TheAgitator.com
Kristof on Iraq
Wednesday, January 29th, 2003Now that I’ve praised Bush a bit, back to the war.
The dependably wrong Nicholas Kristof strikes pragmatic gold in yesterday’s NYT column on the pending war with Iraq. The central question for him — and one that rings oddly libertarian — is: “Will an invasion of Iraq make us safer?” The key excerpt:
The real answer is that we don’t know. But it’s quite plausible that an invasion will increase the danger to us, not lessen it. As a C.I.A. assessment said last October: “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks [in the U.S.]. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.” It added that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as “his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”Frankly, it seems a bad idea to sacrifice our troops’ lives â along with billions of dollars â in a way that may add to our vulnerability.
Sounds about right.
The problem with this logic is that the threat never goes away. What is to prevent something else from upsetting Saddam in the future, which will cause him to attack? Perhaps he’ll just get up on the wrong side of the dictator bed one morning and dispatch a few suicide-poxers to ride the Washington, D.C. metro end-to-end for a day or two thereby exposing thousands directly, and millions indirectly to small pox. Was that man sneezing next to you in the Foggy Bottom station this morning sick with a standard winter cold or something much more serious? We cannot afford to sit back and wait for that eventuality simply because Saddam doesn’t feel the urge to attack today or the fact that we might make him mad by preemtively but conclusively disarming him. Our armed services volunteered for this mission and understand the severity of the harm’s way to which they will be exposed. I am grateful to them for offering to do that in an effort to prevent an even greater catastrophe.
Heard a good one recently,
Firecracker anaology.
Dad tells son “no firecrackers allowed”
son has firecrackers, and proceeds to hide them all over the house, in the attic, under his bed etc..
Dad suspects son has firecrackers and has caught him with them and taken them away, yet son still has some.
Son continues to find more and more ingenious hiding places for firecrackers.
Neighbor boy plays with son and his firecrackers.
Neighbor boy looses hand to one of the firecrackers.
Dad is questioned by neighbor boy’s father: “why didn’t you stop you son from playing with firecrackers” Why didn’t you take them away?”
End of analogy.
Seems to me it is time we got sick of playing Chicken Little running around talking about how the sky is falling. If there is evidence that Sadam is going to attack us, show the world and then lets get him. If not, stop preying on people’s fears to justify attacking an obviously weaker nation. Between the 1950s-1980s we talked about the evil communist empire. People built bomb shelters in the back yards because of their fears. I don’t remember us ever launching an attack on the Soviet Union and their evil leaders. I wish a lot of our citizens would come out of their brain washed cloud and see what is really happening. There will always be evil in the world and I doubt we are going to solve that by attacking another nation without justification. The way to solve it is to show people what democracy is supposed to be all about. Working together to solve problems because every person has rights. Not being the bully on the block and forcing people to be like them.
I don’t get it, does the Dad kill the son? Or does the son use the firecrackers to kill or injure Dad before Dad gets the chance?
Or do we blame the neighbor boy for playing with the firecrackers in the first place? Appearently son knew how to properly play with firecrackers since he did not get hurt.
Dad attempts to discipline child for blowing off neighbors arm. But dad is told by mom and her friends that he must show proof that son was, in fact, responsible for the accident. Mom decides dad must not act unilaterally and calls for a 2 week inspection of house for further firecrackers.
Meanwhile, son combines firecracker power and places it near dads head while he sleeps.
This post is in response to JAB’s comments.
I perceive that you hold the United States to a higher standard concerning proof of Iraq’s weapons programs relative to that of Iraq demonstrating they are in compliance with the U.N. resolutions. I note an implicit trust of their disclosures and a lack thereof of ours. I voted for Harry Browne in the last election and therefore have no particular allegiance to President Bush, however, regardless of the numerous alleged motivations attributed to his stance on Iraq (oil, finish his father’s business, etc.) I am inclined to be swayed by his assertions rather than the disputable claims of a despot who has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for the requests of the world community to disarm.
With respect to your comments regarding the Soviet Union, I don’t know how old you are nor the historical documents you have studied. I submit that we were in much greater danger in the 1960’s and 1970’s than current perceptions might suggest and indeed were much closer to war at several junctures than popular belief may accept. The differences I see between that situation and current events are:
(1) We continuously negotiated with the Soviets and obtained agreements with them, which if not perfectly they sufficiently honored. That is, we pretty much knew where we stood with them.
