Join 3,517 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Saddam's bodyguard flees Iraq
February 4, 2003 11:45 AM   Subscribe

What if Saddam does have these weapons of mass-destruction? Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled to Israel with details of Iraq's secret arsenal. His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.
posted by Macboy (49 comments total)

 
Hmmm... is this the same guy posted about a ways back?
posted by mkultra at 11:56 AM on February 4, 2003


What is this thread past its sell-by date?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:58 AM on February 4, 2003


He was known as "The Gatekeeper".

Oh man, someone call The Ghostbusters.
posted by a3matrix at 12:00 PM on February 4, 2003


In related news, "A team of "weapons inspectors," headed by New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, plans to go Washington, D.C., next month to look for stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the U.S. capital....'Every one of the major churches in Britain has come out and said that this will be a war that carried no moral authority,' he said. 'When you add on the humanitarian responsibilities, most people in Britain and in Canada, I'm certain, start to recoil from the horror of it.' 'We found that according to its own criteria, the U.S. was the most dangerous country of them all. The U.S. has massive stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. It refuses to sign or honour international treaties. Its overly aggressive.'"

Sheesh, I sure hope none of that is true, but "unknown unknowns" point that way. And the "calculus" of the United States and mass destruction: seems we've just got to be safe. Think of the possible future deaths.

But what a bummer, even if this crack team from Canada doesn't find the "smoking gun". We'd still have to invade the United States and take all their oil.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:05 PM on February 4, 2003


Look at it from Saddam's position, what if the war really is about oil? In that case, the U.S. will be going to war with him no matter what. Of course he won't want weapons inspectors to know where his weapons are, he will want to protect himself. We are responsible for giving him many if not most of the weapons he has in the first place, and that will come out when Powell addresses the U.N.. It is my understanding that Iraq doesn't even have the delivery systems required to bomb the U.S. anyway, so why are we so worried? You can't fight a war in a world with nuclear weapons, sorry everyone, but war is obsolete now. Sure Iraq doesn't have them... but we keep knocking these nations like Iraq down, and nations like North Korea say hey, wait a second, we have nuclear weapons, what the hell are you going to do about it? The benefits of attacking Iraq do not outweigh the costs, sure it could work out fine, but on the other hand, it could also lead to the end of the world as we know it.
posted by banished at 12:06 PM on February 4, 2003


the Herald Sun article was previously discussed here. it's suspicious that there are no mainstream news outlets carrying this story. if it is real, why isn't colin powell talking about it?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 12:14 PM on February 4, 2003


There's also this: Who the heck cares if Saddam Hussein gets a nuke? Not Pat Buchanan.
posted by mediareport at 12:19 PM on February 4, 2003


He'd sell us more oil if that's all we wanted.
posted by techgnollogic at 12:20 PM on February 4, 2003


You can't fight a war in a world with nuclear weapons, sorry everyone, but war is obsolete now.

Yeah, all that stuff in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Somalia, Angola, Afghanistan, etc. must have been a figment of our collective imaginations.

'Every one of the major churches in Britain has come out and said that this will be a war that carried no moral authority,' he said.

His statement is not entirely accurate, the C of E has called for restraint and continued UN inspections, but has not morally condemned the moral authority of the war.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:26 PM on February 4, 2003


Even if he has WMDs, war is still a stupid idea. It will just breed more terrorists and hate for the US. We gain nothing from war with Iraq. Not safety, not respect, not justice.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:41 PM on February 4, 2003


Reserve units have been activating for weeks now; people are already deployed in theater.

The money to fight Iraq has already been spent.

You couldn't stop war now even if God himself came down from the mountain and made a stand for peace.
posted by Cerebus at 12:44 PM on February 4, 2003


mediareport, you are siding with Pat Buchanan?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:48 PM on February 4, 2003


Ariel Sharon, the country's hard-line prime minister, has only allowed snippets of Mahmoud's sensational claims to be shared with the CIA and MI6.

Huh?

"Sharon intends to shatter the growing anti-war movement," a source close to Mr Sharon said.

"He plans to call all those European leaders who are wavering to let them know how Saddam has continued to fool Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors."


