On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:19:20PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Well, first of all, Americans aren't the only one Bush was trying to persuade with his deceptive tactics. He had to convince other governments and their people as well.
Are you saying that Americans could have been convinced by a humanitarian argument but other countries could not? Otherwise I don't see what point you are making.
No, I'm saying that Americans were not the only ones that would not have been convinced to go to war by the humanitarian argument, not because Iraq was in need of humanitarian aid but because if we were going to make an effort to help people it would be more logical to help the people with the greatest need rather than the people with the (pulls number out of hat) 17th greatest need.
I don't dispute that at all, even the long term security though that's rather speculative at this point. But the fact that they are better off doesn't prove that that's why we initiated this conflict.
Secondly, this conflict was never about the well being of the Iraqi people however much we try to point it that way after the fact.
Baloney. The Iraqis are much better off now than they were under Saddam, even with the chaotic situation in Baghdad. And as long we keep working on building a fair government, building and rebuilding their infrastructure, and maintaining order, they will be even better still. Whatever reason was in mind of the people responsible for toppling Saddam, the result is good for Iraq. And long-term, it will be good for much of the Middle East.
There are too many other places, especially in the Africa, that are suffering far more than the Iraqi people were and to whom we pay little or no attention to for us to justify the war on those grounds.
The fact that 9 is bigger than 2 doesn't change the fact that 5 is bigger than 1. But that is what you are arguing. Maybe more people could have been helped per dollar spent elsewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that a big improvement was made for a lot of people in Iraq. Bush may have deceived us about the evidence. If you think so, don't vote for him next year. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that toppling Saddam is a big improvement for Iraqis, and strategically, for the Middle East and even the US. To argue now that that we would have gotten more bang for our buck in Africa seems like a waste of time -- what do you hope to accomplish?
We're obviously not on the same page here. I don't disagree that toppling Sadam is a great improvement. All I was trying to say was that the methods to convince Americans and the world to go to war were devious and that these methods should not be ignored in the public forum as the author of the article that you posted suggested they should.
Unless you meant that we should now occupy some countries in Africa? I don't see how we can handle Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, and, did you have others in mind? Sierra Leone? Maybe if we had A LOT of help from other countries, but Bush doesn't seem capable of getting that sort of help. Are you saying that you would throw your support behind a democratic candidate who makes a promise to use American troops and the help of the UN and foreign allies to set up stable democracies in Africa?
No.
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
