 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Why the Left is wrong on SaddamWith or without a second UN resolution, I support action against Iraq
David Aaronovitch
Sunday February 2, 2003
The Observer
If you were to draw a map of the world based on the writings and speeches of the most fervent anti-war figures in Britain and America, two names would be found at the far edges of the known world, if at all: Bosnia and Rwanda. In the mid-1990s, events in these places convinced me that Noam Chomsky's definition of the sovereignty of nations as 'the right of political entities to be free from outside interference' had become a millstone around the neck of the world.
Bosnia and Rwanda made the case for action, because inaction was far worse and its consequences were morally intolerable. In the former, the West (rarely acting in concert) took the course of diplomacy backed up by the incredible threat of mild force. The Yugoslavian situation was deemed to be too complicated and too dangerous to resolve by firm action. Didn't they all just enjoy killing each other?
There were sanctions, international mediations, peace brokers shuttled hither and yon arranging ceasefires that were broken, usually by the Bosnian Serbs. The United Nations Security Council declared six safe areas for Bosnian Muslims to be protected by lightly equipped UN troops. One of these was Srebrenica.
On 11 July 1995, almost in slow motion, we watched the Serbs enter the safe haven, disarm the Dutch protectors and separate the men and boys from women and small children. And as I saw General Ratko Mladic pacifying a crying Muslim woman, I think I knew, as he certainly did, what was going to happen to her husband or son.
A year earlier, on another continent, we had again looked on while one of the peoples of a sovereign nation, Rwanda, slaughtered another in their hundreds of thousands. Once more, a small UN force was brushed aside in the early stages. Intervention was never seriously considered.
If leaders must take responsibility for these terrible failures, then so must those who always urge inaction. Over Bosnia, Kosovo and over Afghanistan, voices on both the Left and Right have been consistently raised to object to the use of force. Where these voices have belonged to pacifists, they have my respect, but most often they have belonged to the purely selfish, the pathologically timid, or to those who somehow believed that however bad things were in Country X, the Americans were always worse.
In last week's edition of the New Statesman, one of the latter, John Pilger, takes this newspaper to task for allowing that it might be right to depose the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, by force. Even suggesting such a thing, he said, was a betrayal of the great traditions of the newspaper. Pilger, of course, has a way of turning disagreements with him into betrayals of the entire human race. But for many of us, this has become the most difficult and painful judgment to make. It is the kind of issue that divides families and friends.
Nothing about Iraq is hard for Pilger. He was opposed to using force to get Iraq out of Kuwait, opposed to the containment of Saddam through the enforcement of the no-fly zones, dismissive of the threats to the Kurdish people of the North. Many in his camp were in a favour of sanctions when the alternative was force, and were against sanctions when the alternative was nothing.
It isn't like that here. In the offices of this newspaper, as you turn left out of the lift, just by the pigeonholes, is a photograph of a dead Observer journalist, Farzad Bazoft, who was hanged by Saddam Hussein in 1990. Bazoft's photo always has flowers beneath it, placed there by his family and friends. As the journalist Robert Fisk subsequently commented, it was characteristic of Saddam that the first Bazoft knew about his imminent execution was when a British diplomat turned up at his prison to say goodbye. Saddam joked that Mrs Thatcher had asked for Bazoft to be returned and now he was being returned 'in a box'.
Saddam Hussein, who both the West and the Soviet bloc shamefully lionised during the Cold War and tacitly supported as a counterweight to fundamentalist Iran, never was just another tyrant. Not only is his regime exceptionally brutal internally (and I mean exceptionally) and aggressive externally, but it is not a matter of contention that he made chemical and biological weapons, that he used some of them, and that he would have, if left alone, produced nuclear weapons. He should have been deposed by force in 1991 when, instead, the Iraqi opposition forces were effectively betrayed by the coalition.
I don't believe that Saddam is a major backer of al-Qaeda (though he gives support to other groups) and I think it quite likely that he has had no effective nuclear programme for years. He would if he could, but he can't. But I want him out, for the sake of the region (and therefore, eventually, for our sakes), but most particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people who cannot lift this yoke on their own. If they could, that would be best; if he would agree to go into exile, that would be just dandy. The argument that Saddam's removal will of necessity lead to 'chaos' or the democratic election of an unsuitable Islamist government is worthy of Henry Kissinger at his most cynical. It is pretty disgusting when heard in the mouths of 'left-wingers'.
