Iraq anyone? or North Korea?

[Ratty Sr.]

Seriously, anything the US, Europe, NATO or the UN does for a country is a matter of kindness, not responsibility (UN might be an exception on this), but like welsh mentioned before, rather than thanking them the world just spits in their face.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Charter Of United Nations:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

-to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

-to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and


All of these articles of the Declaration, as well these two principles in the UN Charter, were violated in this war. UN's duty, its purpose of existence, is to protect people whose rights have been violated, and to stop the wars which bring "untold sorrow to mankind". USA and all European countries are members of the UN, therefore it is their duty to get involved and ensure that Declaration of Rights and UN Charter are respected. Saying that involvement of United Nations (and therefore all countries which are members in this organization) in wars of small countries is a matter kindness and not their responsibility is like saying UN has no purpose whatsoever in this world. Then I ask you - why the hell have all those countries (currently 191 of them), for almost six decades, been giving their money to an organization that has no purpose?

 

[Brother None]

Ehehehe, now you're talking yourself into a corner:

1) The UN was made mostly by pressure of these dominant powers.

2) The UN decided these human rights existed in the first place, not to mention how they declared they'd protect them.

3) In other words, the dominant countries CHOSE themselves to help weaker countries. THIS WAS NOT AN OBLIGATION.

This was my point. At some point these larger countries chose to stop opressing smaller countries and help them instead. Do you really believe this is somehow their natural duty? It's not, it's something they imposed upon themselves.

This is a rather black-and-white picture I'm sketching, but nonetheless the point stands that the statement "it is the duty of larger countries to protect smaller countries" is essentially wrong.

Also, as for you talking yourself in a corner:

Saying that involvement of United Nations (and therefore all countries which are members in this organization) in wars of small countries is a matter kindness and not their responsibility is like saying UN has no purpose whatsoever in this world. Then I ask you - why the hell have all those countries (currently 191 of them), for almost six decades, been giving their money to an organization that has no purpose?

Some of you might be shocked by my grim views of international peace organization, but there are many reasons why I find UN to be nothing but a waste of funds.

I thought you hated the UN and wanted it absolved? No UN = no declaration of human rights being enforced = larger countries reigning freely over smaller countries.

If you hate an institution, don't use it to back up your arguments, that conflicts. If I said I hate all music and think it should be absolved, I can not (like Aragorn) argue drugs had at least one use namely to inspire good music.

 

[Sander]

Actually, He made those statements in 1978, before the Iraq-Iran War and therefore before US support.

But before any opposition as well.
However, I realise that you can't know what a dictator may do, BUT you still have to keep in mind that actions are done with a reason, that reason being more power. Firing nukes would've given Saddam no additional power(Maybe for a few days at the most). But, I agree in part, that you can't now FOR SURE what would've happened.

That said, there is always the question whether or not he actually had ANYTHING(Beyond a bunch of missiles with more reach than allowed(30miles or so, shocker!)). I am currently at the point where I believe that there were no WMD at all to begin with. They'd better come up with some evidence...

On Hitler: YOu have to keep in mind that Hitler would've succeeded were it not for circumstance, if Mussolini hadn't invaded Greece, Hitler could've marched on Russia sooner and would've been there sooner, having much much less trouble, and maybe even being in Moscow before the winter. Hitler would've succeeded without a doubt, if it weren't for certain uncontrollable variables(Such as alliances, if Japan hadn't disturbed the USA, both Japan AND Germany would've gotten much further. If Italy hadn't invaded Greece, there wouldn't have been a problem there).
Whereas Saddam had no chance at all of getting anywhere with an aggressive USA.

Again your assuming the best and you also don't see the dangers of nuclear proliferation. This guy has illegally sold weapons before, why not nukes. The reason why I was referring to NK was because you had stated in a previous post that we could (instead of just not allowing them to be built in the first place) regulate the spread of nukes. Kim Jong il didn't allow the UN to regulate him on making them, do you think he is going to allow the UN to be in there and verify where all his nukes are and where they're going?

Ofcourse I see the dangers, yet it is my firm belief that with the efforts of the IEAE being put into other things, that these dangers will be much less. Balance of power etc. Ofcourse, nothing of it will ever happen due to political instabilkity and stupidity.

