Michael Barone has an excellent antidote to the unending stream of nattering negativity on the Iraqi reconstruction.
What is remarkable about our occupation of Iraq is not that it has gone badly but that it has gone so well. Last week, crude oil production was above target level, the central bank signed up for the payment system used by central banks internationally, and 140,000 Iraqi police and law enforcement officers were on duty. A new Iraqi currency is circulating, and schools are open. Wages are rising, interest rates are falling, businesses are opening and hiring. Millions of Iraqis are buying cellphones, TVs, and satellite dishes. Attacks on Americans have greatly diminished, and attacks on Iraqis are likely to turn them against terrorists rather than against us.
Just so. The opponents of American intervention of Iraq have consistently played the expectations card. Rather than measure results of the war and reconstruction against any realistic yardsticks, they instead set impossibly high standards, and then carp when they aren’t met, or move the goalposts whenever the good guys achieve the nearly impossible.
The war itself was a stunning victory, unparalleled in the history of the world in the speed and precision of the coalition campaign, but throughout the fighting the Save Saddam types which populate the Democrat Party in the US, the BBC, and most establishment media, would have had us believe the coalition was on the brink of disaster and quagmire.
The reconstruction is following a similar pattern. Miracles are being accomplished on the ground in Iraq, but you won’t see any of it acknowledged by the anti-Americans in the establishment media or political opposition.
My advice? Study history. Don’t fall into the expectations game. Think about what needs to be done, and you will marvel at the speed and effectiveness with which it is being done.
Sure, the reconstruction hasn’t been perfect, but nothing in this world ever is. What is certain is that the Iraqis are much better off today because Bush and his coalition have forged ahead. Just remember, if the opponents of the Bush policy had their way, Saddam would still be ruling Iraq, Iraqis would still be subject to rape, murder, and torture, and Iraqi oil money would still be flowing to terrorists and their sympathizers. That, not some paradisical utopia, is the true benchmark for evaluating the Iraqi situation.
None the less, I was listening to a “reporter” on NPR here talking about how the Iraqis increasingly hate the US and want us out immediately.
Charlie, are these things necessarily contradictory? Just because their lot’s improving, and they’re free of an evil tyrant, doesn’t mean the Iraqis have to love their country being occupied by a foreign power, or love the way US troops behave towards them. People are complicated little devices, & regularly not very logical.
The Anti-Israel propaganda is so prevalent in the Middle East that, frankly, anti-Americanism is deeply embedded in their cultures. Remember they had 12 years of Saddam ramming his hatreds down their throats.
As Edelman said on BBC2 last night, Americans are instinctively isolationist. Even if a US Admin wanted to create an “Empire”, it wouldn’t be able to.
America shouldn’t bother with Africa IMHO, as the Europeans and Chinese should play the blood price in that region.
I’ll ask you the same question Perry slithered out of: if Iraq does go to Hell, will you take responsibility? Will you admit your actions caused a civil war and/or new Iraqi tyrant if that’s what ultimately happens? Will you admit you were wrong?
You have enough faith in the govt to risk Iraqi lives – do you have enough faith in them to risk some embarassment?
Scott: How long after the US leaves does it HAVE to take responsibility for things over which it has no control?
So far just about every action I see is that the Americans are cajoling the locals into doingthe right thing. If, once the US is no longer acting :in loco parentis: and the locals self interestedly insist on killing one another, or whatever, how the hell is THAT the fault of the US?
” how the hell is THAT the fault of the US?”
Come on, it’s ALWAYS the fault of the US (unless it’s the fault of Israel)
Typical socialist think – good results reflect back on govt, bad results are “just one of those things”. If your justification for a war is to stop the killing, and the killing doesn’t stop, then that justification goes the way of the non existent Iraqi WMD. If you invade another country and replace its govt on the grounds that its evil, then you are responsible for what happens next.
Interesting to see the same crowd who argues how immoral it would have been to let the Iraqis settle their own problems turn around and wash their hands of any possible moral responsiblity afterward.
So if we did nothing, we would be responsible for anyone Saddam kills. If we invade, we’re not responsible for the result.