If this is his intent why on earth would he hold back this info from the intelligence services of the nations most in line with what he wants to accomplish? Makes no sense, unless the whole thing is a load of hokum.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:50 PM on February 4, 2003


You couldn't stop war now even if God himself came down from the mountain and made a stand for peace.

True dat. In fact, Anne Coulter would probably pick him off with a rifle and yell "ok, the peacenik's dead! forward march!"
posted by jragon at 12:52 PM on February 4, 2003


Look at it from Saddam's position...

You just don't get it, do you?

</insane neo-con hawk>
posted by goethean at 12:53 PM on February 4, 2003


insane neo-con hawk

But you repeat yourself (thrice).
posted by Ty Webb at 12:57 PM on February 4, 2003


So if this is true, why don't we just go dig up the underground chemical bunker, uncover the scuds, etc?

Cute picture of Saddam in a visor though...
posted by zekinskia at 1:19 PM on February 4, 2003


It is my understanding that Iraq doesn't even have the delivery systems required to bomb the U.S. anyway, so why are we so worried?

He can deliver them to neighboring countries, and even Israel, which de-stabilizes the region and threatens oil profits.

You couldn't stop war now even if God himself came down from the mountain and made a stand for peace.

<tasteless>
What, you didn't see the Space Shuttle suddenly blow up over Texas???
</tasteless>
posted by mkultra at 1:24 PM on February 4, 2003


As Kenneth Pollack argues in The Threatening Storm: The Case For Invading Iraq, containment is a failure. Saddam will continue to argue that he can't disprove a negative (i.e., "Prove you don't have any weapons of mass distruction!"), while the US will assert that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Ultimately, the case for invading Iraq is not about WMD, and it's the most wrongheaded thing about the Administration's justification for it. The best case is the humanitarian one, and it's one that even confirmed liberals support. But if we can take out of the most repressive regimes in history and remove the threat of WMD, that's a big plus in my book.
posted by mrmanley at 1:25 PM on February 4, 2003


Check out the top story on Debka.com
posted by ParisParamus at 1:36 PM on February 4, 2003


What if Saddam does have these weapons of mass-destruction?

- wouldn't that be something

sorry pollomacho he did say 'Every one of the major churches in Britain as everyone knows the C of E don't count.
posted by johnnyboy at 1:37 PM on February 4, 2003


The Scotsman has picked up the story, though only by referring to the original. Beyond that, you have only WorldNET and, of course, Rush. NewsMax is nowhere to be found as of yet, leading one to question their commitment (though they do note that sex kills children).

On the other hand, it's always possible that useful info like this is suppressed to create an "Ah-ha!" moment, a la the Gang of Eight. The Administration surely knew about that support beforehand but did precious little to make it known to the world. Perhaps Sharon is keeping his mouth shut to maximize its effect. Perhaps that's Ed McMahon at my door.

Somewhat related, I'd like to know who's feeding sensitive data on Iraq weapons programs to the House of Lords. I'm also in love with Julie Burchill.

mrmanley: Only problem with that is that its explicitly imperialist in nature, and I don't think the world community is entirely settled on what the threshold is for intervening in sovereign states because they don't treat their citizens well. It would certainly open up the charges of "double standard" beyond what they already are, as there are plenty of nations that would then be deserving of an invasion. Invading from the risk of WMDs (whether you believe it or not) at least doesn't do so under the auspices of benign imperialism.
posted by apostasy at 1:56 PM on February 4, 2003


apostasy:

So you're saying that if we can't do everything, that we shouldn't do anything? Sorry, not convinced. The humanitarian case is compelling, even if it is ancillary to the stated aims of the US.

The UN has a frankly abysmal record of recognizing humanitarian catastrophes in the past: Rwanda and the Balkans spring immediately to mind. At least the US has both the will and the ability to do something positive for the region. Just because we acted badly in the past is no argument for doing nothing now; if anything, it makes the moral case to clean up our own mess all the more urgent.
posted by mrmanley at 2:05 PM on February 4, 2003


Well, what do you know...ParisPara is still taking Debka!

Straight from the horse's mouth, this was on UK terrestrial TV tonight.

A few classic lines included, eg

Every fair-minded person knows that when Iraqi officials say something, they are trustworthy.

But nonetheless instructive to read that the White House and Downing Street don't have a complete monopoly on bullshit.