I admit we're greedy, but Jesus Christ, we don't go around building nuclear reactors for anyone who has the money. That's just taking greed to a level of unparrallel stupidity. And it does have something to do with Iraq because it illustrates that France and Russia are willing to put their economic policies in front of the general safety of the world...

Any country can build a nuclear power plant with enough money anyway, if I had enough money, I could go build one. The fact that they (helped) build nuclear power plants has NOTHING to do with endorsing and helping a dictator. Remeber, nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, nor is it nuclear capability. It means more power for a country, and can actually help in buuilding up a country's economy. As I said before, stop looking at WHAT YOU THINK are the reasons to be anti-war, and instead look at actual pros and cons of the war.

So you mean we weren't prepared during the first Gulf War (which I believe was the perfect time to take out Hussein) and the 12 years after that lead up to 911? Please...

You're assuming that Clinton(Democrat) was preparing for a war, which was going to be executed by Bush(Republican). I don't buy that.
Also, Bush also needed something of an excuse, and with 9/11 he had enough trust from the people to do pretty much as much as he wanted to to "battle terrorism"(May I remind you that Iraq had absolutely no bonds with Al Qaeda, and that the presidency furiously tried to prove something of a connection, while just finding ONE visit to the COUNTRY of ONE MAN.).

Well, since you put it that way, I agree. But we were willing to protect ourselves no matter what, and these other countries were willing to protect their monetary interests no matter what. Under those conditions, did you expect that we wouldn't invade because the UN council said otherwise. Hells no.

Alright, let's see how you "protected" the USA:
1. Had Iraq had WMD the only PROBABLE way to get Saddam to fire them, was to drive him into a corner leaving him no other option by attacking him....
2. Had Iraq had ties with terrorist organisations, the terrorist attacks would've just gotten more furious after invading Iraq. IN fact, they would've anyway, because a Middle-Eastern muslim country was invaded.
3. YOu sent in a load of troops, who could all get killed.
4. ASSUMING there were both WMD and links to terrorism, all that would've hapened was that terrorism had less funds, but that it WOULD get more furious.
Results:
1. No WMD at all found.
2. No terrorist links found, just more terrorist attacks not existing before the invasions, killing US militaries daily.
3. YOu have a lwaless country, where the situation isn't much better(Or even not at all) than before the war.

Now, HOW did you protect your country?

Oh, and he also ignored his own congress.

We may have differing opinions on whether those were the real reasons that the US invaded, but you can hopefully see why I believe that under those circumstances, the UN council needed to be ignored.

While keeping the previous points in mind, I can actually NOT see why you thought the UN council needed to be ignored. It was an organisation founded by MAINLY the USA, where the USA agreed to oblige by any resolution, and it was just ignored. Oh, and we don't have diferent views on WHY it was invaded, I just think that Dubya isn't too bright and focused mainly on "righting" his father's "wrong". I don't go for the oil thing...

Yes, but they should be wise in preventing or stopping certain situations in other parts of the world or in the long run it could be a detriment to theirselves.

Yes, but they THEMSELVES determine what is right for them i the long world, NOT another country(Like the USA).

Look, if Germany and France said "We're going to stop the war on Balkan", you can bet every other country in European Union would follow them, unless it had a really good reason not to. Most of the time, powerful members of EU can achieve a consensus on any matter.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. With the CURRENT powers in power in the Netherlands, we would definitely do that, with other powers probably not.

See my previous paragraph about that "not being their war". As for calling the Serbian invasion of Croatia and Bosnia a "civil war"- I am one nice and soft Croat and I like you, but I'll warn you that most of my fellow countrymen would tear your limbs if they heard you referring to our Homeland War as a simple "civil war". It wasn't an internal war. It was a coordinated attack of two sovereign, federative states (Serbia and Montenegro, who are part of the federation at that time known as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) on another independent, sovereign country (Croatia, and later Bosnia and Herzegovina). It was an aggressive war, goals of which were territorial expansion and genocide over Croatian (and Bosniak) people. As such, this war cannot be justified. Foreign powers failed to stop it (instead they even endorsed it), and the shame of this failure will be upon them for as long us Croats live to remind them.