Iraq is progressing steadily, not just politically but economically aswell. The problem with most of overseas aid, that it is wasted/transferred to Swiss bank accounts, is negated.
Yes the occupation is expensive but it allows the US to demonstrate to the world, in a very high profile situation, what a liberal economics coupled with relative secularism and liberty can achieve.
This lesson is most needed in the Arabian peninsular and old Persia. Iraq will be the actual solid Islamic example of this, making it of utmost importance.
Scott, would you rather Saddam Hussein were still in power? That is the only realistic alternative to the current situation. Given that he was killing thousands of Iraqis every month, and making life into a living hell for most of the rest, I am curious why you believe that even a highly imperfect liberation could possibly be worse. Or is it that you think the mere possibility of a bad outcome means we mustn’t take any risks?
You cannot take a risk and also take responsibility if that risk (to the lives of others while you stay at home safe) has a negative outcome?
BTW, where did you get your stat that Saddam was killing thousands per month at the time of the invasion. I don’t mean counting the killing he did while the West supported him (but the West isn’t responsible for those deaths, oddly enough) – I mean the killing at the time.
You cannot argue that a happy outcome proves you were right, but an unhappy one proves nothing.
There are elements to agree with in all comments in this thread. I see the point of those who try and portray that things may actually be improving in Iraq to counter the endless spiel that things are heading to hell in a hand basket from the left dominated media.
But I also agree that it is not the role of the US (and its allies) to be the policemen of the world. There are plenty of other areas where the people live in tyranny and we don’t feel the need to get involved. To my mind, the major difference is that, unfortunately, these fascist/islamo-fascists/monarchists/communists/or whatever totalitarian brand they bring on themselves happen to be nested over a goodly portion of the proven oil reserves, and like it or not, we need oil. We also prefer that it not be consolidated under one brand of nut-jobs. So when Iran was the super-ordinate threat, we backed the sunni’s and their secular fascistic brand. When Saddam got eyes too big for his stomach, he became the super-ordinate threat and was removed. The question is what obligation do we have to nation build to create a stable environment in the region, almost in the form of a ‘program’ for the world? We have a right to protect our lives and property, and perhaps axiomatically, I extend that to include certain trading partners when the circumstances warrant. To say that we have an obligation specifically to Iraqi’s to free them from tyranny, I disagree. It is when that tyrannical government messes with our economic stability that action will be taken, and if the people are better off, so be it. But as was pointed out in a previous comment, whether they think they are better off is something we’re not likely to be able to control.
Personally I think we have done enough to give the Iraqi’s as good a chance to discover the benefits of a classical liberal approach to a social order. You can lead a horse to water but you can’make it drink. Whatever happens next, a sunni/ba’athist resurgence, a shi’ite take over etc etc is Iraq’s responsibility at some point. When, and if, becomes expansionary, and threatens trading partners (who could possibly be just as brutal) then we will likely act. I guess in the end, our efforts to rebuild should be measured, not so much in how much the Iraqi’s love us, but how much the threat to our economic stability is reduced. Secondarily, these efforts should try and show the natives the guidelines and benefits of a classical liberal social order, if we don’t try and change the Eastern mentality, there may be dim future on the horizon, but we shouldn’t spend the inheritance on it.
On the contrary. We’re arguing that a better outcome proves we were right. You haven’t yet conceded that point.
If the outcome were to prove worse than leaving Saddam in power, we would have been wrong. It isn’t – we weren’t.
(Previous post was a reply to Scott, BTW)
Its too soon to assert that the outcome is better than Saddam at the time of the invasion (as opposed to the Saddam of the 80s when he knew we’d support him no matter what). After WWI, the evil, warmongering, threat to the civilized world Kaiser was replaced w/ a warm and fuzzy democracy, which fell and gave the world Hitler.
But thank you for putting yourself on the line if the whole Iraq thing blows up. You’ve just admitted moral responsibility if things do go bad.
The outcome so far is better than Saddam at the time of the invasion.
And you still haven’t conceded the converse.
