Here’s a story we didn’t see in 1975:
“The Screen Actors Guild is raising the specter of “McCarthyism” and lashing out at people who urge boycotts of pro-South African wine and krugerand importers. “SAG said suggestions that ‘well-known individuals who express “unacceptable” views should be punished by losing their right to work’ was a ‘shocking development’ which recalled the 1950s House Committee on Un-American Activities,” Variety reports. SAG is especially upset that “hate-mail critics” have demanded the cancellation of wine purchases from South Africa.”
Now compare it to the real story:
“The Screen Actors Guild is raising the specter of “McCarthyism” and lashing out at people who urge boycotts of pro-Saddam celebrities. “SAG said suggestions that ‘well-known individuals who express “unacceptable” views should be punished by losing their right to work’ was a ‘shocking development’ which recalled the 1950s House Committee on Un-American Activities,” Variety reports. SAG is especially upset that “hate-mail critics” have demanded the cancellation of “The West Wing” starring Martin Sheen.”
Kudos to Mr Taranto’s email newsletter from the Opinion Journal for the link to the original story.
By the way… I supported the South African boycott way back then. I think this new boycott is a simply dandy idea. Now I may not watch “West Wing” with all the fervour with which I have not watched it for years, safe in the knowledge I am not watching it in support of a noble cause.
I wish we could find a way to boycott EU federalist conspirators instead.
Boycotting items which only give their dimensions in metric measures could be a useful proxy for such a nebulous target….
South Africa mistreated its own people and had The Bomb. Should we have invaded them?
If they ‘had the bomb’, then where are they now?
Fortunatly it was clear to any intelligent observer (I used to live there) that the apartheit regime was unsustainable and that indeed proved to be the case… unlike that of Ba’athist Socialism unfortunatly.
To be in favour of the violent overthrow of Ba’athism does not mean I want war with every vile regime in the world now. Obviously if alternative ways of opposing tyranny effectively exist then those routes should be explored long before contemplating war. For example I suspect North Korea could be made to implode without actually attacking it and probably quite quickly if enough effort and will went into it… and with a bit of effort, Chinese Communism too could be destabalised without going to war with them, though that is obviously a much longer term project 🙂
Then lay out exactly the rules that make Iraq different than North Korea, apartheit S. Africa, etc., so you cannot say invade Iraq but not country X, then turn around and demand an invasion of country X tomorrow. Or does “now” mean you want wars w/ other regimes later (and you expect them to wait their turn and fight us one at a time, like the bad guys in a Kung Fu movie).
Can we get a full account of what you want, or will we be told of each individual Evil Doer one at a time to hide the full cost of the war(s).
Scott,
Perhaps I misunderstand your question to Perry, but my belief is that the rules governing justified warfare are ones that permit it, not ones that mandate it. In other words, once the threshhold of justification is reached, war is a morally valid option but not an immediate moral imperative. Thus, the argument that war may not be waged against country X because war would also be justified against country Y is just a non sequitur.
There is nothing wrong with invading country X today and country Y tomorrow, as long as both invasions are justified at the time they occur. It does not matter a whit that invasion of country Y would also have been justified at the time country X was invaded, but was deferred for practical or political reasons.
Nobody expects country Y to “wait its turn” unless that is what country Y wishes to do. If country Y wishes to accelerate hostilities for strategic or tactical reasons (say, to take advantage of the war in country X), nobody expects it to do otherwise.
The whole X had the bomb and X was repressive line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Did South Africa attack the United States? Iraq has! The first attack on the WTC was their work and there is evidence Iraq was involved in the post 9-11 anthrax attack.
But beyond that Iraq has a treaty (armistice) agreement not to posses these weapons. Most countries have troops in their various provences and that is perfectly OK, but it was not OK when Hitler marched his troops in the Rhineland. It wasn’t OK because Germany had agreed at Versailles not to have troops in the Rhineland. If the French had had some balls the Second World War would likely have been avoided.
Unfortunatly their were to many people back then who wated to “give peace a chance.”
I think the question comes down a couple of things…
#1 whether or not one is a pacifist
1a if one is a pacifist, no need to read further
#2 if one is not a pacifist, then is going to war with Iraq an act of aggression or an act of self defense?
