Inconsistencies
02.25.2003Here are two interesting quotes from John Pilger, a controversial anti-war journalist and filmmaker:
"No one can doubt its cruelty and atrocities, but comparisons with the Third Reich are ridiculous." -- John Pilger on the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, November 15, 1999.
"The current American elite is the Third Reich of our times." -- John Pilger on the government of George W. Bush, January 29, 2003.
Is this guy serious?
Here's a list of all the eighteen previous Security Council resolutions on Iraq (w/ links to their actual text). Here's the text of the proposed US-UK-Spain resolution. It contains eleven preambles (all recalling Iraq's failure to cooperate) and only two operative clauses:
OP1: Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it [in] resolution 1441 (2002),
OP2: Decides to remain seized of the matter.
France, Germany, and Russia are opposed to "remain seized of the matter"?
Also, Instapundit has an interesting reflection on Machiavelli, the Bush-Blair policy tactic, and the nature of the Security Council poker game.
Posted by Miguel at 01:34 PM
Comments
not to be a devil's advocate, but Pilger was referencing Milosevic in the first statement, and current American policies in the second.
Posted by: vanessa at February 25, 2003 03:31 PM
Oh, I know. That's what makes it most ironic. Apparently, comparing Milosevic's regime w/ Hitler's is "ridiculous", but comparing current America and Nazi Germany isn't? The US has its problems, but it's less like Nazi Germany than Milosevic's Yugoslavia. But of course, Pilger isn't really what I call a journalist, he's a sloganist.
Posted by: Miguel at February 25, 2003 03:38 PM
Actually if one were to look at the speeches Clinton made for his reasons for preemptive strikes against nations during his administration, they sound almost identical to those that Bush make for going against Iraq. The difference? People like Clinton and Hollywood was his friend. Clinton made strikes against Iraq, Libya, and the Balkan Peninsula yet no one said a word, rather people likened it to the movie "Wag the Dog."
Here we have a case were Iraq most likely was involved in 9/11 and we are defending our nation. Are we supposed to wait for another attack on our country so thousands more can die before we take out Saddam Hussein?
I don't like war either. I don't always like the tactics used (I'm learning about the World Wars right now and they're scary). But at the same time I don't see any other possible solution. This is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do for us in terms of the Constitution: defend our borders and provide a strong military.
Posted by: Kara at February 27, 2003 12:18 PM