Cattenach’s back. I assume he’s been off working for the Dean campaign. Does his reemergence mean Kodiak will soon follow? It’s been nice having the Barking Moonbat chair empty these past few months but I guess nothing good lasts forever…
Its too soon to assert that, particularly since we’re talking about the somewhat neutered Saddam of 2003 and not the Saddam we supported in the 80s. You cannot claim justification on the grounds that things are better today and say you have no responsibility for what happens tomorrow.
Learn to read, Scott. Or did you miss the words, “so far”?
“So far” isn’t justification for a war. But you are on the record as being morally responsible if things do go down the crapper in Iraq:
“If the outcome were to prove worse than leaving Saddam in power, we would have been wrong. “
If indeed the outcome is worse than Sadaam, then it would have been a mistake to invade. That is not the case so far, nor is there reason to think it will be the case in the future.
I do believe that a country is better off fighting for its own independence. The US has done well since our war of independence because it was something we did ourselves. We, however, did get some help along the way from other countries. This was the situation after the first gulf war, but our leadership then was too subservient to the UN and did not support the independence struggle of the Iraqi people. It may not be our responsibility to free Iraq, but I dont have a problem with setting right past mistakes. Supporting Sadaam 20 or so years ago was a mistake, we have rectified it as well as possible by removing him. The fate of the Iraqi people will ultimately be up to them. All this “nation building” is questionable.
That said, I do certainly agree that things are much better than they appear in the mainstream media. I dont like the idea of the US being policemen, and the cost/reward of us acting in that role often seems shifted to higher cost. I do think that we are a better example and better qualified to help other nations than, say, the UN, but Im not certain we need be involved at all beyond the scope of our own interests. Individuals must decide their own fate, we can not decide it for them. That includes the Iraqi people.
Scott,
So you don’t understand the meaning of the words “so far”. Boy are you dumb.
Scott, would you rather Saddam Hussein were still in power?
He has said as much. He also has declined to accept moral responsibility if Saddam was still in power now regardless of the fact he wants me to accept moral responsibility if things do not turn out for the better in the long run. That things in Iraq are indeed better now than when Saddam and his psycho offspring were in control cannot register on Scott’s consciousness. I see no value in debating him however as he does actually seem to read what I write.
Scott,
So you don’t understand the meaning of the words “so far”.
And you still haven’t conceded the converse. Do you have the integrity to do so?
I’m not “accepting moral responsibility” for what Saddam would have done for the same reason neither of us is accepting moral responsibility for what the North Korean govt does (because we’re not the world’s policeman), and I’m not accepting “well, if the Iraqis want to kill each other then screw ’em” as immoral before the war but moral afterward.
Perry, if you are going to demand govt action, then you have to accept moral responsibility for any negative results of that action. You are willing to bet Iraqi lives that things will get and stay better, but not willing to bet your reputation by accepting moral responsibility for your govt if they don’t.
Democrat logic vs Republican lies or Democrat waffle vs Republican action? Missing the truth, I fear.
The war in Iraq may have caused Libya to cough up its weapons programme. So, were the lives of the people of Iraq seen as expendable due to the expectation that given half a chance Saddam was about to gas them all anyway or was it entirely necessary to cripple the country of Iraq just to get rid of Saddam?
There may be a larger picture here. Saddam and the tragic state of a country that is torn apart by religious forces were probably not the issue that forced that war.
Why are we discussing if the war should be judged on the basis of its virtue? It had no virtue. Saddam could have been removed from power without destroying ther Iraqi economy.
But going to war on Libya may have produced weapons but they were in a process of capitulating to diplomatic pressure. War had even less virtue there.
Perry, if you are going to demand govt action, then you have to accept moral responsibility for any negative results of that action.
“Negative results”? You speak as though Iraq were a country of inanimate objects, as though all society flows from government and everything else is irrelevant.
I can understand the Iraqi people being unable to throw off a powerful dictator. I’m not sure I’d have the stomach to sacrifice myself in a resistance movement, either. But I think it is reasonable to expect them, with help from the rest of the world, to build themselves a society in the absence of a dictator.
If they can’t do that, they’re mentally (or morally) retarded, and nothing anyone can do will help. A country that is arguably better off left in the hands of a brutal autocrat is a land of children, a hopeless place.