As I said, I don't know much about that war, please accept my apologies, then.

How can I just "get over it"? Whenever I walk the streets of my hometown, I'm surrounded by ruins. Whenever I pass by the destroyed building I used to live in, I'm reminded of how abruptly my childhood ended when I was only seven years old. Whenever I meet the town's citizens, they all have war-time stories to tell. Some of these stories are tales of courage, honor and victory, while others are so horrifying that they will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

I was talking about how you should get over what France and the rest of the world did, or at least NOT look to that when trying to determine what they will do IN THE FUTURE. Countries, like people, learn from their mistakes...
(Dictate may have been the wrong word to use there...)

 

[welsh]

Gosh there's a lot here to respond to, and regretfully I have little time.

Still, couple points-

(1) The notion of preparedness has only limited appeal. The US had been planning for a military contingency since the 1970s with the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force (under Carter) which expanded into Central Command (CENTCOM) under Reagan. THe Carter Declaration was that the US would not tolerate Soviet advances into the middle east (primarily a quick strike into Iran). The Reagan Corrolary said we wouldn't tolerate interventions by neighboring powers (because at the time Iran and Iraq were militarily quite strong). At this time Iraq had more tanks than the US and of more equivalent quality. To deploy quickly, the US refurbished a base at Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean) and began a process of foreign deployed materials (tanks, supplies, etc) in the Persian Gulf.

(2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights- yes, a wonderful document of proclamations of what should be. The US never signed it (for good if legalistic reasons) and thus its more a statement of principles than law.

(3) Much of the UN Charter's rules on use of force can be found in Articles 2(4), 2(7) and Chapter VII, especially Article 51 on the notion of self defense. THese are the primary sources of contemporary rules of war. Note that while self defense is secured, as is the notion of sovereignty, intervention is allowed if a crisis threatens "international peace and stability"- how ever that is Chapt VII action. Point to be made- the doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention has widely bee argued as useful for intervening in humanitarian emergencies- like Yugoslavia, but most people think that the doctrine is a bad one and subject to misuse. Better not to have this "out" than not. One can imagine stronger powers using the doctrine to intervene in many hypothetical situations. To my mind, I can't think of a single case since World War 2 where an intervening power has used the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention (although there have been some good cases- Tanzania's intervention into Uganda to get rid of Idi Amin- may he rot in hell). However, some recent cases may speak otherwise.

(4) Mercenaries- Love this topic. Yes, there's a book by Janice Thompson that says that mercenaries went away in the 19th Century (guess again) and there is a good book about mercenaries and Sienna during the Italian period of city states. Many of the current contractors in the US work for the Pentagon probably because the Pentagon is the big client and it would be unwise to shit where you eat.
That said, looking at the UK as well, one finds a number of mercenary companies but also a lot of private firms because of legal rules that allow for such companies to exist. There is a company falled Kroll and Co. based in New York, that basically privides private intelligence service. Perhaps the most famous was one, now defunct, called Executive Outcomes which played significant roles in Angola, Sierra Leone and was once considered the best army in Africa. THese folks are comprised of ex-South African army and mixed with leased Russian helicopter companies. Interesting stuff.

But I would disagree with Kharn and the Iraqi information minister. To say an army that is not conscript is a mercenary misses the point. That would also mean that all professional police forces are mercenaries. Whether one country chooses to create an indigenous professional military or a conscript military is a matter of national choice and policy. I couldn't imagine a conscript army in the US- it would be too damn big. Also this mattes in terms of what you can do with your military. TO have a highly professional, technologically sophisticated and capable military- you probably need professionals. I think all the best armies are.

Now compare that to the French FOreign Legion. Here you have a better case of mercenaries- foreign national join for pay, no questions asked and they get citizenship. You also have a long tradition among the Brits to use mercenaries. The Hessians in the US revolutionary war, were German troops that were utilized by the Brits. These troops also fought throughout the Napoleanic campaigns.

Is that idea dead? Well not really. If you look at countries that dedicate militaries to UN peacekeeping activities, there are financial incentives at work as well. Pakistani or Morroccan troops might be getting paid better or at least being subsidized while working for the UN.

