Iraq anyone? or North Korea?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
welsh
Junkmaster
Ratty said:
Well Ratty, I would argue that declaring the war over was a bit premature. I think one reason for doing so was because the US thought that Saddam and sons had been crushed or otherwise obliterated. But the guy has as many lives as stunt doubles. Since he doesn't seem to have surrendered and seems to be still fighting, even if its a guerrilla war, than I think need to be careful here. Despite the declaration, the war is hardly over, and probably the harder part has begun (and by the news- we are not winning that war).
Also if the UN were to go and a new one were to take its place, it would be hard to keep France or Germany from the table. There has been talk of giving Germany permanent membership because of the significance of its power. France is, at least in law, an equal member to the US as a member of the Security Council. Considering the significance of France and German, it would be hard to create a viable IO that doesn't incorporate them.
Ratty said:
Ratty- not sure if you have access to Jstor.org at your local university, in which case this is easy.
But check out- an article- "Vietnam Reappraised" an interview with some of the leading scholars of the time (Huntington, May, Neustadt, Schelling, Hoffman) in International Security, vol 6, issue 1 (summer 1981).
What is scary is that many of the same mistakes one sees in Vietnam are beginning to come back in Iraq. Now arguably no two wars are alike, but....
While its probably too early yet to predict if Iraq is a disaster or a success, certainly its the first year or two that matters. If you study the Vietnam War one could argue that the US is already losing the war as early as 1965, and a stronger argument in 1968.
WHile I agree with you on this, I think that the Koreans may go down kicking and screaming. I think the idea that the US is playing is to have the regime transition from within, but adding nukes complicates this.
How can they create the confidence in such a system if they don't even enforce the law?
But isn't that part of the reconstruction and revitalization of the country? In a country used to significant social services as public goods, can you really topple it and destroy it and not deliver on a similar quality of those same goods?
I agree, but the problem again is that the new government may be seen as nothing but puppets for the Americans.
Weak yes, useless no.
Of course. These people are soldiers. They couldn't go around chasing and trialing criminals and driving garbage trucks even if they wanted to. Their job is to fight, and that's all they know. What you are suggesting can only be accomplished if USA sends colonists to Iraq who would take on jobs and provide services that disappeared with destruction of Saddam's regime. That simply can't be done. American forces must create conditions for forming of a new Iraqi government. This government will then organize all services that are needed for a country to function properly, and reestablish law and order.welsh said:
But that's exactly what this government will be - a puppet. Every defeated country is a puppet of the occupator for period of time - remember Germany after World War II. When this puppet government fulfills its duty and brings the country back to normal, it will create conditions for democratic elections, where Iraqi citizens will be able to choose who will lead them.
Their duties are to capture Saddam and his associates, to locate weapons of mass destruction and to prevent Iraq from becoming a complete anarchy, torn by a civil war or, worse yet, ruled by another extremist regime. I sincerely doubt that Americans even have the manpower to do much more than that.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I'm only speaking out of my own experience. In my country and in Bosnia hundreds of thousands of people died because UN did their job "fairly".
welsh
Junkmaster
Ratty- I will respond to your other posts above. And I also want to say that Bosnia and the splintering of Yugoslavia was indeed a tragedy, and a huge fuck up on the part of the international community.
I am not sure how much the UN could have done, but it does seem that there was a massive lack of will to do the things that needed to be done. It is also my feeling that had the US not gotten involved strongly, things would have been even more fucked up.
I also think that the reason why the US did get involved as far as it did was frustration with Europe and the UN.
I also want to add that, while I am not sure what your personal experiences were, I hope that you and your family went through that ordeal unscathed and unscarred. I also have family that experienced wartime.
I am not sure how much the UN could have done, but it does seem that there was a massive lack of will to do the things that needed to be done. It is also my feeling that had the US not gotten involved strongly, things would have been even more fucked up.
I also think that the reason why the US did get involved as far as it did was frustration with Europe and the UN.
I also want to add that, while I am not sure what your personal experiences were, I hope that you and your family went through that ordeal unscathed and unscarred. I also have family that experienced wartime.
Whatever
Ratty that is not what i´m saying here, the coalition forces down there don´t even bother to defend the public services as water supply from terrorist attacks. Hence more anger and more anger leads in the end to ultimatly more dead americans soldiers.
Yes the US i far more powerfull than france, but france is a veto power in the UN and can stop any force from getting too the Cforce that is down there. Why should the french start kissing american arse anyway? Just because the americans are more powerfull, and had a sucssesfull invasion. Ratty, my kid don´t you get that that he Cforces will have to winn the peace asswell as the war, and for now they are not dooing such a good job.
And please tell me how will the US easely crush all the resistance in Iraq? Please tell me why hve they not done so allready, because they like 5 dead soldiers per week and the humonguous amount of money they have to spitt into iraq?
The US is a superpower, but as far as i recall superpowers has had their arses kicked before. And by the way i do belive that the US is handling the situation down in Iraq with their eyes closed.
I´m not proporsing that the americans drop their big guns and leave the barbed wire, i´m proposing that they help the iraqi people by protecting water supply and other vital supplyes from terrorist attack.
They are soldiers, and in any army there is sucha thing as "ingernering forces" so it should be possibole for them to help rebuild the country.
Yes the americans has come to Iraq to win a war, and they have won it, but they have not won the peace. And i wonder if they will.
