The left, the real left, used to be the champion of minority populations-of people like the Kurds. No more! The left, my friend, has abandoned the values of the left-except for a few of us, of course.

There is a majority of these people? I thought there were like 5 of us.

The problem was, precisely, the methodology of the war, the person running the show, the presumed outcome, etc. etc. etc.. If it had been, say, a UN force going in to remove Hussein and establish something resembling democracy in a humane way - people would have been OK with it.

The problem with anything involving Bush as the primary motivator is that it's Bush's Administration, in the Reagan throwbacks, that created the monster. You can't simultaneously claim he's evil while ignoring the fact that you were okay with him gassing Kurds at will.

Haven't various admin people said something like "You know, we were wrong about that in the eighties, sorry" -- because it seems that's all they'd have to say to at least try and create a better justification than pretending nothing happened then at all.

This is your position, milo?

Saddam is not disputed to be a mass-murderer fuckhead, but i believe in truth, justice, and all that Bill of Rights nonsense. Might is Right doesn't cut it as the guiding policy for America. There is not much evidence that Bushco even believes in democracy. Look at Scalia's comments.

No, I don't believe for a minute that Bush thought Saddam was a threat. Claiming that he posed a threat was the means to Bush's ends, nothing more.

The welfare of the Iraqi people - yeah, they're much better off in a nation that's about to dissolve into civil war (to be followed by the inevitable dictatorship/theocracy based on previous US adventures), with Saddam loyalists once more in positions of local power, minus an infrastructure or the ability to rebuild their nation.

What lies are you refering to?

milo: What were "Bush's ends"? There's no argument from me that the welfare of the Iraqi people was ever Bush's primary concern.

The whole argument was ridiculous, by any sort of 'left' terms - (Tony Blair, a socialist?)

Many likely ends, none of them good enough to kill Americans and Iraqis.

however, i am also not an american, and possibly have no position to comment on american foreign policy and wars (or at least, america doesn't really need to take into account the views of foreign citizens, allies or not).

my main criticism, then, still, is against the british government for taking part in an american war, which we didn't really need to participate in. if it is to be part of the UN, then yes, we should take our position, but if it is to hold americas coat while it administers a kicking, then no, i think not

It's not about the well-being Iraqi people, as you've agreed.
Saddam posed no threat to the American people, as we've all seen. So "protecting America" can't be it.
Saddam had no involvement in 9/11, so "avenging 9/11" and "fighting the War on Terror" can't be it.

Call it "Nobody'sPerfectSoFUCKYOUALLism"

That line is bad enough when it's Democrats whining about people who vote third-party, but coming from someone backing Bush...

What the fuck was the UN doing with all those sanctions if Saddam was so harmless?

even if we were to take the threat angle, i think the UN position might be saddam is a threat to his neighbors (undisputed), rather than saddam is a threat to america (disputed), as the UN should be thinking of all its members rather than one, while a member state presumably prioritizes own national interest.

Not "America" or "Americans," which is what I wrote.

It's amazing to me that opposition to modern imperialism, murder, authoritarianism or apartheid (in Sharon's case) or whatever is now some high-minded utopian idealism.

can also be characterized as the opinions of those you disagree with

Was there any way of moving towards liberal democratization of Saudi Arabia without dealing with Saddam Hussein first?

do you think the anti-war lobby had any reasonable points, or is that pov without merit?

Why is that?

I think that is totally wrong. The issue of democratic reform has been given a huge boost by the removal of the Taliban and of Saddam. I'm not saying all that America has brought is wonderful and joyous, but the issue of democracy has never been so much at the forefront of mideast politics and discussions then it is right now. Which is why it is so important America and Iraw "get it right".

You've acknowledged that he posed a threat to the region.

Would you agree or disagree that Saudi Arabia and Iran are major players in the Islamist terrorism game?

It was a nice way to divert the course.

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort, Stuart. Note the phrasing of my reference to his regional threat. He posed a threat when he was our ally and when he invaded Kuwait. He didn't pose a greater threat to the region in 2003 than anyone else.

Even if he had, it's a non-sequitur as to Bush's motives and trustworthiness. Nor, really, much of a reason for war period. If Saddam had posed a threat to a free, democratic government, rather than theocratic oligarchies, maybe you'd be on to something.

Why they continued - hell, that's beyond me, but I already responded on that, too. And "the left" position on sanctions.

By your responses, can I assume that your Saudi Arabia question had no relevance other than to shift topics?

I don't think you get it. You don't understand the son without you understand the father. And you don't understand the father without you have read a book by the name of "What It Takes" by Richard Ben Cramer. Kevin Phillips' new book may be important as well. You can get a sense of them if you scroll down a bit here. You can get a bit as well from his cousin.

there's a new book by some named Craig Unger about the connections between the House of Saud and the Bush family. Haven't had a chance to leaf through it yet.

-- gareth (garet...), February 18th, 2003.

Spittle is entirely OTM.