2a if one believes one is acting in self defense (whether preventing or reacting to an act of aggression), is it possible to lie to oneself about whether or not they themselves are being reasonable in such a response to an aggressor and ever be justified in acting out in an act of war?
2ab if one is of clear conscience and reacting either to prevent or to respond to an act of aggression by defending oneself – the consequence will be whether or not the reactor was fully and truthfully informed and acting reasonably in response to information at their disposal. After all, that is how any of us form opinions – by becoming informed.
2ac if one is not of a clear conscience and creating havoc in a lie of self defense – natural consequence will occur.
2ad if one is fully informed, correctly informed and acting reasonably to defend oneself – then natural vindication will also come about.
Steph,
What evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? What evidence that they were involved in the anthrax attacks? There is no credible eveidence that they were involved in either.
If any country ‘aided/hosted’ the 9/11 attacks it was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The former has been dealt with, as for the latter …
Iraq is a secular Baathist (i.e. National Socialist) dictatorship that has more in common with say Spanish Francoism/Falangism, who used religion when it suited them – but had no real interest in it.
The US anthrax attacks remain something of a mystery, though all the evidence – real evidence – points to a US source. Maybe a deranged biowar specialist or maybe … but no, that would be too X-files conspiratorial …
Ian
There is evidence that Iraqi intelligence officers were in contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda during the mid 90’s while bin Laden was still in Sudan. This evidence is presented by French intelligence.
There is evidence that Iraqi intelligence provided al Qaeda with recipes for bio/chemical weaponry to training camps in Afghanistan during the 1990’s. There is evidence that Iraqi intelligence works with ansar al Islam in northern Iraq. As a matter of fact – I have not seen one press report about terrorism in northern Iraq by al answar toward the Kurds, but it is an escalating problem as one of the Kurdish generals was recently murdered in a similar style to the murder of Massoud in Afghanistan.
Iraq financially supports other terrorist organizations as well, particularly terrorists murdering innocent individuals in Israel.
If declassified information I have read is true, I am taken back to the question I ask of myself in regard to a possible war with Iraq… is this part of a war on terrorism among other reasons? Is the terrorist connection alone ENOUGH to take Saddam down?
Yes Ian, it would be. Fortuneately we tend not to attract the fruitcakes here, and what few do come are soon turned out the door.
Given that one of the hijackers was treated for what may have been a minor anthrax exposure and that they were looking into crop sprayer aircraft, I’d say the perpetrators are rather easily discerned.
I would not be at all surprised if the material was produced in Iraq using a stolen American strain and then passed on to al Qaeda via Eastern Europe as the reports (now seemingly buried) at the time claimed.
There were also reports of meetings in a Kansas motel between Iraqi’s and some of the 9/11 terrorists which the FBI seems to not have followed up on very seriously. Either because it wasn’t worth it or because they were living up to their apparent high level of incompetence.
Not to mention the Iraqi connections in the Philippines. I can provide links at a later time, and I need to figure out how to create links in this type of forum.
Elizabeth: look underneath the type in box and you will see an example.
As for links, I did an article here some time ago about one of the Phillipine terrorist leaders saying on TV that Saddam was paying a bounty for dead americans.
Steph,
On intelligence ‘contacts’ – wouldn’t any intelligence service that had any interest in the Mid-East and/or Islamic fundamentalism like to have chats etc. with al Qaeda operatives?
I’m sure that the CIA, MI6, DGSE, Mossad, Iraqi. Syrian, Iranian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi intelligence serivices etc. would all be interested. They all (and others) probably chat with them on a regular basis.
As for the Kurds, well the Turks and Syrians take a keen interest too. Both have been involved in operations against Kurdish politicians/civilians. Many Kurds claim that more Kurds have been killed by Turks than Iraqis – but the Turks are supposed to be on our side ..
There is widespread support for the Palestinian ’cause’ among Arab/Islamic nations and/or peoples. Iraq is just one of them. Just like Iran, Saudi Aribia, Pakistan etc.
Ian
This war is being sold as an immediate moral imperative. Can I ask which moral imperative is next, or is that going to be hidden the same way that Medicare was supposed to be this relatively small program when it first came out, and now its a huge monster. The same govt that gave us Medicare is giving us this war, why should I believe them when they tell me its just going to be Iraq?