Improving the lot of the Iraqi people wasn’t the purpose of the war. Sure, it was used as one of many justifications for the war, but there’s a difference between the justifications and the actual purpose of the war. This war was essentially an extension of the previous one (Desert Storm). In ’91, Iraq conceded defeat and accepted terms of cease fire. They then promptly started to ignore those terms and thumb their nose at the US for the next decade. That entire time, I was thinking “Why aren’t we shit-hammering those bastards for not complying?”. This recent war was necessary in order to demonstrate that the US will not allow our foes to temporarily capitulate and then revert to assholery once the shooting stops. If we allowed that, it would make war rather pointless, now wouldn’t it?
Finding WMD, liberating oppressed people, creating a democratic example for the region etc. were all set forth as justifications in an effort to gain support for the conflict. Obviously, these are all nice things, but they aren’t reasons for war. What self-respecting insane dictator out there doesn’t have at least a few WMD lying around? We can’t be troubled to attack each and every ABC-wielding tyrant out there. There are lots of oppressed people in the world, but we generally don’t liberate them because it’s none of our business. Same with spreading democracy. The simple truth is that we won’t bother with war unless there is something in it for us. In this case, the Bush administration decided that making an example out of Saddam and punishing him for his lack of cooperation was in our national interest. They were discussing this well before 9/11.
Disagreeing with the Bush administration’s theory that the war would be in the US’s national interest is perfectly acceptable. Many reasonable arguments can be made that the war has made the US less safe, has hurt the economy, has hurt foreign relations and damaged traditional alliances, etc. However, demanding someone take moral responsibility for this war is just silly. If it turns out that the Iraqis have it better off in the future because of the war (which I think is likely), that’s great. If they don’t, that sucks, but it’s not our fault. It’s Saddam’s fault for not complying after the first time we stomped his nuts. He is the only one who needs to take moral responsibility.
No, I’m saying that govt action frequently has a bad outcome regardless of the good intentions of the people calling for it. If removing Saddam creates a power vacuum that leads to civil war or a new tyrant in the next 10 years or so, the War Party is responsible. You cannot say I’m morally responsible for the results of inaction, but you aren’t morally responsible for any negative result of action (but you get moral credit for any positive ones).
If removing Saddam creates a power vacuum that leads to civil war or a new tyrant in the next 10 years or so, the War Party is responsible.
If that happens, I will claim my little corner of responsibility. But it doesn’t take much courage to make a bet that can’t be settled for a decade.
If it takes so little courage, why is it so difficult to get you keyboard warriors to do so?
If it takes so little courage, why is it so difficult to get you keyboard warriors to do so?
Because it ain’t very smart, neither.
Hmmm. What utter bullcrap.
“Typical socialist think – good results reflect back on govt, bad results are “just one of those things”. If your justification for a war is to stop the killing, and the killing doesn’t stop, then that justification goes the way of the non existent Iraqi WMD. If you invade another country and replace its govt on the grounds that its evil, then you are responsible for what happens next.”
Look the facts are: We went into Iraq to …
1. Liberate them from Saddam.
2. Remove Saddam from power as he was a threat to regional stability.
3. Remove the longterm threat of WMD R&D and construction/use.
4. Introduce democracy to the region and hope for a fundamental political, economic and social change.
5. Give the Iraqi people a chance at a better life.
So give me a break with this nonsense you’re spouting. The fact is that all America can give to the Iraqi people is an opportunity. We can neither rule them nor do we want to. If after all is said and done the Iraqi people draw their knives for a final jihad against each other, there is literally nothing that America could do to stop it nor would America be responsible for it.
America isn’t responsible for how France acts because France is a soverign nation even though America liberated it. America isn’t responsible for how Italy acts even though America liberated it. America isn’t responsible for how Japan acts even though America conquered it. Etc, etc, etc.
Until Iraq achieves independence and becomes a soverign nation America is responsible for it and the Iraqi people. When that time comes then, because of the definition of *soverign*, the Iraqi people are responsible.
“so far” everything you’ve posted is largely drivel.
