Well said, Rebecca.
At 12:17 AM 2/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Henry,
>
>I don't understand how you can regard war as a "project." But then I don't
>understand how you think you are arguing for complexity of discussion and
>compromise when you are also in favor of military action in Iraq. There is
>no complexity at ground zero; bombs are brutally simple.
>
>The Bush administration does not make a distinction between its first
>strike pre-emptive policy and the UN 'sanctions' against Iraq, since those
>proposed sanctions are military actions. Basically, the administration
>wants the blessing of the UN for its military actions, and, failing to
>receive that blessing, intends to proceed anyway, a proceeding which
>includes the possible use of nuclear weapons. I agree with Alison on this,
>that the authority of the UN has been undermined by the U.S. The US view
>of the UN has been that if it had any credibility it would do just what we
>expect it to do. And much of your argument about the UN seems to be based
>upon this sort of assumptions, that if they would carry through as they
>should, the US would not then have to take matters into its own hands. But
>this is a view of the UN as a kind of extension of US policy and
>perspective, not as an independent body, and when it fails to agree with
>the US it is viewed as cowardly or morally deficien!
>t or corrupt. For instance, Powell's statement of yesterday that the
>Europeans were simply 'afraid' to disarm Hussein. So we cannot only
>disregard what others say but reinterpret their statements to what they
>'really mean'
>
>I don't think there has been any direct evidence to link Saddam Hussein to
>Sept. 11th. There is a great deal more evidence to link the money that
>financed the terrorists to Saudi Arabia, and most of the terrorists were
>after all Saudis, and yet Saudi Arabia is regarded as an ally. One of the
>priorities of the Bush administration, as described in the first couple of
>months after the Supreme Court made him president, was this sort of
>'project' against Saddam Hussein. Sept. 11th gave the administration a
>rationale and justification beyond its wildest dreams.
>
>I don't understand how one U.S. administration (and let's not forget,
>they're not kings but can serve in office for only eight years) can
>declare "a global war on terrorism," what about the rest of the globe?
>don't they have anything to say about it? and what does that mean? that
>all the globe will go to war against terrorism, no one will be exempt from
>the obligation we place upon them, or that the war will extend throughout
>the globe and be literally a global war? what country could be reassured
>by this sort of policy? particularly since the U.S. assumes to so speak
>for everyone, both in act and consequence.
>
>Best,
>
>Rebecca
>
>Rebecca Seiferle
>www.thedrunkenboat.com
Gabriel Gudding
Department of English
Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790
office 309.438.5284
home 309.828.8377
http://www.pitt.edu/~press/2002/gudding.html
|