
>
> > 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.
Us Brits hate to offend. ;)
Out of interest, what response do you think that question would get inside
the USA?
>
> > 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.
Perhaps more interestingly, only 25% feel that "America has singled out Saddam
Hussein because he is a uniquely dangerous threat to world peace."
>
> 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!)
*sigh* Sometimes I wish bush was just creating all this fuss as he was "crazy".
>
> > 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.
...and Blair supports him!!! arg!
>
> > 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?
Passed! [One of the best things about "Stupid White Men" is the ways Moore goes
about highlighting Bush's lack of democratic mandate – I admit he has
influenced me!]
Scott A
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
