BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective

Subject: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 01:01 AM

The following is for everyone of all nationalities and all political persuasions. I hope you will all read it.

Michael Ignatieff, a Professor of Human Rights at Harvard, wrote an article for The New York Times Magazine on January 5th of this year, before the war in Iraq, but when it was pending. It is called The Burden, and it is a thoughtful, intelligent, balanced look at the role of the US in today's world.

He discusses the responsibilities that the US has taken upon itself, the cost to the country and its people, all from -- I repeat -- an extremely balanced perspective.

Although it's very long, it's well worth reading. It's at the following link:

Michael Ignatieff -- The Burden

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 01:22 AM

Thanks for the link, pdc. That's a good analysis. DougR should read it.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: leprechaun
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:07 AM

I read it, and it looks like DougR could have written it.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:34 AM

Here is another piece by Ignatieff on similar lines - Friends disunited in a March issue of The Guardian.

And perhaps Doug might like to consider the implication of the fact that a newspaper which he escoriates published this article, expressing a point of view diametrically opposed to its own, at a time like this. I think that doing this might be an example of what he would call "liberalism".

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: alanabit
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 10:49 AM

I read that piece too. It is also worth noting that I have read Keith Joseph, Leon Britton and Norman Tebbit (raving Commies - all of 'em) in the Guardian. However, I can never recall reading Paul Foot or Tariq Ali in The Telegraph. Strange really, considering it's such a fair, impartial source of facts.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: alanabit
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 10:50 AM

For the record - and this should surprise no one - I think Michael Ignatieff is woefully misguided on the issue of Iraq and remarkably perceptive about just about anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 11:25 AM

I disagree with Ignatieff on one important point: evaluating a moral duty must necessarily include an evaluation of the risks. While I think our invasion of Iraq would be moral in and of itself, the damage done to the rule of law, and to American interests by the alienation of much of Europe and the Arab world cannot be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 12:33 PM

Okay, I'll go read it now. . . "Extremely balanced". . .   Hmm. . . [one eybrow slightly raised]

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:22 PM

in a recent interview (CBC whether or not this is a 'just' war
Michael Ignatieff stated: you can discuss abstract ideas on whether or not 'war is always wrong' or past American history etc but ultimately it comes down to one thing which matters the most from a moral standpoint, and that is the Iraqi people - will they be better off - and while he supports the action its certainly not an easy decision, because it depends on the cost.

having read pdc's other comments about the jubilation in IRaq while the Statue came down, being staged, one wonders whether pdc actually read the above article.
petr

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:34 PM

You don't have to agree with the conclusions of an article such as Ibgnatieff's to value it as an article; in the same way you wouldn't have to disagree with the concusions of other articles to recognise them as shoddy pieces of work. I get the impression a lot of people commenting on these issues find it hard to get their heads round that.

"It depends on the cost" - and that has to take in an awful lot of other considerations as well as the intersts of the Iraqi people.

Moreover "the good of the Iraqi people" isn't as straightforward as all that. I think it is very likely indeed that many well meaning people, at the time of the coup which brought the Baath Party to power, believed that it would be for the good of the Iraqi people, and for a time it probably was. The consequences of a course of actioncan take a long time to work themselves out.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 08:20 PM

whether or not you believe the coup that brought the Baath Party may had good intentions, (sure maybe the Nazis had good intentions too) is beside the point - 2million Iraqis died under Husseins rule.
the choice for war in this case was a choice of two evils, continuing sanctions (which resulted indirectly in many deaths from lack of medicine, clean water etc. not to mention the continuing torture and executions that Iraqis had to live under - all the while Saddam illegally exported 6billion a year and built palaces and bought weapons (oddly enough mostly from France, Germany, Russia China).

to discontinue the sanctions would just give him more money to buy weapons with no guarantee the people would be better off, because the oil for food program actually gave Saddam more control over people, as they could simply lose their ration cards as punishment.

sure maybe you could continue inspections but with country the size of France you can hide a lot from a few hundred inspectors. If they had nothing to hide why not allow those free interviews with the scientists.

your comments about the people of Russia being better off under communism only indicate a lack of understanding of what it is like to
live under such a system. I have lived under it and everyone else I know who has would gladly take a bit of economic instability for a police state - where people cannot sing a song because it might be dangerous.

- and while were talking about balanced perspective, while we all agree the Palestinians deserve a homeland and are oppressed by the Israelis - (how much media coverage is given to the Kurds and their struggle? - Consider that there are 11million Palestinians, and something like 2300 have died since the start of the intifada,
while (not to belittle their deaths) there are 25 million Kurds and something like 200,000 have died under Hussein, and yet which issue is constantly in the press?

