>Hey Doug, good interview. Especially when you drive home the point of
>who will control the weapons, as well as citing Rusmfeld's line that the
>mission determines the coalition, not vice versa.
I agree, great interview. I also liked the Chicks on Speed song and the interview that followed. Shane, you're ignoring Carrol's edict, btw, to ignore propagandists of empire. (Ignore your opponents, ignore the Democratic Party. No wonder the left is in such sorry shape and now wonder it has been for a while.)
>I appreciate Hitchens' maxim of "Do not make the best the enemy of the
>good." But when he says things like Wolfowitz is "a step-up" from Henry
>K, he, at best, makes the worst the foil of the bad.
That seems to be his main point. During the post Cold War era, most countries in Latin America and Africa, etc. have moved from dictatorships to quasi-democracies and the hyperpower has allowed this to happen. And even the economic blockade of Cuba is slowly crumbling. After September 11th, some of the ruling class came to think the client-state system isn't working. It's relying too much on hard power rather than soft power. (maybe they were thinking of this before Sept. 11th, too) And as imperfect as they are as far as institutions, both the US Congress and the UN Security Council (15-0, including Syria) have voted for "regime change." And in the future we will see if they were right to vote that way. If the Palestinians get a state, if the Arabs of the Middle East are better off. It's up to the international left to show that the ruling class was mistaken to think it could get away with shifting to a soft power mode, for the most part, and that it just wets the appetite for more democracy.
>Also, one thing Hitchens ignores (or denies) is that the proceeds of the
>Oil For Food program do not go into Saddam's private coffers, but are
>keep in a UN-controlled escrow account at the Bank of Paris in New York
>City. And EPIC (www.saveageneration.org) accounts for the descrepency
>between northern Iraq and the rest of the country by noting:
>
>1. The North has far more support from the international community, with
>three times the number of NGOs.
>
>2. Northern Iraq is not having a fifth of their aid shaved off for
>reparations to Kuwait. Also, unlike Central and Southern regions, the
>North receives currency rather than commodities form the Oil-for-Food
>program. This allows the North to hire workers and transportation,
>whereas the use of commodities in the Central and South does not.
>
>3. Northern Iraq consists of only 15% of the population and the land, but
>has nearly half its agriculture. This provides a greater supply of local
>food sources.
>
>4. As Desert Storm bombing was focused in the South, it has far greater
>devastation to its civilian infrastructure, including water treatment
>facilities.
>
>5. The North has more porous boarders, allowing for cross-boarder support
>not available to the other regions.
>
>6. The north-to-south flow of rivers means less sewage contamination of
>the North's water supply. Water-borne diseases are the primary culprit
>in the drastic climb in child mortality rates.
Maybe this will change after Saddam is gone?
Peter