From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Dec 28 2002 - 07:23:54 MST
Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> I can imagine possible scenarios where all of this [ Iraq stuff ]
> makes sense; i.e., some very sincere people from three-letter-acronym
> branches of government had a little chat with Bush in which they
> explained that while the Homeland Security office will not actually
> *prevent* the loss of major US cities to nukes, it will delay it by a
couple
> of years and result in the loss of only one or two cities instead of
several
> dozen.
Agreed.
> Or that if you don't depose the current regimes in Iraq and North
> Korea *today*, Mr. Bush, no matter how bad it looks in the international
> community, they will have biological weapons capable of wiping out 90%
> of the human population within the next five years.
Agreed.
> And if so I would not expect this explanation to appear in the newspaper.
Agreed.
>
> But, even though I know practically nothing about all this, even though
> I'm working with information that has passed through the media and is
> therefore probably even worse than nothing,
Not worse. Even disinformation can be informative if its not taken
at face value.
> it still looks to me like there is almost no possibility that the Bush
> administration is implementing any kind of policy that I would agree
> with if I understood it better. It seems more like first steps in the
> establishment of an American Empire, including the repression of
> dissent at home.
I agree it seems like that. Rightly or wrongly the Bush Administration
has done a poor job in putting coherent policies to the world community.
I hope, as much for the sake of the ordinary citiziens of the US and rest
of the world, as for the ordinary people of Iraq that a better case is made
before invading a soverign country.
I agreed with "desert shield" and "desert storm" because they were
actions taken in defence of a sovereign country - Kuwait. Not a
particularly pleasant sovereign country by some accounts but a
sovereign country recognized by the UN nonetheless. I agreed with
Bush senior's decision not to topple a sovereign head of state even
though it would have been convenient and politically popular. I actually
thought he may have been statesman-like in restraint.
I thought then that one day there may come a time when the soverignty
of countries might have to be overruled in order to give wider effect
to human rights internationally but I hoped that the transition to such
a time would be measured and deliberate not opportunistic and
incidental.
I was too young to have an opinion on the Vietnam war when it was
running but having listened to commentaries of senior advisors from
that era I can at least see that there was a sort of cogency in trying to
stop communism in Vietnam.
When George W. first talked of regime change it looked as
though Saddam Hussein was about to be punished for past actions
and for a poor reputation rather than for any evidence of anything
new. I saw it as a positive that the UN became more a part of the
process but whether the UN comes out with its credibility and
symbolism enhanced or diminished is still up for grabs.
The bottom line for me at present is that the case has simply not
been made that Iraq actually has weapons of mass destruction (in any
meaningful sense), let alone that Saddam Hussein would have chosen
to arm "terrorists" such as Al-Quida with them. It seems quite likely
to me that Saddam would not have armed "terrorists" as the danger
that terrorist actions would be traced back to him would have been
too high to run. Also the terrorists might have turned on him if it
suited there purposes to sell him out to save their own bacon. Perhaps
this happened and is the reason that the US is not able to disclose
information to the public. Too much dealing with unpleasant characters
to catch other unpleasant characters for the general public sensitivity.
Whether Saddam would have armed terrorists before is now likely
to be moot. If he has the capacity to arm terrorists now given the
Bush adminstrations clear intention to remove him at all costs he
is likely to conclude that all enemies of his enemies are now his
friends. He has to know his time for free action of any sort is now
extremely limited, that not only his life, but that of his family and
friends are now on the line. Such a situation is likely to make even
a reasonable and just man desperate and dangerous.
I'll keep on looking for evidence that the Bush adminstrations
actions are based on reasoned motives. I won't lose interest if,
or more likely, when Iraq is conquered militarily. I hope the Bush
administration will stop making it so hard to give it the benefit of
the doubt.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:55 MST