Sunday, March 23, 2003

For Humanitarian Reasons not Disarmament

Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam "So you think the way he's presenting this war to the world is really where he's gone wrong.

Yes, it has been wretched. He's presented his arguments for going to war partly mendaciously, which has been a disaster. He's certainly presented them in a confused way, so that people can't understand his reasoning. He's aroused a lot of suspicion. Even when he's made good arguments, he's made them in ways that are very difficult to understand and have completely failed to get through to the general public. All in all, his inarticulateness has become something of a national security threat for the United States.

In my interpretation, the basic thing that the United States wants to do -- overthrow Saddam and get rid of his weapons -- is sharply in the interest of almost everybody all over the world. And although the U.S. is proposing to act in the interest of the world, Bush has managed to terrify the entire world and to turn the world against him and us and to make our situation infinitely more dangerous than it otherwise would have been. It's a display of diplomatic and political incompetence on a colossal scale. We're going to pay for this. "

It's almost exactly a year ago I wrote about Global morality and "The White Man's Burden". The original story makes very similar points to the above article such as: " I think a lot of moral thought, as applied to politics, has evaded conflict, has tended to suppress or gloss over conflict, or to rest on the pious hope that conflict can always be reconciled or somehow transcended. I don't think that's true."

There are good arguments on both sides I guess. ;-)
Post a Comment