Dale,
Which hijacker? By name? What strain of anthrax? What was the medical analysis? Could the anthrax have been picked up elsewhere?
Was any stolen anthrax reported? Has any US lab admitted missing stocks?
What were the names of the Iraqi intelligence agents who met with the 9/11 operatives? What took place exactly?
Ian
Elizabeth,
What are you saying? That the Iraqis might support anti-American groups in the Philippines?
Like the Americans might support or have supported, say, anti-Soviet groups on Afghanistan, or anti-communist grups in Nicaragua or anti-Baathist forces in Iraq?
Ian
Is Rumsfeld a terrorist then?
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
Mr Rumsfeld has said that he “cautioned” the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.
Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran’s “human wave” attacks.
A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
…The only occasion that Iraq’s use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas.
“When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects,” said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. “There was a very quick response from Washington saying, ‘Let’s stop our cooperation’ but it didn’t last long – just weeks.”
Read it here.
Scott,
You should not believe them when they tell you it’s just going to be Iraq. But that has nothing to do with whether war on Iraq is either justified or advisable.
War against Iraq is justified by Iraq’s failure to abide by the agreements it made in order to end hostilities 12 years ago and by the threat which WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his regime present to regional and global security. It is advisable in order to eliminate the security threat and to free the Iraqi people to govern themselves. It is advisable *now* because the sooner those objectives are achieved the better, and because the present holding patteren is damned expensive both in direct costs and in opportunity costs. Those aren’t moral imperatives, they’re just compelling reasons, and I don’t think they’re widely being portrayed as more than that (counterproof welcome).
If in future a war which is not justified is proposed, I will oppose it. But the mere prospect of that happening does not change my judgment about the war at hand.
Patrick,
So why not North Korea? Pyongyang has openly admitted violating agreements on nuclear proliferation and missile construction.
It has been involved in international terrorism – blowing up of airliners, kidnapping of civilians and widespread domestic repression and political executions etc.
Unlike Iraq, all of this is quite open and well documented. So why is Iraq being targetted and not North Korea?
Ian
Ian, if they admit NK is next, then Syria, then Iran, then……., then people might start questioning the thought process that gets us to a war on Iraq. All govt programs have to be lowballed in their initial cost estimates. Liberals do it for social programs, the War Party does it for this year’s Big Enemy.
So its totally unreasonable to ask where else the thinking that leads to a war w/ Iraq leads? We can’t ask you to follow your logic to its conclusion?
Scott,
A war against Iraq is going to cost apx. $60bn – for starters. Now if you have this sort of budget why not hire some decent professional assassins to take out Saddam and his buddies? Why not just just declare war on Saddam and leave the rest of Iraq alone?
Ian
Shooting high ranking govt officials instead of bombing civilians and teenage draftees is against international law. International law is made by high ranking government officials.
Scott,
Well there’s one problem we can resolve – an open advocation for the assassination of Saddam Hussein (and Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe etc.)
How about the UN puts up wanted posters and stumps up the dosh?
Cash rewarded to freelance bounty hunters that can prove success?
Ian
Scott,
Of course it’s reasonable for you to ask me to follow my logic to its conclusion, but that’s not what you asked (until now). What is unreasonable is a rule under which it would be impermissible to choose among countries against whom war would be justified, going to war against one of them but not the others.
As stated above, my analysis is divided into three parts: is war justified; if yes, is it advisable; and if yes, is now the right time?
There is nothing about answering all three of those questions “Yes” with respect to Iraq that implies all “Yes” answers with respect to any other country, particularly NK. The NK situation shares some of the major features of the Iraq situation with respect to justification, but the advisability and timing analyses are completely different, for obvious reasons. For one thing, NK has the bomb. For another, it is in a less volatile region. And for a third, NK may be acting up now precisely because the US military is focused on Iraq, and a satisfactory negotiated settlement with NK may be possible once Iraq is over. (I do not pretend that this list is exhaustive nor even that the points I have mentioned are the most important ones.)
Without intending to apply this to Ian personally, I honestly think that most arguments of the form “why country X and not country Y” are not intended as explorations of the relative advisability of war against X and Y, but are intended to suggest that war against X is not justified. As I said above, I don’t buy that reasoning.
