политическое-2: об ираке

[avva]

Раз уж пошла политика сегодня, то скопирую с некоторыми изменениями комментарий, который оставил у Наташи Мозговой, о моём отношении к войне в Ираке, после всего, что произошло, и после того, как стало ясно, что ОМП там нет.

Война была начата потому, что не было возможности убедиться в том, что у Ирака нет ОМП. Американцы сочли, что презумпция невиновности в данном случае не работает, и Ирак, как страна, проигравшая войну и подчинившаяся победителям и совбезу ООН, обязан доказать, что у него нет ОМП. Собственно, ООН тоже так сочла и совбез строчил одну резолюцию за другой. Саддам же все эти резолюции нарушал, юлил как мог, и не считал нужным доказать миру, что у него нет ОМП. Американцы сочли продолжение этой ситуации невозможным, в то время как другие влиятельные западные страны считали, что всё нормально, и можно штамповать новые резолюции, которые он по новой будет нарушать. Ситуация, при которой Франция проголосовала за резолюцию, санкционирующую применение силы в случае её нарушения, и согласилась позже, что резолюция не была выполнена, но тем не менее не согласилась на применение силы, была нелепой донельзя и как нельзя лучше демонстрировала двуличность этой позиции.

До начала войны я полагал, что у Ирака есть ОМП в каких-то нетривиальных количествах. Очевидно, я ошибался.

Но кроме того, я полагал до начала войны, что если у Саддама всё же нет ОМП, то у него без всякого сомнения есть способ избежать падения его режима, а именно, проглотив гордость, впустить всех инспекторов, которых только пришлют от кого угодно, кто пожелает, на все базы и объекты, без проволочек, без недостающей документации, без лживых досье, итд. итп. Я и сейчас так считаю. Более того, такое поведение не пошатнуло бы существенным образом его власть. Если бы Саддам не юлил (не факт, что он сам властен был принять такое решение и не юлить; вполне возможно, что созданная им структура власти и информационных потоков с неизбежностью создала такое поведение), он и сейчас был бы у власти.

Несмотря на то, что ОМП всё-таки не было, то, что режим Саддама был сброшен - несомненное и огромное благо, значительно перевешивающее те потери и недостатки, что произошли в Ираке в связи с этой войной.

Comments

[igorlord.livejournal.com]

the "9/11 Commission" found that there were numerous contacts between Saddam's intelligence and Osama's people

Right. "Contacts" of the kind: "We are watching you! You try somehting funning in our country, you die!"


What do you mean Al Qaida "would not set food"? Did you mean - "send food"?
Do not play stupid!


we did not blame Saddam for helping specifically "Al Qaida".

Again, do not play stupid! This implication was in every Bush's domestic statement about how his war with terror is liked to Iraq. This spin was mostly for the internal consumption and mostly absent from international speaches.


Bush's Doctrine (not fit to print in Times, sorry) was that people who support ANY terrorists will be considered our enemies.

That was never voiced as a reason for invading Iraq. So, maybe, that's one things that motivated Bush and his cronies, but that was not the reason he stated in either domestic or international agends.

Hope this helps!

[arbat.livejournal.com]

1. Contacts as in "meetings". Multiple meetings initiated by both sides. Besides, you may be aware that Al Qaida man who was part of the first terrorist attack on WTC in 1993 - ran away to Iraq (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,631693,00.html), where he was hiding. Look, why are you so willing to stick to this totally idiotic claim "oh, Saddam and Osama hated each other, they could not have worked together". Have you really never heard about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Well, may be you heard about an aliance between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin? No? Pity.



2. If you are interested in learning more then one can from the New York Times adaption "How to claim that Bush is wrong (for idiots)" - here is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). You might be able to notice that it is talking about global terrorism, not just Al Qaida.



3. Well, finally, let's measure how confident you are when you make your bold categorical statements, shall we? How much are you willing to bet on your statement that fight with global terrorism was not voiced as a reason for invading Iraq? Now, since I do not want to be blamed for taking advantage of the mentally challenged, I am going to forewarn you - do not bet before you read President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)... You know what? I am still not feeling entirely comfortable - the remarks are quite long and I am not sure you can concentrate for more then few seconds... Here, let me give you the short quote that anybody should be able to get through:

   In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments.

   Funny thing - Bush mentioned terrorism even BEFORE the WMD. Now, don't you feel embarrassed? Nah, I do not think you do. Well, I did what could. Wager away!

[igorlord.livejournal.com]

I do not want to be blamed for taking advantage of the mentally challenged

You know what? Screw (substitute a stronger word here) you! You are a rude and a very unpleasant type. Anywhere where you show up, you make it an unpleasant and unwelcomenig place. I have no problem discussing issues with those who do not agree with me. But your ad hominum "arguments" make your other, more intellectually inspired arguments completely unpalatable.

So, instead of discussing with you at length, I ask you to:

1) Get a clue about when this remark you are quoting was made and for what purpose. In '02, Bush was not defending his invasion of Iraq. He was just saying that "Saddam is bad for many reasnos". See the difference?

2) Stop replying to my comments (this one is excluded). You are very unlikely to get a response, and you are annoying me greatly.

Are you angry, darling?

[arbat.livejournal.com]

I annoy you not because I rudely question your intelligence, but because I support my claims to that end with a persuasive demonstration.

For example, just as I predicted, you could not even read the Bush's remarks! Even after I challenged you to do that and made rude comments about your inability to do so! Now, of course, you might have decided to not answer such a rude and childish challenge, but that not what you did. You - answered! You claimed that Bush did not defend an invasion, but was just making a generic speech "Saddam is bad for many reasnos". Well if you DID read the piece, here is what you could have found there:

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable.

Interesting, isn't it? Of course, it is not the only speech where Bush made his case for war. Those were plentyful. Too bad you have not read any of them. Thinking people should not keep themselves on the intellectual diet of New York Times headlines.

I am sorry that our conversation was not very pleasant for you. I enjoyed it a lot. You could have too if you ever read anything. Try it sometimes. It's fun.

Consider yourself informed.

[arbat.livejournal.com]

By the way, in that speech Bush also made case for liberating Iraqi people. From now on you can not claim that Bush never mentioned this liberation before the war and then plead ignorance when someone catches you.

Consider yourself informed.

Interesting feeling, isn't it?