[/quote]
Ratty that is not what i´m saying here, the coalition forces down there don´t even bother to defend the public services as water supply from terrorist attacks. Hence more anger and more anger leads in the end to ultimatly more dead americans soldiers.
Yes the US i far more powerfull than france, but france is a veto power in the UN and can stop any force from getting too the Cforce that is down there. Why should the french start kissing american arse anyway? Just because the americans are more powerfull, and had a sucssesfull invasion. Ratty, my kid don´t you get that that he Cforces will have to winn the peace asswell as the war, and for now they are not dooing such a good job.
And please tell me how will the US easely crush all the resistance in Iraq? Please tell me why hve they not done so allready, because they like 5 dead soldiers per week and the humonguous amount of money they have to spitt into iraq?
The US is a superpower, but as far as i recall superpowers has had their arses kicked before. And by the way i do belive that the US is handling the situation down in Iraq with their eyes closed.
I´m not proporsing that the americans drop their big guns and leave the barbed wire, i´m proposing that they help the iraqi people by protecting water supply and other vital supplyes from terrorist attack.
They are soldiers, and in any army there is sucha thing as "ingernering forces" so it should be possibole for them to help rebuild the country.
Yes the americans has come to Iraq to win a war, and they have won it, but they have not won the peace. And i wonder if they will.
[/quote]
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
Wow...
So many good points...
So many good discussions...
We should just rename this thread to "current state of world affairs"....
Alright, about the Cuban Missile Crisis... great work Welsh, you really hit that one on the mark. Very few people know or remember the most important detail about that crisis, which was the missiles in Turkey (I partly blame it on the fact that we tend to glorify everything Kennedy and that we also like to make ourselves seem like the "winners" in this crisis, and also on the fact that the issue of the turkish missiles was agreed upon in secret and the rest of the world wasn't supposed to know about it at the time). If it wasn't because of that fact, It's doubtful that the USSR would've wanted to put missiles in Cuba. The most importand decision of that whole crisis was that Kennedy agreed with Kruschev on removing the Turkish missiles, not that the USSR folded and turned around. Things could've gotten pretty scary otherwise...
About Kennedy himself... well, even though I grew up in a community where Kennedy is the third most hated person (behind Fidel and Raul Castro) and I might be a little biased on this topic, I do have to admit he did take several positive strides on certain issues such as racism and his leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis was critical. But overrall, I have to agree with Kharn, his administration was an international disaster, though it wasn't completely his fault.
Take the Bay of Pigs incident, for example; much of the blame lies on the plans and information of the CIA. They recruited, trained, and armed over one thousand cuba exiles to overthrow Castro's regime. However, not only do they rush the operation, make several intelligence failures, and make several international blunder's (not exactly the CIA's fault), but they totally underestimated Castro's forces; 1000 soldiers would've never been capable of toppling Castro's rule, not to mention the fact that Kennedy's administration pretty much sold them out when they saw that the operation was failing. The Bay of Pigs invasion was unfortunately doomed from the beginning...
As for China and Taiwan, I had read a really interesting article (which I'm currenty trying to locate) about this subject a while ago which changed my views on that whole situation. After reading that article, I find it very unlikely that China would invade Taiwan because all the economic gains that China would gain from this invasion would be lost because then the US and most of the other countries around the world would end all trade relations with China. Instead, China is taking over Taiwan through capitalistic means. For example, they are offering several tax exemptions and other benefits to major Taiwanese companies if they move the heads of their operations to mainland China. One quote by a chinese official really caught my eye:
"why conquer Taiwan when we can just as easily buy them".
However, this isn't taking into consideration an invasion by US forces into NK...
On the subject of the UN; Kharn, Welsh, and Ratty all make excellent points, but my opinion leans on Ratty's side in this one; The UN is very inefficient, and though discarding it wouldn't be a wise or practical decision, it definitely needs to be improved on. For starters, it seems to be more of a political tool lately for certain countries (ie. Germany, France) than it does to be an internatiol forum for diplomacy, peace keeping, and aid.
Seriously, the reason why these countries strongly opposed this war in Iraq wasn't because they cared for the Iraqi's (which wasn't the main reason that the US invaded), or because they didn't believe that Iraq was an international threat(which was the main reason that the US invaded); their motivations on Iraq were all economically based, and they hated to see their oil agreements with that brutal and corrupt regime reniged (which they also have a tendency to have with other just as corrupt governments, Cuba for instance). The most hilarious part about this whole situation is that they want to turn it around and make it seem as if the US is doing this for economic gains, which, as can currently be seen, isn't true. Even now, they're using the UN as a tool by acting as if though they have doubts about whether to help out in Post-War Iraq when it's obvious to all that it's an act; they're going to help rebuild so that they can get a cut of the action later on and not lose out on that oil deal that they made with Saddam. Chirac and Schroeder are creating a political grandstand so that they can create an illusion of having major international clout. Those two dumbasses need to get past their delusion of wannabe superpower status. One just needs to take a look at their military, economic, and their diplomatic ties to see that it's ludicrous to even to think that they should be taken just as seriously as the US.
IMO, fuck Putin, fuck Schroeder, and especially fuck Chirac, the most despicable piece of shit out of all of them; people bash Bush for being gungho and stupid, when these immoral, contemptible bastards are much worse for not really giving three shits that their policies of doing business (especially helping build nuclear reactors in some of the worlds biggest hot spots) with some of the most unsavory governments in the world is not only helping in sustaining them and therefore prolonging the miseries of their citizens, but in creating a world environment that in the long-run, will only come back to haunt us all.