NB This interview would seem to suggest that the...eh... reliable Herald Sun bodyguard at least has it wrong about Sadboy making TV appearances
posted by skellum at 2:05 PM on February 4, 2003


What if Saddam does have these weapons of mass-destruction?

Well, if he really does possess an extremely virulent Soviet strain of smallpox, then I guess that a lot of people may die. And if the strain is vaccine-resistant, as some fear, then a hell of a lot of people around the world may die.
posted by homunculus at 2:05 PM on February 4, 2003


I just giggled for far too long when I read this link; not because of the story, but because the accompanying picture made me think that the bodyguard was complaining that Saddam's "secret arsenal" was that he always peed in the pool.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:08 PM on February 4, 2003


the Herald Sun article was previously discussed here. it's suspicious that there are no mainstream news outlets carrying this story. if it is real, why isn't colin powell talking about it?

I'm really curious about this myself. It's one of the most compelling things I've heard, and it doesn't seem to be a hot topic.



Ultimately, the case for invading Iraq is not about WMD, and it's the most wrongheaded thing about the Administration's justification for it. The best case is the humanitarian one, and it's one that even confirmed liberals support. But if we can take out of the most repressive regimes in history and remove the threat of WMD, that's a big plus in my book.


Again, it's really mysterious that there's a very compelling humanitarian case to be made for the invasion -- and it's almost entirely ignored by the administration. Instead, we get relatively untennable connections with al-Qaeda, and scaremongering what-if scenarios about Iraq directly attacking the U.S.

So anyway, overall, very curious. Compelling cases available. Not used. My personal theory: when the compelling reasons aren't used, the reason it happens is that the actors are motivated by others.

And a3matrix.... you made me laugh so hard.
posted by namespan at 2:18 PM on February 4, 2003


This topic is really exhausted. Just batten down the hatches, and wait. And perhaps, stay out of the subway.

(what's really going to suck is that once pieces like that Debka story make their way to the mainstream press--they usually do--places like NYC are going to get very nervous. I work near Foley Square and the Federal buildings downtown, and, well, I may just work from home for a few days....
posted by ParisParamus at 2:24 PM on February 4, 2003


mrmanley: Not at all. We should absolutely do what is possible. Your examples were humanitarian disasters of the worst kind, in that what was required was far less than what was possible, particularly in the Balkans.

My criticism is more that I'm not sure there's widely accepted thinking on whether it's justified to invade a nation and occupy it because the leadership oppresses its citizens. Isn't this imperialism? Isn't this spreading your own particular morality around by force? Isn't this playing world cop? Certainly.

Does that mean we shouldn't do it? Probably not. I can think of plenty of ways to justify benign invasion. But it's a difficult and unresolved issue, and, given the skepticism of America's motives at present, I don't think Iraq would be a good place for this kind of argument. Somehow, the argument that we're invading an oil-rich nation out of the goodness of our hearts doesn't seem like it would convince.
posted by apostasy at 2:24 PM on February 4, 2003


Mr. manley,

As far as I know, of all the members of the UN security council the US has the most consistent track record of vetoing UN military initiatives. I think France, China and Russia are 2nd, 3rd and 4th, respectively, but it's a ten year old statistic so ...

eh, skip it.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 2:31 PM on February 4, 2003


apostasy:

While I think the "war for oil" argument is incomplete, there is some truth in it. I just don't agree that it is somehow immoral to go to war over this vital resource. Like it or not, we (as well as every industrialized nation on earth) depend on oil for our economic well-being. It doesn't give me happy feelings to think of a psycho like Saddam Hussein having control over 40-50% of the world's oil reserves.

Still, the bigger issue is how much the US can or should be constrained by "world opinion". The US government is answerable to its electorate (in aggregate), not to some amorphous and unelected body with lots of hidden (and anti-american) agendas. And it's pretty clear that the majority of Americans favor an invasion of Iraq -- and that support will only strengthen when it becomes clear that Saddam is, indeed, hoarding chemical and biological weapons. (I doubt he has any functional nuclear weapons, but you never know....)

ProfLinusPauling:

I still don't see how previous bad actions by the US mandate future bad actions by us, e.g., ignoring the humanitarian plight in Iraq.
posted by mrmanley at 2:42 PM on February 4, 2003


"It's all about the oil!"

