Lunatics?

[impact500]

The lens boycott thread has been closed, hence I reply to Mr. Shanbaum here:

Boycotting French and German lenses is silly. They are not the cause of the US-EU disagreement. However, the Neville Chamberlain School of Optics position <<the lunatics presently in charge of the U.S. government>> is equally silly.

There are times when the world needs a cop. Too often no one has stepped up to the job. Today the dangers to the world and the risks to the US itself have increased with new weapons technology and the suicidal willingness to use them. It's time for the cop to act and only one nation in the world has the necessary resources and willingness to use them.

Solid arguments exist against going to war but verbal bombs <<lunatics>> are the tools of the mob, not a democracy. Bush, Chenney, Powell, Rice, et al, being lunatics not high on the list of solid arguments.

Once the war is won, we'll see what we find marked Made in France and Made in Germany. Then we decide how mad we get at them.

[shanbaum]

I used the word advisedly. I have to choose between concluding that these men are morons - which, aside from the president himself, I don't really think to be the case (and even in his case, "moron" is a bit excessive) - and concluding that they are something slightly less than rational on this point.

To get from the "what if" scenarios offered by the administration, to the conclusion that military action is essential right now, requires something other than reason. For example: the president's speech to the AEI. Did you hear it? He sounded like Homer Simpson talking about donuts.

There's something that doesn't quite add up here. Powerful ideologies make otherwise-rational people think and do irrational things, and this administration is populated by nothing if not by ideologues - guys who have those "Get the US out of the UN" stickers on the bumpers of their SUV's. Well, I think that the UN may be the most important political accomplishment of the 20th century. The first Bush respected it and knew how to use it. The second one just has the bumper sticker.

Do you really think that the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese are blind to the threats posed by Iraq (not to mention the other "rogue states")? I don't think so. If anything, the threat to any of them is clearly greater than it is to us, simply due to geography. They simply disagree with our government's assertion that the only solution to the danger posed by Iraq is an invasion and occupation of that country.

If the administration were to produce anything - anything at all that indicates that Saddam is on the verge of doing something really nasty, that couldn't be prevented by any means short of invasion (for instance, a blockade) - that might form the basis of a rational argument.

But what we get is "he hasn't disarmed in twelve years, so he's not going to". Grade-school logic. We've ignored him for the last twelve years; what would you expect?

I can think of at least one really compelling argument for not going it alone, and that is this: this problem doesn't end with Iraq; Iraq may not even be the most serious problem state. What are we going to do about Iran (and essentially all of the rest of the Arab states) and North Korea? Are we going to be more or less likely to get international cooperation in dealing with them after we ignore the rest of the world's opinion on Iraq? Or should I not dismiss W's statement that this nation is, for the forseeable future, going to be in the business of "ridding the world of evil-doers"? It takes a pretty naive view of Earth to think that, even were such a thing within our reach, that it would be something for which we'd be willing to pay the incalculably steep cost, in dollars and in lives.

I agree with the assertion that sometimes "the world needs a cop". Had it been up to me, I would have had a very simple policy towards Iraq during the 90's - anyplace the inspectors weren't allowed to visit without notice would have been visited by a cruise missle without notice. And I wouldn't have asked for permission. As it was, we set the bar way too low. But that's a far, far cry from invasion and occupation.

Does that sound like appeasement? To suggest that the opposite of invasion is appeasement (or, as the president called it, "inaction") is, well, just further abuse of the language. There's a lot that lies between "invasion" and "inaction". Why can't the guy in the White House see it? I think that a significant part of the problem we're having with our allies derives from this - they have no respect for this guy, because he says such simple-minded things.

And as far as my "verbal bombs" being "tools of the mob"? Hmm... maybe George makes perfect sense to you; maybe you can explain what he's saying to me. Until then, I will argue, it sounds an awful lot like lunacy.

[impact500]

<<Well, I think that the UN may be the most important political accomplishment of the 20th century.>>

Where was the UN when over one million Cambodians were killed in 1975? And where was the UN when nearly one million Tutsis and Hutus were killed in Rwanda in 1994? The two greatest human tradegies since the founding of the UN and they were absent.

Instead we see Libya holding the chair of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and in three months Iraq will assume the presidency of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament.

The UN holds great hope, but "The most important political accomplishment of the 20th century"?, I think not.

I wonder how long the French or Russian would let Guinea hold up their initiatives? I would feel more comfortable if the French, German, Russian and Chinese positions were motivated by principle, but I suspect financial self-interest, fears of disclosure of their recent activities with Iraq, their domestic politics, and a pleasure in seeing the US struggle are the actual motivations.

I find your references "morons", "Homer Simpson talking about donuts", "Grade-school logic", "simple-minded" and "lunacy" towards Bush, Chenney, Powell, Rice, et al. to be distasteful.

[shanbaum]

impact500 said:
I find your references "morons", "Homer Simpson talking about donuts", "Grade-school logic", "simple-minded" and "lunacy" towards Bush, Chenney, Powell, Rice, et al. to be distasteful.

I do, too. I find it downright humiliating. Please, God, let them say something to make me revise my assessment.

[impact500]

Policy disagreements are part of the great tradition of our nation and contribute to a more aware public. Disagreements tend to take one of two forms - substance and name calling. When presented counters to your characterization of the UN as "the most important political accomplishment of the 20th century" it is disappointing that you avoid a dialog and stand firm with the name calling approach.

Holding a position different that one's own does not make the opponent a "moron", "lunatic", etc. Your use of such terms for Bush, Chenney, Powell, Rice, et al., are inappropriate.