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 08:33 PM

petr-the difference is partly that the Palestinians, having begun the current conflict, are much more intent on getting their side aired, and partly because there are more people invested in a conflict in what they perceive as a holy land, regardless of their stance on the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:12 PM

petr - you seem to be responding in this thread to posts on other threads, and saying "you" without giving any indication which "you" you are referring to. It gets things a bit confused doing it that way.

I think you (petr) misinterpret the point I was making about the Baath coup - the point is that people responding instantaneously to what happened then might have made the judgement that it was a good thing, and it took soem time before it transpired that it wasn't. As you say, the same kind of reactions were to be seen in the context of the Nazi rise to power.

The overall longterm consequences of the war could well, in the same way, turn out to be a great deal worse than many people assume at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 07:20 PM

The issue of consequences is a loaded one. There is supposedly a Chinese proverb:

"It's a false economy to go to bed early to save on candles if the result is twins."

Was Nazism a consequence of the loss of Varus' troops in the Teutoburger forests during the reign of Augustus? Is that even a valid question beyond getting a paper done towards a degree?

Whatever the consequences in the Middle East, who is going to judge what comes out of the American incursion and what was inevitable in either case? History is not a science. Sometimes it's nothing but a polemic.

I believe the U.S. went into Iraq for more than one reason, but far and away the main and determining one was the likelihood that Hussein was making himself the master (and potential disburser) of WMDs. After 9/11 this is perceived by the U.S. as a direct threat.

The good of the Iraqi people is a potential and hopeful side benefit (and justification).

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 07:28 PM

Anybody see the latest South Park? Now, there's a balanced view upon which, I think, we can all agree!

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 07:37 PM

Mcgrath, conversely the overall longterm consequence of inaction
could well have turned out worse than the consequences of war.

consider: that had not the Israelis bombed the Baghad nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 (an illegal act - certainly not sanctioned by the UN and condemned widely at the time - albeit with tacit approval from many countries) the gulf war might have turned out very differently.
Saddam said that his one regret was not to have acquired nuclear weapons before invading Kuwait.

In that case, inaction by the Israelis certainly would have had wide-ranging consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 07:50 PM

McGrath, conversely the overall longterm consequence of inaction
could well have turned out worse than the consequences of war.

Quite possible, and that is why it is pointless to be dognatic about these speculations, because that is what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 09:07 PM

robomatic: I believe the U.S. went into Iraq for more than one reason, but far and away the main and determining one was the likelihood that Hussein was making himself the master (and potential disburser) of WMDs.

Michael Kinsley says: 'What is wrong with Bush's case? ...Striking first in order to preempt an enemy that has troops massing along your borders is one thng. Striking first against a nation that has never even explicitly threatened your sovereign authority, except in response to your own threats, because you believe that this nation may have weapons that could threaten you in five years, is something very different."

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 12:04 PM

Ebbie: Thank you for your post. According to Frontline, (a PBS show which has aired several episodes on Iraq), Iraq spent $10 Billion on a nuclear weapons program and was considerably closer to having a nuclear weapon than five years. I believe the educated estimate was less than one year. Waiting for enemies to mass on your border is no longer an option.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 01:14 PM

McGrath, I agree that we are talking about speculations about what may or may not happen, or what may have happened - but it seems to me that a great deal of the discussion in this forum is exactly that, various theories about what may happen in postwar Iraq, not to mention all the conspiracy theories.

however some outcomes are more likely than others.
If Israel had not destroyed the Baghdad nuclear reactor, then
the first gulf war might not have taken place and Iraq would be in
Kuwait and (as was discovered in Uday Husseins letters) Arabstan.
not to mention all the people that have been murdered, gassed etc. would probably be larger. On the other hand 1981, Saddam could have had a change of heart, allowed free elections opened the prisons, distributed the income from oil equitably, and pigs could fly.

Subject: RE: BS: A Wonderful Balanced Perspective
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 01:15 PM

To quote fromt he original essay:

Those who want America to remain a republic rather than become an empire imagine rightly, but they have not factored in what tyranny or chaos can do to vital American interests. The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike. Even so, empires survive only by understanding their limits. Sept. 11 pitched the Islamic world into the beginning of a long and bloody struggle to determine how it will be ruled and by whom: the authoritarians, the Islamists or perhaps the democrats. America can help repress and contain the struggle, but even though its own security depends on the outcome, it cannot ultimately control it. Only a very deluded imperialist would believe otherwise.

A