Our occupying forces appreciate the vote of confidence.
Our occupying forces appreciate the vote of confidence.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
The fact that neither one of us knows what Iraq will look like in ten years is no indictment of our actions today. You’re arguing that we shouldn’t operate to remove a malignancy because there’s a chance it’ll come back in ten years, anyway.
1 & 2. The jury is still out on what will happen, so you can’t consider this as proving your war justified.
3. It wasn’t sold as a “longterm threat”, it was sold as an immediate threat.
4 & 5. See 1 & 2.
It will be an indictment of our actions if it happens, because that was the known risk when we invaded. If nobody knows what Iraq will look like in 10 years, then don’t justify your war by saying it will create a stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq (because you don’t know that will happen). Don’t claim credit in advance for anything good you expect to happen.
When I said above that the jury was still out on if we’ve removed Saddam, I meant that someone just as bad could come along, not that Saddam personally might come back.
It will be an indictment of our actions if it happens, because that was the known risk when we invaded.
Not unless the result is even larger mass graves and rape rooms than what they had before, and I don’t see us letting that happen. We can only be blamed for making the situation worse if, in fact, it becomes worse. Saddam has set the bar for the next psycho dictator pretty high (or low, if you prefer).
Not really. Mass murdering thugs are unfortunately not rare, and civil wars have pretty high death rates. Considering that the bar is the Saddam of 2003, and not the one who was (literally) told he could get away w/ murder in the 80s because we needed him against Iran, I don’t think your confidence is entirely justified.
Scott, your whole argument seems to be “you can’t say you were right because you can’t see into the future.” That’s more of a technique for stopping debate than a rebuttal.
I just finished watching Channel 4 news here (in UK) and just realised how BIASED the coverage was : Iraq bombing, US soldier deserting the war on basis of “moral reasons”, War widows uniting with John Kerry to defeat Bush, you name it. It really painted a picture to a neutral observer that US Armed Forces in Iraq were in verge of collapse and George W Bush would be voted out of office as he could not muster more than a single vote!
Check out the “Have Your Say” feature today at BBC Online. The BBC is actually letting Iraqis have their say! And their say is — overwhelmingly pro-Coalition!!!!
I’m amazed that BBC is letting this one go on. Go over their now and have a look before they take it down!
Scott wrote:
You cannot claim justification on the grounds that things are better today and say you have no responsibility for what happens tomorrow.
All you are doing is applying a novel political version of the “precautionary principle” that has been widely applied by Luddites in other areas: Don’t do anything, because you can’t foresee all of the long-term consequences, and your actions might lead to something worse happening in the future.
This is a rationalization for inaction. We got by with such rationalizations between 1979-2001. In the world of human affairs, however, other people sometimes force us to act. We have recently been confronted by a situation in which it appeared likely that inaction on our part would leave us in mortal danger. Given the best information we had, which was imperfect and could never have been perfect, we made a reasonable decision to bring down the Iraqi regime.
The resulting war was a necessary evil to reduce the chances of a much greater evil. (The war also saved the lives of thousands of Iraqis, and freed millions from tyranny, but these weren’t our main reasons for embarking on it.) We probably made the best decision we could have made at the time. It might turn out to be not the best decision in hindsight — though it looks pretty good so far — but mortal men don’t have access to the God-like perspective that would be needed to make better decisions. Your line of argument, which seems to presume the benefits of hindsight, is unreasonable.
Or to put it another way: What if we hadn’t invaded and Saddam had hit us with WMD? There was no way to know for sure what his capabilities were before we invaded. It would have been irresponsible for Bush & Blair not to attack, given the severity of the apparent threat and the lack of perfect information.
I’m saying you can’t say you’re right if doing so requires you to see into the future (i.e. you can’t use a democratic Iraq as justification for your war until after it happens; your good intentions don’t qualify). What that means is that you can’t ignore the risk of everything going to Hell and limit the argument to “look, we painted another school, thus proving we were right to invade”.
What if we don’t storm London and the UK hits us w/ a WMD (which the UK has, and Iraq didn’t)? Bush and Blair needed better evidence of an immediate threat than they had for that to be a justification.
