Eclecticism

I just stumbled across a very well written rebuttal to Powell’s UN address in the Pakistan Daily Times: World Views: Rebutting Powell:

If one believes everything Colin Powell said to the Security Council on February 5^th^, one’s first response ought to be that there’s no reason to fight a war, since US surveillance capabilities are so awesome that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can easily be found. And one’s first question should be why has the United States for over two months withheld this apparently so damaging evidence from those weapons inspectors, who could have verified conjectures and destroyed WMD stocks and production facilities.

If indeed the evidence presented is of the character claimed by Powell, then the United States has chosen to sabotage UN Security Council Resolution 1441, clause 10 of which “Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes.”

[…]

It is becoming increasingly likely that the United States will obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing war. And if it does, its main argument will be that it must go to war with Iraq to uphold international law. It’s important to understand ahead of time just how obscene that argument is. It’s not just because the United States has systematically undermined international law with regard to Iraq, by refusing to acknowledge the basis (disarmament) for lifting the sanctions, by committing repeated acts of illegal aggression against Iraq (like the Desert Fox bombing), and by deliberately making the sanctions bite Iraqi society as hard as possible for purely political reasons (see “Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction,” Joy Gordon, Harper’s, November 2002). It’s not just because the United States enforces a double standard, in which itself and favoured allies are exempt from legal requirements while states it decided to target are not.

It’s because this war is a violation of the ultimate international law. It is a “crime against peace,” a war of aggression. It was decided on long ago in the White House, and the only reason other countries may vote in support of it is the repeated statements that the war will happen whether they want it or not. It is the United States holding not just Iraq but the entire world hostage.

Y’know, sometimes, whether or not it’s polite, whether or not it’s “politically correct,” you just need to say what you feel, in all its uncensored glory.

To the so-called “authors” of the report that much of Colin Powell’s recent address to the UN was based on, for plagarizing the majority of the paper from a twelve year old academic paper detailing Iraq’s strengths and capabilities at the time of the (original) Gulf War:

Fuck you.

(Via Kirsten, more info and many more links at What Really Happened)

To the representatives introducing a bipartisan resolution to rein in Bush and repeal the “blank check” he has for the Iraqi invasion:

Thank you.

To the multutudes of news organizations around the country who would rather continue to help Bush wag the dog than run this story and let the American people know that some of their elected representatives, Republican and Democrat alike, are concerned about Bush’s actions and trying to reinstate some limits:

Fuck you.

(Also via Kirsten)

To the Bush administration, the justice department, and Ashcroft’s staff, for drafting a mindbogglingly expanded ‘Patriot Act II’ that makes the sweeping damages to personal liberty and freedom of the original Patrot Act look like childs play:

Fuck you.

(Via MeFi)

To Kirsten, who I figured would have a lot to say and would say it well once she entered the blogging world, for proving me oh-so-correct:

You rock. R – A – W – K, RAWK!

You’d think that watching Trent Lott shoot himself in the foot would make an impact on people. Apparently that’s not the case for North Carolina congressman Howard Coble, who sees no problem with WWII-era Japanese-American internment camps.

A congressman who heads a homeland security subcommittee said on a radio call-in program that he agreed with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., made the remark Tuesday on WKZL-FM when a caller suggested Arabs in the United States should be confined. Another congressman who was interned as a child criticized Coble for the comment, as did advocacy groups.

Coble, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he didn’t agree with the caller but did agree with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who established the internment camps.

“We were at war. They (Japanese-Americans) were an endangered species,” Coble said. “For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn’t safe for them to be on the street.”

When pressed for an apology by groups rightly surprised and outraged over this remark, Coble said he didn’t feel that he needed to apologize.

Coble said Thursday he intended no offense, but still believes he was right.

“I apologize if I offended anybody,” he said. \”I certainly did not intend to offend anybody.

“I certainly intended no harm or ill will toward anybody. I still stand by what I said…that, in no small part, it (internment) was done to protect the Japanese-Americans themselves.”

“I may give a statement (later) further clarifying,” he said, “but I don’t think I said anything that calls for an apology.”

Eric at IsThatLegal? is doing an excellent job of following ‘Coblegate’, with a lengthy rebuttal examining Coble’s statment that the internment was for the protection of the Japanese-Americans.

…the Carter-Munson plan was the only plan for dealing with Japanese Americans that took their security into account in any way. And it never got off the ground.

Why didn’t it get off the ground? For four main reasons. First, by late January 1942, General John DeWitt (the commanding officer of the West Coast Defense Command) and his advisor Karl Bendetsen had become persuaded that mass action to remove all people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast was necessary for military reasons. Their viewpoint was fed largely by outrageous rumors of Japanese American subversion, none of which ever panned out.

Second, by mid-January, a rabidly racist press along the Coast had begun campaigning for the eviction of all “Japs” from the area–not for their protection, but because they could not be trusted.

Third, white farmers in California began lobbying ferociously for the removal of all people of Japanese ancestry–not to protect them, and not even really for national security reasons, but to drive the very successful Japanese farming industry out of business.

And fourth, their lobbying, and the voices of the editorialists, succeeded in pushing most of the congressional delegations of the West Coast states to demand mass exclusion.

Rep. Coble needs to apologize. And the rest of America’s electorate really need to realize that these short-sighted, racist, and inflammatory remarks are neither likely to “slip under the radar” as they did in pre-internet days, nor are the people they affect going to just shrug them off. It’s time to grow up.

