In a message dated 9/5/2002 11:58:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
The cost-benefit analysis remains the same no matter who's in charge. Dubya
may be a dunce, but he's answering this classroom question right (or his much
more astute advisors are). We should follow the logically correct course,
even if we have personal problems with the leader of the conga-line dancing
us there. Britain, in my opinion, would be enough; we wouldn't get much
military help from any other members of the EU even if they came on board,
which I perceive some of them as likely to do, once the promised evidence is
presented.
[Jake] The issue isn't military help, so much as it is unilateralism. The
cost/benefit unfortunately can't remain blind to the salesman because we are
talking not only about immediate military and weapons concerns, but as well
about fostering an international atmosphere conducive to preventing more Sept
11th's. GWB has gone an awful long way toward ruining this with relentless
unilateralism, not to mention the downright stupidly abrasive spontaneous
rhetoric he is prone to. If Saddam were the ruling despot in Cuba rather than
Iraq, I don't think unilateralism would cause any concern. If he had a track
record of good international relations, he might even be able to get away
with an exceptional case of unilateralism in Iraq. But this isn't the case,
and any cost-benefit analysis HAS to take this into account. If we take
unilateral action now, especially invading another sovereign country, I have
little doubt that it would seal an atmosphere of already growing animus
across the world toward US, moving many former allies into opposition, and
creating the need for even more military interventions and loss of life, and
providing many more opportunities for genocidal despots.
Incidentally, if the problem were only Bush, we might be doing better, but
most of the so-called "astute advisors" you refer to, while not as
brain-damaged as Smirk, certainly exceed him in religious bigotry, as well as
their irrational commitments to religious prophesy in the international
arena. They are at least as much of the problem as he is. I think you run
the risk of a real counter fallacy. Just because you happen to agree with
the necessity of military action on Iraq, you suddenly have become
irrationally apologetic about this administrations shortcomings. First you
try to convince us with your deluded assertion that GWB has matured into a
real leader with coalition building skills. Now you feel compelled to
describe the most religious right administration as full of "astute
advisors". You really have taken leave of your senses on these issues.
Regardless of what road we end up taking, the Democrats failure to raise any
serious criticism of this administration's general handling of foreign policy
post 9/11, can only be counted as a further detriment to this same policy.
You seem to be falling right into the party line on this count.
-Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:21 MDT