<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, February 01, 2003

Irony 101:

The only reason inspections are happening is because the U.S. beat the war drum. I do not recall that the United Nations was dealing with Iraq after the inspectors were kicked out a few years back. I do not recall that Germany or France were proposing solutions then or now, other than countering whatever the U.S. wants to do. Ahh politics, so the U.S. brings the world closer to a solution to the Iraqi issue, France and Germany hang on to a tid bit of that solution, and look like the reasonable ones. Irony.

So Europe is somehow not against us, well not all of them. Apparently some leaders have sacrificed heavy political capital to support the U.S. So much for unilateralism.

They are:
U.K., Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, and Czech Republic and Denmark, Hungary.

I am sure some may say that Tony Blair is Bush’s lapdog, but this is just a thoughtless remark. If you go beyond the first thought cycle you will see that Tony Blair has balls. According to some sources, opinion polls against U.S. policy are above 60% in the U.K. I venture to guess that this is the same case in Spain and probably similar to the situation in other countries. The stand they took is a brave one, you may not agree with it but it is brave. For those that are cynical of this move, I wonder why the same cynicism does not apply to the Inspection process of Iraq.

Andrew Sullivan points to the "Left Perversity" in his Blog, you will have to scroll down a bit. Something very rude about Robert Scheer, from the Nation stating that the countries that are supporting us can be "bought on ebay". If this is so I have dibs on U.K. and Spain.

A sad day for the world, in the middle of the effort to expand scientific discovery, 7 brave astronauts have died. Space exploration must continue for the sake of the advancement of the human race. This is not only a loss for the U.S.A., but for the whole world.


Friday, January 31, 2003

It is raining today.
Reasons (or not) for a war...
Saddam Hussein’s government maintains stability.

Since Saddam Hussein leads a brutal dictatorship there is little chance of instability in Iraq, unless as has previously happened it is caused by Saddam Hussein himself. As far as instability in the region is concerned, last time the region was not stable was when Kuwait was invaded and Saudi Arabia threatened.

The stability within Iraq is paid by the average Iraqi who does not enjoy a free press, representation in government, or freedom from due process, in other words lives under the heel of an uncaring dictator. Part of the price of stability is also that the average Iraqi who speaks out against Saddam Hussein is tortured as is his or her family. If the world is to continue to have the Iraqi people bear the burden of “stability” then perhaps there should be an exchange program where citizens of democratic nations live with the fear and impotence that an Iraqi does.

Saddam Hussein is not shy about his brutality; when he first rose to power he televised a purge of the Iraqi legislative body. He called names of different individuals who were lead out and were executed—also televised. There is little doubt that he is a brutal person with very little concern for the citizens he brutalizes.

A war with Iraq will cause the death of innocent civilians.

This is a very well intended moral appeal that expresses concern for the lives of Iraqis. Unfortunately this moral appeal leaves room for the same Iraqis to continue to live miserably under Saddam Hussein. Currently there do not exist proposals to ease the plight of the Iraqi people, it may even be doubtful that they themselves can imagine living with the freedoms we enjoy. This does not mean that they do not deserve, like every other person on this world, to live in a free society, participate in their government, have freedom of speech, and other freedoms. The moral appeal that calls for the preservation of life has little validity if it does not call for basic human rights.

We do not have the right to intervene in a sovereign country.

This is the strongest argument to refute since it calls for each sovereign nation to deal with its own problems. Each sovereign nation has rights and one of those rights is not to have outsiders intervene in its affairs. To follow this way of thinking would go against what the U.N. has imposed on Iraq—sanctions and the call for inspections. If we do not have the right to intervene in the affairs of a foreign country, then neither should the United Nations. With this line of thought we should not pursue, however ineffectively, to disarm Iraq of weapons that are possessed by other countries.


What are other options?

An Iraq with nuclear weapons, with a nuclear North Korea as an example of a country that can achieve this, would seek to expand. Evidence of this can be found in Iraq attacking Iran after negotiations were not fruitful, then using chemical weapons against Iranian troops to force an end to the war Iraq began. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq when Iraq did not want to repay the Kuwaiti government loans it had outstanding.

An alternative is for the U.S. to strike a deal with Iraq that would detail non-aggression. Iraq would then “expand” to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the primary wealthy countries of the region. An Iraqi regime would even be beneficial to women in Saudi Arabia, who cannot drive, must wear garb, cannot be without male chaperones, and are generally treated as cattle. In the currently secular Iraq men and women enjoy the same rights and perils.

An Iraqi controlled Saudi Arabia would give us one point man to deal with and lessen the danger of radicalized Islam, since Saddam Hussein has had little patience with this phenomenon in his own country.

Why not let sanctions and inspections work?

Before our cowboy President began beating the war drums, there were no inspections in Iraq; UN inspectors had been thrown out of Iraq. Only because of the tough stance that the U.S. took did Iraq allow inspectors, no other reason exists. If inspections are to continue the U.S. will have to continue a tough stance, not to mention that no other country on Earth was dealing with the issue of Iraq before the U.S. did last year.

Inspections do not have a good of record of functioning well against countries that are intent on breaking them. North Korea is a bankrupt country under sanctions and inspections previously receiving U.S. aid not to develop nuclear weapons. They managed to develop two nuclear warheads and are capable of producing more. Iraq is in a much better financial position than North Korea and did in fact have a nuclear program. To think that Iraq will not pursue nuclear capabilities and expand its chemical and biological capabilities is to ignore the history of Iraq. The best way for Saddam Hussein to stay in power, which he must, is to have the most effective military weapon on earth.




Let me guess how this turns out: The Bush Admin. will provide evidence at the U.N. that would be accepted by a reasonable court of law regarding the lies Saddam's Regime has been creating in regards to inspections. Saddam's Regime will call it a lie, they themselves liars, oppressors and murderers, and the Anti-War crowd will believe Saddam over Bush. You can criticize Bush for many things, but you can never compare his deeds to Saddam's. I often hear conspiracy theories of how the Bush Administration operates, yet the logic that appends lies and back door intrigue to the Bush Administration does not touch Saddam. How did we get to this place?

In case you were wondering what Weapons of Mass Destruction really are you should go here.

For a great definitions you should head over to Transterrestrial Musings, here is a piece:

"making war on the innocent Iraqi people":

Removing a malign tyrant who, along with his vile offspring, has been torturing, starving and murdering the Iraqi people for decades, often for no reason other than his own perverse pleasure, and thus thereby finally giving them peace. To fully satisfy the definition, he must be removed while we spend vast amounts of money on precision munitions to minimize collateral casualties to the Iraqi people, even to the extent of risking higher casualties to our own forces to do so.

Clarity, indeed, clarity.
As if you needed more reasons to call the United Nations a ship of fools, they do this: Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference.

You cannot just make this stuff up, which is too bad since it would have made a good puch line on Leno.
One thing I am sure most newbee bloggers do not consider is how the hell they will get traffic. I am sure there is some joy, although limited, to having only relatives and friends look at your blog. The joy must be when strangers look at it. Since I am not rich and famous my choices are looking grim.

Thursday, January 30, 2003

Ok so I have just upgraded and have contracted the services of the best local web developer...she also works for hugs and kisses.
Perhaps I am doing this Blog because I am sure my friends are tired of me broadcasting my opinion in long emails, which they rarely agree with but are polite enough never to comment much on.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?