If you’re asking me whether I might someday support a war against North Korea, I would say that it’s too soon to tell but it’s not out of the question. Do you want more from me than that?
Patrick, if you were King of the Anglosphere, and didn’t answer to anyone, who would you expect to fight after Iraq?
Scott,
I would not expect to fight anyone after Iraq.
Why not fight anyone after Iraq? Won’t someone else become the biggest existing threat after Iraq is taken care of, or is Iraq all that stands between us and world peace?
Patrick,
Cnsidering your analysis I still wonder why Iraq is considered a greater probelm then North Korea.
North Korea has openly admitted having the weapons and delivery vehicles in contravention of international agreements etc.
As North Korea has the bomb, unlike Iraq which is only aiming to do so, maybe it should be targetted first before it has any more – or develops delivery vehicles greater than it currently has?
Is it really possible to negotiate with North Korea more than Iraq? Does the evidence since the 1950s support this? What evidence is there of North Korea disarming?
I repeat my question. Why target Iraq before North Korea?
Ian
Patrick, do you expect our government(s) to be more honest with us concerning Iraq’s capabilities and intentions than they are about, say, the War on (Some) Drugs or the expected cost of proposed health care benefits?
Ian, I referred to an article posted on Samizdata by Dale, as well as other news articles I have read which indicate an Iraqi connection with abu Sayyaf.
Elizabeth, I posted something above about Rummy and Iraq. What conclusions about him should we make concerning his meeting w/ Saddam?
What conclusions would you draw from a statement that Saddam is paying abu Sayyaf to kill American soldiers?
Elizabeth,
I’m aware of Abu Sayyaf etc. Isn’t the US training anti-Saddam Iraqis?
Now if the CIA etc. is training such individuals/groups to launch attacks on Baathist targets, can the US really complain about Iraq helping Abu Sayyaf etc?
Ian
Ian, I am fully aware of CIA training and various inconsistencies in foreign policy and inconsistent application of international law – not only by the United States but by the questionable institution called the United Nations.
That given, I must ask the question of whether one believes in the morality of self defense. Either it is moral to defend oneself or one is a pacifist. Either way – I can respect someone who is consistent in their applied personal philosophy.
Once again, I ask the question…
What conclusions would you draw from a statement that Saddam is paying abu Sayyaf to kill American soldiers?
That Rummy and Saddam should be sharing a prison cell. What conclusion do you draw?
Elizabeth, define “training to kill American soldiers”. This could cover any country w/ an army, since its a given that they would use that army to resist an invasion and thus attempt to kill the invading Americans. I’m not saying this to justify anything Sayyaf may or may not be doing – I’m asking you specifically what he is doing.
My goodness.
I should think this is all too obvious to require spelling out, but here goes.
Scott: It is true that after there has been a change of regimes in Iraq, then some other country, say “Y,” will become the number one threat to world security. (This is assuming that Iraq is the number one threat to world security today, which I don’t view as a necessary condition for war against Iraq to be justified or advisable.) That does not mean that war against Y would be justified and advisable, and there is nothing in my previous posts which suggests otherwise.
Ian: Unless you’re honestly advocating a prompt invasion of North Korea (and I don’t think you are), then please disclose what point you’re trying to make about Iraq that I haven’t addressed above. Until then, I will only observe that I don’t think it’s necessary to fight the harder battle before the easier one, and I don’t understand why you think NK having the bomb is a reason to go to war with NK rather than a reason not to.
Scott again: I always think a healthy skepticism is in order regarding the pronouncements of any government on any subject. Part of the reason I essentially accept the pro-war governments’ assessments of Iraq’s capabilities as true is that they have not been meaningfully rebutted by either Iraq or the countries that officially oppose war. There doesn’t seem to any question that Iraq possessed chem and bio weapons in the past, and there isn’t any reason that I know of to believe that the Saddam Hussein regime would be willing to destroy, or in fact did destroy, those weapons.
Is it even possible for Iraq to prove they don’t intend to set a nuke off in NYC or are you demanding something you know cannot be delivered?
