Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| What Ignatieff's Iraq Talking point should be |
| 09.21.06 (1:09 am) [edit] |
|
>>>> “His only claim was that, based on his experience as a journalist covering human rights, and a professor studying human rights, that the Kurds were being oppressed and subjected to crimes against humanity by Hussein. As an academic, he promised to stand beside them, and he has maintained that position.” I wonder how Ignatieff was able to make a documentary on the Kurds in 1992. Oh yes, Kurdistan was an independent state from 1992 onwards. The Kurds were not “being oppressed and subjected to crimes against humanity by Hussein” in 2003 and so that can be a reason for supporting the invasion. Not only is this talking point completely devoid of merit, it is also intellectually dishonest. >>>>>>& nbsp; “He also made it very clear, in the same speech where he announced his candidacy for leader, that he recognizes that academic theory and political reality are quite different. While the student of human rights recognized the need to remove Hussein, the new politician also recognized that more is needed to bring a country into war. He made it clear that, as leader, he would have made the case for removing Saddam, but that he would not take the country into a war that the public was not behind.” The problem is that the reasons he gave for why he would not have sent troops to Iraq apply just as readily to Afghanistan. & nbsp; 1) Ignatieff said that support of the population was vital and population did not support the Iraq mission. However, polls suggest that extending the mission has no better than support of half the population and polls showed at the time of the May vote that strong majority of Canadians were opposed to extending the mission. 2) Ignatieff claimed that a potential national unity crisis was reason enough for staying out of the Iraq war. That said, a terrorist attack, inspired by Canada’s presence in Afghanistan, could spilt the country apart, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by what 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has just transpired in Ontario, and the fact that the accused were said to be motivated by Canada's role in Afghanistan and what happened in Spain and Britain, Ignatieff can not very well claim that chances of such an attack or not insignificant. I do not find Ignatieff Iraq arguments, made as a private citizen, terribly convincing, but they are a hell of a lot more cogent, honest and human than the ones his advisors have talked him into going with. This is what he said back in 2004 in “The Year of Living Dangerously.” “A year ago, I was a reluctant yet convinced supporter of the war in Iraq. A year later, the weapons of mass destruction haven't turned up, Iraqis are being blown up on their way to the mosque, democracy is postponed till next year and my friends are all asking me if I have second thoughts. Who wouldn't have?” There is no reason whatsoever why the above could have been updated to read as follows. “Three years ago, I was a reluctant yet convinced supporter of the war in Iraq. Three years later, the weapons of mass destruction haven't turned up, Iraqis are being blown up on their way to the mosque, death squads room the streets, Al Qaeda has a presence in country where it once had none and a fledging democracy is being ripped apart by a low grade civil war. My friends, my collogues, my supporters and my fellow Canadians are all asking me if I have second thoughts. Who wouldn't have? I freely admit that I miscalculated in at least two important respects. I did not fully foresee some of the unintended consequences of using force and I vastly overestimated the ability and willingness of the Bush Administration to come up with a comprehensive plan to win the peace. The Bush administration has proved to be incompetent nation builders; in Iraq the Americans made every single mistake you could think of, and then some. At the same time, I can not forget some of the moral consequences leaving millions of people inside a jail with Saddam Hussein. The cost of doing nothing would have been high too. I am conflicted. This can be shortened as follows: Three years later, the weapons of mass destruction haven't turned up, Iraqis are being blown up on their way to the mosque, death squads room the streets, Al Qaeda has a presence in country where it once had none and a fledging democracy is being ripped apart by a low grade civil war. My friends, my collogues, my supporters and my fellow Canadians are all asking me if I have second thoughts. Who wouldn't have? At the same time though I can not forget some of the moral consequences leaving millions of people inside a jail with Saddam Hussein. The cost of doing nothing would have been high too. I am conflicted. & nbsp; |
| 0 Comments |