No, it's only partially about the oil. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Your bigger issue is one of the biggest. While the ideal of a world body able to head off military conflicts through diplomacy and intense frowning is a lovely thing to imagine, acting as if it were such when it so clearly isn't is a dangerous route. Being constrained by a world body that seats Iraq on the disarmament board, Libya on the Human Rights Commission, and Syria on the Security Council is, as they say, cringeworthy. Ignorant unilateralism no, but blind multilateralism just as much so.
posted by apostasy at 2:54 PM on February 4, 2003


funny, my local paper is the sun.. herald..

no, wait, that's not funny.
posted by shadow45 at 2:56 PM on February 4, 2003


If Iraq has WMDs, then they are just a fraction of what he once had. The UN reported that 95% of all Iraq's WMDs are accounted for.

Basically, if he doesn't have WMDs, the US would have no UN mandated grounds to go to war... and if Iraq does have WMDs and we do choose to go to war, then it's highly likely that Saddam will use his WMDs against someone.

If we don't want WMDs to be used, the best solution is to disarm Saddam... which inspectors certainly can do if this story is correct.

Otherwise, we're taking a huge risk, because there are a lot of ways that Saddam can hurt a Westernized society. He's had over a decade to think of nasty things to do to us in the event he is attacked. It could be something as simple as smuggling biological or chemical weapons into foriegn countries in diplomatic pouches, or it could be attacking us with computer viruses.

War brings with it great uncertainty, and we might find ourselves losing a lot more than we thought, even if all we lose are "nebulous things" like our rights. Computer virus terrorist attacks would be just what the government needs as an excuse to push for the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance and for Total Information Awareness. Who is ready to be profiled based on the contents of their hard drive?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:35 PM on February 4, 2003


My criticism is more that I'm not sure there's widely accepted thinking on whether it's justified to invade a nation and occupy it because the leadership oppresses its citizens. Isn't this imperialism?

At San Fransicso peace rallies, on liberal college campuses, and to a number of people living in comfortable homes in western democracies ... yes, it's called imperialism. To the actual aformentioned citizens being oppressed by a monstrous leadership it's called ... liberation.

And not that long ago, liberation used to be considered a good thing.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:31 PM on February 4, 2003


While I think the "war for oil" argument is incomplete, there is some truth in it. I just don't agree that it is somehow immoral to go to war over this vital resource. Like it or not, we (as well as every industrialized nation on earth) depend on oil for our economic well-being.

I don't have happy feelings about a Caligula having large oil resources either, and I don't have a problem with the U.S. toppling the regime motivated by humanitarian or democratic principle... and then turning the oil back over to some reasonably self-determined Iraqi govt, or an international body. Taking control of it as spoils of war smacks of hypocrisy of the positive values America claims to stand for, and that's what most people mean when they express disgust at the idea this might be about oil.

Note that all the current administration would have to do to completely castrate the "about oil" argument would be to lay out what they intend to do with the oil in the event of an invasion. At least, lay it out beyond mentioning we would hold it "in trust".

Still, the bigger issue is how much the US can or should be constrained by "world opinion". The US government is answerable to its electorate (in aggregate), not to some amorphous and unelected body with lots of hidden (and anti-american) agendas.

Perhaps it should be constrained by world opinion to the extent it seeks to contrain world opinion, or "intervene" in world affairs, or cultivate the world's respect. You could argue that combating terrorism is as much a PR problem as it is a matter for military force.

I still don't see how previous bad actions by the US mandate future bad actions by us, e.g., ignoring the humanitarian plight in Iraq.

Of course it doesn't mandate it, especially since the U.S. is designed to have the guard change periodically, and I honestly don't think any culture/people is more prone to rapid flux (and adaptation ... this is a strength/weakness). And the U.S. has done (or tried to do) quite a bit of good in the world.

But usually, after an individual or institution has committed the same crime a few times, a credible change of heart (and trust) is manifest by an apology, attempt at restitution, and period of demonstrated reform.

And on priview, MidasM...


And not that long ago, liberation used to be considered a good thing.