(2) After Stalin they showed slow but steady improvement in their regard for human life such that mutual assured destruction was a sustainable option to share with them,
(3) The first two points allowed enough time for the fallacy of their political premise to lead to their demise.
In kind, backed by the support of the world community we have negotiated with Iraq for a decade yet they show no perceptible interest taking our peaceful attempts to eliminate their threat seriously. Likewise there is absolutely no evidence Saddam and his henchman have any true interest in the Iraqi people nor the sanctity of human life. In fact they count on our concern for their people in the event of an armed conflict. They are simply a shield to slow their loss of power in war. Indeed, even if they do launch a biological attack on us and one hundred million of us are lost, we will survive while we will certainly annihilate all of them. He certainly knows that but doesn’t seem to care and I say it’s because he only cares about his own power. Finally, without the foundation of the first two points, waiting him out is not an option. Even if he didn’t end up attacking us directly, appeasement would be reminiscent of Britain’s Chamberlain in the 1930’s. He wasn’t just a weak liberal, he was willing to sacrifice eastern Europe if Hitler would agree to look that way rather than west. In this case there is no reason to believe Saddam is building weapons for self-defense. If we wait we may end up watching him dominate that whole region.
You imply that I am a “Chicken Little” that fears a sky that isn’t really falling. To reflect your bird analogy, I perceive that you are an ostrich with your head in the sand wishing for this problem to go away. If I’m wrong, we will at worst be liberating an oppressed people whether in hindsight it was our business to do so or not. If you are wrong, the world will be a decisively more dangerous and unstable place as we will be forced to deal with him on his terms rather than our own.
JAB,
We talked crap about the communists since 1917. As a minor footnote we did invade Russia and had US troops on Russian soil for something like a year and a half.
Eric,
Thanks for your history lesson but it falls short of making a strong case to attack Iraq as our president does. As I said if there is evidence that Sadam is going to attack us lets get him. Otherwise from what I see Iraq is pretty much a broken, poor country that hasn’t bothered anyone in over ten years.
Pretty funny about the sanctity of human life thing. If that is what this is all about there are a lot of places in the world and at home that we could concentrate our efforts at in this regard with a lot less risk to our citizens.
As far as the ostrich thing goes if that were the case I wouldn’t be discussing what I think is right and wrong.
You can fantasize that everything our leaders say and do is going to solve the problems of the world but as many past examples prove, many times it makes it worse. Supporting Bin Laden when the Russians invaded Afghanistan then leaving him and the Taliban to setup shop after the Russians left. Giving chemical weapons to Sadam when he was going to use them against the Iranians seemed perfectly fine at the time to many of our current leaders. Sending 15 million to the Taliban in the summer prior to 9/11 because of their so called support in the drug war. Now we provide aid to dictator who seized control of a democratic country and has threatened to attack his neighbor with nuclear weapons. We give another nation millions because they are our friends in the war on terror and they turn around and give the money to North Korea for Skud missiles.
When will the stupidity end. Not while there are so many of us willing live in a fog of propaganda our leaders spew. Our leaders prey on people’s fears about 9/11 instead of coming up with evidence to prove why we should risk our citizen’s lifes. Kind of pathetic to me.
JAB,
It’s clear to me we will not agree on this subject, but as you suggest, it helps to talk. Sure there are lots of places in the world that have human rights problems but most don’t aggressively threaten us. Regarding fantasizing about our leaders solving the world’s problems, I don’t look at past failures as a reason to pull up the draw-bridge and look inward. We are the freedom of last resort. Iraq is a poor, broken country because Saddam has chosen to alienate it from the world by pursuing his weapons programs and a cynical path of deceit. To me it is particularly important to destroy him because of his potential (if not completely substantiated actual) complicity in terrorism. I’ll bet the case will be made, although I get the feeling the only thing that will convince you is an actual attack, after which it will be too late. Yes, I admit it, 9/11 had an affect on me. Perhaps as you say I’m stupid or in a fog of propaganda, yet I think it’s weird that so many people see us as the villain, especially when our general motives and standards have produced more freedom in the world than has existed at any time in history. I just don’t hate us.