So far, y’all’s justifications have been:
1. A tyrant-free Iraq, which isn’t exactly a done deal.
2. The risk of WMD that weren’t there (and any country that can scrape together an airline ticket and someone with a BA in chemistry has “WMD potential” by the standards used to justify the war).
Nope, not “socialist think”.
Analogy time:
My parents beat me and abuse me.
“Joe Neighhbour” steps in because it was believed in good faith and decent evidence that my parent was planning bad things on the neighbours.
(after having warned multiple times to lay off.)
(You can quibble if you want about the preceding paragraph being a good analogy, I don’t care, “bad parent removed” is all I’m saying.)
Joe dusts me off, gives me some new clothes and 20$, a small job, an says good luck.
Option A.
I take advantage of good fortune, and make something of myself.
Option B.
I’m a stinker, buy a knife with the 20$, and take up a life of crime as soon as Joe walks off.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for “Joe” to take modest credit for giving me a chance.
I don’t think it’s silly, or disavowing of responsability, for him to wash his hands of me, in option B where DESPITE having been given a chance to choose right, I insist on choosing wrong.
In this case “what happens next” is being given the chance in good faith and making sure I was standing on my own feet, not taking responsibility for my actions post the chance.
If Joe had just walked away after having removed parent, that would have been irresponsible.
Analogy off
IF the Iraq descends into violent civil war post the US leaving, that is bad, and (possibly) worse that Saddam.
But at what point does it cease to the fault of the US? Six months, one year, two, five, 10?
I know this is rotten question, but it has serious point, eventually Iraq is the master of it’s own destiny as eventually a child is deemed an adult.
The jury is still out? You mean Saddam is making a comeback? He still threatening something?
Please. You have some good questions and points, but let’s not go overboard on the skepticism.
I clarified that above – I meant someone just as bad as Saddam winding up in charge.
That might be what happens. Can we be the parents of every Iraqi? If our govts can parent every Iraqi, can’t they then be our parents, too?
No, it is holding experimenters responsible if one of their experiments does go bad. Don’t stop all medical experiments, but if your experimental superbug gets loose and kills a thousand people, you’re responsible.
“I’m not “accepting moral responsibility” for what Saddam would have done for the same reason neither of us is accepting moral responsibility for what the North Korean govt does (because we’re not the world’s policeman)”
Yes we are. The United States is the only power capable of providing international order. And the reality is that if it is not the U.S. it will be someone else. Nature abhors a vacuum. International trade depends on the keeping of a degree of order. This has always been the case. Rome, Constantinople, and Britain and others have all played this role. Now it is America. And right now, in the face of global Islamic jihad, there is not serious alternative to Pax Americana.
There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral in the excersise of Imperial power.
“Bush and Blair needed better evidence of an immediate threat than they had for that to be a justification”
Not at all. For a start Iraq was a sponser of international terrorism. After 911 that was justification enough. But Iraq was just one step in a long term plan to remake the Middle East according to democratic/capitalist models. This task is essential if we are to drain the swamp and take out the terrorists, as well as take away the breeding ground of those states that sponser terrorism in the first place.
S. Weasel,
” You’re arguing that we shouldn’t operate to remove a malignancy because there’s a chance it’ll come back in ten years, anyway. ”
Very well said.
Saddam was a malignancy that needed removing. Some post operational therapy must be administered, and that was perfectly clear before operating. If the therapy fails and another malignancy grows in ten years time, it will need removing, too, but the intervention would depend on the circumstances at that time.
It is legitimate to claim that the costs of the Iraq operation, in lives and treasure, are high, and it is not yet certain that the benefits will be big enough to justify them (a relatively peaceful Iraq, and Middle East). But, so far, there is progress, and the benefits might materialize. Judging by the results so far – this intervention can by no means be proclaimed a failure. But the nay sayers don’t judge by results.
What if we don’t storm London and the UK hits us w/ a WMD (which the UK has, and Iraq didn’t)? Bush and Blair needed better evidence of an immediate threat than they had for that to be a justification.
