« infectious | Main | hot fury »

where's the stop sign?

I'm wondering what Chirac is thinking as he listens to all this. I think I know.

Bear with me on this.

Many times, a community will ask the local authorities to put in a stop sign or traffic light at a dangerous corner. The authorities will invariably say no, there have been no deaths reported from accidents on this corner. Nevermind that there have been many accidents, many injuries and several close calls.

And then comes the deathly accident and the authorities rush in an put up a stop sign or traffic light, making a big deal out of caring about the safety of the residents and how they want to make sure that the victim did not die in vain.

Chirac - and most of the anti-war faction - will not put in that stop sign until it's too late. When the boom comes and people are laying dead, only then will the profess to care enough to do something about it.

This thought has been brought to you by fever and medication.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference where's the stop sign?:

» Powell at the U.N.: Reaction from Chris Lawrence's weblog
Kathy Kinsey has links to transcripts of Powell's presentation before the UNSC. I only got the audio version, and started... [Read More]

» http://jimtreacher.com/archives/000333.html from Mother, May I Sleep With Treacher?
Vote, vote, vote for me! Or don't, it's not a big deal. No, no, it's cool, don't worry about it. I said don't worry about it. Okay, fine, do what you want.... [Read More]

Comments

I think fear is the wrong reason for war. If we're doing it because we want to help the Iraqi people... so be it. If you're for war because you're afraid. Well, actions made out of fear are rarely the right ones.
I'm for war because of the way he treats his people.

Nice analogy, lady. Charles Krauthammer said last night he's pretty certain France will want in at the last moment. He thinks we should tell them no thanks; too little, too late. I think he's right.

Edgar, as I see it, most of the rest of the world is afraid. We and our ever-growing number of allies are not afraid to do what's necessary.

I like that analogy.

Or they're just waiting for a better offer from the US.

When the boom comes and people are laying dead, only then will they profess to care enough to do something about it.

Nuh-uh. At that point they start to blame Bush for "not doing enough."

No. They'll blame Bush for provoking Saddam.

That and American arrogance will be the cause.

--

Fear is always a good reason to defend yourself. As long as you've ascertained that your fear is rational. There's a reason mother nature (or God, take your pick) endowed us with the ability to feel fear.

Hey Chip!

Look at the pictures. Read the speech.

Are you familiar with the Japanese biological and chemical warfare experiments on native peoples and POWs during WWII? This excerpt from Powell's speech should sound familiar:

"We also have sources who tell us that, since the 1980s, Saddam's regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons.

A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eye witness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victim's mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners. Saddam Hussein's humanity inhumanity has no limits.

We've risked our intelligence sources in presenting the evidence to the UN. It's clear that Hussein is flouting the UN's resolutions in this matter. What happens if the UN Security Council doesn't authorize forcible disarmament? Would you still oppose war, knowing what you know now? What does it take to convince you. If today's presentation doesn't,, then, quite frankly, no evidence will, short of American forces going to Baghdad and bringing back WMD parts back with them."

What happens if the Security Council, like France, proposes to do nothing meaningful about this evidence? Our people won't turn away. Our elected government, of the people, for the people, and by the people, won't either. Count on it.

And when the dust settles, we'll remember who stood with us. And you can bet that a certain French company's oil contracts will not remain enforceable. And the motives for France's lofty foreign policy will be revealed, and glisten like a rotting fish in the moonlight.

To quote Powell today, "Enough is enough." Let's roll.

Regards,
Tony
PS - Yes, I'm ticked.

Michele, your picture is not fair and accurate - it's not "just a stopsign", we're talking about, it's more like closing the street, bury it deep down in the ground and closing all shops along the road and hitting all shopowners out. Chirac and the other anti-war countries won't put this stop sign just because the guy with the biggest car has had aproblem there which could maybe lead to an accident. They prefer to wait until it's prooven, the stop sign is really the absolute last possibility.

Free Voices of Iraq is a series of perspectives published by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in which Iraqi democracy and human rights activists speak out about the suffering of the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, their desire to be liberated, and the prospects for bringing democracy to a post-Saddam Iraq.