BTW, here is next month ‘s Big Threat (NK was only in Bush’s “Axis of Evil” because Iraq, Iran, and Syria was too mid-East specific, and they wanted a more worldwide crisis to invoke WWII – Iran is next):
Report: Iran has ‘extremely advanced’ nuclear program
Facility violates non-proliferation pact, sources say.
From CNN.
Well Scott, you are good at making up scornful labels, but you’ve failed to ask these questions:
1: Is it true that Iran is developing nukes?
2: Does Iran have clear ties to terrorism and Fundementalist Islam?
3: Is Iran in fact in violation of the nonproliferation treaty?
But the answers to these questions do not matter to you. You think you’ve found a axiomatic truth: “The U.S. needs a enemy, and will therefore create one for political purposes”
No, you didn’t come out and say that. But that’s what you are implying. You are implying that cynical manipulation, not terrorist concerns are responsible for this upcoming war.
But like a great many cheap two-bit slogans out there, this one can be torpedoed with one shot:
Why then was Bush being criticised as too “isolationist” before 9/11? If he was disposed to wage war for political points, you’d think he would have shown some sign of preparation before it.
Perry: Small correction — make that Ba’athist NATIONAL Socialism…a much closer historical precedent…
Ian: Some comments.
“North Korea has openly admitted having the weapons and delivery vehicles in contravention of international agreements etc.”
Yup. That makes them (assuming they’re telling the truth) members of The Club. Members of The Club are entitled to all rights and privileges pertaining thereto, not least of which is membership in the MADhouse — that’s Mutually Assured Destruction, of course.
“As North Korea has the bomb, unlike Iraq which is only aiming to do so, maybe it should be targetted first before it has any more – or develops delivery vehicles greater than it currently has?”
What sort of “targetting” have you in mind? MX ICBM’s? Trident SLBM’s? Are you proposing a nuclear first strike, or for that matter even a conventional strike on another country’s nuclear forces? Got fallout shelter?
“Is it really possible to negotiate with North Korea more than Iraq? Does the evidence since the 1950s support this? What evidence is there of North Korea disarming?”
Ah, there’s the nub. Negotiation is the only option available once a state has joined The Club…they are deterrable, if rational (always a big IF with Klan Kim), but they are now outside the bounds of conventionally-armed persuasion.
Negotiating with Pyongyang may not be a great, or even a rational, strategy — but it’s all we have left, because some bozos in the late Clinton Administration really, truly thought that the Big Bribe…er, Agreed Framework, would actually prevent the DPRK from pursuing its nuclear wet dream…
“I repeat my question. Why target Iraq before North Korea?”
Because, thank the Good Lord in Heaven, Iraq is not yet a member of The Club. Mind you, it took the Israeli Air Force in 1981 and the Allied air forces in 1991 to keep them out…and remember how much venom the sainted UN dripped on Israel at the time for its “lawless” and “criminal” act?
I say, “Yay, heavily armed Jews!”
Ted Seay: Perry: Small correction — make that Ba’athist NATIONAL Socialism…a much closer historical precedent…
Actually as Hayek pointed out in the 1940s in ‘The Road to Serfdom’, the distinction between National Socialism (Nazi) and Socialism is mostly a matter of style and (to some extent) means, rather than ends. The Nazis were just a varient of socialism. Nazi economics allow a weak fiction of private ownership of the means of production, just so long as you use them in accordance with ‘national objectives’… which is to say you can ‘own’ things only if you use them the way the state wants you to, and of course ‘ownership’ without control is not ownership at all.
In reality, National Socialism is just Socialism plus Racism… and whilst Saddam’s “Arabization” programmes against the Kurd might seem simple racism, it is not really a defining characteristic of Ba’athism. Also, Ba’athism is not confined to Iraq and so is not just a’national’ thing (the lovely regime in Syria is essentially Ba’athist).
So no, I must disagree… Ba’athism is exactly what it claims to be:
SOCIALISM
1. Seems that way.
2. You’re right, there are no Islamic fundamentalists in charge in Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeini was a secular humanist.
3. If #1, then either yes or they didn’t sign it. I doubt their refusal to sign that piece of paper means squat if Bush and Co. decide their nukes are a threat.
