11-08-2005, 06:30 AM
"That is the role America fell into when Kofi bailed out after the truck bomb hit the UN office building in Baghdad. Action talks and BS walks, so Kofi walked. Still, he was right on that matter."
Now, really, you can't be blaming the purchase of 26 million pieces of broken mesopotamian pottery on Kofi and the UN, can you?
Dubya bought that urn eagerly and willingly. Kofi warned him, Colin warned him, millions upon millions of protestors warned him, and yet he went ahead anyway. The UN was dragged along with the usual rationale: we're doing it anyway, and it'll be worse if you don't come along too. That apparently wasn't enough to keep the UN involved in a US-triggered civil war, and frankly, I don't blame them. Override the security council at your own risk.
I had my eyes and ears open in the runup to this war. I do remember when you and I discussed many of these same problems. And I seem to recall cautioning anyone who would listen about these problems: Not "what will Iraq look like" but "how many Iraqs will there be?". Not "how do we spread democracy" but "how do we stop people from being very angry after we blow their country apart?" The line was crossed, much to my dismay, and now the US is stuck.
I blame Dubya, PNAC, and all the rest of the crew that foisted this hellish situation on the world. The rhetoric was as transparent then as now, when it's all fallen to pieces. But now that we're here? The good outcomes are looking remarkably unlikely. Three states, living in harmony? One state, somehow balancing totally polarized interests (see: constitution referendum results)? A perpetual protectorate, with the money to support such a venture being donated by philanthropic individuals? Good luck with any of that.
I smell perpetual, smouldering civil war. If the continued occupation manages to avoid a larger, regional conflict, then great. But if a big, nasty middle eastern war is in the cards, I doubt even 50 years of occupation would accomplish that. Not on the current budget, anyway.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Shouldn't have in the first place.
-Jester
Now, really, you can't be blaming the purchase of 26 million pieces of broken mesopotamian pottery on Kofi and the UN, can you?
Dubya bought that urn eagerly and willingly. Kofi warned him, Colin warned him, millions upon millions of protestors warned him, and yet he went ahead anyway. The UN was dragged along with the usual rationale: we're doing it anyway, and it'll be worse if you don't come along too. That apparently wasn't enough to keep the UN involved in a US-triggered civil war, and frankly, I don't blame them. Override the security council at your own risk.
I had my eyes and ears open in the runup to this war. I do remember when you and I discussed many of these same problems. And I seem to recall cautioning anyone who would listen about these problems: Not "what will Iraq look like" but "how many Iraqs will there be?". Not "how do we spread democracy" but "how do we stop people from being very angry after we blow their country apart?" The line was crossed, much to my dismay, and now the US is stuck.
I blame Dubya, PNAC, and all the rest of the crew that foisted this hellish situation on the world. The rhetoric was as transparent then as now, when it's all fallen to pieces. But now that we're here? The good outcomes are looking remarkably unlikely. Three states, living in harmony? One state, somehow balancing totally polarized interests (see: constitution referendum results)? A perpetual protectorate, with the money to support such a venture being donated by philanthropic individuals? Good luck with any of that.
I smell perpetual, smouldering civil war. If the continued occupation manages to avoid a larger, regional conflict, then great. But if a big, nasty middle eastern war is in the cards, I doubt even 50 years of occupation would accomplish that. Not on the current budget, anyway.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Shouldn't have in the first place.
-Jester