And what have we done to convince anyone -- the citizens of this nation or Iraq -- that this war is about liberation? The Bush administration rhetoric is about protecting the U.S. from what -- even if they possessed WMDs -- is not the most credible threat to our security, and they've been remarkably inept about deflecting questions about other motives.

I'll say it again: there's definitely a humanitarian/liberation case to be made, but no one in the current administration seems to be able to use that effectively, and I wonder why.
posted by namespan at 6:01 PM on February 4, 2003


My criticism is more that I'm not sure there's widely accepted thinking on whether it's justified to invade a nation and occupy it because the leadership oppresses its citizens. Isn't this imperialism?

At San Fransicso peace rallies, on liberal college campuses, and to a number of people living in comfortable homes in western democracies ... yes, it's called imperialism. To the actual aformentioned citizens being oppressed by a monstrous leadership it's called ... liberation.

And not that long ago, liberation used to be considered a good thing.


Yeah, that's what the British like to say, too, but then there are some people in South Africa, India, et al, who would beg to differ.

I don't know why you choose to use a flowery, phony-humanitarian euphamism for a perfectly applicable term, except that's what the "liberators" call it, but not usually the people who have to deal with it. I wonder, where are all those countries we've "liberated" in the last 50 years or so. Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama ... Oh, right, there's Afghanistan in the '80s, giving a hand to Al Quaeda against the Soviets ... Helping Saddam come to power was our way of "liberating" Iraq from their progressive, democratic government which had raised the literacy rate at the time to 70%. Yes, call it what you want, just make sure to ask the people subjected to this what they call it first.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:05 PM on February 4, 2003


Who is ready to be profiled based on the contents of their hard drive?!

That's not profiling, that's a portrait. Profiling is using all your publicly available information and crunching it to find those that are most likely to buy your product, err, blow up tall buildings. Then you get a 'warrant' (a.k.a. permission from a boss, any boss) and go get the sale, err terrorist.

It's a lot simpler than marketing though, marketers don't get to use guns.
posted by wah at 7:22 PM on February 4, 2003


Who cares if this Saddamite defector is real or not? Like an Aussie paper will get the low-down on Iraqi weapons depots that Ariel Sharon is hiding from the CI freaking A. Yah. The world works that way. Heh.

Enough pussyfooting. Let Bush get his war on. Then at least the bill will come due by the 2004 presidential election.
posted by sacre_bleu at 7:31 PM on February 4, 2003


In re: humanitarian arguments for invasion of Iraq-- these make me sick. We ignored Rwanda and Zimbabwe, and we continue to turn a blind eye toward China (hell, we REWARD the Chinese); we did nothing to the Khmer Rouge, and the Saudis are our friends. Shall I go on? The litany is long and terrible. Why should Iraq be any different? Are they somehow more worthy than a starving Rwandan? Who chooses those worthy of our God-like intervention?

Act consistently or not at all.

In re: securing Iraqi oil-- I think this has less to do with feeding America's addiction to the SUV as it does with the administration finally realizing that the Saudis aren't likely to be our friends very much longer. A fundamentalist revolution has been formenting there for decades thanks to their government of enlightened corruption, and if the ibn Sa'ud family survives until 2010 I for one will be very much suprised. Securing Iraqi oil is simple geopolitics in this light.

Just color me cynical.
posted by Cerebus at 7:55 PM on February 4, 2003


To the actual aformentioned citizens being oppressed by a monstrous leadership it's called ... liberation.

I'm sure that bit of quibbling semantics is of great comfort to those blown to bits by any forthcoming war. Or would you like to test your logic by supplying your own address, so that we can come and liberate you tonight with some high explosive?

(Got a nice contract to rebuild Iraq, yet, Midas? After all, time and capitalism waits for no man.)
posted by riviera at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2003


Cerebus: Different President, different actions. Yes, there is a long and terrible list of horrific humanitarian conditions in a variety of places, so why not START with Iraq. Then maybe something can be done with North Korea someway or another. Then on to Rwanda and other places.

You have to start somewhere and that is better than not starting at all.

Oh yeah, this isn't advocating war after war to solve these problems. Just that after Iraq, we head to the next and then the next and the next. Maybe some of these can be solved or dealt with at the same time.

