 |
||||||||
|
4/11/2003 09:14:00 PM | Timothy Hypocricy Emmett on dartlog gets all huffy about the anti-war movement: "They never condemned Saddam in anything other than a perfunctory way ("Saddam is of course evil, but..."). Many of them were livid that we didn't wade into Rwanda during the genocide there, but now of course they're livid when we wade into Iraq. And, indeed, many of them suggested that we actually reward Saddam, by lifting the UN sanctions. That's called shilling for evil, and it's a moral failing." First, it was Reagan-Bush that supported Saddam during the worst atrocities. Guess your moral outrage extends to them and Rumsfeld, right? Second, how many conservatives said we should go into Rwanda? Or Kosovo for that matter? Or Sierra Leone? Third, does anyone think the reason Bush went into Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people? He might yet sell out the Kurds, so do not give me this false pretense that it is moral outrage driving Bush. Of course, hypocricy can have good results. But don't pretend it is not hypocricy. Fourth, whatever the arguments for and against sanctions, the advocates of lifting them were not simply shilling for Saddam, they cared about the humanitarian disaster the sanctions wrought on the people of Iraq. The latter was their motivation. Those who favored sanctions probably valued Iraqi lives less. They valued how the U.S. might be hurt by a powerful and armed Hussein. You can say U.S. citizens should be concerned for their own security first and right to make this tradeoff with Iraqi lives, but do not pretend pro-sanctions people cared more about the Iraqi people than people who lifted the sanctions. If anything, the criticism is that the anti-sanctions were only humanitarian and did not think about the larger security implications. More Fun with Emmett Hogan Emmett groups all anti-war protesters together, apparently using his 'shock and awe' non-precision bombs: A good point, but all I'm emphasizing is that the reasons the anti-war crowd were wrong to oppose the war before it began are simply being confirmed. The victory does matter in this regard: the extent of Saddam's atrocities will soon be known. What was never in doubt, however, was that his rule was atrocious, and what I abhor is the fact that the anti-war crowd buried its head in the sand.Emmett, do you honestly think the primary reason the administration fought so hard for this war was to stop atrocities in Iraq? Did the neo-cons plan 'regime change' for years to go on a humanitarian mission? No. Those other reasons (or lack thereof) for going to war were part of the anti-war movement's opposition. I think the worst part of the Iraqi regime came when Bush 41 was President and Vice-President, when some of the same people were in power. The same people running this war knew a decade or two ago how horrible Saddam's regime was yet they supported the regime. They stood by in the face of evil, no? Do you condemn their actions then, or do you stupidly say Rumsfeld is forgiven because so many deaths later he makes up for his mistake? Am I going to deny that the Young Sparticus League had reasons for opposing the war that were stupid? No. But explain to me how the extent of the atrocities matters. To maintain this, you also must say that if the atrocities had not been as great, then the war would not have been justified, no? In any case, Emmett had better admit that a lot of people who oppossed the war thought Saddam was a bad, nasty, brutish dictator. Repeat after me: not going to war to overthrow a regime is not necessarily an apology for the regime, as Emmett says. You would think he would understand that. I could list all these liberal programs and banning of hate speech that a lot of people think are necessary to end racism. Does the difference between them and Emmett lie in their opinion of how bad racism is and its extent? Does not supporting affirmative action mean you are racist or soft on racism? (on second thought, don't answer that, Emmett may show this to be a great case in point on how unwillingness to take action does indicate something!) To some up: the actors in the Bush administration are clearly NOT prosecuting this war to stand up for evil. Maybe others who care about evil should stand by them because of the effects. But do not pretend that this administration is morally superior and more intelligent than all anti-war people because they clearly see the evil of the atrocities of Hussein's regime. That's utter bushit. They may see evil in anyone who opposses them and who they link to Al Qeada, but this is not because of their atrocities. The Bushies have far more important interests and ideas which they will not sacrifice on the alter of human rights in other contexts. To claim that as the source of their moral authority is niave; it is also dangerous because it ignores how far the actual logic may extend. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.