From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 12:05:53 MDT
On 5 Sep 2002 at 13:35, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/5/2002 11:58:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
> joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> 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.
>
> [Jake] The issue isn't military help, so much as it is unilateralism.
> The cost/benefit unfortunately can't remain blind to the salesman
> because we are talking not only about immediate military and weapons
> concerns, but as well about fostering an international atmosphere
> conducive to preventing more Sept 11th's. GWB has gone an awful long
> way toward ruining this with relentless unilateralism, not to mention
> the downright stupidly abrasive spontaneous rhetoric he is prone to.
> If Saddam were the ruling despot in Cuba rather than Iraq, I don't
> think unilateralism would cause any concern. If he had a track record
> of good international relations, he might even be able to get away
> with an exceptional case of unilateralism in Iraq. But this isn't the
> case, and any cost-benefit analysis HAS to take this into account. If
> we take unilateral action now, especially invading another sovereign
> country, I have little doubt that it would seal an atmosphere of
> already growing animus across the world toward US, moving many former
> allies into opposition, and creating the need for even more military
> interventions and loss of life, and providing many more opportunities
> for genocidal despots.
>
> Incidentally, if the problem were only Bush, we might be doing better,
> but most of the so-called "astute advisors" you refer to, while not as
> brain-damaged as Smirk, certainly exceed him in religious bigotry, as
> well as their irrational commitments to religious prophesy in the
> international arena. They are at least as much of the problem as he
> is. I think you run the risk of a real counter fallacy. Just because
> you happen to agree with the necessity of military action on Iraq, you
> suddenly have become irrationally apologetic about this
> administrations shortcomings. First you try to convince us with your
> deluded assertion that GWB has matured into a real leader with
> coalition building skills. Now you feel compelled to describe the most
> religious right administration as full of "astute advisors". You
> really have taken leave of your senses on these issues. Regardless of
> what road we end up taking, the Democrats failure to raise any
> serious criticism of this administration's general handling of foreign
> policy post 9/11, can only be counted as a further detriment to this
> same policy. You seem to be falling right into the party line on this
> count.
>
I do not see Powell, Rumsfeld or Rice as members of the religious right,
and see Cheney as a political realist on this issue. We may have to
deal with some future blowback, but in a cost-benefit analysis, it is far to
be preferrred to an Iraqi nuclear blow-up. We must deal with the
immediate danger of Saddam's continued leadership of Iraq, the
progressively successful pursuit of nukes which his dictatorship of that
country has made possible, and the dire threat which the successful
completion of such a program poses, before he in fact succeeds in
acquiring them, for we would certainly have to deal with him afterwards,
and at a horrifically greater cost for people on all sides. And Dubya
HAS been forced, kicking and screaming, into coalition- and nation-
building (at least vis-a-vis Afghanistan). Plus, Dubya will not only
outline his case to the UN, he has also pledged to seek approval from
Congress prior to any Iraqi action. My perceptions on this issue are just
fine.
>
> -Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:56 MDT