Also, the fact that they would remove the US from the human rights comission and then appoint Libya, a major violator of human rights, as head is preposterous. What integrity can this commission have? Would they then be willing to go after Libya for human right violations? It's just another indication that the UN is being used as a tool rather than as an organzition that is supposed to carry out certain duties of global significance.
OK, rant on despicable world leaders aside, another flaw of UN is that they simply need to be more aggressive. Ratty pointed out several examples (and there are several other documented examples, such as Liberia) where there forces weren't making a difference and were only being avoided or fought around. We need to take situations like these head on. Taylor is a war crimes criminal, instead of temporarily protecting certain villages, we need to take out one of the major reasons that those villages are being protected and either force or remove Taylor from power. From that moment on, we can create a positive environment where help and aid will actually help the citizens.
However, the fact remains that they have helped out in many situations and it is the only organization of its kind. It's system of aid is unparallel and as Welch pointed out, they do create the international laws that most countries abide by. Quite frankly, the world is better off with it than without it. It just needs to be improved upon.
On North Korea, that situation needs to be solved, hopefully by diplomatic means, but regardless, since there is little doubt that they have nukes, it needs to be solved. First off, the main source of income that NK has is weapon sales. Now that they have nukes, it wouldn't be surprising that they would sell them also. The consequences would be disastrous. Secondly, it is very unlikely that we can starve the regime away. They are one of the most brutal regimes in the world, and the people are kept in a constant state of submission.
Kim jong il also suffers from the power lust that most brutal dictators have. He will never give up power voluntarily, and would go down to bitter end trying to hold on to it. That is the scary part: unlike other countries that have nukes, he doesn't give a crap for his people's welfare, nor the consequences to his country if he ever used them. If he see's that he is going to lose power, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes out with a bang.
This therefore creates the first situation of its kind: a brutal, unstable dictator with nukes. The US currently has two options, remove the regime or give them the aid that they want. Although we would easily defeat them in a war, this also runs the risk that they launch nukes. If we give them aid, what makes us think that NK won't pull this same crap later on. Plus, what about the nukes they already have? NK will probably hide a couple just as a future deterrent. And what if they actually decide to sell one?
Then there is the whole China situation. Even if we find a way to pretect the surrounding area from NK's nukes, they definitely don't want a war nor another democratic neighbor in that area. on the positive side, they also don't want everyone else in that region (especially Japan) packing nukes because of North Korea...
My opinion is that under the circumstances, there is no clear cut solution and that the best option right now is to wait and see what happens next. I personally feel that the deciding factor on our course of action is going to be China, and that therefore our diplomacy with them is currently of upmost importance.
Finally, on the Iraq issue, I was and still am for the war. We have eliminated a regime that not only was brutal to its own people, but that had used chemical weapons before and that has invading most of its neighbors. The number one priority of government is to protect its people and quite frankly, Saddam was a threat to humanity as a whole. So we haven't found WMD's, what makes us think that he didn't get rid of them when the US decided that enough was enough and that he was going to go out. How about before, when he wouldn't let UN inspectors do their jobs? How convenient that it took 80,000 troops to change his mind and let them back in.
I won't lie to you, I believe this administration was already going to eliminate Saddam even before the last inspectors finished their jobs, but all for good reason. Once our troops would have left the surrounding aread, it would have been the same shit all over again. Quite frankly, its the best thing that could have possibly happened to that region. How easy it is to overlook those facts and say that the war in Iraq shouldn't have happened because the situation right now is tough.
No. We need to be enforcing the laws there cooperatively with Iraqi's. I can understand, considering that US soldiers die there everyday, that they wan't to prevent US deaths so that the moral at home doesn't swing against the occupation, but law needs to be enforced effectively so that we can create a better envronment for the Iraqi citizens.
Not surprising, but considering Hussein's history and the current world we live in, it does justify war. We need to prevent maniacs like Hussein from acquiring nukes. Look at the current situation in Korea. Now imagine Hussein with nukes!!! Considering his expansionist agenda, his willingness to use WMD's, his brutality and lack of care for his people, and the fact that he wanted to make Iraq the most powerful force in that area really sends shiver's down my spine if he actually had nukes. Thankfully the Israelis prevented him from acquiring them before by blowing up their french nuclear reactor (and a very wise decision on their part at that).
Oh, here's a nice little picture I found of the French Weisel, the Butcher of Baghdad, and the nuclear reactor that love (and money) built...
...and the site that I found it on, which also explains how Hussein didn't conceal the fact that he would probably nuke Iraq if he had the chance and some of other goodies on the French government's abuse of EU power...
Operation "Opera"
Isn't that nice... my contempt for Chirac grows the more I research him...
I don't think so. The public has now realized that people are actually getting killed out there. I don't think it necessarily means that people don't support the war. Prosepctive enlistee's are probably scared that they might get killed if they end up going to Iraq. Many people that sign up for the armed forces are doing so to make a better future for themselves. Now that their are casualties and conflicts, people are looking for other means of self-improvement.
Kinda no and yes. I don't like the fact that they are using former members of the Baath party to now enforce the new government. We should check extensively to make sure that they won't sabotoge our plans for Iraq. Patton lost his job for putting former nazi's in position of powers, the same should be prevented in Iraq.
