F
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
> claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
> isn't a third choice.
What an astounding example of a false dichotomy! That's the deception
technique the right wing has patented, isn't it?
"There isn't a third choice" IF your policy makers have no more
creativity than a baboon. But if you've got even a minimal amount of
intelligence, diplomacy, persuasiveness and political savvy, you should
be able to come up with alternatives.
But let me make it clear: I think the Bush administration had
alternatives and knew it. They simply chose to invade, because they
had been planning it long before the fact, and merely looking for an
opportunity.
They certainly could have kept doing what they were doing to contain
Saddam, preventing him from harming neighbor states. (You may say
"He'd still oppress the Iraqi people," but we seem perfectly willing to
accept that for dozens of other dictators - like the Saudis, for
example.)
We might have worked more effectively through diplomatic channels to
convince other UN members to make him more uncomfortable. I know
you're rabidly anti-French, but we could have _bribed_ the French to do
what we wanted for far less than the cost of this invasion and
conquest.
We might have marshaled a major diplomatic effort by the world's
religious leaders. If you had the leaders of, say, the top five world
religions (including, of course, promiment Islamic clerics)
simultaneously visiting Saddam and shaming him into exile, he'd have
had a hard time resisting the pressure to reform or step down.
We might have bribed Saddam out of office. That is, we could have
arranged for another country to provide sanction and exile in luxury
for himself and his immediate cohorts. It wouldn't be the first time
that trick was played.
There are other measures, both "carrots" and "sticks" we might have
tried. We might have tried many similar tactics simultaneously. And
if we had, even if they had failed, and if invasion had been _really_
necessary, we'd have had world concensus behind us.
As it happened, the Bush administration acted like a man whose only
tool was a hammer, to whom everything needing fixed gets pounded.
Hard.
Of course, you'll say none of the diplomatic alternatives would have
worked. Um... which is, I assume, why we're presently invading dozens
of other countries under the control of despicable leaders, right?
Basically, Mark, when you pretend there was no other choice, you're
playing dumb. In a sense, it's charming that you're willing to do that
to defend your heroes, but it still makes you look either deceitful or
dumb.
- Frank Krygowski
>
>
> If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
> claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
> isn't a third choice.
What an astounding example of a false dichotomy! That's the deception
technique the right wing has patented, isn't it?
"There isn't a third choice" IF your policy makers have no more
creativity than a baboon. But if you've got even a minimal amount of
intelligence, diplomacy, persuasiveness and political savvy, you should
be able to come up with alternatives.
But let me make it clear: I think the Bush administration had
alternatives and knew it. They simply chose to invade, because they
had been planning it long before the fact, and merely looking for an
opportunity.
They certainly could have kept doing what they were doing to contain
Saddam, preventing him from harming neighbor states. (You may say
"He'd still oppress the Iraqi people," but we seem perfectly willing to
accept that for dozens of other dictators - like the Saudis, for
example.)
We might have worked more effectively through diplomatic channels to
convince other UN members to make him more uncomfortable. I know
you're rabidly anti-French, but we could have _bribed_ the French to do
what we wanted for far less than the cost of this invasion and
conquest.
We might have marshaled a major diplomatic effort by the world's
religious leaders. If you had the leaders of, say, the top five world
religions (including, of course, promiment Islamic clerics)
simultaneously visiting Saddam and shaming him into exile, he'd have
had a hard time resisting the pressure to reform or step down.
We might have bribed Saddam out of office. That is, we could have
arranged for another country to provide sanction and exile in luxury
for himself and his immediate cohorts. It wouldn't be the first time
that trick was played.
There are other measures, both "carrots" and "sticks" we might have
tried. We might have tried many similar tactics simultaneously. And
if we had, even if they had failed, and if invasion had been _really_
necessary, we'd have had world concensus behind us.
As it happened, the Bush administration acted like a man whose only
tool was a hammer, to whom everything needing fixed gets pounded.
Hard.
Of course, you'll say none of the diplomatic alternatives would have
worked. Um... which is, I assume, why we're presently invading dozens
of other countries under the control of despicable leaders, right?
Basically, Mark, when you pretend there was no other choice, you're
playing dumb. In a sense, it's charming that you're willing to do that
to defend your heroes, but it still makes you look either deceitful or
dumb.
- Frank Krygowski