« and they say the right are conspiracy theorists... | Main | audience participation »

dear susan sarandon

dear susan sarandon

Reprentative quote from yesterday's anti-war (oops, sorry, pro-peace) rally in DC, from Susan Sarandon:

Actress Susan Sarandon spoke as well. "I am here as a mother because I am afraid for my children," she shouted. "I'm afraid for our children. I'm afraid for the Iraqi children."[emphasis added]

Susan, dear. Hang on one second while I go peruse a post I made yesteday.

Ah, there it is:

"This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess."

Now, whose children are you afraid for, Susan? Yours? What you should be afraid of is not the war that needs to be waged, but what will happen to your children's future if we don't wage it.

You're afraid for the Iraqi children? Do you think the life described above is something they enjoy? Unlike your children, who enjoy the spoils of your riches every day and lead pampered lives, the children of Iraq live in fear of their brutal leader. Their lives mean nothing to Hussein. They don't expect to have a future, let alone a good one.

What do you propose we do about that, Ms. Sarandon? Do you want to go over there and rescue each and every Iraqi child so they don't have to endure a life of pain and misery? Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the one thing that puts the fear and pain into their lives - their leader?

No, in your world everything can be solved with a peace pipe and a handshake. You and your friends better start coming up with some viable alternatives besides making nice if you are going to continue your protests. I mean, rallying and marching is all well and good, but unless you have some kind of action and plan behind it (blaming the Republicans for everything does not count as a plan) then just shut your mouth, go home and take your hairy-armpit, placard wearing, thickheaded friends with you. Then go hunker down in your fallout shelter while the people who know how to take real action make your country a safe one and free the Iraqi children that you care about so much from the reigns of a tyrannical regime. You can thank them later.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference dear susan sarandon:

» Anti-War Protests from Neolibertarian News Portal
United Press International: Thousands protest Iraq war in DC The brains of these 100,000 protestors together wouldn't fill a tea [Read More]

» What a Weekend! from The Dragons's Muse
Worst thing that happened: channel surfing and accidentally coming across Susan Sarandon blathering at a rally this weekend. Enough to [Read More]


"SS": she lives up to her initials.

And then there's Susie "Medea" Benjamin, who also helps organize these "Keep Saddam in Power" love-fests. Susie Benjamin adopted the name Medea in honor of the mythical character who murdered her own children.

More on Susie/Medea here

peace pipe raising here - did Susan say she didn't want the US to bom Sadam or to bomb Iraq? Because from what I get from yr posts, you want Sadam gone not Iraq, right? Well I'd imagine SS, but certainly I myself, wnat Sadam gone, but how many do we have to kill in order for that to happen. We've had sanctions in place killing 50 thousand kids a year, but that hasn't got rid of Sadam, despite the US govt claiming that sanctions are still necessary. I'm all for eliminating Sadam, as I imagine you are - but what will you sacrifice, and why expect the iqaui people to sacrifice their family members, for our security.
Bah, anyway, your blog right?

1) G, learn to spell. 2) Sanctions didn't work. Fine. I believe that. Without sanctions, without war, what is to be done? What are we supposed to use--- foul language? Read the reports--- the "Iquai" people want to get rid of Saddam. Badly. So badly they are risking their lives telling reporters about it--- to get the word out that THEY want Saddam gone. THEY want him gone by any means--- including war.

SS??? her name???

Does SS mean 'stupid shit'?


Fifty thousand children a year? That figure is BS, straight from the Iraqi ministry of information, duly parroted by the UN, and widely hugged, kissed, and fondled by every anti-American protest group. We know that sanctions kill children, how do we know? Cause uncle Saddam says so. Why accept on blind faith numbers out of Iraq, when you won't give your own government any benefit of doubt? The day after the war is won, Susan should be escorted through the prisons of Iraq, especially the infamous "childrens" prison. If she could go though that and not be sickened by what she wanted to allow to happen, then there is no possiblity for her as a human being, and she should be treated accordingly.

Matt Welch wrote an excellent article discrediting overestimates of excess mortality in Iraq, but adding: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."


Susan Sarandon's rhetoric was broad, and no doubt could have been stated better, clarified more, something. But I don't necessarily think she's an idiot or that her initials, as one poster here has stated, are appropriate. (Are you seriously trying to state that you think a peaceful, even if slightly illogical, anti-war protester is the equivilant of an SS officer under the Third Reich??) What mother really does want other children to die? Maybe she hasn't been presented with the information that you have. Maybe she's doing the best she has with the information she's got.