 

[Brother None]

But I would disagree with Kharn and the Iraqi information minister.

Uhm, I didn't mean to say I agreed with him. I mentioned it because I found the statement hilarious, like most of his statements.

 

[welsh]

I know Kharn. Frankly I thought the Iraqi Foreign Minister should have gotten a late night talk show on Al-Jazeera. That would have been a laugh riot.

 

[Sander]

On the declaration of human rights: Indeed a wonderful thing, and indeed never signed by the USA. But what about the Atlantic Charter made up in 1942(?) by Britain and the USA. They both signed it, together with about 27(?) countries, mainly stating that violence is intolerable, threatening with weapons is intolerable, invading is intolerable, everyone should be left to their own choice of government and other things like that. As I seem to recall, they mainly failed to abide by almost all of those points, they themselves threatened with weapons, they themselves helped to topple the chosen government of, amongst others, Chili(?). Ah well, you can never expect a world-power to actually abide by something they themselves signed if they think they have better things to do....

I'd also like to say a very very big "Hah! Told you so!" to everyone supporting the war on Iraq because it would make the world a safer place, and because he had WMD. A nice little report by the British INtelligence Agencies stating that:
a) Iraq didn't have any capapability of hitting the UK, and it was doubtful they still had chemical or biological weapons.
b) Attacking Iraq would actually be more threatening with regards to terrorism for the world, than leaving it alone.
c) Blair made some very very big misleading remarks in HIS reports.
This also means that Blair went against the report that was written for him, AND that he milsead the public AND that he basically put his own country in a more dangerous position than it was.

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't let this slide, from the beginning of the possibility of war, I had made it very clear that I believed those two points above(And other things), and it finally turned out that I was right....

EDITS: Where are all of the responses I expected to all of the points I made in the previous points? Have I actually convinced people, have they given up, or are they just away? Meh....

 

[welsh]

The Atlantic Charter is considered to be one of the founding documents of the UN. In fact that's the first time the idea of a United Nations concept comes up, and Roosevelt kind of springs in on Churchill. But the principles of the Atlantic Charter were eventually incorporated into the UN Charter, so that's why its just a historical note and not that binding.

The reason why the US didn't sign the Universal Declaration had to do with legal issues. For example, the UN Charter says that everyone has a right to a job or a home. But for the Americans to sign that would be that the federal government would be obligated to provide that house. In otherwords, its not just about making principles but granting rights. Now, there is also the qualitative issue. What kind of house- a cardboard box or a mansion, what kind of job, the one you want, one that pays or being a street cleaner.

As for the war in Iraq, I will still with what I have said over. Yes, it really is about oil and stability in the region with a projection of how the world will change in the next 30 years. This is a very cold analysis that is not unconnected with the new "great game". Added that to the Sanctions issue and the continuation of the Baath Party, it was either invade or ignore. The US couldn't ignore, so it had to invade.

International relations is often a cold rational calculation of costs and benefits, investment and projected long range returns. Lives are often seen as cheap.

How much is 1000 Iraqi lives worth in exchange of stable access to oil under US protection for the next 30 years. If the Iraqi regime was going to take 1000 Iraqi lives anyway?

 

[Ancient Oldie]

EDITS: Where are all of the responses I expected to all of the points I made in the previous points? Have I actually convinced people, have they given up, or are they just away? Meh....

Nah... I don't know about everyone else, but I haven't had time to make a detailed response, got the 12 hour midnight shift to worry about for the weekend and sleep and a personal life for the other half.

Anyways, not that it's directly related to Iraq, but have you all heard of Grassolean? No it's not some hippie treehuggers wet dream, but one hell of a cool alternative to diesel fuel. The funniest part is that instead of relying on the middle east for oil, if this stuff becomes popular, we'll b relying on fast food joints and other grease companies to churn the fuel that will run our cars.

I should put it in a separate thread...

 

[Sander]

Great, we're going to go in a circle right now about the Iraq thing, welsh. You think it was okay to invade the country, I don't think it was okay. In fact, I think it was completely immoral and that they ,ied heavily to the public about it. I don't even remotely think that Bush or Blair will still be in power with the next elections. However, let's not go "Yes, it's okay to kill those people." "No, it isn't." "Yes it is.", because that won't even lead to mutual understanding, that'll just lead to closure of this thread.

