[lit-ideas] Re: Bombing Osirik in 1981
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:37:38 -0700
Omar:
I suspected some sort of obfuscation would occur on the part of those who
didn't want to answer the question. I can't tell if Robert Paul is
obfuscating or not -- probably not, and you and Mike have answered it in
ways that represent your positions. Very good.
I must now take this opportunity (which I was of course leading up to) to
add that I think Israel did precisely the right thin in bombing Osirak in
1981, and I suspect that most people, in the U.S. at least, would agree with
that. I suspect that a lot of people who objected to the bombing in 1981
have changed their mind. Those who admire Saddam Hussein and those who
admire Militant Islam would of course not be in that category.
You have introduced the idea that the Saddam building 4 or 5 Hiroshima-sized
bombs in 1981 is radically different from Iran building 4 or 5
Hiroshima-sized bombs in 2006. I fail to see that the difference is
significant. Saddam wanted to dominate the entire Arabian area. He
believed in Pan-Arabism and he took steps to expand the Ummah by taking over
Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was next if we can believe what people close to him
have said. Iran's ambitions are those of Khomeini, to spread, to export the
Khomeini revolution. Khomeini sought to do it in two primary places
initially: in South Iraq, resulting in the Iraq/Iran war and through
Hezbollah into Lebanon, the effects of which the region is experiencing at
the present time. He intended to move north into the former Islamic states
of the USSR, but then he died. Does that intention still live? I suspect
so. Which would be more dangerous with nuclear weapons, Iraq in 1981 or
Iran in 2006? Iran in 2006 hands down; especially since Iran is in the
habit of providing weapons to the most potent terrorist organization in the
world today.
You say the US is not Israel. I don't see the significance of that
difference. We could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities just as Israel bombed
Iraq's. I don't think we will because of the avowed intention of pursuing
"a diplomatic solution," but we could.
As to the international situation being different, I don't see the
significance of that either. Are you saying that the world would condemn
the US if it bombed Iran's nuclear facilities? Did not the world condemn
Israel in 1981? I fail to see that there would be much difference.
Nevertheless it was the right thing for Israel to do in 1981 and it would
be, if we weren't trying out diplomacy, the right thing to do in 2006.
One of the interesting considerations is that you cannot prove that bad
things would have happened if Israel had not bombed Osirak; so Mike cannot
be proved wrong for arguing that things would be much better if Saddam had
gotten his bombs. But if we let Iran have its bombs, then we shall see what
a Militant Islamic nation shall be able to do with them. We had the
discussion at one time about whether we should have assassinated Hitler in
1934-37. If we had done so, then Mike could have berated the US, France or
Britain for taking out that benign fellow who was just trying to improve the
German's lot in life, and no one could prove him wrong about that either.
As to Mike's thinking the situation in Iraq is worse now than if Saddam
remained in power, that is quite a lot to swallow. It is admittedly a
gamble to attempt to foster a democratic state in the Middle East. They
have never had one there before, if you don't count Turkey, and
Middle-Easterners don't because Turkey is a secular state. But the gamble
was worth taking. We, the US, had nothing to lose. A tyrannical state
which continued to abuse the Shiites and Kurds (at least they would if we
stopped the over flights) with expansionist ambitions was removed. His
removal was a blow to Militant Islam. One of their heroes was defeated. As
to what comes afterwards, we have done the honorable thing in attempting to
foster democracy. The unsettled Iraq of the present is preferable to a
settled hostile Iraq under Saddam.
In regard to our attempt to foster Democracy in Iraq, I notice that Mike
while calling himself a Liberal disapproves. He would prefer to have
retained a tyrant. I should point out that Liberals of an earlier day
favored democracy and opposed tyranny. They felt quite strongly about it.
They considered the favoring of Democracy and freedom and the opposing of
tyranny hallmarks of the Liberal position. They believed they held the
moral high-ground and that conservatives wanting to hang on to something
less democratic, less free and more tyrannical were to be despised. Oh, how
the Liberals, so many of them, have fallen.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:00 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Bombing Osirik in 1981
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought my little quiz was more transparent than
> it apparently was. I am
> neither concerned about the New York Times nor
> Israel's battle with
> Hezbollah.
*I suspected what you have in mind but I wasn't sure.
Anyway, this is another one of your simplistic
historical analogies. Iran in 2006 is not Iraq of
1981, Ahmadinejad is not Saddam, Iran nuclear program
is different from Saddam's nuclear program, the US is
not Israel, and the international situation is very
different.
When I read the lines describing how
> close Saddam came to having
> "four or five Hiroshima-sized bombs" in light of the
> trial he is undergoing,
> I thought surely no one today would say it was a bad
> thing for Israel to
> have bombed Osirik. Some on the Left for awhile
> seemed to be arguing that
> we should leave Saddam alone, but I haven't heard
> that argument in some
> time. I suspect that most people are glad he is no
> longer in power and glad
> he never managed to get his 4 or 5 Hiroshima-sized
> bombs.
*Well, yes. Only, a lot of people are extremely
unhappy with how he was removed from power, and even
more so with the current situation. Iraq in the last
weeks has been somewhat overshadowed by the I/P/L
crisis, and the things there have deteriorated even
further. See:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG27Ak03.html
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Other related posts:
