Celebrities and politics

Do I think that some of the Hollywood set expressing pro-Saddam sentiments is outrageous? Yes. Are they foolish, craven and utterly, utterly wrong? Yes. But for those who do not believe that celebrities should express political views, I have two words and a number for you.

Live Aid.

$100m

Things to keep in mind

Vicki found this, this is awesome, although I dissent on point 9:

Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein.....Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He just plays one on TV.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

I hope this helps. -Dennis Miller

Comparing Iraq to the other Axis states

I've constantly tried to avoid rebuffing arguments about whether Saddam is dangerous to us, because my argument from the beginning is that it doesn't matter whether or not he is dangerous to us, but that the primary reason for removing him is the clear and present danger he poses to his own people and to regional stablility. But in my view, this notwithstanding, of the three Axis states, Iraq is by far the most dangerous to both us and its own people, and that perhaps deserves a few lines of prose.

North Korea is a diplomatically isolated regime that is dying by degrees. It poses no direct threat to us, and precious little direct threat to South Korea (it's leaders aren't madmen - they know that they could never win a war with South Korea, provided China refuses to give them military support, and there is even tacit US involvement (by tacit, I imply air superiority support). Its nuclear program is geared towards the tactical, not the strategic. It is less of an indirect threat as well; it is unlikely to give weapons of mass destruction away, and its central control is highly organised, so there is little chance of those weapons just "going missing". It may well choose to sell what it can sell, but North Korea's focus is on defending itself against attack (something that it could do very effectively - we will lose a few good men invading Iraq, but we would lose thousands in a ground assault of North Korea. Q.v., post, at 2/6/2003.

Iran is more-and-more integrating with the world. Unlike Iraq or North Korea, Iran has the instruments of a democratic state. That is by no means to say that it is a democratically-controlled state, because it most certainly isn't. But Iran is one of the most progressive Islamic states in the world, and I would have placed Saudi Arabia far more on the axis of evil than Iran. Iran is a state that has seen rewards of trying to integrate with the world, and I believe it will continue on its journey to an interesting synthesis between a democratic process and the Islamic state it once was. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism in the 80s will die out, ironically enough, because of Sept. 11 and Bush's actions since. Iran has a clear choice: to support terrorism, or to progressively deal with the west through diplomacy. I think it will choose the latter.

Lastly, there is Iraq. Iraq, unlike Korea or Iran, is not a stable state. Unlike those states, there is neither the means to control whatever weapons of mass destruction possess or may gain (indeed, part of Tariq Aziz's argument has always been that they just "don't know" what happened to many of their weapons), nor the will. Alone in the world, alone on the axis of evil, Iraq celebrated September 11th, and has clear will to give weapons to whatever terrorists will be able to further its cause. Unlike Iran, Iraq has consistantly attacked its neighbours when given the choice, and unlike North Korea, Saddam has been offered the ability to feed his people - and rejected it. North Korea is certainly politically repressive, and Iran is certainly religiously repressive, and all three states no doubt practise unlawful detention and torture, but only Saddam Hussein has resorted to the mass slaughter of his own people.

Iraq is uniquely dangerous to us - and to the people of the middle east - because it has an unstable, shambolic and chimera-like regime, led by a madman who instead of leaving Iraq and saving hundreds of people from US bombs (or thousands from his own regime) will instead stay in his bunker until killed or until he commits suicide.

The die is cast

Looks as if the shooting's about to begin.

Of course, it's a shame that we'll be lacking UN backing, but if the determination of the French government to break the international community (not to mention their complete failure to understand the situation - Paris was evidently under the impression, somehow, that when all this started rattling around the Security Council, that they were being asked to vote whether or not war would happen. In reality, they were just asked if they wanted in or not) made it inevitable. We should not be surprised with this. Name a single conflict in which the UN has intervened when clearly necessary in the last fifty years. Name a conflict that the UN didn't either misjudge (Rwanda), wade into five years late (Bosnia), or just foul up from the get-go (Palestine).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not crowing. I will be living the next week in a state of some agitation; far more than on any of the anti-war camp, it falls incumbent upon those of us who have been so much in favour of the military removal of Saddam Hussein, to feel responsible for every death caused in its name.

But this is right, this is necessary, and let's all just wish the best to our military.

Senate Backs Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Story

Within days of my previous note about how science is moving forwards quietly comes this excellent news from Capitol Hill.