Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical (hermionesviolin) wrote,
Elizabeth Scripturient (the delinquent, ecumenical
hermionesviolin

  • Mood:

Iraq, war, feminism



For some reason i feel like linking to these articles:


Of course you knew there’d be quoting:


Iraq destroyed six more missiles today and the United Nations team in Baghdad issued mild praise for its sudden interest in disarmament, however fragmentary. But the Bush administration declared that Mr. Hussein was, by his action, admitting that he lied in a declaration to the United Nations in December.

"Here's the Catch-22 that Saddam Hussein has put himself in," Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today. "He denied he had these weapons, and then he destroys things he says he never had. If he lies about never having them, how can you trust him when he says he has destroyed them?"

-from "U.S. Aides Dismiss Moves by Baghdad but Feel Pressure" by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker
I really like that quote.


Reminding his listeners that there was a long deadlock before the passage of the last resolution in November, which threatened Mr. Hussein with "serious consequences" if he failed to disarm immediately and unconditionally, Mr. Straw [the British foreign minister] said, "This is harder."

The reason, he said, is that "what we're inviting people to do is to come to the conclusions that they voted for on the 8th of November, and those are difficult for people."

-from "President Readies U.S. for Prospect of Imminent War" By David E. Sanger with Felicity Barringer
I also really like the reminder (which i’ve seen in a number of articles) that they voted unanimously back in November on Resolution 1441, which i seem to understand as calling for Saddam’s immediate and total disarmament.


Of course, one school of thought holds it doesn't much matter that the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya. If the Canadians don't like us, we can always exercise the military option and push our border up to 54-40.

...

Of course, the U.S. may have a solid plan, as Jay Leno said: "President Bush may be the smartest military president in history. First he gets Iraq to destroy all of their own weapons. Then he declares war."

As one savvy official observed, occupying Baghdad comes at an "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." Another expert put it this way: "We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

Those comments may overemphasize the risks, but they are from top-notch analysts whose judgments I respect. The first comment was made by Colin Powell in a Foreign Affairs essay in 1992; the second is in "A World Transformed," a 1998 book by the first President Bush.

-from "Losses, Before Bullets Fly" by Nicholas D. Kristof
Oh the irony of mentioning Libya, since as i previously mentioned, it is head of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Smack to Jay Leno, because the reason we’re going to war is because Iraq hasn’t gotten rid of all its weapons, smartass. And given that a lot of people have been arguing for democratizing Iraq and then the rest of the area i thought it worth putting in a different view.


Mr. Straw's amendment was described by one admiring Council diplomat as having "intricate wording" that tries to turn the current war-versus-peace debate into a debate over Iraq's failure to comply with Council demands, most recently in its resolution 1441, which passed unanimously in November.

-from "U.N. Split Widens as Allies Dismiss Deadline on Iraq" by Felicity Barringer
Why can’t the debate be about Resolution 1441? Since all the peace people are arguing that it’s a problem that we’re not acting with UN backing, shouldn’t it be about the UN resolution? Isn’t it dangerous to turn it into a more abstract “war-versus-peace” debate?


In Iraq, the government destroyed 6 of the short-range Samoud missiles after a one-day hiatus, bringing the total destroyed under United Nations supervision in the last week to 40 — approximately one-third of Iraq's known stock of the missiles.

-from "Iraq Issues U.N. Demands and Destroys More Missiles" by Neil MacFarquhar with Patrick E. Tyler
Somehow i am not encouraged by the pace of weapons destruction.



Steven Den Beste has a really good post explaining why we should go to war on Iraq.

Following that, someone has a great essay on the analogies between the war on Iraq and past wars.


I continue to find myself shocked by people who assert that we should just continue weapons inspections, continuing to make Saddam disarm, backed by the threat of force; that regime change is not something we should push for.
By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve. Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N. operation. Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger, tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the troops home.

Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy.

from "Saying No to War" (editorial)


Josh Chafetz fisks Jimmy Carter’s editorial in the NYTimes.

I love this piece reacting against the Lysistrata Project. And i need to reiterate that this whole “women are naturally more pacifistic” (and omigod there are SO many things wrong with this article) crock makes me wanna vom and defenestrate large objects. Speaking of which.... One quality bit:
Too busy celebrating their own virtue and contemplating their own victimhood, gender feminists cannot address the suffering of their Muslim sisters realistically, as light years worse than their own petulant grievances. They are too intent on hating war to ask if unleashing its horrors might be worth it to overturn a brutal tyranny that, among its manifold inhumanities, treats women like animals. After all, hating war and machismo is evidence of the moral superiority that comes with being born female.


One commenter on the Asparagirl post points out:
What people fail to understand is that we have been at war with Iraq since 1990. His government signed a cease-fire, not a peace accord, incumbent on Iraq disarming in a verifiable manner, compensating Kuwait for war damages, and a host of other things that have never been done. Our planes fly war patrols over half of the country, and are occasionally attacked. We've been at war while both the UN and our government dithered about, trying to muster the will to enforce the cease-fire documents and the now seventeen UN resolutions that say the same thing over and over: adhere to your cease-fire agreement or else.

Now, what else? How long are we supposed to stay at war? We need to get this over with, because as long as our military is pinned down on this front, we are handicapped fighting terrorism elsewhere. It's time for the US, Britain, Australia, and over a dozen other European nations that support action to declare themselves fed up with twelve years of stalling and put an end to this war, for our own sake and the sake of the people in the region. If we don't, every tinpot dictator is going to know that the UN and the international community will never muster the will to enforce its own treaties -- and then we're right back to Munich in 1938. Which country would like to volunteer to be Czechoslovakia this time around?


I know stooping to insults is no good, but since everyone thinks Bush is fair game, i really do like this bit against the French.

The latest No really, it’s not the Onion. But beneath the surface it’s really not humorous Eugene Volokh explains.

Eugene Volokh succinctly deals with the criticism that we are going after Iraq but not North Korea.

Okay, e-mailing Lisa Armstrong about the UN and then going to bed. Is it bad that i haven’t done any homework today when i have done all this other research and thought on religion/spirituality (i started reading Proverbs of Ashes) and pro-wrestling and war and so on?
Tags: issues: iraq war
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment