He's wrong. The UN will never go away. Once a government bureacracy exists, it becomes immortal.

More to the point, the U.N. is still useful. As with Afghanistan, we will rely on them heavily to help rebuild Iraq.

In the meantime, if we leave it, we give up the veto power of the security council, and in effect the world may become divided between the Security Council and us.

We will never leave the UN and the UN will never die. Even though it will remain a joke for generations more.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 31, 2003 01:40 AM

There is a singular lack of foresight in many of the comments posted on here, regarding the UNSC and the repercussions of war either in which, there is unilateral action or more likely the UN and other sceptics are forced to carry on.

Moral bankruptcy is only a term applicable to the UN if one ignores their own country's actions whether it be the US, Britain or elsewhere. Moral justification for attacking Iraq is like the outrage at the Taliban's treatment of women, a useful tool to increase opinion, both issues have been long campaigned on by various human rights organisations and have never been important enough for countries to act on before. There is a case that some action is better than nothing and therefore Human rights campaigners can welcome this move as something slightly positive, however if the focus is not pure liberty for the Iraqi people and involves some personal motive then, Stephen Green's remark on severed tongues as proof is misplaced, as action that does not focus on the Iraqi people's safety solely will not serve the Iraqi people's good to the extent it need be.

Also it is very worrying for people to get caught up in the small arguements and claims that justify themselves and set the snowball down the hilll. There is no conclusive proof, intelligence sources and photos are sketchy at best. While there may be plenty of supposition this can not be mistaken for proof and while supposition can be a justification for war, people need to admit that, rather than as Stephen Green seems to, get caught up in the excited grunts providing enough hot air to fill a balloon trip over to Iraq.

If any nation in the world acts without UNSC backing includes and that means "working through it" when the country's threat of action forces the UNSC to do something to save face, it undermines the strength of the UN and International Law. Some people such as Stephen Green see this as good and it is good if you focus on your own country's short term gain. However after seeing the effects of war, we should not be so eager to return to a time where one country's personal drive for, money, expansion or credibility is seen as a legitimsing factor in action as this creates more conflict in the world. Maybe not in America where some of the louder voices live but for the rest of the world where voices exist all the same, we just have to try hard to listen to it and give it the same credibility we do our own.

In order to safe guard the world for the future, internatinal unified action is the only way to prevent vote winning government sponsored wars, that serve a politicians short career but not the rest of the world. This means giving up a small amount of power and trying to convince others. This is the reason the US is part of the UNSC to debate and try to convince the world it is right and perseverence through such channles will give the type of credibility, the US currently lacks.

Posted by: Nathan Longfield at January 31, 2003 02:22 AM

Nathan,

Grow up and join the real world. Since you obviously know how to write I recommend you now stretch yourself and learn how to read.

Pick up a history book and read it. Start with the end of WWI and the causes leading to WWII.

After you have finished reading a history book show me the ONE TIME that appeasment has worked. I'll wait.......
The bottom line is that you are saying the Iraqi people are worthy of being liberated.

If the hope of the world rests on the UN let's talk about Libya leading the Human Rights Commission and IRAQ leading the Disarmament commitee.The UN is doing all of this to itself.

Posted by: Skinny Benny at January 31, 2003 05:56 AM

Should read "Iraqi people are NOT worthy of liberation".

Posted by: skinny benny at January 31, 2003 05:59 AM

"He's wrong. The UN will never go away. Once a government bureacracy exists, it becomes immortal."

Tell that to the League of Nations. You know, the organization that Bush quite pointedly mentioned in his speech before the UN last September.

Japan just cut its payment to the UN by 33% They're about to lose all the Iraqi money they get through the "oil for food" program. If the American people get sufficiently disgusted to pull our financial plug too, the UN is toast.

And the recent mixture of absurdity and obstructionism is making it possible. It used to be only cranks and Birchers talked about getting us out of the UN. Now people like Krauthammer are saying it in nationally syndicated columns.

If anyone reading would like to help the process along, write your Congresscritters. I already have.

Posted by: ralph phelan at January 31, 2003 06:31 AM

I think Nathan's point is well-presented, but it has one fatal flaw: the implicit assumption that the UN has the ability to stop any country with a "personal [sic] drive for, money, expansion or credibility." Putting it simply: it does not. The UN can only be effective against countries that submit to it voluntarily, which no country with such ambitions would do.

If any nation in the world acts without UNSC backing includes and that means "working through it" when the country's threat of action forces the UNSC to do something to save face, it undermines the strength of the UN and International Law.

Actually, rather than undermining the strength of the UN and international "law," it serves to point out that both the UN and international "law" are paper tigers. Which is necessary, because if real people count on them for protection, they end up exposing themselves to real danger. Just ask the people of Srebrenica.

And I must say that France & Co. have been doing quite the fine job of really undermining the UN, by making sure every threat it issues is empty. Can you name one dictator in this world that is actually afraid of the UN?

In order to safe guard the world for the future, internatinal unified action is the only way to prevent vote winning government sponsored wars

I don't think wars are "vote-winning" -- not in real democracies, anyway. They are only useful to dictators who want to consolidate power and give their subjects a distraction.

I guess that's debatable, but this is not: international action is not the only way to prevent such countries from going to war. It's not even a way to prevent war. For all the high talk about international cooperation, counties will ultimately do what's in their self-interest. And if you honestly think France or Sweden or Canada will send troops to die to protect (say) the Burmese, you need to check in with reality pronto. For Pete's sake, European "powers" couln't take on a third-rate dictator right in their own back yard. All they managed to do is disarm his opposition (with their high-moral-stance arms embargo), and issue their condemnations "in the strongest possible terms."

This means giving up a small amount of power and trying to convince others.

The problem is that others aren't willing to be convinced. The opposition France and Germany are taking on Iraq is not some kind of moral principle -- it is the result pretty low-grade domestic politics.

This is the reason the US is part of the UNSC to debate and try to convince the world it is right

Actually, the reason the US is part of the UNSC, and not just the GA, is to be able to veto any resolutions it doesn't like. We feel entitled to this, given our position and contributiont to global security. There was also the need to have a diplomatic shouting post against the Soviets back during the Cold War. That need has fallen away.

will give the type of credibility, the US currently lacks.

Sorry, that last part is just nonsense. The U.S. has more credibility than any other nation on earth. There's a reason that whenever yet another trouble spot flares up, nothing usually gets done until American diplomats (backed, at least implicitly, by American military force) show up. The most ironic example of this is Milosevic, of course, but even on the Middle East or North Korea, everyone wants to talk to the U.S. Not the Chinese, not the Russians, not the Swiss, and not the EU -- only the U.S. I doubt this is because our diplomats smell better. For Pete's sake, the EU couldn't resolve a dispute between EU member Spain and Morocco -- over a worthless tiny piece of rock -- until Colin Powell made a phone call. If you want to see credibility problems, I suggest you look at Brussels.

Posted by: E. Nough at January 31, 2003 06:39 AM

So the UN which looks the other way at its own poor decisions: Iraq and Iran chairing disarmament, Libya over human rights, and failed to stop the bloodshed in the Balkans...has more cred than the US? Poppycock, Nathan.

Posted by: Drake at January 31, 2003 07:24 AM

I, personally, am not sure what France is going to do. I must admit, their reasoning is beyond me. But I think I understand why we are at least pretending to cunsult with the U.N. prior to attacking: Britian. Blair has to be seen as playing nice with his neighbors. While the U.S. can snub their noses at Europe w/o any serious consequences, Britian cannot. I completely support Bush's decision to go back and present hard evidence to the Security Council. If France insists on making the U.N. worthless, they will veto. If they want to preserve it for another generation, they will get their asses on board.

Posted by: amy at January 31, 2003 08:03 AM

As a pastor, I have come up with a simple law, in any group of individuals at a wedding with over 5 people from one familily one person will be a jackass because they are not the center of attention. France and Germany are merely the jealous in-laws who haven't figured out why they are even at the party.

Posted by: Matt Pickut at January 31, 2003 08:51 AM

The argument about the US lacking credibility is hilarious. Ironically, W's actions are in support of the UN and its resolutions--the US is intending to collect on a UN invoice that is 11 years old.

The UNSC is showing that it is more interested in deliberating than getting anything done. Bosnia, Rwanda, tick-tock, etc. Eleven years that Iraq has mocked the UN, and W is saying no more, you will comply--yet the UN hesitates, obfuscates, and dithers.

It's proving how impotent it is, as it refuses to acknowledge the previous resolutions. Instead, it just passes another one, and blames the US for being the bad guy.

Posted by: Joe Baby/Moronwatch at January 31, 2003 11:43 AM

You have quite a way with words, Nathan, in a detached sort of way best explained by the American aphorism "Saying it doesn't make it so."

Posted by: Fred Boness at January 31, 2003 03:15 PM

The U.S. would be foolish to leave the U.N. completely, as that would just leave in existence a large forum for anti-American mischief making with no mechanism for the U.S. to check it (let's not forget that the only reason the U.N. was able to deal with the invasion of South Korea was that the Soviet Union had withdrawn its representative from the Security Council because Stalin was in a snit over the refusal to recognize the People's Republic of China--Uncle Joe is probably still grumbling down in Hell over that little goof). However, we can cut back our funding to bare minimums, deny the U.N. use of our troops, and make it clear that any actions remotely hostile to the U.S. or its allies will either be vetoed or mocked, as appropriate. Without the U.S.' active cooperation, the U.N. is a third-rate debating society run by Third World bureaucratic thugs. With the U.S. actively blocking it, it won't even be that. Stick a fork in them, they're done.

Posted by: M. Scott Eiland at January 31, 2003 05:53 PM

Agreed that the UN is a joke (albiet not a very funny one) is it's basic premise valid enough to make it worth replacing with it something else? If so what?

Posted by: Matt Pickut at January 31, 2003 08:33 PM

The League of Nations was aborted before it reached viability--yet was born again as the U.N. anyway.

The UN has been there decades.

It will never, ever, ever go away. Getting rid of it is like trying to get rid of the Department of Education: wasted effort.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 1, 2003 01:06 AM

The problem implicit in the logic of people who say, "But you didn't do anything about these human rights abuses before!" is that they seem to think that if you have nothing but the most pure and pristine motives for doing something, then you shouldn't do it.

We didn't fight World War II for pure motives. We decided it was in our best interests to fight it. We didn't do it to empty Hitler's concentration camps, but by fighting it we accomplished exactly that.

The civil war did not start over slavery, but when Lincoln made it about slavery he made it a moral cause that added greater righteousness to the cause of saving the union.

So, too, it is in our best interests to take down Saddam Hussein. That we can do so and simultaneously liberate an oppressed people is a wonderful thing.

By arguing against liberating the oppressed because our motives are not pure, you are still arguing against liberating the oppressed.

And are, in effect, arguing that it's only moral to go to war when you stand to gain absolutely nothing by doing it.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 1, 2003 01:10 AM

Hola Yanks,

Two very simple numbers, guys, from a few SERIOUSLY pissed-off friends and allies:

280, 000, 000 + Americans.
6, 000, 000, 000 + total Human Beings.

So...what? You gunna take on the lot?

The United Nations IS the United States, u morons, in very large part; at least it was the last time we looked, anyways. 'Round about 292, 131 GIs died in WW2 combat helping make it so. These blinkered jerks currently in the WH now seem intent on drop-kicking that brilliant Euro-Russo-American legacy into oblivion in the space of one generation...which = pissing on Normandy beachside graves, quite frankly. (Laughing at 'Old Europe'??? American veterans - ie those who've actually fought a war, not just yapped about it - should be, and we bet mostly ARE, quietly crying in pure joy at the sight of Germany and France trying their hardest to formally stick together, and in an anti-global-bloodbath posture what's more. It makes a nice fucking change, if you ask us. And yet these WH clowns want to split them brutally apart again...???)

On 'the UN' (which partly = the US, remember): you really think the USA can afford to humiliate 'it' (= 'the US', partly) , browbeat 'it' (which =...etc), blackmail 'it', laugh at 'it'...and then finally drag 'it' into Iraq by the bloody nuts?

What then, Einsteins? Bush to turn around afterwards and expect the UN to have the potency, credibility, ability and collective desire to help America wipe its arse and deal with whatever comes next? Is that your cunning fucking plan for post-Saddam Iraq fellahs? Tell the rest of the world to fuck off for now, and hope we'll obediently help tidy up the mess afterwards? (Hey - maybe the French will help you 'rebuild' Iraq!)

You fucking SCHMUCKS!!! You're carrying the biggest bloody stick the world has ever seen. Didn't anyone tell Bush that the most effective way to use a big stick is to 'speak softly'?? Every time he shouts, the fucking thing just gets smaller.

True. To whit:

By declaring her Royal Flush hand so early, so arrogantly, so completely and so unnecessarily, America has basically now destroyed ALL her geo-political flexibility on Iraq, and pissed away ninety-nine percent of her meaningful diplomatic power, too; leaving essentially only her sheer military might to play with. That, our warbloggy Northern friends, means that the United States of America is today now globally weaker than she was yesterday, and tomorrow she will be weaker again. She will get weaker, and weaker, and weaker until Saddam Hussein is removed from power and America has occupied Baghdad.

And then the fun will really start.

We put it to you, Steve and friends, that George W. Bush's idiotic blundering now risks very seriously endangering the long-term global position of the world's only (current, watch this space: C---a) genuine superpower, and that you loud-mouthed warbloggers just can't or won't see it, because you've still all got your heads up your arses, having a great old post-S11 time sneering at the Clintonian liberal left.

Let us put it this way, mateys: George W. Bush and his team of neo-con twats have zero domestic political choice now but to invade and/or militarily occupy Iraq for the long haul, come what may, UN 'sanction' or not. Unless this Administration does that - and, for that matter, gets some radical reorganisation of the oil market pump-priming the US domestic economy to do something with your deficit and spiralling war costs FAST - then he'll never be re-elected in 2004. Not a chance in hell. This Administration is just starting to recognise that, too; the arse-fuckingly stupid corner they've painted themselves into.

But Saddam knows it too, see? And France knows it, too. And Germany knows it, too. And Saudi Arabia knows it, too. And Russia knows it, too. And Iran knows it, too. And Ch--a knows it, too.

(Israel knows it, too, may k and the IDF help her. Just by the way: not being American, but being frankly disquieted by some of the nuttier, David Dukish strands of US isolationism we encounter very often in this 'sphere, all we can suggest on this score is: no tyre-kickers, time-wasters, dilettantes or fair-weather friends, please. If t'were done this particular way at all, better t'were done very, very, very, very well. And however long this particular way ends up taking, which could be a while, just going on the current state of the State...)

Oh yeah, and we s'pose Al-Qaeda knows it, too.

So there we have it, then. Everybody on the FUCKING PLANET knows that the United States of America is now irreversibly committed to some kind of long-term military occupation of Iraq (unless there's a change of US Administration). Anything less makes Bush's America a 'lame duck' global supercop.

So...come 2004, this radical and far-reaching geo-political shift - probably larger than anything since 1870, we reckon, or maybe even as far back as 1453 - will be upon us; very probably RAMMED upon us all by way of a violent, deeply-unpopular (globally), and domestically-exhausting pre-emptive military invasion, unprecedented in US history, launched about the middle or end of March 2003. (If we're lucky, you lot might have got away with forcing Saddam into exile or death first, in which case an enormous chunk of your moral grounds for being there in the first place will have been taken away before the first GI boot hits Iraqi soil, anyway.)

Either way, the real 'fun' will only just be starting. Either way, the US will be streaming gazillions of domestic dollars into maintaining a huge military garrison in a hostile region on the other side of the globe, probably losing soldiers daily, probably taking more terrorism hits all over the world, probably shaping up to attack Iran, probably getting fucked off with the Kurds, probably being despised more every day by Europe's grass-roots populations (yes, even the 'new' Europe)...

Are we getting the picture? It'll play very well in the US heartlands, we expect. (Who wants to have a fun, pleasant and welcomed visit to Paris when they retire, anyway?)

And the longer run? Well, yes, quite: what ARE you gunna do with this in the long run, guys? Like, is this going somewhere, or what? Take Chi-a up the ass, maybe? You better be prepared to go that far, gentlemen. 'Cos that's exactly what you're going to have to do, sooner or later.

If t'were done at all.

Bin Laden, of course, is, or would be, pissing himself with delighted laughter. You SCHMUCKS!!!

Just imagine provoking one of your most hated enemies to destroy another of your most hated enemies while simultaneously uniting even more totally and ferociously an entire region, and perhaps even one day an ENTIRE religion (ie moderates, Indonesian, Pakistani, American, British etc TOO) against the third, the MOST, hated of your most hated enemies, the one you wish to eradicate from all existence. This, we both mournfully AND URGENTLY suggest, might one day indeed be considered by historians as right up in the Saladdin league.

And what of Rummers? Cheney? Wolfy? Well, all we unrespectfully suggest is that maybe these fucking 'visionaries', these unmilitary children who've lately shanghaied the Pentagon, have been gobbling fuckwit pills and watching too many Tom Cruise flicks.

But we rave, of course. We 'appease'.

Still...

Whine about that tall glassy NY building crammed full of arse-licking besuited fairies all you like for now, boys and girls, but we unrespectfully suggest that you're going to need ALL the 'wussy', 'ass-kissin', 'appeasing' UN-shiny-bum diplomatic and regional expertise you can get from here on in on this baby.

Whooeee, yessir.

Especially those French pussies. What with their keen historical grasp of the subtle ways of the many, many, many, many fickle Iraqi factions, feuds, follies and infights. Yessirree Bob.

One last thing, 'mates'. Your country also happens to be the only decent, funny, creative, fertile, gutsy, resolute, SMART (usually), FAR-SIGHTED (usually), STRONG (let's hope), flexible (errr...), wryly-sceptical (once), eminently-reasonable (gulp!), mostly-sane, mostly warm and friendly, Constitutionally-inspiring, Faithful AND secular, broadly-liberal, dazzlingly-democratic, free and moral country on the fucking planet...

...which at this somewhat delicate point in world history is still - only just, but still - big, tough, intelligent and dextrous enough to extract itself from this mouseshit little mess (somehow), and thus free itself up to go and have a stern, timely, motherly chat with North Korea on everyone else's behalf.

Now THIS little shithole of a joint, in case you guys hadn't noticed, is a genuine 'rogue state' possessed of a genuine WMD capability run by a GENUINE fucking nutcase ideologue. It is currently SCARING THE LIVING SHIT out of the rest of us, and you aren't doing your superpower job remotely near well enough in those quarters.

Kindly stop fucking around with chickenshit regional thugs, and keep your eyes on the real fucking ball. It's just too big for anyone else to handle.

Frankly, from down this way, watching your staggering ineptitude with Saddam has been like watching Arnie getting set to go into a close clinch with an eighty pound weakling who may, or may not, have a pinless grenade shoved up his ass. The IDF, I do believe, provides the best broad operational guidance on dealing with this sort of threat:

Step One: maintain observation from safe distance. Politely but sternly direct potentially-dangerous weakling to present ass for inspection. (DO NOT become prematurely impatient if potentially-dangerous weakling objects or delays; reluctance to undergo rigorous ass-inspections should be regarded as normal in Human Beings.)

Step Two: Despatch potentially-dangerous weakling cleanly and with minimum fuss, from safe distance, if potentially-dangerous weakling attempts to approach others.

Step Three: WAIT for grenade to explode internally, while maintaining close control of immediate area to ensure minimum pain and suffering of innocent bystanders.

Step Four: If excessive delay by potentially-dangerous weakling occupies security assets urgently required elsewhere, a) re-assess credibility of grenade-up-ass threat, and either b) reduce observation to sustainable level, or c) if a-judged prudent and necessary, 'stimulate' Step Three using EFFICIENT LATERAL means.

CAUTION: Under no circumstances approach unnecessarily. While minimising self-endangerment at all times, make maximum possible attempts to a) observe relevant rules of law; b) maintain moral high ground.

This is NOT intended to be flippant. The stakes now are incredibly high, and the future nature of the world is in White House hands.

China. China. China. Think China. What are the fledgling Chinese democrats hoping Bush will do?

Warmest regards, Yanks. Don't fuck up on the rest of us. OK?

kkkkkkk

PS: We believe the phrase you are groping for is: D'oh! Dunno 'bout you guys, but it's always sounded suspiciously like Mandarin to us...

The Simpsons on a billion more of the world's TV screens. Hope we live to see that...

Posted by: BCFW at February 1, 2003 03:49 AM

Wow, BCFW, that's quite a rant. The average streetcorner lunatic has nothing on you.

I won't answer it all, but here's the crucial part:

280, 000, 000 + Americans. 6, 000, 000, 000 + total Human Beings.

So...what? You gunna take on the lot?

Nope. Only those who seek to kill our people. (Not that we couldn't reduce the global population considerably, if we wanted to... we just don't want to. Hey, how's that for a comforting thought: the only thing between you and a nuclear mushroom is the unwillingness of the U.S. to use its nuclear weapons. Pleasant dreams!)

The United Nations IS the United States, u morons, in very large part; at least it was the last time we looked, anyways.

Huh??

'Round about 292, 131 GIs died in WW2 combat helping make it so.

Oh, brother -- another new theory: we fought World War II so that France could tell us how to behave, and a worthless Arab dictatorship could sit in judgement of our human rights record.

Get this through your head: the United States fought Germany and Japan because they were a threat to our interests, and the interests of our allies. Nothing like writing your own creative history to justify your idiocy.

These blinkered jerks currently in the WH now seem intent on drop-kicking that brilliant Euro-Russo-American legacy into oblivion in the space of one generation...which = pissing on Normandy beachside graves, quite frankly.

Yep, sure, asserting our sovereignty and not letting some second-rate Europods dictate our foreign policy is spitting on the graves of our soldiers, who died to repair a royal fuck-up that the Europods themselves made -- as particularly related to the German mass-murder machine, and the French tactic of immediate surrender and collaboration. Wow, that is some great logic there, mon ami...

The pissing on Normandy graves is done by the very French and German pissants that we rescued at the end of WWII (the French from the Germans, and the Germans from the Russians).

On 'the UN' (which partly = the US, remember): you really think the USA can afford to humiliate 'it' (= 'the US', partly) , browbeat 'it' (which =...etc), blackmail 'it', laugh at 'it'...and then finally drag 'it' into Iraq by the bloody nuts?

The UN is not "partly the US" -- we just happen to be a member. (Otherwise, the UN is also "party" Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Burma, Sudan -- what was your point again?) And yeah, we can afford to laugh at it, browbeat it, and ignore it as we please. It's worthless, and has been since at least the end of the Cold War.

What then, Einsteins? Bush to turn around afterwards and expect the UN to have the potency, credibility, ability and collective desire to help America wipe its arse and deal with whatever comes next?

Nope. Bush to treat the UN as the worthless windbag that it is, and everyone to ignore it openly and flagrantly, instead of pretending that it has legitimacy that it never really had. In other words, a permanent policy of "UN? Who gives a fuck?" until that worthless dirtpile of an outfit withers and dies, which it should have done a decade ago, when it ceased to be useful to us and the Russians. And by the way, the UN has never helped us or "wiped our arse." It's always the other way around.

Tell the rest of the world to fuck off for now, and hope we'll obediently help tidy up the mess afterwards? (Hey - maybe the French will help you 'rebuild' Iraq!)

Wow, so Germany and France now represent the whole world? That's another new one: who put them in that position? At any rate, I have a feeling that "the world" will help us tidy up the mess afterwards, since it's in "the world"'s interests to not have Islamic nutballs on the loose. Not that we'll really need the help in Iraq -- certainly not from France, for Pete's sake. Far from wanting them to "help rebuild" Iraq, I want the French kept as far out of Iraq as possible.

America has basically now destroyed ALL her geo-political flexibility on Iraq, and pissed away ninety-nine percent of her meaningful diplomatic power, too; leaving essentially only her sheer military might to play with.

Diplomatic power derives from military power; there's a reason why the U.S. is a global power (and why you think China will be next) -- not Belgium or Canada or Switzerland. (And since when have the Chinese given a shit about what the UN says?) Exactly how do you think America became a "hyperpower" anyway -- through our clever diplomatic finagling? And just when was the last time our putative "allies" actually had to come to our rescue? Seems like it's always the other way around. Oh, that's right -- it is.

That, our warbloggy Northern friends, means that the United States of America is today now globally weaker than she was yesterday, and tomorrow she will be weaker again.

Yep, keep dreaming, amigo. The star of the principled diplomatic powers of France and Germany will rise any time now... We'd just better hope their scowling and resolution-writing skills are good enough to withstand the rising superpower of China. Or, umm, something like that.

Posted by: E. Nough at February 1, 2003 09:27 AM

Well done, E.Nough.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at February 1, 2003 08:26 PM

"that brilliant Euro-Russo-American legacy"

That was my favorite part. heh.

That and this: "Didn't anyone tell Bush that the most effective way to use a big stick is to 'speak softly'??"

I'm pretty damn sure the most efficient way to use a large stick is to, um, well, USE it. Lovely how people can totally twist another man's words. The whole point of "Speak softly and carry a big stick" was to have a backup plan to the talking.

Posted by: amy at February 1, 2003 09:23 PM

Thanks, Robin!

I must admit, the you fought to save their asses, now you should listen to them line of "thought" was completely new to me.

Also, that bit about how the U.S. is becoming a diplomatic weakling.

I've got to say, some people live in a very interesting universe, to say the least. It sure is fun to mock them, though -- kind of addictive, really...

Posted by: E. Nough at February 2, 2003 12:18 AM

Yeah, yeah, witty abuse duly noted.

Now consider our somewhat harder questions:

1. What next?
2. North Korea?
3. Having ditched France and Germany on the FP front, who next? Russia? Pakistan? Egypt? China? Repeat until rule whole world? Mwah-hah-hah-hah-etc...?

If questions intimidate (again), insert 'nuke 'em all' riposte.

A touch of humility is what makes America so strong. Worthwhile, too.

k k k k k k k

PS: Lonely but very interesting universe seeks seven bright shining k-pax...

Posted by: BCFW at February 2, 2003 05:24 PM

E. Nough: Hi, pardner! Didn't know you visited these parts. Nice gentle Fisk of Nathan. He was polite and deserved a polite reply. Someone who writes as well as he does may actually be educable. Hopefully, he will chew on it and learn from it. As to BCFW, he deserved everything you gave him in classical Fisk style.

Nathan: You seem to have the impression that the U.N. is a collection of wise Solons from around the world, when it is more like "Lord of the Flies." Think about the meaning of Libya as President of the Human Rights Commission and Iraq as upcoming President of the Disarmament Commission to get the drift.

Posted by: CGeib at February 2, 2003 10:45 PM

Yeah, yeah, witty abuse duly noted.

Given as taken. I did try to address the most relevant points in your post, though.

1. What next?

Invade Iraq. Remove Hussein. Use as platform for knocking down other obnoxious Arab dictators. Remind other dictators that getting on our bad side is a bad idea. (UN contribution: none)

2. North Korea?

Doubtful. As I said elsewhere in this forum, it's a totally different situation. The bad news is that they are probably already nuclear. The good news is that they are not an immediate threat to their neighbors, nor to the United States. Move slowly. (UN contribution: none)

The whole point of the invasion of Iraq, of course, is to not let them get nuclear.

3. Having ditched France and Germany on the FP front, who next? Russia? Pakistan? Egypt? China?

"Ditched" would imply we ever were dependent on them or worked along with them to begin with. We didn't. They just realized their own utter irrelevance. They are pissed. Whaaa.

(Really, exactly what value do you view France or Germany having added? What use could they possibly be against, say, the North Koreans? I'm really curious...)

Just as we have before, we'll work with countries when doing so is in our mutual interest. (As will they. Nothing new here.) That means France and Germany in the highly unlikely event that they are needed. Russia, India, China all more likely. Nothing in what happened over the past few months affects our relationships with them, or any other nation.

As for the UN, they will continue to be useless and annoying. Nothing new there.

Repeat until rule whole world? Mwah-hah-hah-hah-etc...?

Hardly. We're not interested in ruling the whole world. We will continue to knock down lunatic dictatorships with nuclear ambitions, and we will keep turning into wormfood outfits and governmetns that aim to kill our people. Otherwise, please -- we've got enough to worry about.

A touch of humility is what makes America so strong.

I know that statement strikes you as profound, but would you care to describe, exactly, how you figure this? I've never actually seen "humility" -- whatever that means in this context -- translate into strength on the international stage. Nope, every time I think of countries considered strong nations not to mess with, "humble" is never a word I'm prepared to use to describe them.

Not that I buy into the moronic notion that the U.S. is some kind of international bully, out to dominate every other nation on this earth. Trust me: we don't really give a shit about most of the nations on this globe, large and small, first-class and sheer hellholes.

(This, in itself, of course, pisses off so many people. For some reason, most are OK with being ignored by Colombians or Spaniards or the Japanese, but heaven forbid those "aloof," "ignorant," "arrogant" Americans admit that really, [insert nice-but-unimportant country here] is not topmost on our minds all the time... This time the turn belongs to Germany and France, who, for some reason, decided that they are in some kind of equal partnership with us on foreign policy. Where did they get such an idea? How? Why?!)

Really, we only pay attention to a country when it (a) offers us help and support; even if symbolic, it's appreciated sincerely; or (b) its policies become a credible threat to American security. So basically, unless you're trying to be on our good side, it's best to leave us alone; we promise to do the same.

Posted by: E. Nough at February 2, 2003 11:36 PM

CGeib, I actually got started in these parts, believe it or not.

BTW, you make an excellent moral case against the UN. I'd add to it the practical case against it: putting it simply, it's useless, and always has been.

Both Nathan and BCFW really seem to be under the impression that the UN is some kind of bona fide global governing body with enforcement powers. It isn't, and its powers are purely symbolic. Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless it's backed by a NATO force (i.e., a mostly American force), the UN has about as much authority as a convention of girl scouts. Its contribution to "world peace" is nil, and that's looking at it in the most favorable light. (Realistically, the UN is responsible for a huge amount of bloodshed and suffering worldwide. But that's going back to your moral case.)

So basically, it comes down to this: if you want a lot of blue-uniformed soldiers on the ground who will dutifully bang the local hookers and drive around in cool white SUVs, call the UN. If you want symbolic "peace areas" that turn into gut-wrenching bloody clusterfucks the instant someone with a real army walks in and bitch-slaps the "peacekeeping force," call the UN. If you want a whole lot of speechifying and meaningless condemnations "in the strongest possible terms" that always get answered by some third-world dictator's puppet who gets up and yells about "racism" and "colonialism" when some civilized country inquires as to whether cutting off the limbs of villagers is a sound domestic policy -- call the UN. If, however, you actually want some kind of resolution on the ground that involves real peace, or at least the possibility thereof -- then you call Washington, and hope they care enough to respond. End of story.

Posted by: E. Nough at February 2, 2003 11:53 PM

E. Nough: Well, I've admired some of your comments over at Bill's and Charles' joints. They qualify as blog posts in their own right, as a couple above have shown. You should really consider your own blog; build it and I will come.

Posted by: CGeib at February 3, 2003 04:14 PM

There, that felt much better, huh?

That's American humility in action for ya, Noughy; we'd thank you (very, very warmly, mate) for taking our questions a tad more seriously this time 'round, but we know that that would REALLY whazz you off, so instead here's a touch of the wussier brand of soppy lefty anti-war shite we know you guys like to get your gnarly teeth into. We realise that we gots to chuck the (necessary) blogs of war a bone to chew on every nows and then. Kindly Amy seems to know all about wielding a big stick, so she can bite into this 'un:

'Oh, but the poor Iraqi children, Amy! Who shall take care of the poor Iraqi children after the awful American bombs have fallen again? Tra-la-la-de-la-la, etc, etc...'

Angry chicks with great big guns, lads; nuthin' scarier! (Oh yeah, a cup o tea'd be nice when you're ready, darlin'...)

Now, where were we? Ah yes. Imminent urgent global-strategic fall-out:

1. OK, so good luck with the obnoxious 'Arab' dictator thang. Hopefully you'll start with King Dick Saudi. But do wake us up when you get to Mubarak and Mushareef, won't you. Those 'democratizations' might even be worth flicking from Canal+ PornFest to CNN to watch. (We might even see our little bro's mug in the thick of the shite somewhere in downtown Islamabad. Tho' those SF guys like to keep their dials off TV if they can help it. We know we did when we were still in uniform.)

Don't drop the GIs in the shit. Yours OR ours, thanks.

Re: invading and occupying Iraq to stop 'em going nuke, if that's really your concern, see Israel circa 1981. Rather more efficient, non? (You DO, we seriously hope, know exactly what is where, and where it's at??? Come now - we both know your spooks are rather good these days; the State's, too, more's the point.)

But we both also know, we think, that the imminent Iraq WMD/terrorist 'threat' (= capacity AND intent) is hardly a number one driver here (altho' we'll grumpily grant that such an unhappy confluence is NOW getting more 'likely' with every rattled Bushy sabre, roit? D'oh!). But frankly, whatever Powelly plucks out of his bad ol' ass this week, we'd simply have to say it's all been a bit of a three-carder-in-reverse; thus far, to this sad point-way-beyond-point-of-no-return, but one hypothetical argument on a kooky long list that also now includes mundane personal ambition and WH/Pentagon/State Dep/Capitol Hill power-playing, domestic political and military-practical momentum, oil/budget demands, honest HR morality, and genuine, if slightly-misdirected, American can-do idealism re: democracy...not necessarily in that order. Fine, fine, we're open to nuanced argument on what carries more weight and with whom, but since it's all a done deal now, the only thing to do is wait and see, we s'pose, and as usual the historical proof will be in the post-invasion pudding. Warmest luck. If anyone can do it right, America can. Same goes for doing it bum-fuckingly wrong, alas, but that's fertile democratic governance for you...