We don’t storm London because there is no evidence of hostile intent on the part of the UK. There was plenty of evidence of hostile intent on the part of the Hussein regime.
No, it is holding experimenters responsible if one of their experiments does go bad. Don’t stop all medical experiments, but if your experimental superbug gets loose and kills a thousand people, you’re responsible.
That’s the wrong analogy. We didn’t manufacture or encourage the Iraqi tyrant-regime.
And you misunderstand the morality of the situation. If a criminal robs a bank, and in the course of a gun battle with police a bystander is accidentally killed by a police officer, the criminal is responsible — morally and probably legally — for the death. Similarly, if Hamas locates its headquarters in a crowded refugee camp, and bystanders are accidentally killed when the Israelis bomb the place, their deaths are on Hamas’s head. The moral status of the Iraqi regime, in relation to innocent people killed during and after our invasion, is exactly the same as that of the bank robber or Hamas.
War is always an awful business, but we have nothing to apologize for.
We spent the 80s doing just that, but my point is that there’s a difference between saying “nobody can do anything” and “you’re responsible for the results”.
If the police decide the best way to deal w/ a hostage situation is to go in blazing and the hostages die, we can and should hold the cops accountable for the result. Why not just set up death camps if anything goes?
Scott, I am reminded of an ancient parable. …
A man goes bear hunting in the forest. He sees a bear and shoots at it. This pisses off the bear, who grabs the hunter, puts him in a headlock, sodomizes him and dumps him in a ditch.
The hunter is bruised and humiliated but decides to come back the next weekend. He returns with a bigger gun, walks through the forest until he sees the bear, takes careful aim and lets him have it. His aim is perfect but all he does is make the bear mad. Before the hunter can get away it runs over, grabs him, puts him in a headlock, sodomizes him, mauls him viciously and dumps him in a ditch.
The hunter is pretty banged up but resolves to return no matter what. It takes him a few weeks to get over his injuries. Finally he is ready. This time he leaves nothing to chance and brings a harpoon gun. He spends the night planning the hunt, anticipating every detail, then sets out early the next morning and prepares an ambush. A short while later the bear walks right into the trap. The hunter aims the harpoon gun and fires. He hits, but amazingly the bear doesn’t stop. Instead it runs over, puts him in a headlock, sodomizes him, beats him mercilessly for half an hour and leaves him for dead in a ditch.
This time the hunter needs months in hospital and rehab. Eventually, though still hurting a bit, he starts to feel the hunting urge. As soon as he is able, he returns to the forest with sophisticated night-vision equipment and an anti-tank missile, sets up camp and waits for dark. A short while later he spots the bear and sneaks up on it. When he is so close that he cannot possibly miss, he raises the missile launcher, aims and carefully presses the trigger. There is a blinding flash and a huge explosion. Trees and rocks go flying. A smoldering hole remains where the bear once stood.
Then the smoke clears. The hunter gets a familiar uneasy feeling. Sure enough, the bear is standing right behind him, and as it puts him in a headlock says, “You don’t come here for the hunting, do you?”
Whip
Hope you’re still around: I enjoyed your sanguine post; good to read yet another grown up on Samiz. Your one post was an effective antidote to the 20 or so posts by Cattenach wanking on about moral relativity. His smug intellectualising, while thousands of brave young soldiers are out there, daily risking and often losing their lives in a determined, sustained and heroic attempt to contain the murderous lunacy of a bunch of fundamentalist religionists who are determinbed to plunge the world back into the middle ages or beyond, is peurile. Given the events of the last week or so, particularly today’s outrage, it is also obscene. Why does anyone enter into debate with this snotty nosed brat who thinks that he can deal with terrorism by moralising. Tell it to the Marines, Cattanach, preferably in Iraq – preferably when they’ve just returned from pulling a couple of their buddies from a burning vehicle. I’ll volunteer to witness the debate that would ensue. How anybody brought up within the Western Democratic set-up can deliberately enter into any sort of talk or written garbage that undermines the courageous efforts of the ‘coalition of the willing’ is beyond my comprehension. It is vomit making. Perhaps when his testicles drop he will grow up. But I doubt it. He must be a BBC apprentice.