As for the atlantic charter, unlike the UN charter, that WAS signed by the USA, and thus, they should oblige it. Unfortunately, they haven't followed it at all. As I said, you can't expect a world power to actually do what they say if they think something else is more beneficial.

 

[welsh]

Sander- Ok, well the Atlantic Charter- as I noted before, was a founding document leading up to the UN which the US did sign. THe Charter is more a declaration of principles and ideas than a constitutional document (like the Charter). As the US did sign both, then the older kind of becomes redundant.

With regard to Iraq- This is a very cold, immoral rationalization. Is it immoral? Well that depends. Was leaving Saddam Hussein in power a more moral choice? If less than a thousand are killed in a war but more than a thousand would have been killed in peace, which is the more moral option.

Historically there were two schools of thought in IR- the realists and the idealists. This has changed, happily, but the realists based their notion on the power relationships between states and based their idea of human will on the concept of human selfishness leading to either the quest of power- thus human nature must be presumed evil. Even if its not, the presumption counts when the main concern is survival. So when Hitler comes to power we don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy, so we presume he's evil and take precautions.

The idealist school focused on an the concept of what should be the way countries interact with each other. Where the realists anticipate war, the idealist hope for peae.

This goes back to one of the discussions we had before- normative vs empirical understanding.

We need to think very carefully here. In many ways, this problem would have been resolved in the First Gulf War, had the war been fought to a conclusion. It wasn't in large part due to the fear that the US would be stuck in a "vietnam" like quagmire and because of deals made with our allies that we would not replace Saddam creating a power vacume. There was also some fear of weapons of mass destruction, but I don't think that was such a big issue.

Now the world is looking to the future. We have many countries looking at Central Asia as an alternative for oil than the middle east, and a fear that many sources of oil have not been found.

If you were to ask me what was the moral thing to do, I would say-find an alternative to fossil fuels. Right now there are none. We have benefitted over the past ten years or so with a glut of oil that has undermined many of the oil exporting countries. But eventually demand will catch up as countries continue to grow.

China, if it continues to expand at the rate it is, will be consuming more fuel than the US. Not only will this increase the amount of fuel but it will make those few regions that still produce fuel the strategic battlefields of major powers. That those countries are now home of some very violent dictators would suggest that making some changes, ie democratization, might lead to better quality of life issues but also more stable systems in the long run. By the US getting involved now, it sets itself with a bigger stake in the big game later.

Briosafreak would probably mention that much of this has to do with distancing from the Saudi's. The longer the US is in Saudi Arabia the more it destabilizes that regime. By playing another oil policy- either my regime change in Iraq or more involvment in Central Asia, it undermines Saudi's oil card.

Is there a terrorism link? Probably. But I doubt that it was Saddam support Osama or vis-a-versa. It might be that Iraq is the doing the job of attracting terrorists into one field. But it also could be part of Saudi support for terrorist groups elsewhere. I am really not sure.

Sander, this is a very cold blooded thing. Is it moral? Well that depends.

Lets not forget that the prosperity that you benefit from in the Europe, and we benefit from in the US is partially, if not largely, built on the misery and poverty of other parts of the world. This is one of the reasons why food subsidies are such a hot topic these dayss at the WT meetings.

The oil that fuels Europe, that fuels much of the industrialized world, sits on some very contested ground. By moving into Iraq, the US has rid the world of a very nasty man that killed thousands of his own people and is also setting the ground work for what should be a more stable and prosperous Iraq. I said 'should be' because I have my doubts whether the US is actually doing the job it should. It did so with a remarkably low cost in human life. Much of the fighting now seems to have been imported from other countries or the surviving Baathists. Whether the US wins or loses, I think its too soon to tell.

We can begin with the notion that all life is precious. I think so too. But the reality of economics and politics is that some lives are worth more than others, that human life has a given value. This is also found in law- every person's life has a measurable price tag.

As for the lies- yes, everyone lies. That's one of the things that politicians do, especially in democracies. They lie so they can lead us where they want to. Bush and Blair, Chirac and Shroeder.