Eric,
I doubt JAB hates America.
Please don’t refer to the military as volunteering to go fight in Iraq. People volunteer for the military for a variety of reasons, patriotism, money for school, defend our national security, etc but to preemptively invade Iraq probably isn’t one of those reasons. Most people who sign up for military service don’t expect to actually fight. Frankly, they are going to Iraq because the civilian leadership has ordered them to go and they will fight because the civilian leadership will order them to fight… I’d guess that the majority of people don’t understand the harm that our military is facing otherwise they wouldn’t be as eager to send them.
Next, with respect to the USSR and Iraq, the situation was much more unstable (if MAD isn’t unstable than I don’t know what is) there than it is here. We have all sorts of intelligence gathering tactics that keep us very informed as to where we stand in relation to Iraq. Next, you say that after Stalin, things got better but you aren’t even giving Iraq a chance to improve their lot. Who is to say that after Saddam, things won’t also get better for the Iraqi people??? Possibly much faster than what happened in the Soviet Union… Finally, are you unwilling to give Iraq enough time to see the fallacy of their political premise like you are willing to do with the Soviets?? Iraq is no USSR and Saddam is no Hitler or Stalin. If left to his own devices, we will see him removed from our world landscape sooner than you think. If you don’t think that the US has the ability to control Saddam without going to war, then what makes you so sure that this war will be over quickly?
Paul,
People indeed join the military for a variety of reasons however the bottom line they all weigh is its primary function, fighting. Certainly it is a dramatic minority that join hoping to fight in a war, but it’s no secret to them all that it could very well happen so your excuse that they generally don’t “expect” to go war does not diminish their commitment nor impact any necessity to send them. Anyway, I argue that they are very motivated no matter how daunting war is.
I am not taking this as lightly as you insinuate when you say “people don’t understand the harm that our military is facing otherwise they wouldn’t be as eager to send them.” I don’t see how you can possibly get into the “majority’s” heads as to claim they don’t appreciate the seriousness of this action. You definitely got me wrong. My heart is extremely heavy over this matter, hence my desire to discuss it. I’m far from “eager” to see people die on either side. It’s just that in my analysis this is the best way to address the big picture we are facing. It’s a question of examining one horror with respect to another and choosing the best path. You don’t see inaction as exposing ourselves to what I think is a greater horror. That’s your prerogative and I respect it. But I fully appreciate the magnitude of the President’s policy and think it is the right choice.
As for giving Iraq time I have to ask you, “Where have you been for the last dozen years?” The Iraqis are worse off than ever. You ask, “Who is to say that after Saddam, things won’t also get better for the Iraqi people???” That is a corollary of the premise of expediting his departure. Get him out and free the Iraqi people from his torture chambers. Many people, including yourself it seems, believe he’s just going to fade away along with his vials of small pox and his nuclear weapons program. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is even a remote possibility. To the contrary, his actions indicate he only understands one thing, violence. I think listening to us talk amuses him. Talking to him has failed.
I explained the differences I see between the Soviets and Iraq in a previous post. Nothing you wrote compels me to elaborate.
Hi, I just wanted so say thank you guys ! I really like your site and i hope you’ll continue to improving it.
http://platnium-body-jewelry.skidman.com
http://fake-tongue-ring.skidman.com
http://nose-jewelry-india.skidman.com
shemale picture brazilian cute shemale anal
big trannies best There is nothing like free shemale porn site free.
xxx trannies hard free live shemale only
hardcore shemale picture top He likes free asian shemale picture cute more than shemale free porn .com xxx or transsexual comic only.
sucking trannies cute trannies pantie good
free transsexual cute shemale transsexual nice
free shemale hardcore pic free Nice shemale photo cool.
shemale sex video free shemale big cock gallery best is better than shemale xxx nude.
shemale sex ass nude Fice free shemale hardcore pic good pictures.
shemale free porn .com nice He likes free black trannies nude more than shemale tranny picture gallery free or transsexual tgp top.
free black trannies good thai shemale picture cool
xenical online Xen-770009122-345566
viagra online ViaT8898111-01-01-22