But on nukes and other 'urgently required' Destructions of Mass Weaponry, Noughy, we'd respectfully argue that (NK aside) Iran is the real regional worry here. Better hope that no 'sneaky-peaky' Iraqi Shia (or closet-dissident anti-Saddamite AND anti-American, or opportunistic ass-saving) WMD experts 'scape 'cross the border to Tehran in the chaos of war, eh? Not to mention any chunks of fissionable material, globs of poison snot and other nasties that might easily go missing in the 82nd Airborne action.

We would have thought, anyways.

Incidentally, we bet the CIA are well-pissed at the imminent upending of their painstakingly nurtured internal Iraq (not to say regional) networks, contacts, surv. & int. rhythms and WMD pulse-monitoring. Also not to mention the catastrophic 'back-to-square-one' effect (sigh) on their (hitherto increasingly tight) grasp of the Al-Qaeda global status quo...a burgeoning bad-shit-squared-away understanding that this invasion will doubtless render almost totally obsolete in 48 hours' worth of cruise missiles.

The shadowy terrorist world, as they say, is about to undergo a massive, un-trackable and irreversible change.

And - having quite some loooong personal exp. of terrorism (and HOW TO BEAT IT) where WE live - we wearily s'pose it'll take another major anti-US terrorist blow, just for your spooks to find out where the new start-point is, mates. What the new 'rules' are going to be. Who's been stirred into extreme action, at last. Who thinks they've got fuck-all to lose, now. And so on.

Shades of appeasement? Noughy, simply being POLITE to people is a form of appeasement, son. (Y'ever tried to shut a bawling, wildly-flailing - and mostly harmless - baby up by belting it even harder?)

The ones who hate you enough to want to kill you NOW, always will. Quietly hunt them down and catch or kill them first, one by one if need be. (You were doin' so great, too...)

Nope, it's the ones who don't yet hate you enough to want to kill you that require 'appeasement'. AKA firm politeness. AKA, Amy, a soft-spake voice and a large unused stick. Use your stick on them unnecessarily, and they'll just scrabble around in the shit for a while, and then use whatever they can find there to hit you back. (Unless you intend to go all Kurtzy on us and 'exterminate them all'???)

This sort of riff is, we feel, hardly rocket science, chaps.

Guys, your democratic leaders are about to waste Baghdad and all who sail within her in your collective name (oh yeah, and nick by sheer brute force the second largest puddle of go-juice in the world). Do you understand remotely what effect this will have on Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism??? It's the equivalent of the RAF dive-bombing Dublin with Buccaneers in 1973 (oh, and simultaneously stopping the dole for all Belfast Micks), the better to help rootle out the Provos in Derry. It's the equivalent of Aznar going after ETA by doing a Geurnica on Barcelona. Or even the Kisser whacking Cambodia just to stick it up the Politburo. (Easy, guys, easy...just lobbing cheeky contemplation grenades.)

For eff's sake, remember: just labelling a big raw power tool like the US Armed Forces something sexy - 'The Democratizer' - doesn't always and/or automatically make it useful in promulgating long-term democracy. (Remember, too, that every totalitarian government ever allowed by its people to develop has had a nice-sounding name, usually with the term 'democratic' in it somewhere.)

We reckon March 22. That's just a pluck, though. (What's the moon doing then, Bill?)

And how all the world's brand new-made terrorists will watch on and seethe with white hate, or scurry away from the mess to lick their wounds and regroup, or group for the first time. The curious mad scientist, the radicalised religious nutcase, the grieving avenger, the greedy cynical opportunist...such chaps don't really care much where they find temporary 'sovereign country' sanctuary. ('Level one'? 'Level Two'? 'Level Three'??? NOW who's constructing kooky 'Lord of the Flies' societies???). What does matter is this: the bigger and more inaccessible (to your M-1s, your Tomahawks, your Quiet Americans, your satellites, your diplomats) that 'sovereign' sanctuary proves to be, and the more sympathetic to them is its broad massed population, the better. For them, that is. For your enemy. For OUR enemy.

Pakistan, we believe, is where most of the Afgh. vets have ended up. Nuke away, chaps.

Nope, very handy all round for them, we feel, this next move on your parts. We speak now of Al-Qaeda, which of course means 'base', which of course this invasion and occupation will hand them on a platter. The new American 'platform' for fighting the anti-nutcase fight will be right there at their feet, too. Your 'platform', Noughy, their 'base'. S'all semantics, huh.

But it's the very worst blunder any militarily undefeatable superpower can make, the requisite first step for transforming a disparate criminal terrorist campaign into a 'legitimate', focussed insurrection (or larger) war, Noughy: get the enemy to engage you in the bandit country you know, love, and broadly control. The Paras go into the North. The French go into Algeria. The Russians go into Chechnya. La-de-da-de-da.

And if that pissant local nihilist criminal, to date a chickenshit nobody driven mostly by impotent self-loathing, can paint the incoming 'enemy' as territorial and religious aggressors, as Imperialists, as Crusaders, as rank thieves of 'His Glorious People's' national wealth...then before long he'll have every previously-squabbling local nationalist and every whacko international religious nutter and wildly-bigotted thrill-seeker lining up beside him, 'legitimising' his hate, sending him guns and explosives, paying his tab, dying for his 'cause', taking their opportunistic potshots in their turn and at their leisure, in a million subtle and ultimately undefeatable ways, in the places where you are most vulnerable of all.

Nuke, nuke, nuke away, Noughy mate. You'll never bomb people into democracy in a quick and clean 'intervention', because the very first thing a bomb does to people is radicalise them. And then you have a long, slow fight stretching ahead of you.

It. Just. Doesn't. Work. America won WW2 with a whole lot of hard fighting, to be sure, but ultimately with the Marshall Plan. She won the Cold War, after 'losing' the hard fighting in Vietnam, in the boardrooms of Coke and Nike and Microsoft. We hope she's figured out the lesson, there; that she'll win this current war most efficiently by laying aside the big guns as often as she can, and reaching for the butter, instead.

No doubt there are a few military battles still to be had. Iraq isn't one of them. Not this way. Not like this. Not like this, pls k.

Sigh.

Still, like we said, good luck anyway. We ARE on your side. Truly. We would LIKE very much to stay there, too. Voluntarily, preferrably.

But, as we also said, and say loudly again:

If something vaguely approaching stable and peaceful global unity were attempted in this particular way at all...

...better t'were attempted very, very, very, very thoroughly. However long it takes. Like, even all eternity, dudes. (Cue X-Files theme, etc.)

Oops, shit, almost forgot...

