September 16, 2004

• Nice of him to make it clear at the time.
• What does it say about the US election? About 25% will see it and it will reinforce their belief that the US is on the wrong track, another 25% will see this and their knee-jerk reaction will be on the lines of "screw the UN", and the other 50% want to know what will happen on American Idol next week.
• "Nice of him to make it clear at the time." He did.
• say for the US elections Ah, nothin'? *broadly concurs with Coyote of Space*
• ...American Idol... What? Did he say something? No, kidding. Well put.
• I'd have to agree that this will not affect the voting behavior of the American electorate. I wonder if the American Idol set will get upset that they can't vote multiple times in the November election.
• But remember, Kofi also won't declare Darfur a genocide. While one doesn't preclude the others, it's somewhat telling that the UN has demonstrated an unwillingness to contribute to the resolution of the world's problems, while simultaneously embroiling itself in scandals that compromise its more noble purposes.
• While one doesn't preclude the others, it's somewhat telling that the US has demonstrated an unwillingness to contribute to the resolution of the world's problems, while simultaneously embroiling itself in scandals that compromise its more noble purposes.
• where the hell was he when the shit was gonna go down? Just "sorta" saying it doesn't really help (at any point)...If he had any intentions of using his powers to stop the war, they are a little too late now.
• What powers are these? What makes you think the US would let the UN dictate their military strategy? Didn't you hear Zell Miller's speech?
• But wait, the only reason we flouted the UN rules in the first place was to show Saddam that he couldn't flout the UN rules and get away with it--that no country could flout the UN rules and not face reprisals...right?
• As I remember, Annan said something painfully diplomatic before the U.S. invaded Iraq. His current statements are along the same track, just more overt. And f8x is quite right in pointing out Annan and the U.N.'s reluctance to call Darfur a genocide. Don't want to place yourself in a position where you are obliged to take action after all. It's a pity, as I feel the U.N. has and can help in such situations.
• it's somewhat telling that the US has demonstrated an unwillingness to contribute to the resolution of the world's problems, while simultaneously embroiling itself in scandals that compromise its more noble purposes. Bing-fucking-O. Or, even worse, a willingness to contribute to the world's problems.
• TenaciousPettle, you poor monkey. Don't you know that international laws and rules only apply when they benefit us? < /even more painfully obvious satire>
• relevant rhf joke to shawnj's link
• If the war in Iraq is illegal, then does that make the U.S. and/or it
• J3.14159265: We'll never known, since the US refuses to join the International Criminal Court. Which, I imagine, is the reasoning behind their refusal to recognize that court's authority.
• It's a pity, as I feel the U.N. has and can help in such situations. Maybe, if the 5 permanent SC nations actually did something other than impede everything.
• So... (he asks with trepidation) do any of our more conservative monkeys think the Iraq war is going well? I ask this in the interest of hearing another side of the issue, so let's not all jump all over anyone who answers my question. And please, let's not get nasty. I really do want to hear what a supporter of the adminiistration has to say. < / can of worms>
• I'll throw in with Nick. I've done a cursory survey of Volokh/Insta/Lileks/ASV/C&F/OxBlog/etc. and none of them seem to have a positive opinion of the war any more. Has Bush finally, for once, united everyone?
• I'm disappointed that the administration hasn't taken a more heavy-handed approach with the terrorists in Iraq. This soft-pedalling just nets more casualties and increased aggression against our forces.
• fx8: Your mission is to study the history of the United States, Ireland, and Israel, with particular refernce to how getting more heavy-handed with terrorists has improved things for, respectively, the British, the British, the British and the Israelis themselves. Or are you, like the US administration, congenitally incapable of planning actions based on the lessons of the past?
• fx8: Your mission is to study the history of the United States, Ireland, and Israel, with particular refernce to how getting more heavy-handed with terrorists has improved things for, respectively, the British, the British, the British and the Israelis themselves. Or are you, like the US administration, congenitally incapable of planning actions based on the lessons of the past?
• Hey, rodgerd, way to make the "doomed to repeat it" lesson concrete! snigger
• Shut up, rodgerd (on preview: you too, Nickdanger). I want to listen to what the war supporters have to say. Any monkey can see what is wrong with the war; we don't need more noise on that side of the aisle.
• Shut up... Er?
• Oh sorry, I was just hijacking this thread. Would that... be a problem?
• Shut up, rodgerd (on preview: you too, Nickdanger) Read, think, then post, fuyugare . No need to be rude.
• Right, back on topic, you lot, otherwise the lashings commence in five minutes.
• For the sake of argument I tried looking for reasons why this war could gain my support. So a big "baddie" has been ousted, So the iraqi people are finally "free", so...hmmmm, soooooo...soooooooooooooooo. Ok, so I came up real short, does anyone else have any others?
• Reasons the Iraq war is a good thing. by A. Elke (miss) 1. We might have possibly kinda made Qaddafi have a bad night of sleep. 2. We ended the corrupt oil/foods program. 3. ... Man, this is hard.