The Iraqi people, however, can't shift their tyrant on their own. Again, it would be preferable if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force, spearheaded by the Rowan Williams British Brigade. That's not on offer. It has to be the Yanks.
I do not believe that George Bush is the manic oil-chimp of caricature. His administration really does have a view that it is necessary to remove Saddam pour d?courager les autres. It will, they have convinced themselves, show resolve, deter state terrorism, discourage proliferation and permit the building of a rare non-tyranny in the Arab world. There is something to be said for all this.
What some in the White House cannot see (and what I think Tony Blair can) is why establishing some set of rules for intervention is so important. If intervention seems arbitrary and depends upon the strategic whims of particular administrations, then many are bound to interpret it merely as an expression of short-term American interests. It won't be a new world order, but simply a Pax Americana. This is a perception that would be bound to cause massive resentment and - in time - lead to real resistance. So UN resolutions matter. Like American military power, they're all we have.
If, in a few weeks time, the Security Council agrees to wage war against Saddam, I shall support it. If there is no resolution but the invasion goes ahead, I will not oppose it, though most of the people I like best will. I can't demonstrate against the liberation, however risky, of the Iraqi people.
As ever, though, war will have been the easy bit. Peace requires far more effort. There are some encouraging signs here. President Bush's announcement in the State of the Union speech (an announcement completely overlooked here) of an extra $10 billion on combating Aids around the world is simultaneously welcome, insufficient and tardy. But, above all, welcome. America did not cause the Aids epidemic, but as the world's richest nation it has a duty and an opportunity (with our help) to address it.
And if international activism is in vogue, and requires support, then it must deal with the greatest source of instability in the Middle East, if not in the world - Israel and Palestine. Here again, two peoples are held captive, not by tyrants, but by men of blood and their own weaknesses. It is surely time to consider the international imposition of a settlement which would provide statehood and some justice for the Palestinians and some security for Israel.
That is another article but not, as they say, another story.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Synopsis please. I'm streaming LIVE IRON CHEF QUOTES, STATS, AND RESULTS to the Poly Chatroom and dont have time to read this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
This is what MS word came up with:
If you were to draw a map of the world based on the writings and speeches of the most fervent anti-war figures in Britain and America, two names would be found at the far edges of the known world, if at all: Bosnia and Rwanda. There were sanctions, international mediations, peace brokers shuttled hither and yon arranging ceasefires that were broken, usually by the Bosnian Serbs. The United Nations Security Council declared six safe areas for Bosnian Muslims to be protected by lightly equipped UN troops. Once more, a small UN force was brushed aside in the early stages. Intervention was never seriously considered. In last week's edition of the New Statesman, one of the latter, John Pilger, takes this newspaper to task for allowing that it might be right to depose the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, by force. Saddam joked that Mrs Thatcher had asked for Bazoft to be returned and now he was being returned 'in a box'. Saddam Hussein, who both the West and the Soviet bloc shamefully lionised during the Cold War and tacitly supported as a counterweight to fundamentalist Iran, never was just another tyrant. The Iraqi people, however, can't shift their tyrant on their own. Again, it would be preferable if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force, spearheaded by the Rowan Williams British Brigade. So UN resolutions matter. If, in a few weeks time, the Security Council agrees to wage war against Saddam, I shall support it. I can't demonstrate against the liberation, however risky, of the Iraqi people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
any article that starts out why "X political view is wrong" shouldnt be taken as very credible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
I personally stopped reading after this:
quote:
The Yugoslavian situation was deemed to be too complicated and too dangerous to resolve by firm action. Didn't they all just enjoy killing each other? |
(italics mine)
500.000 will be liberated in Iraq from their.. lives.
I hate to be in the generation that will witness this holocaust (and be unable to stop it).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
This is what MS word came up with:
If you were to draw a map of the world based on the writings and speeches of the most fervent anti-war figures in Britain and America, two names would be found at the far edges of the known world, if at all: Bosnia and Rwanda. There were sanctions, international mediations, peace brokers shuttled hither and yon arranging ceasefires that were broken, usually by the Bosnian Serbs. The United Nations Security Council declared six safe areas for Bosnian Muslims to be protected by lightly equipped UN troops. Once more, a small UN force was brushed aside in the early stages. Intervention was never seriously considered. In last week's edition of the New Statesman, one of the latter, John Pilger, takes this newspaper to task for allowing that it might be right to depose the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, by force. Saddam joked that Mrs Thatcher had asked for Bazoft to be returned and now he was being returned 'in a box'. Saddam Hussein, who both the West and the Soviet bloc shamefully lionised during the Cold War and tacitly supported as a counterweight to fundamentalist Iran, never was just another tyrant. The Iraqi people, however, can't shift their tyrant on their own. Again, it would be preferable if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force, spearheaded by the Rowan Williams British Brigade. So UN resolutions matter. If, in a few weeks time, the Security Council agrees to wage war against Saddam, I shall support it. I can't demonstrate against the liberation, however risky, of the Iraqi people. |
MS Word does synopsises?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Felch,
defence industries
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Iraq has nothing to do with WW2, nomatter how some people try to present it.