As for the UN, Rumsfeild was for a UN force, but since the "Greedy Three" would have prevented this, they couldn't have done it from the beginning. However, I'm for the UN now as I was for it in the beginning, and the US knows that they will probably get the support they need now since the "Greedy Three" doesn't want to pass up on an opportunity to make the money that they would have lost otherwise.
Well, the whole rush of war is over, now themost unexciting but important part, reconstruction, begins...
So many good points...
So many good discussions...
We should just rename this thread to "current state of world affairs"....
Alright, about the Cuban Missile Crisis... great work Welsh, you really hit that one on the mark. Very few people know or remember the most important detail about that crisis, which was the missiles in Turkey (I partly blame it on the fact that we tend to glorify everything Kennedy and that we also like to make ourselves seem like the "winners" in this crisis, and also on the fact that the issue of the turkish missiles was agreed upon in secret and the rest of the world wasn't supposed to know about it at the time). If it wasn't because of that fact, It's doubtful that the USSR would've wanted to put missiles in Cuba. The most importand decision of that whole crisis was that Kennedy agreed with Kruschev on removing the Turkish missiles, not that the USSR folded and turned around. Things could've gotten pretty scary otherwise...
About Kennedy himself... well, even though I grew up in a community where Kennedy is the third most hated person (behind Fidel and Raul Castro) and I might be a little biased on this topic, I do have to admit he did take several positive strides on certain issues such as racism and his leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis was critical. But overrall, I have to agree with Kharn, his administration was an international disaster, though it wasn't completely his fault.
Take the Bay of Pigs incident, for example; much of the blame lies on the plans and information of the CIA. They recruited, trained, and armed over one thousand cuba exiles to overthrow Castro's regime. However, not only do they rush the operation, make several intelligence failures, and make several international blunder's (not exactly the CIA's fault), but they totally underestimated Castro's forces; 1000 soldiers would've never been capable of toppling Castro's rule, not to mention the fact that Kennedy's administration pretty much sold them out when they saw that the operation was failing. The Bay of Pigs invasion was unfortunately doomed from the beginning...
As for China and Taiwan, I had read a really interesting article (which I'm currenty trying to locate) about this subject a while ago which changed my views on that whole situation. After reading that article, I find it very unlikely that China would invade Taiwan because all the economic gains that China would gain from this invasion would be lost because then the US and most of the other countries around the world would end all trade relations with China. Instead, China is taking over Taiwan through capitalistic means. For example, they are offering several tax exemptions and other benefits to major Taiwanese companies if they move the heads of their operations to mainland China. One quote by a chinese official really caught my eye:
"why conquer Taiwan when we can just as easily buy them".
However, this isn't taking into consideration an invasion by US forces into NK...
On the subject of the UN; Kharn, Welsh, and Ratty all make excellent points, but my opinion leans on Ratty's side in this one; The UN is very inefficient, and though discarding it wouldn't be a wise or practical decision, it definitely needs to be improved on. For starters, it seems to be more of a political tool lately for certain countries (ie. Germany, France) than it does to be an internatiol forum for diplomacy, peace keeping, and aid.
Seriously, the reason why these countries strongly opposed this war in Iraq wasn't because they cared for the Iraqi's (which wasn't the main reason that the US invaded), or because they didn't believe that Iraq was an international threat(which was the main reason that the US invaded); their motivations on Iraq were all economically based, and they hated to see their oil agreements with that brutal and corrupt regime reniged (which they also have a tendency to have with other just as corrupt governments, Cuba for instance). The most hilarious part about this whole situation is that they want to turn it around and make it seem as if the US is doing this for economic gains, which, as can currently be seen, isn't true. Even now, they're using the UN as a tool by acting as if though they have doubts about whether to help out in Post-War Iraq when it's obvious to all that it's an act; they're going to help rebuild so that they can get a cut of the action later on and not lose out on that oil deal that they made with Saddam. Chirac and Schroeder are creating a political grandstand so that they can create an illusion of having major international clout. Those two dumbasses need to get past their delusion of wannabe superpower status. One just needs to take a look at their military, economic, and their diplomatic ties to see that it's ludicrous to even to think that they should be taken just as seriously as the US.
IMO, fuck Putin, fuck Schroeder, and especially fuck Chirac, the most despicable piece of shit out of all of them; people bash Bush for being gungho and stupid, when these immoral, contemptible bastards are much worse for not really giving three shits that their policies of doing business (especially helping build nuclear reactors in some of the worlds biggest hot spots) with some of the most unsavory governments in the world is not only helping in sustaining them and therefore prolonging the miseries of their citizens, but in creating a world environment that in the long-run, will only come back to haunt us all.
Also, the fact that they would remove the US from the human rights comission and then appoint Libya, a major violator of human rights, as head is preposterous. What integrity can this commission have? Would they then be willing to go after Libya for human right violations? It's just another indication that the UN is being used as a tool rather than as an organzition that is supposed to carry out certain duties of global significance.
OK, rant on despicable world leaders aside, another flaw of UN is that they simply need to be more aggressive. Ratty pointed out several examples (and there are several other documented examples, such as Liberia) where there forces weren't making a difference and were only being avoided or fought around. We need to take situations like these head on. Taylor is a war crimes criminal, instead of temporarily protecting certain villages, we need to take out one of the major reasons that those villages are being protected and either force or remove Taylor from power. From that moment on, we can create a positive environment where help and aid will actually help the citizens.
