You know, even if most of those who are against the US going to war in Iraq are not doing so merely out of anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican Party spite, that certainly is not the impression other people are getting. To all those who keep lifting the bar for what they'll accept as proof that war is an acceptable solution to Hussein's recalcitrance, I have these counter questions:
Andrea, this has become a religious debate akin to that satirized by Swift. And just as the Big-Enders and Little-Enders steadfastly refused to listen to one another, the same is true of the anti-war and pro-war factions. It's completely impossible for the anti-war people to detail what would constitute a necessary casus belli, because whatever it is, it would be completely alien to the pro-war faction's moral epistemology, and vice-versa.
(This argument of mine presupposes that anti-war people really are anti-war on principle, not out of a sense of political gamesmanship. Partisanship in foreign policy? Never!)
Posted by: Matthew at February 6, 2003 at 03:14 AMAh, but the wild card in the "are inspections working?" deck is that what it means for them to be "working" is entirely a matter of opinion -- and that opinion changes greatly as one moves from Right to Left, or from pro-invasion to anti-invasion.
One might conjecture that, as long as the inspections provide a means of forestalling an American invasion, the anti-war types will say they're "working." It's nice to be able to define the conditions of success for oneself, isn't it?
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at February 6, 2003 at 07:42 AMThe French are a vile and odoriferous people. Their corrupt, lazy, and arrogant nature are a blasphemy to the notion of civilisation. They are the scum of the Earth. They're lower than a snake's belly.
Relevance? Little or none. Just venting.
Posted by: Dean Bartkiw at February 6, 2003 at 09:26 AMDean,
Twasn't ever thus. Once upon a time, France was a relatively reasonable place full of some fairly bright minds and even with quite a few qualities that elevated it above other nations.
And then everyone with an ounce of talent or decency either got the hell out or lost their head, literally.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at February 6, 2003 at 10:48 AMThose people are about to drive me over the edge! I made the mistake of responding to a couple of comments at By Sand and Sea. Someone had repeated the tired old "unilateralist" mantra so I posted a list of about 20 countries who have offerred their support, and you know, they actually managed to dismiss that. We still have a unilateral attitude so that amounts to the same thing as acting unilaterally. I guess waiting all these months, asking for UN support, waiting for inspectors to go back in, trying to make a case to the UN... I guess all that is more evidence of U.S. "unilateralism." SHEESH! I hate Lefty religion!
Posted by: Lynn at February 6, 2003 at 11:27 AMLynn, the multilateralist pundits (multipundits?) don't just dismiss the support of the Group of Eight, they call them nations we can "buy on Ebay." I guess the implication there is that France is above whoring herself. Titter. Snicker. Giggle.
Posted by: Matthew at February 6, 2003 at 02:02 PMAndrea, just FYI: I lifted your questions (with due credit, of course!) and posted them in the comments section over at Misha's in response to a pacifistic moron.
Just so you know. And they're brilliant.
Posted by: Demosthenes at February 6, 2003 at 09:49 PMOkay here goes:
a) I can't. I also can't present you with any evidence that leaving Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any other middle eastern despotic regime alone will not lead to more terrorist deaths. In fact, I think there will be more.
b) The proof is in the fact that the USA isn't at war in Iraq yet. The proof is in the fact that Iraq has been contained since the early 1990s.
c) I don't think you have to confont Hussein as much as rekindle the debate about what it's all really about. It isn't the OK corral, and I'd be thrilled to see al-qaeda's collective heads on a stick. Okay several sticks.
PS Your comments section is real hard to read for those of us of a Certain Age with bifocals!
Posted by: Jane at February 6, 2003 at 10:44 PMWell, I don't think those are sufficient reasons to not go to war in Iraq. As for debate -- I'm not really sure what you have in mind beyond what has been done for the past dozen years. Where I come from we never really stopped talking about Iraq; sure, sometimes the subject would be superceded by other, seemingly more urgent subjects. Maybe my appetite for discussion, debate, verbal wrangling, soul-searching, and all the rest of the Dance of Avoiding Really Dealing With Anything is not as robust as yours. Personally, I've had enough of talking. But I'm not in charge. If I were, Iraq would be called "East Israel." And Saudi Arabia would be known as The Place I Keep My Bitchez.
I'm working on the site look. Stay tuned; the comments bother my weak eyes too.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 6, 2003 at 11:18 PMApologies, Andrea - I didn't actually link to it, because I'm technologically inept, but I did type out your complete blog address. Sorry...
I really should learn how to use HTML...
Posted by: Demosthenes at February 7, 2003 at 09:50 AM