[shanbaum]

When presented counters to your characterization of the UN as "the most important political accomplishment of the 20th century" it is disappointing that you avoid a dialog and stand firm with the name calling approach.


Sorry, I should have said that your recitation of some of what the U.N. didn't do was unpersuasive. Tell me how the world would be better without the United Nations. Tell me what was the greatest political accomplishment of the 20th century.

I asked whether you heard the speech to the AEI. My characterization of it (the Homer Simpson bit) was perhaps a feeble attempt at humor - but the speech was, in fact, comical in its presentation of the impact a free Iraq will have on that part of the world, devoid as it was of any explanation as to by what mechanism some of those things (the resolution of the Israeli-Palenstinian conflict, for instance) will transpire.

I asserted that I believe that a substantial part of the problems we're having with our allies derive from their lack of respect for the president - perhaps I only think this because it mirrors my own lack of respect for the president.

In any case, these are assertions of substance. I didn't just say "the president's a dope" - I think I said, in so many words, "I think the president's a dope because (insert posts here)".

I think it's a bad thing when our political system provides us with Hobson's choices for leaders. I believe that electing a man with a profoundly mediocre intellect to the presidency is a bad thing; I believe it will produce bad results. It will produce reactions to complex situations in the world like, "what we really need now are some tax cuts".

You might want to read David Frum's book The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George Bush. Here's a guy who supports Bush - he was a speechwriter for him - and yet to me, the book reads like an indictment; though I haven't finished it yet - maybe he saves the world in the end. Maybe you would have a different reaction in any case.

And perhaps I should point out that even a cursory reading of my earlier post, (the one in which I wrote, "I have to choose between concluding that these men are morons - which, aside from the president himself, I don't really think to be the case (and even in his case, "moron" is a bit excessive) ") , might well lead one to conclude that a) my criticism is directed primarily at the president, and b) I think more highly of the people around him.

It's too bad that it our modern sales-driven political system, the president's men (and woman) end up having to mouth cliches and platitudes (like the "he's had twelve years" nonsense) to try to sell the administration's story, instead of talking sense.

I believe that Cheney, Rice and Powell are all capable of talking sense. That's why I wrote the bit about "powerful ideologies".

Gee, now that I look at it, I wrote lots of substantial stuff.

[impact500]

<<Tell me how the world would be better without the United Nations.>>

I made no such assertion; you present the wrong alternatives - UN or no UN. The more meaningful division is an effective UN or an ineffective one. It was the UN's failure to act in the cases of Rwanda and Cambodia that I cited, not that we be better off with no UN. We'd be better off with a UN but a more effective one. Certainly 1 - 3 million Cambodians and Rwandan souls would agree.

<<what was the greatest political accomplishment of the 20th century.>>

WWII

<<I asked whether you heard the speech to the AEI.>>

I did not. Read the news stories on it.

You suggest a book for me; I'll return the favor. The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy and Free Markets in the 21st Century by Michael Mandelbaum. My sense from the news reports on the AEI speech is that it was consistent with this book.

<<Gee, now that I look at it, I wrote lots of substantial stuff.>>

Your 10:43 pm (GMT, I presume) post of yesterday that I responded to last, was not substantive at all. It was exclusively of the name calling category.

And as for substance, I again await your response to my counter to your characterization of the UN as "the most important political accomplishment of the 20th century"

FYI, this is my last post in this sequence. So you'll be able to get in the last shot.

[shanbaum]

Perhaps I read something between lines that weren't there, but I was juggling two similar threads at once. I wrote that I believed the U.N. to be the most important politcal achievement of the 20th century to contrast my belief with one which I believe to be prevalent within the administration and among many of its supporters that the world would somehow be a better place if there were no U.N. I believe that that is why the administration has not managed its relationship with the U.N. too well in the matter of Iraq - in their hearts, they really don't like it much.

You wrote of several of the UN's failures, to which I responded, "tell me how the world would be better without the United Nations. " You think that's an inappropriate response; you say you just want a better, more effective U.N. Well, OK, I'll sign on to that. A better U.N. would be better. No question about it.

As to why I think that the U.N. is the most important political achievement of the 20th century: first, let me refer you to Article 1 of the U.N. Charter, which I posted in the "The French pt 2" thread. I think that when the nations of the Earth come together for the first time in history to agree to try to achieve the goals enumerated in that Charter, that's important. It's more important than the Marshall Plan (a close second), and the Indian Revolution (important because it was the first significant non-violent one). The demise of the Soviet Union doesn't qualify, in my opinion, because it wasn't really an "achievement" (the Soviet Union collapsed as soon as its leadership was unwilling to hold it together by force), though containment of international communism would have to rank up there.

I don't consider World War II (and I presume you mean, the winning of it) to be so much a political achievement as a military one. If it is to be characterized as a political achievement, then, again, I agree with you.

Sure, the establishment of the U.N. would have been an even greater accomplishment had it never failed to meet any challenge. But those failures don't diminish the significance of its having been founded in the first place (at least, not to me). By its very nature, It will only be as successful as it is taken seriously. I suspect it will also be only as successful as its membership is civilized, sophisticated, and intelligent - hopefully, that will improve with time.

As far as the "name-calling" accusation is concerned, I don't think I simply hurled epithets - I tried to surround them with actual content. And I think a careful reading of what I wrote confirms that. Well, mostly.

I ordered the book you recommended. I also looked up some articles by Mandelbaum, and found an interesting one at http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/...547mar05.story. It's as sanguine and balanced as the president's speech was loony.

Oops.