Point: Sanctions didn't work.

Point: Saddam is a brutal dictator at the head of a brutal regime.

I do wish we could remove him and like dictatorships. I do wish that we could stem the tide of human rights violations. And it may even take a war to do it--I'm not such a pacifist that I think that a power hungry man and the people who follow him will just tell the world, "You're right, chaps. Let me back down and retire to my palace in the hinterlands." However, I would prefer that the US not make such decisions about which regime is Bad and which ones are A-OK unilaterally. Currently, we don't have a lot of backing among the rest of the world, and for several very good reasons. They are a lot closer geographically to the Middle East than North America is, and the Middle East tends to be a terribly tangled little corner of the world. What happens there affects a great deal of Europe and Asia whose populations are a great deal more mixed religiously and culturally speaking in a smaller space. (Compared to North America.) If you go and replace one regime in the Middle East, the others all lock down and go into a defensive mode, wondering which of them is to be next. In the 70s and 80s Iraq was okay, because we didn't like Iran. Then Iran was sort of okay, comparatively speaking, because the Ayatollah died and Saddam then invaded Kuwait. In other words, our history of loyalty to countries and regimes in that area, and reciprocated loyalty is very minimal at best. Even countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia maintain a great deal of resentment towards the US and Europe for using their countries for military bases and staging grounds. Trying to remove one regime and replacing it with a democracy isn't going to be an easy, surgical process. And even after it happens, the people in the country, the common people, their quality of life may not change greatly. They may suffer loss of national identity. This has happened in Germany, Japan, and most recently in Russia, as regimes were toppled and replaced. It would be a fallacy to state that either way, there won't be suffering and pain for the children of these nations. And unfortunately the only way to stop that pain and suffering in the long run may be to throw these countries into war and upheaval. I don't have any alternatives to offer to war, unfortunately, but I think if we move with the rest of the world, and not against it, perhaps we can minimize the damage done as these regimes are toppled.

And at the risk of stating the obvious, if Saddam were spending his ill-gotten gains from "sanctioned" oil sales to Russia, France and the other UN wafflers on food for his people instead of CBWs and new palaces, there would be no starvation at all. Silly Susan worries about her children? Well, I have three (and seven grandchildren), which gives me greater worrying rights. And I worry that without military action, soon, they will end up with the choice of death or dhimmitude under an Islamofascist regime headed by Saddam or one of his ilk. Fortunately, George Bush and not Tim Robbins (Silly Susan's "parenting partner") is President, and my worry is probably unnecessary.

"....quality of life may not change greatly. They may suffer loss of national identity."

PFish, you sound like you are genuinely conflicted over this and for that I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

I suspect loss of national identity is the least of the many worries Iraqis have to occupy them these days. From my own experience -I was in the first Gulf War and spent a lot of time in Somalia and other depressing places in the years that followed – the Iraqi people are desperate for a change, any change, from what they have to endure now.

Personally, I once agreed that we should not have tried to force Saddam out of power the first time we had the opportunity. I have changed my mind since then and with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, regret that lost opportunity.

“I would prefer that the US not make such decisions about which regime is Bad and which ones are A-OK unilaterally.”

Why not? Is there some other country on earth that you would feel comfortable about fulfilling that role other than the U.S.? Believe me, SOMEONE will do it, if not us, then who? Russia? Germany? The Vatican?

The following is quoted from Stephen Ambrose’s book, “Citizen Soldiers,”

“In the spring of 1945, around the world, the sight of a twelve-man squad of teenage boys, armed and in uniform, brought terror to people's hearts. Whether it was a Red Army squad in Berlin, Leipzig, or Warsaw, a German squad in Holland, or a Japanese squad in Manila, or Beijing, that squad meant rape, pillage, looting, wanton destruction, senseless killing. But there was an exception: a squad of GIs, a sight that brought the biggest smiles you ever saw to people and joy to their hearts.”

"Around the world this was true, even in Germany, even -- after September 1945— in Japan. This was because GIs meant cigarettes, C-rations, and freedom. America had sent the best of her young men around the world, not to conquer but to liberate, not to terrorize but to help. This was a great moment in our history.”

“But slowly, surely, the spirit of those GIs handing out candy and helping bring democracy to their former enemies spread, and today it is the democracies—not the totalitarians—who are on the march. Today, one can again believe in progress, as thing are getting better. This is thanks to the GIs—along with the millions of others who helped liberate Germany and Japan from their evil rulers, then stood up to Stalin and his successors. That generation has done more to spread freedom—and prosperity—around the globe than any previous generation.”