Saying you shouldn't start because you've ignored it in the past is ridiculous.
posted by Plunge at 9:18 PM on February 4, 2003


Ah, the humanitarian justification for war. Ask those who have fought in war to describe how humanitarian it is.
posted by anewc2 at 2:34 AM on February 5, 2003


Why should Iraq be any different? Are they somehow more worthy than a starving Rwandan? Who chooses those worthy of our God-like intervention?... Act consistently or not at all.

I disagree. While it might not meet either of our definitions of "consistency", taking out one hell-regime is better than taking out none, even if the others are equally hellish. A country has the right to act in its own self-interest. But even beyond this, a hellish country, the behavior of which spills out beyond its borders is rightfully more important than one whose hell is contained. Which is why Africa is not the priority of an Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea or, perhaps, Sudan.

Moreover, as even Casey Kasim would recognize, as countries are taken off of the "Top Hell Chart", lesser ones rise to the "top." So, today Iraq and North Korea are the most dangerous, needing the most attention, but tomorrow, when Iraq is liberated, North Korea and Iran, or Syria will get the world's attention.

Eventually, as the world is gradually improved, the hells of Africa will come into focus. But if we don't take care of the hellish places which threaten us directly, we won't be around to help Africa.

In sum, the "liberate them all, or liberate none" argument is supremely lame and defeatist. If attacking Iraq is wrong, argue that on its own terms; thankfully, most people don't think like that.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:47 AM EST on February 5
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 AM on February 5, 2003


Eventually, as the world is gradually improved, the hells of Africa will come into focus. But if we don't take care of the hellish places which threaten us directly, we won't be around to help Africa.

You really are incredibly naive, PP.

It's clear to me that America wants to be the dominant influence in the region, from an empire-building point of view. Probably it's also true that the USA is very uncomfortable only having one (significant) ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

The fact that the region is the hotbed of the world's anti-Americanism only makes the region more interesting. So it is (partially) about the oil, but it's also about influence. I can't believe that anybody could think we were heading into war for humanitarian reasons. Of course, that may end up a by-product, but it's not a reason.
posted by salmacis at 8:04 AM on February 5, 2003


"Ask those who have fought in war to describe how humanitarian it is."

MY daddy was a highly decorated radioman/gunner on a Navy scout plane in WWII. And yup, he falls into those class of people who are much less eager to support a war than chickenhawks who've never been there.

"Reserve units have been activating for weeks now; people are already deployed in theater."

Bet the administration hopes none of them have decided to take an unscheduled year off from duty like a certain Texas National Guard lieutenant once did.

And before the Anti-Bush-Bashing League with their flamethrowers of Mass Scolding comes after me for bringing Shrub's history/personality into this -- there is nothing more relevant than to examine the U.S. leader's character and motivation.

I keep thinking of GW playing the stock market two months before Daddy started GulfI, making another million selling off his own company's stock, just prior to the value plummeting. Meanwhile millions of people were involved in the horrors of that previous "liberation." (An oldie but goodie link.)

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

I trust Shrub and Co's motives about as far as I could throw the Nimitz, and that unfortunately clouds the rest of the issues for me.
posted by NorthernLite at 8:48 AM on February 5, 2003


mediareport, you are siding with Pat Buchanan?

What kind of a question is that, Steve? I find the man's argument in this case compelling. Address that argument, please.
posted by mediareport at 7:31 PM on February 5, 2003


Last time I checked, a 1200km range ballistic missile and a 500km range UAV weren't exactly "direct threats" to the mainland United States.

I understand that one has to start somewhere. But there are places where people are far, far, far worse off right now than the Iraqis are-- Rwanda, Zimbabwe, (arguably) China, Tibet, Sudan, Algeria, Indonesia, Congo... Why don't we start in any of these places instead? Because it fails to align with US self-interest?

Forgive me if I fail to find the argument compelling. It is for this reason I find the "human rights argument" for war with Iraq disingenuous.
posted by Cerebus at 9:01 PM on February 5, 2003


Why don't we start in any of these places instead? Because it fails to align with US self-interest?

Yes, and that's OK. Because that's as good as things can be, at least until, perhaps the Messiah arrives/returns (depending on your perspective).
posted by ParisParamus at 5:07 AM on February 6, 2003


« Older DJ Borg Carson Daly...  |  Are Teachers Overpaid?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments