Tweet
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
On the contrary. It's more like, you didn't intervene in Sudan or Rwanda, but you did in Kosovo and Iraq using genocide as an excuse. So why didn't you intervene in the first two?
A. Because people just LIKE those accusing us of hypocrisy opposed those interventions as well. And in those case WE (not we, "the US" but "we the interventionists") couldnt overcome the opposition.
Or perhaps its ONE reason among several.
Lets see, in 1994 it was only a couple of years after the Somalia disaster, there was a public hostility to US intervention in Africa. And a belief around (one I contested and contest) that theres nothing to be done about Africa.
Sudan - well a big issue is that the govt of Sudan HAS cooperated wrt to Southern Sudan. There are other complicating factors I wont go into now.
[q}The WMDs was a red herring, really. They doctored the evidence and they KNEW they were doctoring the evidence. The yellowcake in Africa was utter BS and the CIA said they told the President about that before he went up there and said it.[/q]
Im not going to start that up. I believe the admin had convinced itself that there were substantial WMD programs.
It ended with a ceasefire, the provisions of which the wolrd community couldnt agree on the enforceability of, with associated sanctions. He remained in power due to a specific and controversial clause in the ceasefire. His WMD programs continued, although that was also part of the reason for the war.
The US and UK did. The UN never explicitly allowed them.
Because she doesn't want it, even though the plain language would indicate that it does... or unless she's one of those people that think that it endangered our way of life.
F**k it. Wheatcroft is apparently a "tory libertarian" I dont know exactly HIS stand on Rwanda. I do think that when you fight to stop policy A, and succeed, and then fail to stop policy B, and you attack those who advocated BOTH policy A and policy B, for hypocrisy you are a jerk.
Its the Noam Chomsky attitude - "youd better not fight for Kosovo, cause you didnt intervene in Sudan" "Youd better nor intervene in Sudan, cause you didnt in ..."
Its the Noam Chomsky attitude - "youd better not fight for Kosovo, cause you didnt intervene in Sudan" "Youd better nor intervene in Sudan, cause you didnt in ..."
On the contrary. It's more like, you didn't intervene in Sudan or Rwanda, but you did in Kosovo and Iraq using genocide as an excuse. So why didn't you intervene in the first two?
A. Because people just LIKE those accusing us of hypocrisy opposed those interventions as well. And in those case WE (not we, "the US" but "we the interventionists") couldnt overcome the opposition.
Perhaps genocide wasn't the real reason and is being used for PR purposes for the actual reason.
Or perhaps its ONE reason among several.
There is no good reason for the inconsistency other than, genocide really doesn't matter.
Lets see, in 1994 it was only a couple of years after the Somalia disaster, there was a public hostility to US intervention in Africa. And a belief around (one I contested and contest) that theres nothing to be done about Africa.
Sudan - well a big issue is that the govt of Sudan HAS cooperated wrt to Southern Sudan. There are other complicating factors I wont go into now.
Why they disliked him, and what their proposed casus belli was, are two different things. They thought they had the right to get rid of him cause of the WMDs and the unresolved end of Gulf War 1. Again, not comparable to what Thatcher was talking about re Grenada.
[q}The WMDs was a red herring, really. They doctored the evidence and they KNEW they were doctoring the evidence. The yellowcake in Africa was utter BS and the CIA said they told the President about that before he went up there and said it.[/q]
Im not going to start that up. I believe the admin had convinced itself that there were substantial WMD programs.
And what "unresolved end" to Gulf War 1? Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait. That was the goal.
It ended with a ceasefire, the provisions of which the wolrd community couldnt agree on the enforceability of, with associated sanctions. He remained in power due to a specific and controversial clause in the ceasefire. His WMD programs continued, although that was also part of the reason for the war.
Then we put no fly zones in.
The US and UK did. The UN never explicitly allowed them.
AND that Thatchers later position implies doesnt apply to Iraq.
Because she doesn't want it, even though the plain language would indicate that it does... or unless she's one of those people that think that it endangered our way of life.
Let me rephrase her statement than
'If a new law is ordained that the United States will intervene wherever there is a regime that it dislikes, thats in a strategic region, that has committed genocide AND that has unique obligations due to a cease fire agreement left over from a war of aggression that it started, Mrs. Thatcher said, “then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world.”
That would be an interesting statement indeed. Except wed have to drop the plural from "really terrible wars" for it to be true. Wed have ONE really terrible war, a war we're still in the midst of right now.
All of which has nothing to do with the special relationship. The ending of which, the author seems to think is a good idea.
I, for one, hope that the US and UK stand together on Sudan, and on Iran, and in many other places in the world.
.
Comment