In light of the accusations of “warmongering” and “Global imperialistic designs” from the rest of the “civilized” world I thought this was about as instructive and to the point as any of the rebuttal comments I’ve seen.

Do you doubt that after we run him out of power that we will somehow remain as colonialist??

I believe that most Americans still believe doing the “right thing” is reason enough to do that thing.

Just wait until they start handing out Oscars and Emmys in the category of Best Performance as an Idiotarian Peacenik.

Oh. Wait. They call them Nobel Peace Prizes. Never mind.

For answers to the question on the threat Iraq poses not only to his own people and ours, the numbers of children dead from the international sanctions, and any other questions people have on the issues surrounding the U.S. and Iraq, please see The Threatening Storm by Pollack. It's thorough, balanced, and should be read by anyone who wants real answers. No, Pollack is not paying me for publicity!

Jim: To answer your questions and concerns, I don't want any ONE nation to decide which regimes are okay and which ones aren't. Therein lies the key. That's why I would prefer the US to move forward with the blessing, so to speak, of the UN, rather than alienate other nations who might be affected by our actions.

My initial point was that there are no clean and surgical ways out of this situation. It's easy to point out the fallacies of Susan's rhetoric--there are definitely children suffering now in Iraq and many other countries. And it's easy to point out how pacificism can lead to aggression in unequal situations. But it's plain silly to think that war is going to be a quick and easy panacea.

Again, I may be something of a pacifist, but I don't believe in absolute rules governing situations which aren't absolute. And it may be necessary for this nation to go to war or to try and institute change in the Middle East. It may be the right thing. But only as long as we try our best to make sure that we are doing it for the real Right Reasons.

SS??? her name???

Does SS mean 'stupid shit'?

Posted by: Lynn Carrier on October 27, 2002 01:06 PM

Uh, I think you're being facetious, but in case you're not.....

"SS" stands for "Schutzstaffel", the de facto Nazi Party army led by Heinrich Himmler. It was for practical purposes the "Praetorian Guard" of the Nazi German regime and executor of Hitler's "Final Solution".

I think it's unfair to tag Miss Sarandon so, but her sophistry would still do Himmler proud.

Pfish: People like you scare me to death. Your ignorance of World War II is nothing short of amazing. Britain had no "backing" for a war against Hitler either. Their desire(and France's) for peace at any cost ended up allowing Hitler to war on the rest of Europe producing 20 million dead. You state that Europe is closer to the situation and they are going to be affected by what happens in Iraq. You insinuate, CORRECTLY, that because their populations are more mixed, that they may face increased violence and terrorism in their countries. As tragic as this is, standing on the sidelines allowing Saddam to gain weapons of mass destruction, which he will use to dominate foreign countries, is no solution to the problem. Unless, that is, you are of the opinion that freedom is not important. Standing by and watching Saddam turn other countries into torture havens like Iraq, and hoping it's going to stop at your doorstep, is a fool's game. And it's already been played once before, during WWII. The fact that European countries are closer to Iraq is a NEGATIVE, not a postive, in their ability to analyze the situation. Did it EVER occur to you that maybe these nations are holding the UN back in part because they do have a lot of Muslim sympathizers within their borders. For your information, there have been an ENORMOUS number of anti-semitic acts in France lately, and it not coming from the traditional French population but from these muslims that have been immigrating there. The French authorities have known for years that terrorists were working within their country to harm the US. The Devil's bargain was that they were allowed to remain there as long as they didn't terrorize France(which is sort of like what happend during the German occupation of France during WWII-French nationals went on living their lives, while the Jews were dragged off to the concentration camps). And these are the people whose blessing you want before we do anything? If you want to learn something about the French people, you really need to study WWII. It's not by chance that both Germany and France have had so many changes in governments over the last 200 years. These people have been incapable of governing themselves. This same French nation has been quite busy doing business as usual with Iraq, and it's not for humanitarian reasons. The French will do darn near anything for money. The same, by the way, is true of Russia, but for diffent reasons - those poor people are just destitute(although it's also true they they have a long historic allegiance with Iraq). And OH, guess which two nations are trying to water down the UN resolution. You fail to understand that the UN is seriously compromised since Russia and France are both permanent members of the security council. They may or may not come around to our way of thinking, but don't think that Saddam hasn't purposely been doing business with these two countries without an ulterior motive behind it. Furthermore, and here is your biggest misconception, we aren't doing this unilaterally, though we may need to do it without the approval of the UN. G. Britain, Spain, Italy, several ARAB countries, as well as other countries have already stated and made committments that they are WITH US. Why do you define multi-laterelism as only concerted action with the UN. MAYBE it would be preferable, but if the UN wants to stand by and be an ineffective organization, thereby turning it into the League of Nations, there's really nothing the US can do about it. And as for your wish that the US not make decisions unilaterally about which regimes are good and which are bad, I think its obvious for the reasons stated above, that each country, and each person, not only has to make these decisions, but has an absolute moral responsibility to make these decisions. This is what we do when we become ADULTS. Making these decisions doesn't automatically mean going to war, but in this case, with a tyrant who has already gassed his own people and is hungry for a weapon of mass destruction, it does(I might point out the similarity with Hitler- he started by killing unfit Germans before he started in on the Jews). It would be nice to think this is only a local issue and that it won't make it's way to Europe and then the US. But that ridiculous, because it made it's way to the US on 9/11(and yes, Saddam and terrorism are two sides of the same coin. Saddam funds money to these groups). This SAME attitude was dominant in the US prior to Japan's attack in WWII. It was considered a European problem. You really need to study WWII, as do most liberals. The place most people start is with Winston Churchill's 6 volume history of the war. As for loss of national identity, well I HOPE they lose some of that identity, and replace it with something less hostile to the rest of us. Democracy would be a good place to start, though, you're right, it's not a panacea. Another thing: No we're not perfect, nor will we ever be. But a government's reponse it not premised on being perfect, it's premised on the absolute responsibility that a government has to protect it's citizens. That is true and binding regardless of what past sins that same government may have done. Remember, we live in the City of Man, Not the City of God. We can't and won't be perfect, but that doesn't absolve us from taking action.