 

[Sander]

vis-a-versa

I'm sorry welsh, but that has got to be one of the worst mutilations of non-english "sayings" used in english I have ever seen. No offense

As for the rest of your post, I have to say that we are still going to go in a circle like this, ah well.

If you would count me to either the idealists or realists, you would easily find out that I am an idealist. I hope for things, and I hope that people and governments do the things they "should" do. However, I also realise that it is unrealistic to hope for such a thing. Governments make up facts, lie, cheat, steal and do many other things that they could convict other people for. I'd like to see an international court somewhere that judges governments and exerts punishment over them, that would be very interesting, yet also completely unrealistic.

Invading Iraq was a bad thing to do. Why? Because it killed people. Pure and simple, yes, Saddam hurt people, and killed them. However, does that justify invading a country, overthrowing a regime and throwing the entire country into anarchy? I think not, I think that they should've left Saddam Hussein alone. Yes, it's terrible for the people in Iraq, and yes, it's easy for me to speak in such a way. But is killing people the answer to anything? As I heard a companion of Allende say this morning on TV "I believe that violence, whatever the goals, cannot lead to good things."(paraphrased). And infact, I can, again, not see what good has happened now. Saddam is out of power..... And that is all. The country is arguably worse than before, noone really has any access to that oil right now, and people are STILL dying because of this "war" initiated by Bush Jr. because of either oil concerns, the thought that Saddam is a bad man, or mixtures of both of those thoughts.
The oil that fuels Europe and every other modern country is indeed problematic, it is gained, like many many other luxuries, by misery and poverty of the rest of the world.
YOu know what, this is pretty much turning into a debate about how politics should act from the realistic and idealistic points of view. I realise that it was realistic for the USA to invade Iraq for oil(After all, we all remember Fallout's pretext ), however, I certainly do not condone it. If countries would for ONCE actually consider the state of other countries, and the misery there, and actually help those countries to get out of the mud, instead of exploiting them, or letting companies exploit them, this world would be much much better. With a developed Africa and South-East Asia, with no more repressing dictators in place, and with no more repressed people, this world would be better. However, it would also be better if aliens would suddenly fly from the sky and grant us world peace.

What I THINK the USA SHOUL have done, is force Iraq to undergo ONE democratic voting on whether or not to keep Saddam Hussein on. If they had done that, with UN FORCES protecting civilians, and escorting both the army and police, things may have turned out very beneficial for the USA. I don't know exactly HOW realistic that would have been, but it would've been a much better and more peaceful way of solving the "Saddam"problem.

 

[welsh]

Sander- Like I said, its pretty cold blooded logic I am sending your way, and the history of international relations is usually a very cold blooded one that is hidden in a veil of moral rhetoric.

If you were to ask me how this could be avoided, I could offer you another story. That this could have been avoided years ago is probably true.

But international relations is a story of clashing values, and often limited will. Take for instance Congo. Here you have a UN plan to put an end to the war, but no one is willing to contribute soldiers. Look at Kashmir, where there was a vote as to 'who should get it' that went for Pakistan, but which would have led to the dismemberment of India.

I think that the realist goal should be to obtain that ideal world. I think most realists would agree with that. Whether one can pursue an idealist goal through idealist means, is another story.

You do see that what you are advocating above is one that requires international cooperation (which probably does not exist) as well as the use of force (to get Saddam to comply).

 

[Sander]

Yes, welsh, I do realise that, which is why I know that it just isn't realistic. As with most things, those things just aren't realistic, the use of force would probably have been much less than the use of force now used, though. Idealism is tough, because things are unrealistic, which is why it is called idealism. Now, let's put this thing to rest before Briosa comes in and closes the thread because everything had been said.

Now, is ANYONE going to comment on what I said in my very long post above?

 

[welsh]

Which post- if the question is WMD- like I said, I didn't have much faith in it. THat the US relied on British intelligence that was also flakely to susbstantiate its invasion of Iraq seemed to be negligent.

I mean think about it. You are a super power, you are about to go to war on limited intelligence of a nuclear armed dictator. Wouldn't you want more evidence than what the Brits gave you?