• Well, I suppose a case could be made that "rogue states" and others won't necessarily want to tangle with the U.S. since they've seen how it will go to war in the face of very strong opposition from its allies. Of course, those selfsame rogue states and others can also see the quagmire the U.S., so, hmmm. Well, Iraq is definitely....someplace else. Let me get back to you on specifics. *Retreats, happy at least to have made an oblique Farscape reference.
• I've done a cursory survey of Volokh/Insta/Lileks/ASV/C&F/OxBlog/etc. and none of them seem to have a positive opinion of the war any more. Those guys looked like such fools after the David Kay Report that they are blogging as little as possible about Iraq. I think even they realized (although Reynolds will still keep defending Bush) that the administration stovepiped the WMD intell through the Office of Special Plans. I think f8xy is the only person that still believes that WMDs will be found in Iraq.
• But remember, Kofi also won't declare Darfur a genocide. While one doesn't preclude the others, it's somewhat telling that the UN has demonstrated an unwillingness to contribute to the resolution of the world's problems, while simultaneously embroiling itself in scandals that compromise its more noble purposes. Yeah, they did a great job of stopping the war in Iraq. I love that conservatives are so angry at an organization that has zero power. It's like wanting to kick Don Knotts ass. What's the point.
• Might the reason for the reluctance to call Darfur a genocide (which Europe is hesitant to do as well) have more to do with the correct meaning of the word as opposed to a value judgement on the precise level of horror the massacres have obtained? I've certainly seen plenty of opinion stating that, simply, this is not a conflict based on race/religion/ethnicity. That, rather, it is an inter-tribal conflict about land, in which the opposing parties happen to generally fall into seperate ethnic groups. I'm not denying that it might be genocide; simply suggesting that the reason it has not been labelled as such has nothing to do with the severity of the conflict. Genocide, after all, is not a word that should be used lightly. There's precious little that's light about the Darfur crisis, but you take my point.
• flashboy, I take your point, but to me, that's the precise reason Darfur has NOT been taken seriously. Too much handwringing over the definition of the word, zero action on behalf of the people. And if the fact that the word "genocide" must be applied to a situation like Darfur for action to be taken indicates a deeper level of rot within the organization and nations which make it up. And I include the US on this. Sully, I'm realistic about the chances of finding WMD in Iraq, ie, I doubt we'll find them. Go ahead and gloat over some perceived victory there. The fact that it's your primary selling point against Iraq means all those "No blood for oil" and all the so-called concern for innocent civilians was a sham.
• rodg: Your mission is to study the history of the United States, Ireland, and Israel, with particular reference to how pacifism, sanctions, and negotiation with terrorists has improved things for, respectively, the Israelis, the Israelis, the Israelis and the British themselves. Or are you, like the terrorists themselves, congenitally incapable of conceiving that reason only works with reasonable people?
• Nickdanger: I believe that the war in Iraq, like Afghanistan, is enjoying success in some places, and failures in others. I believe the administration has, of late, pursued a policy of pacifism toward the 'insurgents' (I prefer terrorists, myself, but anyway...), which has resulted in increased casualties in both the armed forces and in civilian life. Also, inaction on the part of the military has resulted in great mobility for the enemy, who've used their knowledge of the towns, the terrain, and the people to navigate to places where it is more difficult to flush them out and kill them. However, the military has also been doing its best to avoid civilian casualties and demolition of buildings within the towns and cities for their part, and have done so with moderate success, at the sacrifice of increased accuracy and target success against small groups of fast-moving enemies. The military has also been hampered by low supplies, especially ammunition, a circumstance that might have been alleviated by better allocation of funds. All in all, I've seen some brilliant strategies that have fallen to shite because they've rested on the perceived honour of the enemy (see Sadr situation), which has been devastatingly and woefully compromised by the willingness of the enemy to engage in the worst kinds of war crimes, against which conventional fighting is only moderately helpful. In many places, however, there is no war, and the successes of those places cannot and should not be ignored. In particular, Kurdish governed regions are especially secure, locked down by an efficient and helpful police force and newly trained soldiers. Also, the casualty ratio for this conflict compared to others is still incredibly low. When you consider that Vietnam saw 400+ soldiers dying daily, plus countless civilians, Iraq looks a lot more palatable. To be sure, each death is a tragedy, and should be mourned and considered as a high cost. Yet we mustn't imagine that their sacrifice and their deaths were spent in a vain and heartless war. There is a lot of heart in Iraq, as my little brother can attest (he's just gotten back stateside, BTW), and I have a lot of hope for the future. So, overall, I think we've still got a long way to go, but Europe wasn't won in a year either, but we managed to pull out of that war with a modicum of success.
• Sully, I'm realistic about the chances of finding WMD in Iraq, ie, I doubt we'll find them. Go ahead and gloat over some perceived victory there. The fact that it's your primary selling point against Iraq means all those "No blood for oil" and all the so-called concern for innocent civilians was a sham. Seems like we got the blood and not very much oil.

