Childish Diplomacy: Who started it?
Bill O’Reilly’s "Enough is Enough of Canadian Belligerence" hardly deserves more than the childish reply; "You started it." I don’t really know where it started. But to declare that Canada’s plan to send Iraq’s leader and other potential war criminals found in their country to the World Court in The Hague, is belligerence, certainly demonstrates the weak link to the many phantom reasons given for starting the war against Iraq. I won’t go into all of them either but did they not involve enforcing the resolutions of an international body while ignoring other resolutions of international bodies?
The villains have turned out to be those who threatened vetoes, like France and Germany. If vetoes are a guide to villainy then the U. S. and our former Soviet nemesis have combined for their fair share of more than ten times the vetoes France has ever used. Freedom is another phantom reason that was linked to the war in Iraq while those opposed are vilified for using it at home or abroad.
War was claimed as a last resort chosen over doing nothing. Now we hear how childish both sides can get when those are the only two choices. Arguments against phantom opposition are as easy to win as wars against formerly propped up regimes. The U. S. should be grateful that some were diplomatic enough not to force another U. N. Security Council vote on a resolution we could diplomatically veto. But then we would be clear on what started it.
Monday, April 21, 2003
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Shame on those who disparage the U. N. as only a debating mechanism.
Two points are needed mentioning. First, if members would give up their veto powers, it would be more. Second, if they are suppose to restart a program of oil for food or any take any other action like lifting sanctions it would be important to know who is responsible in Iraq for security and running the programs.
If vetoes are the measure of failure at the U. N. then the U.S. and its major rivals have contributed to its failure by many factors over that of France.
If you devalue debate you devalue information which is ironic for this arena. If force is more valuable then you have endorsed violence as the mechanism, leaving tyranny and anarchy as the result, and excusing preemption on both sides.
If we don’t care about who gets the money, or the benefits then we may as well not be responsible or compassionate.
Two points are needed mentioning. First, if members would give up their veto powers, it would be more. Second, if they are suppose to restart a program of oil for food or any take any other action like lifting sanctions it would be important to know who is responsible in Iraq for security and running the programs.
If vetoes are the measure of failure at the U. N. then the U.S. and its major rivals have contributed to its failure by many factors over that of France.
If you devalue debate you devalue information which is ironic for this arena. If force is more valuable then you have endorsed violence as the mechanism, leaving tyranny and anarchy as the result, and excusing preemption on both sides.
If we don’t care about who gets the money, or the benefits then we may as well not be responsible or compassionate.
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?
A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?
They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?
They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?
A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?
They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?
They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS email March 20th, 2003
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)
While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.
The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.
At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.
No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)
While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.
The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.
At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.
No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]
King County Journal 2003-03-19 Federal judge
His views are important
The characterizations by Armstrong Williams of the Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came to the wrong conclusion.
That they are ``sandbagging Estrada's career because he doesn't mesh with what a good Hispanic should be'' may be racist, but it is Williams' conclusion, not the opposition's. They are withholding approval because they cannot be convinced, due to evasive tactics, that he is what a good judge should be.
If the nominee would express his views or knowledge of judicial precedence and talk about his judicial experience, then there would be more to discuss than whose party or race he represents.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
His views are important
The characterizations by Armstrong Williams of the Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came to the wrong conclusion.
That they are ``sandbagging Estrada's career because he doesn't mesh with what a good Hispanic should be'' may be racist, but it is Williams' conclusion, not the opposition's. They are withholding approval because they cannot be convinced, due to evasive tactics, that he is what a good judge should be.
If the nominee would express his views or knowledge of judicial precedence and talk about his judicial experience, then there would be more to discuss than whose party or race he represents.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)