Or would you use that intelligence, limited as it is, to say, "Smoking gun, we got the bad guy" and thus substantiate all your evidence.

Either the US intelligence community was lazy or sloppy or this was an opportunity they couldn't pass up. I go with the last. That the intel came from the Brits made it even better. If it was CIA it would be more suspect.

As for Hitler, yes opportunity mattered. But so?

 

[welsh]

ANd the recent problem in Iraq-

Elusive WMD and an embarrassing leak

Oct 3rd 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda


As Congress hears that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq (yet), Washington also hums with speculation about allegations that White House officials leaked a CIA agent’s name

WHERE are Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? The best that America and its allies can say, still, is that they have not been found, yet. On Thursday October 2nd a senior weapons inspector, David Kay, presented his interim report on the subject to members of the intelligence committees of the House and Senate. Mr Kay heads a team of more than 1,200 soldiers and specialists who have spent three months scouring Iraq for biological, chemical or even nuclear horrors. “We have not yet found stocks of weapons,” Mr Kay told lawmakers. However, the team had uncovered “dozens of WMD-related programme activities”—clandestine laboratories, suspicious vials and documents stashed in scientists’ homes and the like—as well as “significant amounts of equipment” that Saddam Hussein’s regime had hidden from UN inspectors last year. The investigation, Mr Kay stressed, is ongoing—and it has been hampered by the widespread destruction of documents in the waning days of the regime.

President George Bush insisted that Mr Kay's findings showed that Saddam Hussein “was a danger to the world”. Leading members of the Democratic opposition disagreed: Senator Jay Rockefeller of the upper house's intelligence committee said they showed that the threat from Mr Hussein appears not to have existed.


The White House publishes statements by President Bush. The CIA posts David Kay's statement to the House and Senate intelligence committees, statements by George Tenet and publishes reports on Iraq. The Justice Department is to hold an inquiry into the leak of Ms Plame's name. The British government's claims about Iraq's WMD, made in a report in September 2002, were scrutinised in the Hutton inquiry. The US State Department reports on the ongoing search for WMD in Iraq. See also the UN's information on Iraq and Unmovic reports. The Federation of American Scientists gives information and resources on intelligence policy and on Iraq's WMD.

Mr Kay’s appearance before Congress has battled for airtime with another flap related to pre-war intelligence. Washington is abuzz over an investigation into the unmasking of an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. The culprits are allegedly two (unnamed) top White House officials, said to have been retaliating for her husband’s efforts to discredit some of the Bush administration’s claims about Iraq’s WMD. Ms Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon, said a few months ago that Mr Bush had been wrong to include in his state-of-the-union address the allegation that Saddam was trying to get uranium from Africa to build nuclear bombs. The Justice Department is investigating the leak of Ms Plame’s name. On Monday Democrats called for an independent probe; the Bush administration has rejected that idea but welcomed the Justice Department’s probe.

The toing and froing does not end there. Democrats have been challenging the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and other officials for insinuating that there was a link between Iraq and the September 11th 2001 attacks. Mr Bush himself laid this unsubstantiated allegation to rest last month. More important, lawmakers are starting to question the quality of the intelligence underlying the Bush administration’s case for war. Last week three members of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee sent a letter to the CIA’s director, George Tenet, citing “significant deficiencies” in intelligence agencies’ gathering of information on WMDs in Iraq and in their work on alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Moreover, the congressmen wrote, America had “insufficient specific information” about Saddam’s activities. Intelligence reports were “constant and static over the past ten years”. The letter, whose signatories included the committee’s influential Republican chairman, was sent after the lawmakers pored over 19 volumes of classified information on Iraq. These went into the “national intelligence estimate” on the country, compiled by six American intelligence agencies, which helped form the basis for going to war. Mr Kay's report that no weapons have been found will bring more questions from lawmakers.

The White House has weathered previous doubts about its case for war, notably concerning the uranium-from-Africa claim, and the al-Qaeda link. And, weapons or no weapons, it can always point to the fact that Saddam Hussein was in breach of various United Nations resolutions. But the congressmen’s letter is especially troubling because it relates to the broader picture of America’s intelligence over Iraq rather than just picking over bits and pieces. Characteristically, the White House has tried to take the offensive. Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national-security adviser, played down the lawmakers’ charges, telling the “Fox News Sunday” television programme that Mr Bush “believes that he had very good intelligence going into the war” and that useful information on Iraq’s WMD activities had been gathered since 1998.