• Or are you, like the terrorists themselves, congenitally incapable of conceiving that reason only works with reasonable people?

  Nice smear: look, he thinks! He's like the terrorists! I repeat: go learn something. Because the IRA aren't reasonable people, they're terrorists. And they're more impotent now than they ever were in the days of crackdowns.
• "If the war in Iraq is illegal, then does that make the U.S. and/or it
• "You need a wake-up, f8xmulder." Seconded.
• coppermac: Actually, many of them aren't even Iraqis. Thanks for adding something to the convo, Nostril. Your input, as always, is welcome.
• Seems like we got the blood and not very much oil. More proof that the "no blood for oil" types were at best misrepresenting reasons not to go to war.
• So, because the infrastructure, that would take up to five years to build and had large contracts given to firms to rebuild it, is constantly attacked and impeeded by a force that no one making policy had forseen, that makes the oil reason invalid? If by proof you mean retrofitting...
• Actually, many of them aren't even Iraqis. What?! Citations, please.
• I will amend my statement, as it appears that more recent intelligence suggests only a small portion of them are foreign nationals, which Allawi and other Iraqi officials believe are being financed by foreign powers. Mea culpa.
• "Interior Minister Falah Naqib made similar charges two days ago. Neither he nor Allawi backed up the allegations with details or identified the foreign countries or resources." Sounds like grandstanding to me.
• Thanks for giving your input, f8x.
• Thanks for being polite, Nick. It's hard to find that same courtesy among other monkeys. I truly appreciate it.
• More proof that the "no blood for oil" types were at best misrepresenting reasons not to go to war. No, that would be the neocons in the Bush administration. The people that recently stated that are Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

  "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

  More.

  Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued

• Rhetorical question: why is it some people feel speaking down to people (such as calling them "Kid") raises the potency of their arguments? Counterquestion: Is it your opinion that the United States should only have its hand in one pie at a time (ie, Afghanistan only)? Is it not possible to pursue multiple regime changes simultaneously?
• It is probably possible, but is not desirable. Concentrate on doing one thing and doing it well. Frankly, we can't seem to do one, much less two.
• "Actually, many of them aren't even Iraqis. I will amend my statement, as it appears that more recent intelligence suggests only a small portion of them are foreign nationals, which Allawi and other Iraqi officials believe are being financed by foreign powers." I hope you don't shift gears like that when you're driving. It could badly damage your engine. As for your providers of evidence: nothing that comes from Allawi and any other Iraqi official can be trusted, given that they are puppets. The Washington Post is not a news source, either.
• The Washington Post is not a news source Eh?
• Handy guide: Washington Post = Good Washington Times = Bad New York Post = Bad New York Times = Good I think you mixed up your reliable source chart, coppermac.
• shawnj: what makes the WaPo good but the WaTi bad, and vice versa for the NY papers?
• Wikipedia sums up the Washington Times and the New York Post pretty well. They're both bastions of Yellow Journalism