Insane evil morons marching to Easter service(was:TheVictor'sRights)

johnhall johnhall at isomedia.com
Sun Apr 20 19:56:50 PDT 2003


> From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com] On Behalf
Of
> Russell Turpin

> John Hall:
> >Here was the better idea: treat it as a real war. Two regimes that
were
> >enemies of the United States are no more. ..
> 
> Is that the reasoning now?
> 
> You see, John, I don't particularly mind the
> fact that we conquered Iraq. What I mind is that
> I don't know why we did so, that the administration's
> reasoning about it seemed to shift every month
> before the action, that we put out a lot of verbiage
> about WMDs and created this appearance of working
> with the UN that still seems largely a charade, and
> that our plans of what to do subsequent to the
> conquest seem every bit as clear, focused, and
> planned as the political preliminaries.

Why did there only have to be _one_ reason?

Why, out of a set of good reasons, should everyone agree on the same
ones?

Saddam's history with WMDs was certainly one of the good reasons, and it
still is.

We did work with the UN.  We exposed Saddam's charade, and Chirac's.  

"Working with the UN" didn't mean, at least to me, giving Chirac or any
other country a veto.  It meant going through the UN to demonstrate one
last time that Saddam was incorrigible.  That we underestimated the
desire of Chirac to oppose the US at all costs doesn't mean we didn't
work with the UN.

Furthermore, the attempt to "work with the UN" required that we downplay
some of the strongest reasons the US had for doing the right thing since
many other nations aren't as receptive to those reasons.  [The implosion
of the UN will make it easier to make the case to the American public in
the future.]

As to the future of Iraq after the conquest, that is something that by
its nature requires playing things by ear.

> I still hope. The thing is, John, US Presidents
> traditionally try to explain their war to their own
> citizens, and motivate them for the effort. 

G. W. Bush was quite convincing on those grounds to a wide majority of
the public.  Given that he was leading them in an entirely new direction
his success is stunning.

> In this
> case, I feel we -- the American people -- were a
> target for disinformation. 

When justifying action on a complex issue you focus on the simplest
reasons which resonate the best --> not necessarily the most compelling
reasons an expert might underline.

> You're reading the neocon script. Is that also our
> government's gameplan? If so, I don't see why we
> should be getting it from private think tanks,
> rather than our government. I have this odd
> notion that whatever thinktanks politicians read
> and use in making their decisions, after those
> decisions are made, we should get the gameplan
> and its rationale from those we elected. Is that
> too great an expectation?

You have a game plan and a rationale.  You might not have the entire
game plan, but that is because the game is still being played.  You
don't have all the rationale, but then you never do.

Bush gave enough of a rationale for the vast majority of the US to agree
with him.

Finally, I'm interested in Bush doing the right thing.  Knowing he
thought it was the right thing for the same reasons I did is a curiosity
only.






More information about the FoRK mailing list