tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11862686.post112648065693797025..comments2024-03-29T01:48:46.501+00:00Comments on A Liberal Goes A Long Way: 9/11 + 4: an abject failure of leadershipStephen Tallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11720133001571029678noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11862686.post-1126740501462379252005-09-15T00:28:00.000+01:002005-09-15T00:28:00.000+01:00I take the point, Simon. There are many valid argu...I take the point, Simon. There are many valid arguments for proposing more muscular (the vogue term) international intervention. But that's the point: such intervention must have a legitimacy which the invasion of Iraq lacked. There are many bad people running countries, and we have to be conistent in our treatment of each of them, or else resentment against western double-standards will be ratcheted up. I've posted previously on this at http://stephentall.org.uk/articles/35.html.<BR/><BR/>Also worth quoting one of the best parts of THAT speech by Robin Cook:<BR/><BR/><I>What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops. The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound.<BR/><BR/>They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.</I>Stephen Tallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11720133001571029678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11862686.post-1126635397381829312005-09-13T19:16:00.000+01:002005-09-13T19:16:00.000+01:00The US military has suffered 1,896 losses since wa...<I>The US military has suffered 1,896 losses since war began in March 2003. Both these figures are dwarfed by the estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilian casualties killed by the Allied invasion. Neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair will ever recant their decision to pursue military action in the teeth of international opposition.</I><BR/><BR/>A true tally of the death count as a result of the war. <BR/><BR/>But is that good enough to say it was a bad idea? If you want to get into a calculus of the cost you might want to consider Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, the war with Iran (which, by the way, accounted for an estimated 0.5 million deaths purely on the Iraqi side) and the plundering of the oil for food program which might have accounted for as many as 1.4 million people according to the UN. Add to that his systematic extermination of political opponants, and note the all too frequent discovery of mass graves.<BR/><BR/>There are lots of good reasons to be opposed to the war, but simply quoting the number that have died as an implied cost to what would have happened counterfactually if the war hadn't occured only makes sense when set against the what might have happened if Saddam had remained in power.numix1977https://www.blogger.com/profile/03857333723878055509noreply@blogger.com