However, the fact remains that they have helped out in many situations and it is the only organization of its kind. It's system of aid is unparallel and as Welch pointed out, they do create the international laws that most countries abide by. Quite frankly, the world is better off with it than without it. It just needs to be improved upon.
On North Korea, that situation needs to be solved, hopefully by diplomatic means, but regardless, since there is little doubt that they have nukes, it needs to be solved. First off, the main source of income that NK has is weapon sales. Now that they have nukes, it wouldn't be surprising that they would sell them also. The consequences would be disastrous. Secondly, it is very unlikely that we can starve the regime away. They are one of the most brutal regimes in the world, and the people are kept in a constant state of submission.
Kim jong il also suffers from the power lust that most brutal dictators have. He will never give up power voluntarily, and would go down to bitter end trying to hold on to it. That is the scary part: unlike other countries that have nukes, he doesn't give a crap for his people's welfare, nor the consequences to his country if he ever used them. If he see's that he is going to lose power, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes out with a bang.
This therefore creates the first situation of its kind: a brutal, unstable dictator with nukes. The US currently has two options, remove the regime or give them the aid that they want. Although we would easily defeat them in a war, this also runs the risk that they launch nukes. If we give them aid, what makes us think that NK won't pull this same crap later on. Plus, what about the nukes they already have? NK will probably hide a couple just as a future deterrent. And what if they actually decide to sell one?
Then there is the whole China situation. Even if we find a way to pretect the surrounding area from NK's nukes, they definitely don't want a war nor another democratic neighbor in that area. on the positive side, they also don't want everyone else in that region (especially Japan) packing nukes because of North Korea...
My opinion is that under the circumstances, there is no clear cut solution and that the best option right now is to wait and see what happens next. I personally feel that the deciding factor on our course of action is going to be China, and that therefore our diplomacy with them is currently of upmost importance.
Finally, on the Iraq issue, I was and still am for the war. We have eliminated a regime that not only was brutal to its own people, but that had used chemical weapons before and that has invading most of its neighbors. The number one priority of government is to protect its people and quite frankly, Saddam was a threat to humanity as a whole. So we haven't found WMD's, what makes us think that he didn't get rid of them when the US decided that enough was enough and that he was going to go out. How about before, when he wouldn't let UN inspectors do their jobs? How convenient that it took 80,000 troops to change his mind and let them back in.
I won't lie to you, I believe this administration was already going to eliminate Saddam even before the last inspectors finished their jobs, but all for good reason. Once our troops would have left the surrounding aread, it would have been the same shit all over again. Quite frankly, its the best thing that could have possibly happened to that region. How easy it is to overlook those facts and say that the war in Iraq shouldn't have happened because the situation right now is tough.
No. We need to be enforcing the laws there cooperatively with Iraqi's. I can understand, considering that US soldiers die there everyday, that they wan't to prevent US deaths so that the moral at home doesn't swing against the occupation, but law needs to be enforced effectively so that we can create a better envronment for the Iraqi citizens.
Not surprising, but considering Hussein's history and the current world we live in, it does justify war. We need to prevent maniacs like Hussein from acquiring nukes. Look at the current situation in Korea. Now imagine Hussein with nukes!!! Considering his expansionist agenda, his willingness to use WMD's, his brutality and lack of care for his people, and the fact that he wanted to make Iraq the most powerful force in that area really sends shiver's down my spine if he actually had nukes. Thankfully the Israelis prevented him from acquiring them before by blowing up their french nuclear reactor (and a very wise decision on their part at that).
Oh, here's a nice little picture I found of the French Weisel, the Butcher of Baghdad, and the nuclear reactor that love (and money) built...
...and the site that I found it on, which also explains how Hussein didn't conceal the fact that he would probably nuke Iraq if he had the chance and some of other goodies on the French government's abuse of EU power...
Operation "Opera"
Isn't that nice... my contempt for Chirac grows the more I research him...
I don't think so. The public has now realized that people are actually getting killed out there. I don't think it necessarily means that people don't support the war. Prosepctive enlistee's are probably scared that they might get killed if they end up going to Iraq. Many people that sign up for the armed forces are doing so to make a better future for themselves. Now that their are casualties and conflicts, people are looking for other means of self-improvement.
Kinda no and yes. I don't like the fact that they are using former members of the Baath party to now enforce the new government. We should check extensively to make sure that they won't sabotoge our plans for Iraq. Patton lost his job for putting former nazi's in position of powers, the same should be prevented in Iraq.
As for the UN, Rumsfeild was for a UN force, but since the "Greedy Three" would have prevented this, they couldn't have done it from the beginning. However, I'm for the UN now as I was for it in the beginning, and the US knows that they will probably get the support they need now since the "Greedy Three" doesn't want to pass up on an opportunity to make the money that they would have lost otherwise.
Well, the whole rush of war is over, now themost unexciting but important part, reconstruction, begins...
welsh
Junkmaster
Well this thread is getting better-
Just a couple of quick notes-
From the US State Dept on Cuba-
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/17739.htm
A couple things about Castro and the Cuban Revolution- at one point he has only 12 men fighting in the mountains against the Batista regime. Within three years Batista is gone. A lot of the credit for that goes to the fact that Batista regime crumbles all over and Castro is able to take over with a very small force. A good example here of a despotic state, the power vacumes that follows its crumbling and how easy a small force can take over. Can we draw lessons for Iraq?
