Now don't you feel sheepish?

Remove all ads!

So is the opposition.

 

A coalition or a minority? It is pretty evident that the coalition of the willing is minority, so the majority forms another coalition, the axis of those who are unwilling (or opposing rather) , in beeing against the same thing: War without UN - and US unilateralism.

Acting unilateral is kinda hairy in international affairs: It's hard to rely and trust on someone who signs and ratifies a treaty only to ignore it at need. And it kinda bites the principle of countries beeing equal and dogmatic stuff like that. Even his self-perceived moral superiority can't overcome this simple truth.

 

Hm, yes. IMO, that's just the reason, why those who opposed the war in the USA never should feel sheepish. Because they stood up to the majority and expressed their point of view.

And on the other hand, it never has been a big issue, that the US would defeat the Iraqi-army. The issue is, is it right and will it have consequences which are not to at all to the benefit of the american people.

(Ofcourse, this could be turned in the favour of the coalition of the willing)

The world at all and the US are a lot more unsafer, because Empires, as good old Bismarck pointed out so well, are founded and paid for with "blood and steel". And the "Gretchen Frage" is, will Bush stand to his vow, that the Iraqi in the end will be freed from Saddam and the US and will the US-Troops be withdrawn in the next 6 months or not and how they will behave.

 

Something I thought wa interesting

For European states, the first half of the 20th century was a time of unprecedented savagery. In European minds, the culprit was nationalism -- or, more precisely, the unilateral pursuit of national interest. Multilateralism is the Europeans' response to their history. The United States, however, has a very different history and a very different set of fears. It has no historical reason to fear its own nationalism, but it does have reason to fear inaction. The U.S. need to deal with Islamic radicalism collides with the European fear that the shattering of multilateralism will release the demons of nationalism once again.

 

LLandon,




Sorry. just sitting here being awed by your statement. Extremely insightful, yet stated in elegant simplicity.

 

Llandon, you hit the nail on the head.

(Llandon, you should post that again in a thread concerning US-outside-world differences)

But there's one big issue. Europeans don't think of the USA as "free from sin". They now see that yet another country begins to behave like Germany behaved from the 1890's on. As the new emperor fired Bismarck.

History repeats itself. The UN was established with the strong support of one the wisest presidents the US ever had. FDR. Now, the US thinks that the system of security, that was shaped by themselves and from which they profited as much as the rest of the world, is not longer necessary.

This somehow reminds me of Wilhem II. The work of Bismarck, alliances between the empires which secured Germany and Europe, seemed to him not important. He broke the bond between Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom.

And Europeans know very well, that terrorism is something that comes with Empires. They're used to terrorism and found means to fight it.

India developped anti-british terrorism. First, the British tried to fight it with cruel brutality. Now, their free from indian terrorism and India is free from the British.

To fight Terrorism, you have to end the conflict that nourishes terrorism.

[ April 11, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I see we've gone full circle. Now it is all justified because it is a war on terroism after all and the US was defending itself from an aggressor (that'll be those 20 or so 1955 vintage tanks again).

So I guess it is just like the Falklands war, no difference at all really. Although the Uk was a bit slow in getting their pre-emptive action in during that one.

Concerning the WMD (these being those based on WW1 technology that have a range of a few miles, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, as opposed to those that can fly all the way around the world kill millions in one go and then polute the environment for 1000s of years afterwards that most Western 'civilised' countries have) I fully expect some to be found as soon as public opinion starts to waver (we had a hint of it in the first week when the advance slowed down - 'oh don't worry, we've just found a factory, it must have been making WMD'). Although as Ragusa pointed out, the main reason we haven't found any is that they have all been moved to Iran, Syria, North Korea, the moon, etc, etc

Sorry, sarcasm overdose.

Just back to the terroism and the efforts to get aggrement. I refer you again to the speech by Robin Cook. There was the possibly the largest coalition the world has ever seen after 9/11 yet the US and British leaders have squanderd that support. I leave you to wonder how.

As another interesting PS, the word coalition is a French word derived from Latin. So all of you who still think that you can only be a bad ally by not supporting the US & UK approach (rather than say, being a bad ally for not supporting your French and German allies' position) you had better make up a new word for coalition.

And finally to those that think that by being anti-war, we are weeping for Sadam

 

As much as I would like to be able to take credit for that...alas I cannot. Those words were not mine, they were someone elses. I just thought that it was in interesting perspective.

 

Just amazing ... people still think this war was wrong, and we're getting more and more info about how bad life really was in Iraq.

The latest from the NY Times (via the Drudge Report)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

The opposition to the war was not based on the premise that life in Iraq was a bed of roses. It was based on a whole bunch of different premises, one of which - that it will create a backlash that will lead to *more* terrorism and anti-Americanism - has unfortunately not yet been disproven. Only time will tell how the millions of Arabs and Muslims outside Iraq react to the fall of Saddam Hussein: by claiming he was a martyr, and encouraging future generations of terrorists to avenge the coalition's "wrongs" against the Arab world, or by resolving to not repeat his mistakes in the future and being grateful to America and Britain for their roles in destroying an obviously evil regime. We all hope for the latter, but most war opponents still fear the former. Nothing to be sheepish about - yet.

Here's a very funny parody that seems to capture the frustration of protestors at having their point of view constantly misrepresented by the hawks. Warning: contains very rude language.