500.000 people will die for oil. Not anti-terror, not freedom, just oil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
100.000 from gun fire
400.000 from deseases associated with the war.
Official survey.
Surprised you haven't heard of it.
Also killing 50.000 (as you say out of the blue) to "save" the rest?
What kind of saving are we talking about?
Democracy prosperity and free will of the Iraqi people vis a vis the US after the deaths and the instalation of a pupet regime in Bagdat?
I think not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Strange how he doesn't mention Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is allegedly allowing several hundred thousand of his citizens to starve to death. Presumably wars in the ME are news and sell papers whilst people quietly starving in africa aren't and don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
"They" can say whatever they want. Official independent surveys also place the deaths of children in the 500.000 range due to lack of medication and other basic needs.
Now another 500.000 civilians will die in order to lift these sanctions? That's not liberation (conveniently thought up after 11 Spet. whereas the status quo in Iraq was in place for decades), that's massacre.
And for oil. Not for the well fare of the Iraqis. Also allow me to question wether the aftermath will be so much better.
Even in Yugoslavia, the bomings did not uster Milosevic.
The people themsleves ousted him after months of the bombings, on their own and the country took its course.
Why this bloodlust on Iraq whereas other parts of the word are either far more threatening and dangerous and/or far more in the pitts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
Paiktiss - drop the 's', "decade" not "decades"
Also, if the US really wanted oil, why don't we just say Kuwait is funding terrorists, or Iran is, or the Saudis are? If all we wanted was oil, why haven't we opened up ANWAR yet?
No decision is made with only one factor a consideration, there always mitigating factors.
Personally, you'd do a lot better if you'd claim that this war was about installing a pro-US regime. Even then, I think it's more about real-politik than anything else. If it's in our best interest to have countries support us, why not take measures, so that the country supports us.
Your figure of 500,000 is probably off-base for the simple reason that you include diseases. How can every disease related death be the fault of a war? Is a death by disease directly related to the war? Did troops infect people with diseases? Speaking of odd ways of gathering statistics - ever wonder why they cite children specifically? If 500,000people die it's a bad thing, but 500,000 children! Why, we have to take measures to stop this tragedy!  It's another political ploy for sympathy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MacTBone
Your figure of 500,000 is probably off-base for the simple reason that you include diseases. How can every disease related death be the fault of a war? Is a death by disease directly related to the war? Did troops infect people with diseases? Speaking of odd ways of gathering statistics - ever wonder why they cite children specifically? If 500,000people die it's a bad thing, but 500,000 children! Why, we have to take measures to stop this tragedy! It's another political ploy for sympathy. |
The assumption, based on the 1991 Iraq air campaign, and the 1999 Yugoslav campaign, seems to be that we will take out electrical generation, with major negative consequences for hospitals, water supply, etc.
What this ignores is that in this case we are attempting to occupy and rebuild Iraq. We are likely going to do everything possible to avoid damage to critical civilian infrastructure, including power plants. To damage them would be harmful to our long term strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DuncanK
Think so? I thought just the opposite. I don't know why people would stop spending just because the war, unless there was inflation. |
Because they're nervous about the effect it will have on the economy. In the post-modern world, wars cause economies to contract. You're taking hundreds of thousands of producers and consumers out of the US, oil prices rise, etc.
This Obersver article is crap, but Gibsie makes what seems to be an excellent point. If we assume that the sanctionsare causing the level of death in Iraq that we've been given, 1 million, approximately 100,000 a year. Then killing 50,000 in an invasion would be a mercy.
Of course, that's like saying it would be better for a parent to kill their kid outright instead of beating him for ten years. We're the ones doing the starving, so we could stop the deaths simply by switching to smart sanctions.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2003 07:38
And I'm sure everything he knows about Kosovo and Bosnia he learned from watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN... 
|