So what's the irony here? That Bush is a "tyrant" who's "squandering the resources of his people" to "build up a military machine?"

I guess that would be ironic, if any of it were true.

The irony is a neocon hawk (I assume Patrick means he's for the war against Iraq) saying that democracies don't initiate wars of aggression -- while promoting the idea that our democracy should initiate a war of aggression.

That's ironic whether any of his history is accurate or not.

Actually, calling it a "war of aggression" in and of itself seems ironic.

It's the threat of military action to enforce compliance with the will of the international community.

Where's the irony? The USA is not a democracy -- it's a republic. People keep saying that, anyway. I always used to think it was a distinction that made no difference, but perhaps there's something to it after all.

Well said, Glenn. The blame the victim mentality gets a little old. If you want point a finger, point it at Saddam's unwillingness to comply with the UN resolution and disarm. The reason America is the muscle for this operation is because we're the only military power who can pull it off.

Sometimes I feel like America suffers from a national psychosis that is something like battered-wife syndrome writ large. Evil terrorists and mad dictators threaten us and we wonder what we did to cause it.

OK, let me make sure I have it right.

If we irritate certain people by, say, supplying weapons to Israel, and a couple of them unilaterally decide to respond by bombing us, they're in the wrong, not us.

If certain people irritate us by, say, making weapons for themselves, and a couple of us unilaterally decide to respond by invading them, they're in the wrong, not us.

Rich, who bombed the US for supplying weapons to Isreal? As far as I can remember Al Queda made it pretty clear that it was booting the Moors out of Spain and dismembering the Ottoman Empire that were the major gripes. Bin Laden didn't even mention Isreal until his third tape when the Moslem world wasn't jumping up to attack the infidel.

Here are the assertions that are causing my raised eyebrows:

1. "People who live in democratic societies don't like to pay for massive military machines."

Mmm. Then just how did that massive military machine in the US get funded?

Is Perle trying to pretend it doesn't exist? Or, is he saying it somehow sneaked into existence without the consent of the American people, and therefore the US is not a democracy?

It's possible in theory to make a case that the democratic process is so distorted in the US by, say, the influence of massive propaganda campaigns, that Americans have been fooled into paying for a massive military machine they wouldn't really want if they knew the truth -- but that's hardly a position I'd expect to hear from Richard Perle.

2. "Democratic societies don't empower their executives to make unilateral decisions to plunge countries into war."

Uh-huh. Remind me, then, what was that recent vote in Congress about, if not empowering Bush to engage in war with Iraq whenever he sees fit to declare that the UN resolution has been breeched? Hands up, anyone who thinks there is the slightest chance of Congress saying, "Wait a minute, we don't agree that the resolution has been breeched by these particular events you're waving around, Mr. President, so you can't go to war right now." I'm not seeing a forest of hands...

So, again, Perle is saying by implication that the US is not a democracy.

Of course, we all know that he did not mean anything of the sort; he was thinking solely of those benighted foreign lands groaning under tyranny. However, the fact that his own country seems to disprove the axioms he sets forth, casts considerable doubt on their applicability to other countries.

I don't think Bush is a tyrant. I think he has advisors who would not be loath to gain tyrannical powers, but this is separate from the issue of Iraq.

I also think the American system (whether you choose to call it democracy or not) will, in the long run, prove resilient enough to prevent or reverse the worst abuses. Remember that there have been dark periods before. McCarthyism did end, long before the end of the Cold War.

Okay guys, suppose that the UN passed a resolution that all countries had to completely dismantle their nuclear weapon arsenals. Suppose the US ambassador to the UN and his staff were all at Thanksgiving dinner or something while the votes were taken, and they didn't get a chance to veto it. Or the US representatives at the UN just all decided it was a good idea, whatever.

Do you think that the US government would let UN inspection teams into any place, and allow them to question any person, at any time, without putting up any resistance? That the US would accept the UN decision as a fair one, and trust that it would be evenhandedly enforced?

If not, why should any other sovereign state be expected to comply with a UN resolution that treats it like a Tennessee Sex Offender, just bend over and take the probing, without protest or subterfuge?

If the UN had, say, unmanned drones armed with missiles and set a few to orbiting the headquarters of key governmental and industrial enterprises in the US so that deadly force could be used to enforce the resolution, would ordinary citizens think the UN was a good organization, or an evil one? I put it to you that even the most Bush-loathing Democrat would find that he had to hate the UN more than W, and only the lunatic fringe and criminals would favour the UN.

People write as if the natural thing for the population and government to do is to roll over and cooperate with the UN inspection teams and stop trying to shoot down foreign military aircraft within their territory. If it happened here we would praise the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers killed by raids on air defense bases, condemn any least civilian casualty from a badly armed bomb, and stand up for our right to territorial sovereignity. Why does anyone expect Iraqis to behave differently?

If you can't see the irony in Patrick's quotation, you've probably been soaking in it for far too long.

If, as Sylvia says in her first post, the distinction between democracies and republics is significant here, and that the US is not strictly speaking a democracy, then what countries is Perle referring to by saying "democratic societies"?

It seems to me obvious that, especially as this is a transcript, not a written statement, Perle is applying the common usage of treating "democracy" and "republic" as rough synonyms.

I do not buy Ruprecht's argument that Osama is not particularly annoyed at US support of Israel. I read Osama's statement alluding to the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire as saying that this was when, in his opinion, the world went to hell in a handbasket, and that things have obviously only gotten worse since.

Rich writes: "If certain people irritate us by, say, making weapons for themselves, and a couple of us unilaterally decide to respond by invading them, they're in the wrong, not us."

"A couple of us"? "Unilaterally"? Last time I checked all 15 UN Security Council members approved the last resolution (the 17th regarding Iraqi compliance since the Gulf War).

Bob Webber writes: "If not, why should any other sovereign state be expected to comply with a UN resolution that treats it like a Tennessee Sex Offender, just bend over and take the probing, without protest or subterfuge?"

Well, "any" state shouldn't. Iraq should. Why? Because:

1) They invaded Kuwait
2) They lost the Gulf War
3) They agreed to

Simon, my point is not that he's annoyed with the US over Isreal or not. My point is that Bin Laden is annoyed with western civilization and its influence on Islamic life through military power, music, film, etc. This explains why Al Queda has attacked Germans in Tunisia, a French tanker off of Yemen, Australians in Indonesia and now the most recent tape threatens pretty much everyone else including Canada. I don't think Isreal is Al Queda's main issue.

I don't know if it's that ironic, Patrick. Perle says:

People who live in democratic societies don't like to pay for massive military machines. Democratic societies don't empower their executives to make unilateral decisions to plunge countries into war. [my stress]

This seems entirely true in the US' case: We don't like paying for our military machine [but we gotta do it anyway]. We don't empower the executive to make unilateral war [but they go ahead and do it regardless]. He's telling us more than he may believe he's telling us.

Well, there's a bit of irony when Bush claims that we are attacking Iraq because they defied the UN. Do I need to spell this out?

There's rather a lot of irony in people savaging the United States for not respecting the UN, while excusing Saddam Hussein, too. At least, irony is one word for it.