just to clear things up, my government is not the US one led by Bush, it's the Australian one. I don't believe it's attempts to pull me into war either. I do want Saddam gone, but I want the children of Iraq to be able to live free of sanctions, free of bullshit. Just like the children in Cuba or Israel or the US for that matter. And I can spell. I just can't tipe properly.

Randy: Let's see. You've said that "people like you scare me" and you've called me a liberal, which is pretty fucking ironic. But we'll ignore the personal and try and concentrate on what I actually said versus what you got out of it.

First: I responded considering Susan Sarandon's rhetoric. I said that Susan had committed a fallacy by implying that war was the only way Iraqi and US children were going to die. I also said I wouldn't consider comparing Susan to an SS officer as somebody else had done.

Secondly: I said that Saddam was a bad, bad man, and I personally wish we could get rid of him. With as minimal bloodshed and casualties to us and his oppressed people as possible. (If that implication wasn't clear.)

Thirdly: I am not an absolute pacifist. I do believe that pacifism in certain situations (re: your City of Man--human nature bringing out both the best and worst in people) breeds aggression and it is sometimes necessary to take action.

Fourth, concerning unilateral action on the US's behalf: Let's revise this a little. It may be impossible for the US to get complete global backing on this issue. In which case, it may look like the US is acting unilaterally. The US may have (and I believe that there are plenty) good reasons for ousting Saddam. And there are actions that we as a nation can take to affect Saddam's basis of power. Yet there are many other threats, some of which I'd rank greater than Saddam, to global security. China, for example, or the India/Pakistan tensions. (Plenty of oppressive behaviour going on in various parts of all three of those countries.) There are also lesser threats globally speaking with a greater magnitude of human rights violations than even Saddam's regime has cooked up. The Rwandan genocide in 1994 was hardly a blip on the global radar, but millions of people died in Rwanda that year because they happened to be born into the wrong tribe. They were raped, beaten with garden tools, shoved into their own latrines and buried alive, forced to shoot each other, often resorting to bribing guards in order to have their families given quick deaths instead of painful, lingering ones. And this was practically ignored by the rest of the world, precisely because it wasn't going to affect them. I'm not saying that we shouldn't act, but perhaps our history isn't spotless nor entirely noble. That doesn't mean that it hasn't helped make our own lives better or even helped other countries, but we as a nation haven't been uber-consistent about caring about human rights over the pocket books. Still, no time like the present to start.

At no point, have I said that I absolutely don't want the US to go to war with Iraq. I only said I wanted them to go to war for the right reasons. I don't want the US to come out of a war, going, Oops, we lost all these poor Iraqis but the oil refineries are still intact. Yay us! I would prefer if they could manage to give the impression to the rest of the world that the rest of the world would be protecting themselves and not just US interests and/or democracy. (I don't think the rest of the world gives much of a flying fuck about democracy, especially since the closest thing most of them seem to have is a spot of republics or monarchies or the occasional rule by committee or dictator. What they do seem to care about is being left alone and stability.)