Thin Ice

 

Sprite,

So was Bill Clinton doing a better job with the 15 or so times he fired a few cruise missiles into the desert to try to eliminate the problem? I don't know about you, but I would call that terrorism myself. It certainly does not show a face of strength to the terrorists, and that is the only thing that these people seem to respect/fear (honestly I don't know which). I don't believe that the UN was ever going to accomplish anything either, I mean 12 years is just too long.

It is a funny thing though, during the entire time that Clinton was negotiating with Arafat and Sharon (drawing a blank as to who was leading the Israelis at that time), the Palestinian terrorism was always increasing, all the way up to the point when negotiations broke down because Arafat couldn't accept a deal for less than 100% of his demands without ending up with a bullet in his head from his own people, and even beyond that. Then Bush comes along, takes the gloves off the Israelis, and the terrorist attacks have diminished to a small trickle.

I am not saying that I think that the right thing to do is to go in and brutally crush the Palestinians, far from it; I am actually more sympathetic to their cause than I have ever been before, but it is something that I have noticed.

 

Dearest Sprite

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can now just post that link whenever some moron starts using any of the 'logic' of being anti-war = being pro Sadam, or anti-US or anti-brave boys, or anti-whatever. I was really beginning to think that I must have been transported to planet Idiocy without realising it.

Sadly though, I see even our dear old cleric (who I still respect immensly) is convinced that we will become pro-war because things were bad in Iraq before. More worringly, there is a post soon after your own that states the equivelent of - 'what's wrong with your Sprite, they tried a "plastic kitchen stepladder" last week.'

So maybe it is time to spell it out in the simplest terms I can:

Being anti-war does not automatically equate to any of the following:
- being anti-US
- having no sympathy for 9/11
- thinking that Sadam is a good guy
- being a coward
- being a whiny liberal
- thinking terroism is good
- trying to cover up a murky past
- having no alternative solutions
- not believing in WMD
- not being happy for a better Iraq
- not hoping that our troops are safe
- not wanting the people of Iraq to be free

However, being anti-war might equate to the following:
- not wanting innocent men, women and children to be killed
- not wanting brave soldiers to be killed
- not wanting the tense situation in the middle-east to be blown out of all control
- not wanting Muslins all around the world to be frightened, intemidated and complelled to rebel against Christian religious fanaticism
- not wanting fanatics to be given even more anti-western ammunition
- not wanting to see the world's super power doing whatever it likes, including invading another country, regardles of world opinion
- not supporting a vigilante mentality
- not believing the John Wayne mentality is a sound basis for international politics
- not wanting to be treated as an idiot or manipulated by shameful propoganda (I see no oil)
- not wanting any 'democratic' leader to take a country to war when there is no clear immediate threat (supported with public proof not vague 'trust me' comments) without a referendum
- not accepting war except as the very final resort, after all peaceful means have been pursued fully
- wanting governments to spend as much money on aid, support and education of 'suspect' regimes as they do on bombing the crap out of them
- not wanting WW3 to start

There are many others I suspect, these are just some of my own.

 

Artist: Rolling Stones
Song: Highwire

The part of the whole propaganda issue I love the most is:

First, it is:

1. It's not about OIL. No, it's about liberation, democracy and security. It's just impertinent to suggest that it is about OIL.

Than it changes to:

2. Now, that we have got the OIL, it's just impertinent of other countries to expect they will get any of the OIL. Only those who sent troops and lost Blood (for OIL) shall have the OIL.

3. Don't worry about the war-costs. Iraqis are rich, the can pay us in crude.

The whole thing is not over yet. And the big issue still is, Arabs have a brain too. And a clear sense of nationality and a concept of "mine is not yours".

IMO, when someone get's near a hornets-nest, he should move carefully and try not to stir up the hornets.

[ April 12, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

well said Slappy, you certainly clear out things in your post

 

Strange that now America is touting that line, laying now the blame on Syria and Iran when those WMDs can't be found in Iraq. Do we see a pattern here--occupy first, ask questions later? Far from being sheepish, I think pro-war supporters should be feeling that since it's becoming an embarrassment for America that the WMDs can't be found, and are demanding them from another country!

 

Hmmmm... well I think all the antiwar-people should apologize (apologize for our "so digusted" anti-war views) to the people of Iraq.

Let me start

I´m sorry that I wanted a peaceful solution to the problems in the middle-east.
I´m sorry that I rather had 12 years of diplomatic pressure than economical pressure.
I´m sorry that I thought that the lifes of you and your children, family and friends were a price too great to pay for the removal of Saddam.
I´m sorry that I didn´t want to unstabilize the situation in the middle-east.
I´m sorry that I thought that all nations should stand on one line, instead of whining like a bunch of little children.
I´m sorry that I didn´t believe in the "facts" given by the United States to the United Nations about WMD´s and terrorism

*sniff*
Hope you can forgive me

[ April 15, 2003, 14:04: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

*applause*

(...)

[ April 15, 2003, 13:52: Message edited by: Arabwel ]

 

apologize for what?

I feel sorry for the thousands of years of death and destruction followed by the chaos of war, thus I do not want war. End of line.

"Conviction is a luxury of those on the sideline."

 

Slappy is right as to what anti-war does and does not mean, but I doubt it covers each and every anti-war person. I think I can safely state that there are a lot of silly people with silly reasons for opposing (well, had opposed) the war.