Ain’t No Pleasing Them
Sanctions — so the story goes with the anti-war Left — should’ve been allowed to work in Iraq, and the invasion should have been a last resort. OK, let’s put aside for the moment that the sanctions weren’t working, were instead enriching Hussein, and were being actively undermined by our “allies” France and Russia. Let’s just focus on sanctions in and of themselves. You’d think that installing sanctions on organizations that the US has labelled terror groups would meet with approval by this crowd.
Several Democratic presidential candidates, though not front-runner Hillary Clinton, said they were worried the White House had begun a march to war.
“I am deeply concerned that once again the president is opting for military action as a first resort,” said Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a long-shot Democratic candidate.
How much of a long-shot do you have to be to require labelling sanctions “military action”? How desperate must you be to find something, anything, to complain about that you stoop to this level?
Perhaps as desperate as a Russian President.
It is the first time the United States has sought to take such punitive measures against another country’s military. Russia and some other U.S. allies believe dialogue rather than more punishment or military action is the way forward.
“Why should we make the situation worse, corner it, threatening new sanctions?” Putin said in Lisbon.
Sure, because dialogue has made things so much better already, with Iran utterly ignoring the sense of the international community. They know they’ll at least have France and Russia on their side, eh?
What military options there are must be considered, as a last resort, because to not consider them does two things. First, it catches us off guard if we turn out to need it and have not prepared for it. Second, it shows that, during such dialogue, we are serious about what we are saying. Any country not willing to back up its words with actions, and to prepare for those actions should they become necessary, will simply not be listened to by any rogue state. Instead, said rogue state will simply keep the international community at the “bargaining table” until such time as they’ve done what they wanted anyway.
Which is the course this is taking already. Iran has showed no signs whatsoever that diplomacy is working on them. Think it’ll be easier to bargain with an Iran backed by a nuclear bomb? But in the meantime, the anti-war Left is whining about sanctions being put in place. I’ll bet if this was a Democrat doing it, they’d be extolling the diplomatic process.
[tags]sanctions,Iran,Revolutionary Guard,Vladimir Putin,Christopher Dodd[/tags]
Filed under: Democrats • Doug • Iran • Liberal • Russia • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
> Sanctions — so the story goes with the anti-war Left — should’ve
> been allowed to work in Iraq, and the invasion should have been a
> last resort.
Please don’t attribute strawman arguments to your opponents. I’m very much opposed to the war in Iraq and certainly on the left and I don’t recognize either argument. For the record, I opposed sanctions *and*
the war. The opinions you attribute to the “left” are those of bourgeois liberals – in any western country outside the US they would be on the far right.
Saddam was the US favourite and his crimes at Halabja weren’t condemned at the UN because George HW Bush vetoed the vote. The people of Iraq were actually safer under the despot than under the puppet regime that’s there now. When they rose to overthrow him following the defeat of the Iraqi army in Kuwait it was the same Bush who withdrew to let the Iraqis crush the uprisings.
Who appointed the US to be the “rogue state police”? The US must stop acting like a rogue state and stop propping up corrupt and vicious reactionary regimes. I know of just one nation state that’s used the nuclear bomb in any conflict – or even threatened it lately. Just because its the US state doesn’t make it right.
Steve
Mikhail Gorbachev is “far right”?
Unions like the NEA and United Autoworkers are “far right”?
The Coalition for Peace in the Middle East is “far right”?
And this is just looking up “let the sanctions work” phrase exactly in Google. Others, like John Kerry, Jacque Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder were also members of your “far right”.
It is quite true that there were other anti-war folks that didn’t want sanctions either. But I think you’re really mischaracterizing anyone who didn’t think like you did as “far right”.
We are not the “rogue state police”. We do, however, protect our interests, political and economic. We went in to Kuwait with international authority, and Saddam never, never abided by the terms of the cease-fire. Hussein’s support of terrorism and history of violence against his people and his neighbors, and the WMDs that every other nation’s intelligence agencies believed he had, were reasons that yet another coalition took him out.
And speaking of “straw men”, re-read your last statement. No one’s suggesting that. I doubt you could find a reputable person saying that in Google.