I understand what you are saying: You're saying we need to do what's right. You're saying that US (and European) inaction during World War II caused a great deal of casualties and loss. France, you say, was paid to sit by and watch, and then one day, their devil's bargain wasn't worth anything any more and they themselves were invaded.

This part I can mostly agree with. It still works within the framework I have against absolute pacifism and I can understand that reasoning.

This doesn't mean that anti-war people don't have legitimate concerns though. After all, we all have the same goal. Peace. We sometimes just differ on means and ways.

g: To type you have to hit one letter at a time. How on earth does that interfere with your ability to spell correctly?

And you might want to check with the Children ™ of Cuba on that freedom thing.

“I don't want any ONE nation to decide which regimes are okay and which ones aren't. Therein lies the key. That's why I would prefer the US to move forward with the blessing, so to speak, of the UN, rather than alienate other nations who might be affected by our actions.”

Pfish, its people like you expressing these types of concerns that actually reassures me that we, as a country, are doing the right things. Reluctance is critical because it draws out all of the questions - legitimate or otherwise -that SHOULD be addressed before we enter into any conflict involving force.

I do think that the U.S. is the BEST country to do this. No one else will step up to what, I believe, is inevitable. I also believe that this will not be the end of our reluctant involvement in some of the globe’s more nastier situations.

Most Americans don’t know or understand the importance of our military. We are the only country on earth expanding military research. We are alone in military might that the world has never before witnessed.

Many countries have actually made the choice to downsize their military and reduce military spending BASED ON THEIR EXPECTATION THAT THE U.S. WILL DEFEND THEM IF THEY NEED IT! Sorry for the caps but I really want to make a point here that is irrefutable. Some countries, a good example is Canada, but several European and Asian countries are included, have made policy and political decisions to trust the defense of their sovereignty to the United States.

Whether we want to or not, the U.S. will have to shoulder a major role in the conduct of the world's affairs for a long time to come, and I am personally glad.

Not since the height of the British Empire, have one country been so powerful and so few countries lined up to challenge that superiority. However, Unlike the British, as a country we are uneasy in that role, it just smacks us as being imperialistic, and we don't do "imperialism" well. The last time we tried was the Philippines in 1896 and that proved to be a painful reminder that engaging in other peoples lives and politics comes with unintended consequences, mostly unpleasant.

In the coming century I believe that the U.S. will be called to action or will act with a few of our friends, notably Great Britain, despite our best intentions to remain apart from the world. How will this affect us? Don't have a clue, but I can suggest a possible outcome.

Over the next decade, the United States will enjoy extraordinary advantages over other nations. We are the only great power dominating an entire continent and remains politically united. The European Union occupies a good portion of a continent, but it is hardly united. Japan is united, but it does not control a continent. The landmass that the United States controls provides extraordinary advantages. Not only that, we are the only 1st world country with a 3rd world labor supply (Mexico) conveniently located next door. It's not for nothing that our
Immigration Service has lain off raids looking for illegals in the past few years.

Furthermore, The U.S. is relatively under populated. The population density of the United States, in comparison to that of Europe or Asia, is extraordinarily low. We have enormous natural resources. And finally, as the only great power bordering both the Atlantic and Pacific, the United States is, by the nature of its placement, the only logical global power. The 21st century will undoubtedly be the American century.

Where will this take us globally? I think you will see a significant political movement in the U.S. to return to our more isolated root. Heck, for the first 150 years we were a confirmed isolationist country, only since 1940 have we really expanded beyond our borders militarily and economically. Before that, we were very content to let the world go to hell. I think you are already seeing some of that sentiment coming out now, some Republicans are sounding that now and some people, not many now, but some, are listening. Wait till the economic situation softens more. As in the late 1980s, economic constraints generate protectionist sentiments in the United States. Part of this derives from a culture that feels the rest of the world is taking advantage of the United States. Part of it comes from rational economic reality. Asian exports are far more tolerable in boom times than in bad times. During economic downturns, there is a general tendency toward protectionism, as demonstrated by recent steel tariffs. This is particularly the case when, regardless of magnitude, the downturn generates insecurity among pivotal sectors. By the end of the decade expect large sectors of the public to support isolationism and protectionism, sooner if the economy sours.

And why not? Should we care if the Armenians are persecuted and slaughtered by the Turks?