I'd also add something about the supposed consensus on regime change in Iraq. The Left wanted regime change in Iraq even while Saddam was supported by western leaders - this much is true. But this does not mean that the Left is grateful to Bush and Blair for giving them what they always wanted. There is regime change and regime change. What the Left wanted was a popular challenge to Saddam from within Iraq. Regime change by invasion is not the sort of regime change we want or Iraq needs. And so it is wrong to go on about how everyone supports the outcome, even if they didn't support the war. We need to be more discriminatory about exactly what sort of regime change is taking place in Iraq.

I don't think the Left was the only out rooting for this outcome. Obviously it was rather difficult for that popular challenge to get off the ground when Saddam kept killing people who disagreed with him.

Maybe it is because of my own vantage point but when I refer to "the Left" I am not thinking of Clintonesque Democrats, more like "the most obnoxious 20-year-olds at the anti-globalization rallies." I do think many liberals get so caught up in demonizing "the Bush junta" that they don't realize how cartoonish they are making themselves in the process.

Perhaps demonization of the Bush junta need not be a partisan position? Consider some non-liberals who have gotten on board: this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy and this guy. Even his own party is turning against him.

Well, go argue with them then. But don't pretend they represent anything like a majority of whatever counts as "the left" these days.

It's hard to really get an effective rage going at French trade policy (or whatever), since I've never been to France, have no influence over French politics and don't even buy any products from France (that I'm aware of).

As to why American leftists get heated up about American policies, I can't speak for anyone else, but as a citizen of this country, I feel at least partly responsible for anything done in my name and with my taxpayer money, and I take seriously my civic responsibility to speak out when those things seem misguided. This gets called "blaming America first," in Jeanne Kirkpatrick's catchy but dishonest phrase, but what it really is is questioning the methods and motives of a small handful of individual Americans whose decisions have repercussions for the rest of the country and the world. If criticizing Bush/Cheney policies is "blaming America," then so is criticizing Janet Jackson's wardrobe.

(x-post: otm)

this is the most revealing statement made so far. In fact, the Left has been concerned with these issues for years, but the mainstream right has taken no notice. Now that the American military has got involved, the right has suddently noticed a whole lot of issues in the middle east that it had overlooked before. The right also thinks, on the whole, that the military can and will bring answers to these questions. When the left question the right on such points, the right simplistically regard the left as holding knee-jerk anti-American positions, whereas these positions have been held for a considerable amount of time. The question needs to be re-articulated now. So why has the right's concern about these issues grown so much now that America is involved?

The disaffection is such that over the last two weeks, normally loyal Republicans -- actually including more than a few members of Congress -- are privately talking about political merits in the election of Sen. Kerry.

Their reasoning goes like this: There is no way Democrats can win the House or Senate even if Bush loses. If Bush is re-elected, Democrats are likely to win both the House and Senate in a 2006 midterm rebound. If Kerry wins, Republicans will be able to bounce back with congressional gains in 2006.

To voice such heretical thoughts suggests that Republicans on Capitol Hill are more interested in maintaining the fruits of majority status first won in 1994 rather than in governing the country.

A) Because they're American leftists. We can bitch all we want at Saddam's ruthless despotism - but what's the point? You're not going to do any good, you're not even an Iraqi in a position to effect change.

B) The United States is, allegedly, a free nation with a democratic government respectful of our civil rights and liberties. When a mass-murdering dictator clamps down on freedom, what's the shock? That's what dictators do. When a (supposedly) freely-elected government of a democratic nation does the same, of course that's going to bring about protest.

B) Democratically elected government as imperialist occupier and freedom restricter = SHOCKAH! Yeah, there's no shock when a mass-murdering dictator does it, but all the more reason to not take a passive stance and say "dictators will be dictators" and not try to take severe diplomatic action at the very VERY least.

B) Which leftists have been in a position to take "severe diplomatic action"? We're talking about opinions and protests and beliefs.

Uh, I think if you go back to Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the late '80s and read contemporary news accounts, you'll find plenty of more-or-less leftists (human rights groups, the Democratic Party, etc.) calling for sanctions and assorted other actions. And you'll find the Reagan/Bush administration, especially Bush-buddy James Baker, doing whatever they can to reassure Saddam and head off any significant action. In other words, the international left was trying to raise hell (or at least heck) about Saddam Hussein for years, and that continued all the way through the 1990s. Go read Amnesty International's annual reports. The real question is, how come the "right" only gets concerned about human rights in some faraway place when the president says so? And how come all these people suddenly so appalled about Saddam's abuses aren't more bothered by America's current coziness with abusive regimes in places like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan? Or, for that matter, China, the world's largest police state?

The partisan wars againt the Nazis in France, Yugoslavia, Italy, &c., in WW2 were anti-fascist without being imperialist. As was the republican struggle in Spain 1936-9. And there's an argument that the British war effort became a non-imperialist, anti-fascist crusade in that the future direction of the UK was moulded in 1942-45 away from Conservative imperialism.