Frank P, if all you have are physical threats (“say it to a Marine and he’ll beat the crap out of you”), then you have nothing.
Hi Frank. Thanks for the kind words. What I find most annoying about Scott “Broken Record” Cattenach is not his moralizing, but rather the unending repetition of his arguments. It’s like there’s a damn echo in here (now two threads deep).
Hopefully I can put a stop to it right here; Scott, I’ll personally take responsibility for the war if Iraq turns into more of a shit-hole than it was before. Call Interpol, the UN or whatever tranzi law enforcement agency is applicable and let them know about my offer of accountability. They can come arrest me for war crimes once a general consensus of Iraq’s shit-hole quotient is reached.
If I thought you meant it, Whip, I might care what about what you just said. As it is, I’m sure that if Iraq goes to Hell, you’ll find someone else to blame. Your tone doesn’t give me any confidence in you here.
It is a good thing you didn’t think I actually meant it, because I was obviously joking. Anyway, I already found someone else to blame; read my first post.
Whip, Saddam isn’t a catch-all excuse for our govts to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their actions. Why not let Rummy set up death camps, then, since everything we do is clearly Saddam’s fault?
If our govts screw up in responding to Saddam, we still get to hold them accountable. If you push a screwed up response to Saddam, we still get to hold you accountable. If your war makes Iraq less safe and/or less stable, you’ve pushed a screwed up response and are responsible for the results. “Saddam failed to obey our orders” doesn’t provide cover for you, it only shows your need for a vicarious testosterone rush when Shrub orders some third world dictator around. How can you say that every 2 bit dictator has some chemical weapons around and who cares, but Saddam’s failure to submit the proper paperwork about his non-existant WMD absolves Bush of any responsibility for what happens next?
One great benefit to removing Saddam, in addition to saving 25 million Iraqi people from miserable existance, is exposing the massive UN/Saddam oil-for-food kickback scam that had been going on for years and had made billions for some very questionable people.
Had the war never happened the massive kickback scam would have never been exposed.
I found the initial report, release over two months ago and just now being reported, quite interesting.
I’m not in the business of dodging responsibility. I always believed invading Iraq was the first, and one of the most important, steps in reforming the middle east. Middle east reform is the only chance we have of averting the emerging threat of nuclear terrorism.
In short, the US must reform Iraq–it has to stay there as long as it takes. Japan and Germany took a long, long time, and I’m afraid that people today don’t understand the long term nature of the Iraq committment.
“Why not let Rummy set up death camps, then, since everything we do is clearly Saddam’s fault?… it only shows your need for a vicarious testosterone rush when Shrub orders some third world dictator around”
You win, Scott. Once Rummy’s death camps are running full tilt, and I get down off my resulting testosterone high, I’m sure I’ll feel bad about the plight of the Iraqis. I’ll be quiet now and let you savor your victory. I’m done in this thread.
Whip
I warned you about entering into debate with a smug 6th form Asperger’s Syndrome case. I’ll be looking for your work elsewhere. Perhaps he’ll return to his Hegelian tracts, after Mummy has wiped his bum.
Scott Cannanach says those who backed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein should accept some of the consequences, both good and bad. Fine. I can do that Scott.
Scott, despite numerous requests, has not answered whether he thought Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power. I will take his silence as assent. If he disagrees than Scott should have the conjones to anwer in plain English.
It is a valid part of critiques of interventionism, both in foreign affairs and in domestic issues such as welfare, to say that the side-effects of such actions must be weighed up in making a decision. But it is also fair to point out that there are side effects in not acting. I may not be morally responsible for looking the other way, but my inaction could have consequences. This applies in daily individual life as well as pondering the actions of states.
Choosing to leave SH in power in Iraq, and choosing to adopt the kind of isolationist foreign policy favoured by the Lew Rockwell crowd were decisions that would have consequences. Consequences entirely forseeable given what we know about Saddam’s prior record.
Scott Cattanach: (&others)
Thanks for the well argued, well written, and well thought out arguments. Interesting.
Im looking for a new discussion forum as my regular one (sharereactor) just got shut down. Maybe this is it…