Is the vicious fighting between the Tamils and Sri Lankans really important to the average American farmer in Idaho or the stock analyst in New York?

Do you personally care if the problems in Northern Ireland are resolved in your lifetime? (Actually, they probably will be. Recent census information shows the Catholics in Northern Ireland will have a voting majority by 2025, perhaps earlier)

Do we need the rest of the world? Well yes, actually, we do, but guess what? They probably need us more than we need them. Therein lies the challenge.

I suspect that many Americans are offended at some of the inequities of the world, and I'm not talking about the salary of Nike workers in Vietnam.

Most Americans are genuinely incensed and angered at the killings that seem to be a part of many countries legacy. And rightly so, they are often (to us) senseless, horrific and usually preventable. To that end, most American s would vaguely agree, "Something needs to be done." We have two options here:

A spineless response by the Europeans led by the French and Germans that might or might not includes troops.

Us probably joined by the British.

While there are all kinds of permutations to that response, it really is that simple.

Let me make some predictions:

Barring, nuclear war (unlikely) asteroid strike (possible?) or an unexpected catastrophe, the U.S. will the dominant force on earth for at least the next 150 years, probably longer.

Something will happen in the next 5-10 years that will force us to grow our military. I don't know what, but some nasty event will galvanize the political will required to build a much stronger military than we have now. Some of the contenders for the "Nasty event" are:

Another major terrorist act against the U.S. on U.S. soil (unlikely but hell, I thought 9/11/01 was impossible on 9/10/01),

A major terrorist act against the U.S. outside the U.S. (very likely)

Nuclear war between Pakistan and India, (scarily likely)

North Korea invading South Korea (they aren't all kisses and hugs YET!)

Major loss of U.S. lives anywhere in the world.
I define "major loss" as numbering in the thousands, although several hundred deaths in the right horrific circumstances would probably be a good impetus.

Or some other conflict or combinations of conflicts.

For instance, there are about 100,000 non-military U.S. citizens in South Korea north of the Han River. Even an abortive and unsuccessful military action by the North Koreans would cause significant death and capture of tens of thousands of these U.S. men, women, and children. What would be the U.S. reaction to those deaths? Especially if the used nukes?

As a result of that event, we will build a strong naval force and Marine type infantry, allowing us to project force anywhere on the world instantly.

"PAX Americana" is over a very short horizon. It's going to be a fun century. I hope to see a good part of it.

saw the buses loaded with 15 year old kids leaving on 14th St from NYC for that rally...

maybe we should just bow to Susie's intense intellect- I mean hell, she was in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show".

Pfish: "That's why I would prefer the US to move forward with the blessing, so to speak, of the UN"

Uhh, that's the same UN where China has a vote, but Taiwan and Tibet don't; where Syria and Libya and their buddies oversee Human Rights; where they dispatch ineffectual "peace keepers" to troubled places like Rwanda; where Zimbabwe has an equal voice as Canada; etc etc etc?

No thanks, I don't think we need or want the blessing of such a UN. Multilateralism is fine, as long as it means willing cooperation among like-minded contries: Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand for starters...

Hey, Pfish:

A quick question, and one I use to point out what I perceive as hypocrisy by (some of) the anti-war crowd. Did you approve of the Clinton administration's bombing of Yugoslavia over the Kosovo matter? That was a pre-emptive military campaign (to supposedly prevent genocide) without UN approval.

hi steve, some of us thought clinton should have been bombing the fuck out of yugoslavia way back in 93 when the massacres were happening in full bloom.
I don't know whether the other guys are anti-war here - I think it's at least for me I'm anti the way things are going about. If we want to bomb the fuck out of Saddam, well then good, I'm all for it, if we take out China, for Tibet; if we take out Indonesia, for the Aches; if we take out England for the Malvinas and their sheep. Consistency I guess is what concerns me - that we are trying to remove a terrorit-sponsering dictator in Iraq, but actively assisting and alligning ourselves with one in Pakistan.
As to the typing and spelling thing, I'm in AUtsralia ok - give me a break just once in my upside down life.

" I would prefer the US to move forward with the blessing, so to speak, of the UN, rather than alienate other nations who might be affected by our actions."


What's your Plan B? What if the UN decides tomorrow that Libya should head the UN Human Rights Commission? And that North Korea should get the same number of General Assembly votes as Finland?

"It may be the right thing. But only as long as we try our best to make sure that we are doing it for the real Right Reasons."

Is it better to do the Wrong Thing for the Right Reasons, or the Right Thing for the Wrong Reasons?