The Inspections Flap
- February 10, 2003
- 2 comments
Garret at dangerousmeta! points to an article in AlterNet about how the anti-war crowd should be approaching the debate. Read the article first. Below is my response to the article.
“irrefutable by the warriors”, eh? i think not. if you use the authors logic only, then of course you can’t argue against his position. why would someone come up with a position on an issue that they know can be easily torn down? but when a different perspective and set of values are placed on the same issue, a whole different picture is painted. let me explain…
second paragraph: “The inspections, with many dozens of experts scouring the country, are like a weapons freeze - so if war is not pursued, it is in our interests that the inspections go on indefinitely."… this is completely bogus and not based on reality or history. even with thousands of inspectors in the country, development could continue on biological and chemical weaponry, especially chemical. even with sanctions and no fly-zones, Iraq has been able to import illegal materials in order to further its weapons programs. so how in the world is this a “freeze”? sounds like wishful thinking to me. and let’s completely ignore the horrible oppression of the Iraqi people under Saddam’s iron fist. His rational is: Damn the Iraqi people, as long as we feel like we’re keeping Saddam from making any more WMDs and avoiding war and losses on *our* side.
third paragraph: “fabricating evidence” and “wafer-thin exhibits"… so i guess a large number of countries who support the war are all being duped by the magical talents of America’s Photoshop gurus, huh? so Saddam really *isn’t* trying to hide his WMDs? he’s actually been trying to cooperate this whole time, but the big, bad, war-happy US is not allowing him to? we’re lying about how bad he is and what he’s been doing the last 12 years? give me a break. no one believes this, except the author in his dream world. also, “Needing international support, he went through the United Nations process"… like i said, that’s one way of interpreting the situation. another way to look at it is Bush wanting to keep the UN a relevent organization. giving it another chance to demonstrate it’s resolve. we already *have* international support. we just don’t have *security council (i.e. French, German, Russian)* support. major difference. all opponents of this war ignore all the other countries supporting the war and only focus on the big 3. Why is that? because they know their argument falls flat on its ass if you take into account all the other countries already on board.
fourth paragraph: “national security"… again, this guy is living in a dream world if he thinks Saddam has no wish to inflict harm on the US. *of course* saddam poses no *direct* threat to the US. he’s thousands of miles away and has no *conventional* methods of delivering either weapons or troops in an attack against the US. but who has *ever* posed that kind of a threat? the soviets, *maybe* japan and germany in ww2. 1, maybe 2 or 3 in the last century. his argument is inward-looking. we should *never* go to war unless we are directly threatened. that is seriously flawed. if we ignore the rise of tyrants throughout the world and let them walk roughshod over the rest of the world, then we *most certainly* will be hated by the rest of the world. plus, no one is stupid enough to attack the US directly until they are certain of the outcome. that’s why the only other superpower at the time (USSR) never attacked us. there was no certainty of victory. saddam knows a direct threat from him is like a chihuahua attacking an elephant. but, indirect threats are another matter. let’s get this straight… saddam hates the us. he hates anything we do. we are his biggest obstacle in his vision of becoming the muslim savior figure he thinks he will eventually be. he will do anything to get us out of there so he can do whatever he wants there. if he controls that region, he controls the *world*. of course oil is involved because the world wouldn’t run without oil. all people who think we shouldn’t protect our interests in that region are near-sighted and ignorant.
fifth paragraph: “containment"… again, inspectors can *not* contain Iraq. that takes an army, and a very large one at that.
sixth paragraph: “Iraq has become the diversion par excellence from the sputtering war against terrorism"… everything in this paragraph up until this last sentence was pretty much correct. yes, the us wants to be an influence in that region. the world runs on oil. that region controls the vast majority of the world’s supply. let’s put 2 and 2 together, shall we? whoever controls that region controls the world. if we walk away from that region, we’re basically just dropping our pants and bending over for the controller of that region. we *must* have a presence and influence in that region while we depend on oil. this isn’t the only reason to be there either. with a significant us presence there, it would be harder for islamic fanatics to breed there. with us intelligence there, it would be harder for terrorist organizations to go unchecked and become large like al-Qaeda. so explain to me again how this is a bad move in the war on terrorism?
seventh paragraph: the author now begins to fully expose his views. now that he has laid the logical groundwork for you, he simply builds the story on top of it. it only works if you agree with his logic. the bush administration *hasn’t* flouted international law. it’s upholding it with the enforcing of 1441. it’s france, germany and russia who are waffling on the law. if he’s referring to the kyoto treaty and other such barely-veiled attempts at crippling the us economy, then he’s got no argument at all. i’d like to see his evidence that we are bullying and bribing other countries into this war. how is france and belgium’s position of not protecting turkey not bullying? how is not supporting a war before the evidence is even presented (germany) not bullying? all countries act in national and political interests. even those who support the war against saddam. they’re not being bribed. they’re acting out of their own interest. good grief. “It is recklessly admonishing the U.N. Security Council by insisting that it embrace American belligerency or self-destruct via irrelevance.” wow, so melodramatic! the author has either not read 1441 or is ignoring it. by the very wording of 1441, the un security council *must* act on material breaches. it has been demonstrated that iraq has made breaches by not only the bush adminstration , but also by blix and al baradei, who just happen to represent the un! so the un is ignoring what its own inspectors are saying as well as what the us is saying as well as what history is saying. sounds like they risk being irrelevent to me!
eighth paragraph: “We are going to war for American economic and political interests, not national security, and we are doing so by cutting a swath of political damage that might never be repaired."… we are going to war out of national interests, which include economic, political and security reasons. if smacking the corrupt political arena upside the head is “cutting a swath of political damage”, then we should continue doing so. if breaking the balls of spineless nations that allow horrible dictators to oppress and kill people is “political damage” then we should continue doing so.
No problem, Garret. Whatever brings home the bacon is more important than slinging opinions back and forth (although it is enjoyable and interesting).
You seem to know what will get my attention in your linking. There are a lot of links I ignore either because I don’t have the time or desire to respond, but every now and then one just sticks out as needing a good smackdown.
I’ll find that whitehouse.gov link. Thanks for the heads-up on it.
sorry, man … been incredibly busy. everything’s hitting this week.
i sort of sandbagged you with this link; i knew the concept of ‘irrefutable’ would be sure to raise your hackles … but i didn’t mean for you to do a point-by-point rebuttal. my apologies to your productivity!
i think the u.n. security council nations owe us all an explanaton on why they think iraq doesn’t require armed force to get it to comply with all those lovely u.n. resolutions. put the shoes on the other feet, for once.
there’s a lot here that i’d like to comment on … but i just don’t have the time at the moment.
i did a quick google last night, and came across a whitehouse.gov page that covers every single u.n. resolution that saddam has ignored or broken. you can look for it, or i’ll dig around as i have time and send it over to you. it’s instructive, and i plan to put it on my weblog when i have the chance.