Currently in the news- Bush says he wants US$87 billion to pay for war on terrorism- mostly to Iraq but also to Afghanistan and other hot spots. But he also says, spend as much as it takes, do what ever it takes? Good idea? WHat about those tax cuts?
France and Germany, will they put grievances behind them and accomodate the US, or screw the US? Which would you choose?
International Atomic Energy Agency is finding increased traces of a nuclear program in Iran. Looks like the Persians might be building a bomb? They say they need the energy. Is Iran next? Should it be?
For more- see-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/08/iran.iaea/index.html
Ratty- I am actually rethinking this issue of US troops providing police protection. On one side, by not doing anything they look impotent and they hamper public trust. But there is also a danger that by being dragged into civil conflicts and suffering proganda disasters (US Troops Shoot Iraqi Civilians- would be a bigger headline than US troops use deadly force to stop Crime). Honestly it would be better if the US troops (which carry a sense of imperialistic ambition for Iraqi citizens) would be replaced by other foreign troops or better Iraqis. Still the British experience in Malaya would support enforcing tough rule of law.
This is a complicated nut to crack.
Just a couple of quick notes-
From the US State Dept on Cuba-
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/17739.htm
A couple things about Castro and the Cuban Revolution- at one point he has only 12 men fighting in the mountains against the Batista regime. Within three years Batista is gone. A lot of the credit for that goes to the fact that Batista regime crumbles all over and Castro is able to take over with a very small force. A good example here of a despotic state, the power vacumes that follows its crumbling and how easy a small force can take over. Can we draw lessons for Iraq?
Currently in the news- Bush says he wants US$87 billion to pay for war on terrorism- mostly to Iraq but also to Afghanistan and other hot spots. But he also says, spend as much as it takes, do what ever it takes? Good idea? WHat about those tax cuts?
France and Germany, will they put grievances behind them and accomodate the US, or screw the US? Which would you choose?
International Atomic Energy Agency is finding increased traces of a nuclear program in Iran. Looks like the Persians might be building a bomb? They say they need the energy. Is Iran next? Should it be?
For more- see-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/08/iran.iaea/index.html
Ratty- I am actually rethinking this issue of US troops providing police protection. On one side, by not doing anything they look impotent and they hamper public trust. But there is also a danger that by being dragged into civil conflicts and suffering proganda disasters (US Troops Shoot Iraqi Civilians- would be a bigger headline than US troops use deadly force to stop Crime). Honestly it would be better if the US troops (which carry a sense of imperialistic ambition for Iraqi citizens) would be replaced by other foreign troops or better Iraqis. Still the British experience in Malaya would support enforcing tough rule of law.
This is a complicated nut to crack.
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
welsh said:
Probably that propaganda and charisma are of utmost importance under this situation and that we need to be careful.
welsh said:
And that is where George Bush has fucked up IMO, not internationally, but domestically. Unless we do something about those tax cuts, we just won't be able to spend all this money...
welsh said:
There's money to be made, they will go into Iraq. They just want the US to feel as uncomfortable as possible, and make it seem as if they have more political power. I choose the UN, unfortunately they're part of it...
welsh said:
If they don't let an international agency in to keep tabs on them, I don't think we should go to war with them, just take out their russian reactor before they develop a bomb...
...
I'd like to applaud welsh for starting interesting threads, life on these boards! Intelligent life! Yeah!
i'd like to respond to one thing, for now. I don't think that limiting nuclear power, and nuclear bombs should be done. Yes, nuclear bombs will probably destroy the world some day, and the more people that have one, the more realistic and the soooner that will happen. However, if a lot of countries have nuclear capabilities, the power balance will be disturbed, and the power of the USA will diminish, in fact, the power of every country with nuclear capabilities will diminish, and that is in my opinion, a good thing, because it will cause a new type of politics, where countries will have to be more and more considerate of everyone, because most countries will have nuclear capabilities.
Now, I'm going to watch the people flow in and try to tear me to shreds...
I'd like to applaud welsh for starting interesting threads, life on these boards! Intelligent life! Yeah!
i'd like to respond to one thing, for now. I don't think that limiting nuclear power, and nuclear bombs should be done. Yes, nuclear bombs will probably destroy the world some day, and the more people that have one, the more realistic and the soooner that will happen. However, if a lot of countries have nuclear capabilities, the power balance will be disturbed, and the power of the USA will diminish, in fact, the power of every country with nuclear capabilities will diminish, and that is in my opinion, a good thing, because it will cause a new type of politics, where countries will have to be more and more considerate of everyone, because most countries will have nuclear capabilities.
Now, I'm going to watch the people flow in and try to tear me to shreds...
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
The only problem with that scenario is that it is doubtful that these countries will be responsible with their newfound nuclear status. North Korea, for example, sells its weapons. What makes us think that they won't sell a nuke to a terrorrist org? And if terrorrists get a hold of nukes, the fear of retaliation against them won't be as great as that of sovereign state for many reasons, therefore raising the likelyhood that they would use a WMD. Look at 911, if Bin ladin had access to a nuke, do you think he would have used it instead? I certainly believe so.
Also, after doing some reading, unstable dictators would have less qualms about using a WMD than other countries. Saddam probably would have nuked Israel or any of his other enemies if he thought that it would give him the upperhand in that region (he even made references to it), and he obviously didn't fear retaliation from the US or UN before the first gulf war. Who knows, the whole middle east might currently be under his control if he had a nuclear arsenal (I wonder if that would have been fine with Chirac). I strongly believe we need to keep these weapons out of the hands of brutal, irresponsible dictatorships and regimes...