2. ...N. Korea. Mmm, yairs, but that IS the prob, huh - nuke, or almost. Which means MAD containment or a pre-emptive n strike. In the latter case, China and Russia would definitely both veto, so you'd be thoroughly on your 'own' on that baby. I doubt that would worry you, but it would sure worry them.

And the rest of us. Esp. S. Korea and, we imagine, California. (No great loss, p'raps; Hollywood ain't made a decent flic since The Manchurian Candidate, IOHO. Kim Il-Jong feels the same, apparently...)

Alternatively, in the case of continued MAD containment, which is essentially a matter of an ongoing tricky diplomatic ballet, France, the UNSC and the UN platform and membership in general, might become rather more important than you think. Can't dance a ballet without a stage. We would have thought.

We chatter.

3. Finally, re: mwah-hah-hah-hah:

If we thought the US was some kind of nasty international bully out to dominate every other country, schmuckapottamus, then we'd hardly be chatting pleasantly now, would we? (Occasional rudeness aside. Wot - can't take a bit of friendly banter, CGeib? Oh well.)

Chatting with a nasty world-domination bully would be...ahem, 'appeasement', shurley?

Like we said, just don't fuck up on the rest of us. Not NOW, for fuck's sake. Not just when space is getting REALLY interesting...

k
k
k
k
k
k
k

PS: "To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the solar system and the universe, and use the environment of space for research. To explore, use, and enable the development of space for human enterprise. To research, verify, develop, and transfer advanced aeronautics, space and related technologies."

PPS: Actually, we've always kinda' preferred: "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has gone before..."

Except for that gold-darned split infinitive! Ain't anywun evva tort yuze yanks how to rite proper inglish???? Sigh...

Our bounty is as boundless as the sea...

Been nice chatting. Thanks heaps for the space, SG. Sorry to use so much.

Must dash. Got an anti-war demo to go to. Our allocated role is to boot any flag-burners up the arse and out of the line. Cushy REMF job as far as defending (ie NOT 'aggressively proselytising', which = oxymoron) democracy goes, we know, but some shiny-arse pussy's gotta do it, eh...

Posted by: BCFW at February 3, 2003 07:35 PM

Wow, BC, that's a rather long post (and that's something, coming from me), and I'm tired, so once again, you'll have to forgive me if I don't go point by point.

Really, though, I wasn't trying to blow you off the last time; I answered your questions with about as much detail as I could. I never made pretenses to "American humility" -- what I was going for was "American indifference," which in the area of international politics, amounts to roughly the same thing.

OK, so good luck with the obnoxious 'Arab' dictator thang. Hopefully you'll start with King Dick Saudi.

Thanks, I hope so too. BTW, I never said that we'll be invading all those countries with the icky Arab dictators. Steven Den Beste has a bunch of lenghty essays on the subject, but the main point is that you build a functioning democracy next door, and the thugocracies will fall apart on their own.

But do wake us up when you get to Mubarak and Mushareef, won't you.

FYI, Musharraf is not an Arab, nor is his country Arab. Still, your point is understood; one problem at a time, please.

Re: invading and occupying Iraq to stop 'em going nuke, if that's really your concern, see Israel circa 1981. Rather more efficient, non?

Oui, Mr. BCFW, but too short-term, and I doubt the Iraqis will be stupid enough to keep all their eggs in a large basket with a huge target on it again. Besides, the idea is not just to knock Saddam's program back a year or two; it's to get rid of him entirely. He's outlived his usefulness, y'know?

But on nukes and other 'urgently required' Destructions of Mass Weaponry, Noughy, we'd respectfully argue that (NK aside) Iran is the real regional worry here.

Good point, but again, one nuisance at a time. Besides, there's a non-trivial chance that Iran might get over its case of Mullitis without our help. At any rate, even if they do manage to get nuclear, it's rather unlikely that Iran -- as a nation -- will pull something as boneheaded as threaten U.S. forces occupying Iraq. On the other hand, a nuclear Hussein would have no problem whatsoever taking over a (not-yet-nuclear) Iran -- even if he has to wipe out a city or two (or ten) to get at his goal.

Incidentally, we bet the CIA are well-pissed at the imminent upending of their painstakingly nurtured internal Iraq (not to say regional) networks, contacts, surv. & int. rhythms and WMD pulse-monitoring.

No idea. But the whole point of having all those is to keep Iraq from going nuclear. We're not watching the Arabs for anthropological research.

Also not to mention the catastrophic 'back-to-square-one' effect (sigh) on their (hitherto increasingly tight) grasp of the Al-Qaeda global status quo...

Not sure what you're getting at there, Mr. FW. And again, ain't no point having the devil you know, if you're going to do nothing about him. Yeah, there'll be changes. But they'll be changes in our favor. Removing a major sponsor nation tends to hit terrorist groups pretty hard. I mean, without the Soviets and with the Arabs cowed by Gulf War I, the PLO was practically dead in Tunis, until the Israelis decided to resurrect it.

(skipping bad metaphor involving cranky babies for some reason...)

Nope, it's the ones who don't yet hate you enough to want to kill you that require 'appeasement'. AKA firm politeness.

"Firm politeness" isn't going to do it with religious nutballs. Alternatively, think of making a few martyr examples as the "firm" in your phrase. After all, even those oh-so-moral-and-sophisticated French got quite good at offing Algerians who they thought posed a threat. Though they now consider it a bit gauche to discuss that openly, I hear.

(Unless you intend to go all Kurtzy on us and 'exterminate them all'???)

Hardly. Usually a few dead comrades and the realization that the tactic is ineffective, is all that's needed. (It helps to remove funds and state sponsors, too.)

Guys, your democratic leaders are about to waste Baghdad and all who sail within her in your collective name

Actually, Ann Coulter and a few of the more strident LGF commentators aside, they aren't.

Do you understand remotely what effect this will have on Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism???

You mean, terrorists will target Americans? Wow, I had no idea they were holding back...

For what it's worth, I don't fear a few million indigent subliterates running around the desert with AK-47s, yelling "Allahu akhbar!" I am much more fearful of hostile nations with nuclear weapons and control of huge quantities of oil supply.

For eff's sake, remember: just labelling a big raw power tool like the US Armed Forces something sexy - 'The Democratizer' - doesn't always and/or automatically make it useful in promulgating long-term democracy.

You're arguing against a straw man. The primary task is to turn Saddam into worm food, shred his apparatus, and stop Iraq from turning nuclear. Even if afterwards it descends into a flat Afghanistan, the mission will be successful. Demonstrating that a real democracy can exist in the Arab world, if that does actually happen, will be gravy. Fwiw, our forces seem to have a pretty good record at this when we're serious. Last I checked, Tokyo, Seoul, and Berlin were pretty nice places to visit and live in.

The curious mad scientist, the radicalised religious nutcase, the grieving avenger, the greedy cynical opportunist...such chaps don't really care much where they find temporary 'sovereign country' sanctuary.