There are three things that need to be reiterated over and over and over again: (1) Neither we nor UNMOVIC are obliged to demonstrate that Iraq has WMD, development and production programs and delivery systems; (2) UNMOVIC is not obliged to run around Iraq playing detective, trying to establish where WMD and delivery systems are hidden; and (3) Iraq is obliged by Resolution 1441 and its predecessor resolutions to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Security Council that it has destroyed its WMD and delivery systems and dismantled its development and manufacturing infrastructure. It should be crystal clear to everyone, including the no-war crowd, that Iraq has failed to live up to its obligations.

What, then, should be done about Iraq's noncompliance?

It seems to me that there are three general courses of action:

(1) Maintin the status quo and continue the inspection regimen until the cows come home. It should be abundently clear by now that this option does not lead to Iraqi compliance. Moreover, it has the effect of continuing the suffering of the Iraqi people because of the economic sanctions that are in place. (As an aside, I can remember Senator Kennedy, during the Senate debate on the first Gulf War, that we must "give sanctions more time to work." It is now 12 years later and they still haven't worked, except to produce suffering for the Iraqi people.) For me, this is no solutionn at all.

(2) Fold up the tent and go home. Remove our troops from the area and declare that the Iraqi problem is a regional, not a world, problem. Aside from the long string of Security Council resolutions that would need to be set aside, this would do nothing to compel Iraqi divestment of WMD, delivery systems, development programs and manufacturing infrastructure. There is no power in the Middle East, including the Israelis, that could, either alone or in concert, comple Iraqi divestment. There are numerous other US commercial and national security objections to this course of action, but I'll leave these aside.

(3) President Bush's "coalition of the willing" approach. I'm a Vietnam vet (2 tours, both in infantry units). I've seen enough war and death to last me several lifetimes. I have an instant allergic reaction to politicians, pundits, talk-radio blow-hards and others who, having never seen the face of war up close and personal, advocate armed intervention as a solution, particularly as a first solution, to international problems. Put bluntly, they don't know shit and it infuriates me when I see them making claims about how "easy" a conflict will be to conclude on our terms. With that background, and with the cast of characters who basically turn my stomach in and out of the current administration advocating war with Iraq, it has been difficult for me to conclude that this war needs to be fought. Nonetheless, that's my conclusion -- I see no other way to compel divestment and it seems to me that the sooner we do this the better.

BTW, I thought your analogy was great.

I think France just wants to be publically against the US.

Think about it, will Al Qa'eda attack Paris for being with the US - yes.
Will the US attack Paris for being against us? No.

I read that France is on its way to becoming a majority Muslim country. Once again there's a political payoff of being against us and none for being for us.

It's obvious what to do, if you have no honor.

Hey Tony,

I'm in agreement with you. Inhumanities should be dealt with. But that's not why Bush wants to go to war with Iraq. If it were I think we'd all be supporting him. Bush wants oil. No question. The U.S. hasn't stepped in in ANY other nation where human rights are being violated. And just because they haven't stepped in in any other country isn't a reason not to step in here, I think that it would be a noble thing to liberate the people of Iraq, and if he manages to do that, which is doubtful, all the power to him. But that's not why he's doing it. Bush wants oil. Bush has a horrible domestic record, winning a war would help to hide that. This war may be necessary, but so far it has been proposed for all the wrong reasons.

Chip,

Why do you keep saying it's all about the oil? Where's the evidence? It's not like we get our oil from there. I read somewhere that about 20% of our oil comes from the Middle East. So where's the motive?

You said we're doing this for all the wrong reasons. Oil aside, what motives are you objecting to? I think there are some pretty good ones - his constant human rights abuses, his development and stockpiling of NBC weapons, his attempt to assassinate ex-President Bush, his refusal to cooperate with us in finding out what happened to Gulf War MIA LCDR Spiecher, his constant shooting at US and British warplanes enforcing the no-fly zones. None of those are good enough for you?