Also, after doing some reading, unstable dictators would have less qualms about using a WMD than other countries. Saddam probably would have nuked Israel or any of his other enemies if he thought that it would give him the upperhand in that region (he even made references to it), and he obviously didn't fear retaliation from the US or UN before the first gulf war. Who knows, the whole middle east might currently be under his control if he had a nuclear arsenal (I wonder if that would have been fine with Chirac). I strongly believe we need to keep these weapons out of the hands of brutal, irresponsible dictatorships and regimes...
Ancient Oldie said:
Uhm, ok, but:
1) France and Germany aren't just countries, they're part of the EU. The EU is slowly growing into a super-power that can easily match with the US (Russia, for instance, is considering joining), while EU members are turning most decisive international power over to France, Germany and the UK, making France and Germany VERY relevant.
2) So the US started the war because they loved the Iraqi people? It didn't occur to you that Bush did this just because the USA WASN't getting its slie of the pie like Russia and France? Didn't it occur to you this is just the USA's way of trying to seize its chance at total world dominance? Note how they bashed the UN asside even though they might've swayed it if they put up a monomentous effort. Notice how the US doesn't want the UN to lead Iraq.
It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, but there's some truth in it
Crazy conspiracy links of some interest:
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1142
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0926hege.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5829495,00.html
Note; don't take these people too seriously, but it does give food for thought. The situations isn't as black-and-white "America good rest bad" as you're sketching it.
Uhm, I might be wrong, but to my memory this appointment is done automatically by rotation, not by choice, so...
There is a LOT of danger in this. The reason the UN is always so careful is because the permanent members of the council are (excepting Germany) thé definitive world powers around and if they wanted to they could crush the world underfoot.
There's always a lot of personal gain for countries to be had in international politics, that's why if the balance is 50/50 between being agressive or being passive, the UN has to choose passive, for the simple reason that agressive is the more likely to cause harm. Perhaps not immediately, because you'd just be stopping a dictator, but it could look bleak on the long term.
Damn, I'm being vague here. Someone clarify my thoughts.
Aye, aye, agreed.
*rolls eyes*
The reason he didn't fear retaliation was that the US/UN not only just let him do stuff, they even supported him(Well, the US did). But, Saddam wasn't a dimwit, he wouldn't have used a nuclear weapon if he had any, because he knew that that would be the end of him. The only scenario in which he had used a nuclear weapon would've been when he was attacked and had no other option than to use it. He was/isn't a stupid man, he wants power for himself, and he realised that using nuclear weapons would've just killed him. It wouldn't have gotten him any further.
That said, I agree with you about terrorists(Not about regimes, NO dictator will be that stupid that he thinks he can use those nuclear weapons without just dethroning himself). However, with decent supervision(On the spreading of those weapons, NOT on the creation of them, no country should be limited from what other countries can do), things like that shouldn't happen.
That said, I agree with you about terrorists(Not about regimes, NO dictator will be that stupid that he thinks he can use those nuclear weapons without just dethroning himself). However, with decent supervision(On the spreading of those weapons, NOT on the creation of them, no country should be limited from what other countries can do), things like that shouldn't happen.
Sander said:
That'd be too difficult to do.
Also, you're ignoring the practicality of the situation. As the major nuclear powers agreed "Well, we all got nukes...I s'pose that's enough countries with nukes in THIS world, then" there's no way that'll change.
That'd be like a dictator saying "Yeah, I know I can carry on my regime indefinitely, but I'll think I'll stop now, 'cause I feel like it"
Clarification of Kharn's thoughts:
What I THINK Kharn is saying, is that there is always personal gain for countries. ALWAYS, if you look at it one way, there would've been personal gain for France to go into war because more oil fields would've been freed up, the personal gain the other way around would've been more access to oil fields because of the agreements.
Which would be why the passive way should ALWAYS be chosen, simply because it avoids victims.
YOu know what irritates me to no extent about these debates? The fact that the pro-war people will say "Fuck France, they just want money." and the anti-war people will just say "Fuck the USA, they just want oil." INstead of actually looking at pros and cons of the war ITSELF they start looking at the SUPPOSED reasons for those countries to go to war(or not).
What I THINK Kharn is saying, is that there is always personal gain for countries. ALWAYS, if you look at it one way, there would've been personal gain for France to go into war because more oil fields would've been freed up, the personal gain the other way around would've been more access to oil fields because of the agreements.
Which would be why the passive way should ALWAYS be chosen, simply because it avoids victims.
YOu know what irritates me to no extent about these debates? The fact that the pro-war people will say "Fuck France, they just want money." and the anti-war people will just say "Fuck the USA, they just want oil." INstead of actually looking at pros and cons of the war ITSELF they start looking at the SUPPOSED reasons for those countries to go to war(or not).
Kharn, it was a hypothesis, a theory of what might be the best route. It doesn't mean that it'll be carried out, I also thought that war wasn't the answer, but war still happened. The practicality of the situation mainly lies in the positions of world-powers who don't want to lose their world-power, but because they are so stubborn in this, they are actually hindering themselves, because other countries WILL get nuclear power, withoutvthem being able to do much about it, both India and Pakistan have nuclear power, North-Korea is developing it, and Iran might be developing it as well. Other countries will eventually gain nuclear power(UNless the world-powers start to impose a dictator-like rule of the world).
welsh
Junkmaster
Sander- you are making an interesting point but you are also contradicting yourself. See the Gwydion's gun thread and I will post the contradiction.