And they exist regardless of what we do in Iraq. If it ain't our foreign policy, it's our godless consumerism, or burqaless women, or purposeless freedom -- something will always piss some people off. You can't help this, and you shouldn't try.

But it's the very worst blunder any militarily undefeatable superpower can make, the requisite first step for transforming a disparate criminal terrorist campaign into a 'legitimate', focussed insurrection (or larger) war, Noughy: get the enemy to engage you in the bandit country you know, love, and broadly control.

Oh, you mean like Afghanistan? Gee, never thought of this before.

And if that pissant local nihilist criminal... can paint the incoming 'enemy' as territorial and religious aggressors...then before long he'll have every... local nationalist and ... religious nutter and ... lining up beside him, 'legitimising' his hate, sending him guns and explosives, paying his tab, dying for his 'cause', taking their opportunistic potshots in their turn and at their leisure, in a million subtle and ultimately undefeatable ways, in the places where you are most vulnerable of all.

Whatever. He will still need state sponsors, money, places to train, etc. etc. etc. Remove that, and all he's got is a bunch of misfits who can't tell a bullet from a bowling ball. Have you noticed how al-Qaeda used to have all kinds of daring plans afoot, killed people by the hundreds... and now that they've lost Afghanistan, they best they can do is a few nitwits who can't get past a few angry stewardesses? Seems like it takes a bit more than "anger" and "dedication" to pull off terrorism: you also need an infrastructure, and safe territory to launch from. (The IRA had that in Ireland. The PLO has that in the West Bank now. al-Qaeda used to have it in Afghanistan.)

For what it's worth: I'll take small-time terrorism over nuclear-armed Iraq any day. (Especially since a nuclear-armed Iraq would be quite happy to train them properly and supply them nicely. You know, like the nuclear-powered USSR used to. Or didn't you?)

Nuke, nuke, nuke away, Noughy mate.

Once again, BCFW, I have to ask what yer talkin' about, there.

You'll never bomb people into democracy in a quick and clean 'intervention', because the very first thing a bomb does to people is radicalise them. And then you have a long, slow fight stretching ahead of you.

Guess what, my trembling amigo: we've got a long, slow fight ahead of us no matter what happens. You know those guys who keep chanting "Death to [whatever the fuck they manage to pronounce today]"? Guess what -- they don't like us already. They never will like us. They aren't sophisticated foreign policy wonks. They wouldn't be impressed by us backing off their mates -- they'd look at it as weakness. They interpret it as us being afraid (clearly true in your case -- oh, sorry, that's just your own sophistication, not cowardice, pardon me). And then they'd do more of the same, because it clearly works so well.

America won WW2 with a whole lot of hard fighting, to be sure, but ultimately with the Marshall Plan.

That's right. No one ever said that we'd force Iraq into a modern-day Versailles treaty, where we impoverish it and leave it destitute. Not our way. They'll get a Marshall Plan, and then some -- count on it. But here's the thing: the bad guys in charge have to be red mist first. Sending foreign aid to Hitler wouldn't have really done the trick, ya know?

won the Cold War, after 'losing' the hard fighting in Vietnam, in the boardrooms of Coke and Nike and Microsoft.

Umm, wrong, mon ami. America won the Cold War by red-lining its economy, to where the Russian "socialist paradise" couldn't keep up, and collapsed under its own weight. And why did they even try -- because they cared about the standard of living in Murmansk? Nope: it was because we red-lined the economy by building all sorts of new military toys, that scared the crap out of them, because they were about to lose parity with us.

(And while we're at it: all that nasty Kissinger/Reich/etc. business in the intervening years was part of the battle. The training given by the Soviets to Yasser's boys and their other Arab allies? That was also part of the battle. Helping Israelis against the Soviet supplied Arab "repubilcs"? Yep, same thing. The Cold War wasn't won with Nixon/Carter's wheat subsidies.)

We hope she's figured out the lesson, there; that she'll win this current war most efficiently by laying aside the big guns as often as she can, and reaching for the butter, instead.

Sorry, but the butter stays in the fridge unless the kids behave. Otherwise, they get a spanking first. Then, when desired behavior is achieved, we bring on the Land-o'-Lakes. (Abusing metaphors is so much fun, eh?)

No doubt there are a few military battles still to be had. Iraq isn't one of them. Not this way. Not like this. Not like this, pls k.

Sure it is, but that isn't the point. The primary task here is to keep Iraq from going nuclear, which will give it enough leverage to control the entire Middle East. (Surely I don't need to explain that mechanism again? It's pretty self-documenting, methinks.) How we use it afterwards is a separate issue. Fear not, BCFW, plenty of butter will be churned.

If something vaguely approaching stable and peaceful global unity were attempted in this particular way at all...

Watch out for flying-pig droppings...

...N. Korea. Mmm, yairs, but that IS the prob, huh - nuke, or almost. Which means MAD containment or a pre-emptive n strike

MAD containment it is, then. The place is already pretty contained. As long as they don't turn openly belligerent towards the South Koreans, we can just let them fall apart on their own terms. That day is coming, if the bark (or the lack thereof) on the local trees is any indication.

(I suppose they could also turn against the Russians or the Chinese. That would be a very short-ranged scenario.)

The North Koreans, like the Pakistanis, have no leverage against anyone. That's what differentiates them from a nuclear Iraq, which would control the entire ME oil supply. That's the whole point. We can just sit there and wait on them, forever if need be.

Alternatively, in the case of continued MAD containment, which is essentially a matter of an ongoing tricky diplomatic ballet, France, the UNSC and the UN platform and membership in general, might become rather more important than you think.

Really? In what way? Will the French scowling and Kofi's proclamations really impress the North Korean General Staff? Methinks not. Especially given that Kim & Co. are already demanding to "talk" only with the U.S., rebuffing everyone else like a spoiled teenager with an unrequited crush. But maybe I missed something -- prithee tell, what crucial role will the UN and the glorious Fifth Republic play in this drama?

Chatting with a nasty world-domination bully would be...ahem, 'appeasement', shurley?

Or that other fun alternative: surrender. That's what happens when your appeasements are enough for the enemy to grow stronger than you. See France, 1940.

Thanks for giving us an insight into how you view the relationships between all those countries and two-legged induhviduals. I hope the anti-war protest was fun.

Posted by: E. Nough at February 3, 2003 10:31 PM

Stick a fork in him, E.

On second thought, he probably doesn't even know he's dead, yet.

Posted by: David Perron at February 4, 2003 03:27 AM

Yeah, I think we're done here. :-) Though it really was worthwhile. BCFW is a good example of someone who seems like a troll at first, but isn't.

This is partly the reason I haven't set up my own blog (not yet, anyways) -- I usually need someone else's disagreement to coalesce my thoughts around.

Posted by: E. Nough at February 4, 2003 08:56 AM