As for the rest of your post (yes, I’m accusing a government of “cynical manipulation”):
Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique
4 years before 9/11, plan was set
It was 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, and rescue crews were still scouring the ravaged section of the Pentagon that hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 had destroyed just five hours earlier. On the other side of the still-smoldering Pentagon complex, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was poring through incoming intelligence reports and jotting down notes. Although most Americans were still shell-shocked, Rumsfeld’s thoughts had already turned to a longstanding foe.
Rumsfeld wrote, according to a later CBS News report, that he wanted “best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL” – meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
From the same story above:
If Bush was being called isolationist by the same crowd now (and then) pushing for war with Iraq, that makes my point (that they wanted war regardless of terrorism) more than it makes yours.
U.N. Inspectors: U.S. Used Forged Reports Saturday March 8, 2003 1:50 PM
UNITED NATIONS (AP) – U.N. weapons inspectors cast doubts on U.S. assertions about Iraq’s weapons programs, saying Baghdad is cooperating with inspections and that some documents presented as evidence were forged.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that experts had dismissed as counterfeit documents that allegedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago. …
Scott, That was a neat trick, chopping off the sentence in my earlier post in which I referred specifically to chem and bio weapons so you could pretend to be contradicting me by posting something about uranium.
I’ve already said skepticism is in order about government pronouncements, and nothing in your post undercuts my stated reasons for believing that Saddam has undisclosed bio and chem weapons.
I’m trying to have a conversation here, and you’re only interested in playing “gotcha.” Poorly.
Later,
Patrick, any government that would use untrustworthy evidence concerning nuclear weapons would do the same concerning bio and chem weapons. That’s not “gotcha”, that’s evaluating how credible someone is (if you catch them in a lie, you stop trusting them).
If I say our governments lie and manipulate about health care, nobody here bats an eyelash. They lied during the first Gulf War (about Iraq being about to invade Saudi Arabia, about the whole incubator incident), and there seems to be good evidence of a lie during this one.
During Mr. Hillary’s presidency, George Will defined a “Clinton Hater” as anyone who remembered what Clinton said or did the week before. You are resorting to Clinton tactics here by claiming its just playing “gotcha” to point out previous lies to determine whether someone can be trusted now.
Scott:
I did NOT say that I believe the Iraqis have undisclosed bio and chem weapons because I trust whatever the US government says on those subjects. On the contrary, I said (for the third time now) that skepticism about all government pronouncements on all subjects is in order.
I said that I believe the claims about undisclosed bio and chem weapons because the people who have the means and the incentive to expose any US lies on those subjects have not done so. NOT because I believe whatever the US government says on the subject. Got that?
None of what I have said is contradicted by you when you provide an example of alleged US lying about uranium. Regardless of whether the US government has lied about uranium or anything else, it remains true that the essential claims about Iraq’s chem and bio weapons have not been rebutted by those who have both the knowlegde and the incentive to do so.
When you left off part of what I had said in order to create the illusion that your uranium story contradicted my earlier post, you were playing “gotcha.” By pretending now that my beliefs about Iraq’s bio and chem weapons are based on trust in the US government, you show that you are either incapable of understanding what I have said or else that you are still playing “gotcha.”
Either way, I bid you good day.
Perry: I must respectfully disagree. I yield to no one in my admiration for Professor Hayek, but in this case, the precedents I referred to were broader than political economy.
“In reality, National Socialism is just Socialism plus Racism…”
With just a dollop of mass murder thrown in for seasoning…which brings one back to Saddam’s version of Ba’athism.
“…and whilst Saddam’s “Arabization” programmes against the Kurd might seem simple racism, it is not really a defining characteristic of Ba’athism.”
Are we speaking here of theory or practice? Given the influence the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem held with the early Ba’athists, I think there are more philosophical ties to Naziism here than you are willing to concede.
“Also, Ba’athism is not confined to Iraq and so is not just a’national’ thing (the lovely regime in Syria is essentially Ba’athist).
And nor was fascism a strictly German phenomenon.
Its not up to other people to prove Bush’s claims false, its up to him to prove them true, and given our government’s history of dishonesty in general, he has a very high burden of proof. Got that?
Basically, you’re demanding an invasion unless someone else prove a negative.
According to Ray Close (who was a CIA analyst in the Near East division):
Patrick, what does your “skepticism about all government pronouncements on all subjects” cause you to conclude about the above?
great to read