[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[tesco samoa]

John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign Languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

[Thermodyne]

As to Mr. Cooks position. Nice speech, but he was never for the war. And on top of that, he has a rather large axe to grind against the PM. http://www.observer.co.uk/2001review...617634,00.html
At best he had reached his high water mark. At worst, he was on the way out.

[Mephisto]

A very good speech indeed. Interesting that he points out the same problems others have done on this thread...

[tbontob]

Maybe the following has been discussed...I haven't read everything in this thread.

Bush does not strike me as a warmonger.

Yet he insists on going to war when the inspections have been giving some results.

What is going on?

One aspect and maybe the most important one is the cost.

The U.S.A. has incurred enormous costs in outfitting and sending its forces to Iraq.

If they did not do so, I doubt Iraq would have permitted the inspections.

A delay would mean the US of A would face continuing costs which would be borne by its own citizens. Not a popular choice for a president.

To stop the hemorrage, the U.S.A. would have to withdraw its troops. If the president deemed it necessary to send the troops over at a later date, he would face severe criticism about the double expense.

Another aspect of the conflict. Saddam is seen as figuratively thumbing his nose at the U.N. and it's resolutions. I feel the U.S.A. has taken this somewhat personally.

If so, it contributes to the unwillingness of the U.S. of A. to back down. There is a need to teach Saddam a lesson about U.S. resolve. It will also serve as a lesson to any nation who is contemplating to defy it in the future.

Fear and coertion is not a good basis for future relations. But this seems to be the path the U.S. of A. has chosen.

Just some thought to provoke a conversation.

[Thermodyne]

Kiesling I know of, he is a well known, well to do mal-content. He is a recipient of the Rivkin award, given for decent against the policies of the state department. I applaud him for making a demonstration of his feelings on the subject. But I also condemn him for using the moment to add sensationalism to his resignation. I would suggest that his job was not to decide policy, but to work towards the goals of achieving the policies already in place. Perhaps he should run for a seat in the house, where his voice, if added to a majority of others, would help set policy. I respect people for going to bat for what they think is right, but I have no respect for those who resign when other fail to abide by their point of view.

[Atrocities]

Why Bush is insisting on going to war is because Saddam has been trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. He has hidden these weapons from the UN, and only when the Inspectors "find" some does he then come out and say, "oh they were disclosed." Yet they were not.

Saddam has every intention to get a nuke bomb. If he were allowed to do so, he would use it to black mail the rest of the world, including his neighbors into allowing him to do as he pleased in the Middle East. HE WOULD USE IT on Israel. He has offered to give Terrorist biological and chemical weapons before. Some have accepted and thank God have been stopped. You don't hear or read about them because the information pipeline must be preserved.

Bush has the intelligence reports, the proof, and above all else, the smoking gun to justify the action he has order taken. France, Germany, and Russia have huge stakes in IRAQ, and don't want to loose those investments. That is understandable however regrettable.

China just likes to cause the US heartache. Remember, they paid for a Democrat President, but got a Republican instead.

Saddam is a man who will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction. He is a man who would give, or sell these weapons to people who would use them in terrorist attacks.

The fact that so many people are protesting against a war only shows how little they value human life. They don't want the war because of what might happen to the IRAQ people. Saddam has already stated that he would kill all of his people rather than allow them to live without him.

That shows how sick of a man he really is.

He is a liar, killer, mass murder, rapist, etc, yet these people want to keep him in power. Where were these people when Saddam was committing genocide against people of his society? Where were they when he invaded Iran and then later Kuwait? They were sitting in the rafters waiting for the US to get involved so they could pounce upon us like crazed followers of Satan.

These people are fools to believe that Saddam is a nice man. These are the people who file billion dollar lawsuits after a jet crashes because a terrorist was able to take control of it and slam it into a building. These are the people who protest against war and the treatment prisoners at a military base, but turn their backs on the suffering of the people who have to live under or with those who commit terrorist action and other atrocities against their own people.

Where the hell were these fricking protesters when the Taliban was killing innocent people and ordering the mass extermination of non-believers? Where were they when Alkida (sp) was planning to kill 3k + Americans? Where in the hell were they when Saddam butchered his own people as a fricking test to see if his newest chemical bombs worked?

I will tell you were they were, sitting back with their cell phones drinking a latté and laughing at the misfortunes of those people. They couldn't give a rats *** about them, and now that someone is finally fed up with it, and has taken a leadership role to end some of this senseless violence, the come out of the fricking wood work like maggot bugs and swarm those who would free an oppressed people in support of a mass murder.

The below mentioned politicians are nothing more than political game players who out for themselves and NOTHING more. People believe that a war in Iraq is bad, yet they can live with the knowledge that Saddam, a mass murder, is in control. They can live with the fact that this insane man wants nuclear power? They can live with the fact that he is an avid supporter of suicide bomber, and they believe that he posses no threat to our security given the fact that he wants nuclear weapons? Come on!

Where will these idiots be when one of these weapons of mass destruction is set off as a terrorist weapon? Where will they be then? Sitting in the dark waiting for the US to respond once again, so they can protest one more time.

[ March 18, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[tesco samoa]

I think your missing the overall point here.

America will win the war. But they will not resolve the mistrust and resentment of American foreign policy. The world does not want to live in a world shaped by the US.

Only in one country does the majority of the people support this war. Israel.

That is it.

Just remember when countries are the economic and military might of the world. The world joins against them.

The next election in the US should be about Multilateral Alliances vs American Imperium.
I hope that a Roosevelt , Truman or Marshall spirit prevails.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Aloofi:

Those are amazing "pictures". Did you do them yourself? Just Adobe with a lot of tender loving care? I can't believe how seamless the G.I. dubbya looks, even the right shadows and everything!

Yeah right, I wish I could do something like that .
Those pictures were done by the guys at the onion.
They have become real masters in picture making

[Atrocities]

In a hundred years, non of this will matter.

And for the record, it is a war against Saddam (Terrorism), not a war against Iraq(Oppressed people).

[ March 18, 2003, 18:27: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
In a hundred years, non of this will matter.

.

But it will in a hundred hours......