However, this does raise the interesting question of how to deal with nuclear proliferation. Its also interesting that the Russian have been looking at the issue of Iran's nuclear issue with some concern. Iran has also been working on a missile program and Russia is a lot closer than the US. So it might be possible for someone in the Iranian military to say, "Sir, shall we dust moscow today?'
Isn't it rational for those countries without nukes to have them if only for their own safety? In this sense Pakistan testing its nuke after India does might have been the smart thing to do.
Can the US and the other countries that have nuclear weapons
Also consider the problem of nuclear weapons from nuclear energy. Can they really be split?
However, this does raise the interesting question of how to deal with nuclear proliferation. Its also interesting that the Russian have been looking at the issue of Iran's nuclear issue with some concern. Iran has also been working on a missile program and Russia is a lot closer than the US. So it might be possible for someone in the Iranian military to say, "Sir, shall we dust moscow today?'
Isn't it rational for those countries without nukes to have them if only for their own safety? In this sense Pakistan testing its nuke after India does might have been the smart thing to do.
Can the US and the other countries that have nuclear weapons
Also consider the problem of nuclear weapons from nuclear energy. Can they really be split?
I see it differently, because the contradiction would be me saying:
1) "Guns should be outlawed because they cause more deaths than save people(basically), by making deadly crime more available."
2) "Nuclear bombs should be made available for balance of power."
This might be a contradiction, but you are forgetting one thing: The utter devastation caused by a nuclear weapon. The way I see it, is that a nuclear wepaon is so devastating taht it will cause(IN a series of action and reactions), the end of current civilization. Thus, people with nuclear power will be very careful not to use it. The only realistically possible threats being terrorists, however, there should be control on that. Sadly, that is almost undoable now, so I would(Now) rather see a complete disarmement of the bombs. Sadly, taht isn't realistic either, so the world will just continue on it's path of self-destruction...
1) "Guns should be outlawed because they cause more deaths than save people(basically), by making deadly crime more available."
2) "Nuclear bombs should be made available for balance of power."
This might be a contradiction, but you are forgetting one thing: The utter devastation caused by a nuclear weapon. The way I see it, is that a nuclear wepaon is so devastating taht it will cause(IN a series of action and reactions), the end of current civilization. Thus, people with nuclear power will be very careful not to use it. The only realistically possible threats being terrorists, however, there should be control on that. Sadly, that is almost undoable now, so I would(Now) rather see a complete disarmement of the bombs. Sadly, taht isn't realistic either, so the world will just continue on it's path of self-destruction...
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
For each one we put here like this
there`s always another like this
there`s always another like this
welsh
Junkmaster
Just a couple of points-
Isn't it interesting that the countries that are usually ambitious to create a nuclear project are also the "rogue" states. For example Japan or Taiwan probably had a lot more reason to build a nuclear weapon than does Iran, because of the threat to their fuel.
Some else made a mention about the Israeli strike against Saddam's nuclear reactor. Ideally, what makes nuclear weapons such a deterrent is not so much their capacity for destruction but whether the country having them has a second-strike capacity. And that's expensive.
If you were India and you saw that war with Pakistan was soon to come, and you knew you could knock out Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in a first shot, you have greater incentive to shoot first. This is part of the same logic behind Israel's great success in the 1967 war.
Now if Saddam had the bomb, and considering how close Israel is to Iraq, I think it probably that Iraq could launch a strike against Israel before the Israeli's prepare. That the Israeli's have the bomb (thanks in large part to the US) is a known fact. The bomb is Israel's great insurance policy from foreign attack. I just don't know if Israel has a second strike option.
Oh, and when including great powers not at the UN, I think we need to think about the Japanese too.
Briosafreak- you're being very quiet on this one. What's up?
Isn't it interesting that the countries that are usually ambitious to create a nuclear project are also the "rogue" states. For example Japan or Taiwan probably had a lot more reason to build a nuclear weapon than does Iran, because of the threat to their fuel.
Some else made a mention about the Israeli strike against Saddam's nuclear reactor. Ideally, what makes nuclear weapons such a deterrent is not so much their capacity for destruction but whether the country having them has a second-strike capacity. And that's expensive.
If you were India and you saw that war with Pakistan was soon to come, and you knew you could knock out Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in a first shot, you have greater incentive to shoot first. This is part of the same logic behind Israel's great success in the 1967 war.
Now if Saddam had the bomb, and considering how close Israel is to Iraq, I think it probably that Iraq could launch a strike against Israel before the Israeli's prepare. That the Israeli's have the bomb (thanks in large part to the US) is a known fact. The bomb is Israel's great insurance policy from foreign attack. I just don't know if Israel has a second strike option.
Oh, and when including great powers not at the UN, I think we need to think about the Japanese too.
Briosafreak- you're being very quiet on this one. What's up?
Yes, welsh, but the MAJOR deterrent is the fact that other countries will NOT let a nuclear strike slide, you use nuclear weapons, you get nuclear weapons. Or at least, that's how I see it( I might be wrong, though).
EDIT: Scrap that, it is working now. HAHA!!!
EDIT: Scrap that, it is working now. HAHA!!!