(Via Meg Hourihan and Dave Winer)

Okay. I, and the majority of the people that I know and associate with, think that Bush is rapidly heading towards the point of no return, chomping at the bit to start lobbing bombs into Iraq. He tells us that Saddam has been working on creating “weapons of mass destruction” (rapidly becoming one of the most over-used phrases in existance), but he’s hiding them. Proof through a lack of proof — a technique historically used primarily by conspiracy kooks, and one that is subject to a lot of skepticism (rightly) and derision (maybe less rightly).

But what if he’s right?

I’m not about to start defending Bush, or joining the camp stating that war is inevitable, or even necessary. But this is something that’s been bouncing around in my head for a bit now. Like it or not, we may not know if Saddam currently has the ability to start nuking or gassing people, but we do know that the guy’s something of a nutcase, with a demonstratable history of doing some horrible things to the people of his country. Whether or not we have the “smoking gun” we’d all prefer to see before sending troops in (and, at this point, we don’t), it really isn’t inconceivable to admit that the possibility does exist that Bush really isn’t entirely off the wall with his accusations. All we have is circumstantial evidence, and while much of it isn’t as strong as Bush et al would like us to believe it is, it still doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Much of my frustration at the chain of events we’ve seen so far stems from two things. One, that the US propaganda machine has parlayed the Al-Quaida attack into justification for the Iraqi invasion (as discussed in this Salon article that Kirsten pointed out), and two, that Bush seems determined to have his war whether or not the UN feels that his case is strong enough.

The first frustration I’ll probably just have to live with. The second, though…. What if the UN actually does decide to back the invasion of Iraq? I’ve gotten the impression (though, admittedly, I’ve still yet to actually go through it all myself) that Powell’s presentation was something of a dog-and-pony show, given more for the benefit of the American public than for the UN, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there was a lot more behind-the-scenes negotiation, maneuvering, and conferencing going on than we’re privy to.

As nice as it would be for this to be an entirely black-and-white issue, it’s really not, and I’m trying to see more of the shades of grey than I’ve wanted to. Part of what got me on this (admittedly somewhat rambling) diatribe was a couple links posted today.

Firstly, Meg pointed to an article in the UK Times by Matthew Paris — A dove’s guide: how to be an honest critic of the war.

…to our doves hearts content, we may make sport with the arguments of Bush and Blair. But when the mockery dies away do we not have to ask ourselves one awkward little remaining question? What if the undeclared major premise is true? What if the weaponry is there, just as Washington and London believed all along? … To that one awkward little question we doves should add another. What if the United Nations Security Council does in the end authorise an invasion?

The answer to the first question, we may not know until this is all over (if we’re lucky — if we’re unlucky, we could very well find out much earlier when a warhead of one type or another is detonated). To the second, though, well, I don’t like the fact that we may very well be going to war, nor am I entirely convinced at this point that we’re justified in pushing this war — however — should the UN support the invasion, then at least the US wouldn’t be acting on its own (much like Bush accuses Saddam as having aspirations of doing). I’d still dislike the fact that the conflict is there, but I’d feel somewhat better if it were approached with the ‘go ahead’ of the UN.

The second article, pointed out by Jonathan Delacour, looks at some of the issues surrounding Saddam beyond just the current situation.

Like most Australians, I’m against the Bush Administration’s war, but that doesn’t mean that we in the majority can congratulate ourselves about our moral superiority. All those offering a variety of peaceful, patient, reasonable and bloodless options should at least have the honesty to acknowledge that if Saddam Hussein retains power in this stand-off with George Bush, the anti-war movement will have delivered a de facto victory for a psychotic, genocidal tyranny. And not for the first time.

…The moral virgins in this debate who pronounce themselves “against war”, and who rail against American arrogance, need to at least acknowledge the impact that inertia and appeasement have had on the continuing murders and torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, the genocide against the Kurds and the Madans, the invasions of Kuwait and Iran, the missile attacks on Israeli civilians, the use of chemical weapons, the degradation of the environment and the general malevolence of a kleptocracy run by Saddam and his Caligula-like son, Uday, and their vast apparatus of suppression.

Had this regime not been decisively and violently checked by US power 12 years ago, it would now control the vast oil resources of Kuwait as well as its own, would have used this economic power to build an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, would have sought nuclear weapons, and would probably be untouchable. All thanks to prudent, peace-loving people who are against military interventions and American imperialism.

As easy as it might be to boil all this down to cute little soundbites — it’s “all about oil,” or it’s “finishing what Daddy Bush started” — it’s not. They play a part, I’m sure, but with just about everything, it’s never just that simple.

I don’t like the situation we’re in. I’ll be very happy if, however unlikely it may seem, we manage to get out of this without sacrificing lives (American, allied, or Iraqi). I don’t in the least support Bush’s handling of the situation, or his subtle as a bulldozer, “damn the torpedos” approach, and I look forward to the day when I can cast a vote against Bush.

I’m just not sure if I can unequivocally condemn the drive to oust Saddam. There should be a better way than what we’re facing — the concept of the end justifying the means has never sat well with me — but should we enter into this, I just hope it’s over quickly, with as little bloodshed as possible, and that this time, it’s successful. We didn’t get Saddamn out before. We still haven’t found bin Laden. I can’t even remember if we ever actually ousted Kaddaffi (going back a few years to the Reagan days). If we must go into this conflict, as the powers that be seem to be convinced, can we at least just get it right this time?

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, it’s getting late, and I don’t edit these posts before putting them up. Things were just bouncing around in my brain (frustration, concerns, and confusion), and I wanted to get a few of them out. Hopefully some of it will be coherent when I re-read it in the morning.