From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 10:56:58 MDT
On 5 Sep 2002 at 10:25, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> . . . when we have no other option.
>
> [Joe Dees] The only reason I can think for him to do so is that he can
> feel such an unreasoning and visceral hatred of Dubya from many on
> this list that he has to be hoping that the sheer emotional intensity
> of it will override rational and logical filters and hook this
> nonsense into a craving cortex or two. The Fundy Christian Right
> cannot have hated Clinton more - and we all saw what wild demon-spawn
> theories they were subsequently inspired to hatch. Don't be seduced by
> raw animus into being unreasoning doppelgangers of them, on opposite
> poles but both poles bereft of their senses.
>
> [Jake] Thanks for the reminder, Joe. My "animus" aside, it would be a
> still be a severe mistake for the US (even if someone other than Smirk
> were CiC) to act unilaterally on invading Iraq. We cannot, however,
> remain blind to the fact that his extreme arrogance and stupidity has
> severely damaged America's capacity to form a multilateral coalition.
> While we can cite all sorts of narrow interests, short term political
> snarls, and other things to blame foreign leaders for not getting on
> board, we cannot ignore the fact that other presidents have had no
> problem in the past forming multilateral coalitions to deal with
> threats no less obvious than the current one from Hussein. The only
> major difference I see here is the guy trying to sell it.
>
> I see from recent news that perhaps he can still succeed - Blair has
> apparently made some vague noises that he might eventually come on
> board barring some unexpected and unprecedented compliance by Hussein
> to weapons inspection. If he is able to finally pull it off (a
> coalition), I would probably reconsider my position on an Iraq
> invasion. I think, however, that Bush's failure to initially gain any
> international support for an Iraq invasion has given Hussein a certain
> amount of unwarranted optimism that he can hold out through more
> rounds of diplomatic gamesmanship. Had Bush not repeatedly
> demonstrated his childish incompetence for the world to see, he would
> probably already have a coalition ready to act soon.
>
> With this in mind, I agree with your little reminder. Just because we
> have to live with a brain- damaged incompetent as president, doesn't
> mean we should all likewise act and think as stupidly as he does. I
> agree that something needs to be done about Iraq, despite the fact
> that the president has already done damage to some of the options.
>
The cost-benefit analysis remains the same no matter who's in charge.
Dubya may be a dunce, but he's answering this classroom question
right (or his much more astute advisors are). We should follow the
logically correct course, even if we have personal problems with the
leader of the conga-line dancing us there. Britain, in my opinion, would
be enough; we wouldn't get much military help from any other members
of the EU even if they came on board, which I perceive some of them as
likely to do, once the promised evidence is presented. I do not expect
Germany or France to come on board, however, no matter how
convincing the evidence is; Germany because Schoeder is in a tight
race for re-election and is playing cynical politics with world security,
and France because their nuclear hands appear to be dirty vis-a-vis
Saddam.
>
> Love,
>
> -Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:56 MDT