For Mr Bush, the stakes are high. If top members of his administration are found to have leaked Ms Plame’s name as retaliation against her husband, or to have condoned the leak, even his staunch supporters could be taken aback by such an ethical breach. Even more important is what comes out about pre-war intelligence in Iraq. The situation in the country remains difficult, and America’s newly rewritten draft resolution to the United Nations seems unlikely to persuade other nations to provide much extra money or troops to the effort. With his approval ratings already being pulled down by Iraq, Mr Bush will not want more shadows cast retrospectively over his case for war.

Moreover, Mr Bush will be well aware of what has befallen his closest ally across the Atlantic. Britain’s Hutton inquiry began simply by investigating the suicide of a senior weapons scientist (after he allegedly told a journalist the government had knowingly exaggerated in a dossier that it used to make the case for war), but it has waded further into the excruciating who-said-what-when details of Britain’s case for war. Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ratings have plunged in the process—the latest poll, by NOP for the Independent, shows 59% of Britons think he lied in the run-up to the war. Already Mr Bush is falling in the ratings—a New York Times/CBS poll, released on October 3rd, shows that 56% of American believe that the country is on the “wrong track”—up from 36% during the war. With next year’s presidential election approaching, Mr Bush will want to avoid a grilling by an increasingly restive Congress that could further dismay voters.

 

[John Uskglass]

Why? Because it killed people

That is about as flawed as O'Reiley's statement that it was more likely to be murdered in California than be killed as a Soldier in Iraq. The same could be said about WW2, but does anyone anywhere outside of a Unitarian Church think that was wrong?

However, does that justify invading a country, overthrowing a regime and throwing the entire country into anarchy

Throwing less then 20% of the nation into Anarchy. Remember, only the Arab Sunnis are getting insane over this. No soldier has been killed in Kurdish Iraq or Shiite Iraq. Both those areas are undergoing their best period sense the Sassanians a millennia and a half ago, except for some areas of Kurdistand under Saladin.

I think not, I think that they should've left Saddam Hussein alone.

You know, Avishai Maragalit was more right than anyone could imagine.

But is killing people the answer to anything?

Yeah, alot of things. I thought that was a major lesson of the twentieth century.

I believe that violence, whatever the goals, cannot lead to good things."(

Yeah, we should have all bent down and lubricated our ass for the Germans. This is more then unrealistic, more then naive...this is more repression, ignorance and Kissinger conservativisim.

Saddam is out of power..... And that is all.

Compare the area to Germany, or better Japan in 1946...we had people who where exclaiming "look at the results", but for whatever reason none of them where as talented as Vidal or Chomsky at Smack-talk.

The country is arguably

You can argue till the National Democratic Party takes Germany, but it wont make it so. I could argue that my ass is Terry Pratchett, but does that make it so?

oil concerns

No, the war almost did not start because of oil concerns. Ever looked at a map of active Oil wells in Iraq before the war, and who where the major consumers? You ever thought that maybe Chirac was the one with blood-oil on his face?

If countries would for ONCE actually consider the state of other countries, and the misery there, and actually help those countries to get out of the mud, instead of exploiting them, or letting companies exploit them, this world would be much much better

So lets all put down our weapons and watch Africa tear itself apart! That makes sense!
It is called "Neo-Conservativisim". We are like Trotskyites, with many former Trotskyite supporters (including myself), and dislike everyone who attempts to ignore any form of autocratic regime.

I realise that it was realistic for the USA to invade Iraq for oil

This is about as true and about as offensive as the idea of a ultra-right takeover during Reagan. please, all I ask is that you try to not say that.

What I THINK the USA SHOUL have done, is force Iraq to undergo ONE democratic voting on whether or not to keep Saddam Hussein on

isn't that a lovely idea? Maybe we should do that in China, or maybe we should have done it to the USSR, or Nazi Germany.

Could someone find the article "wielding a mighty moral club" from the Financial Times, on September 13th, written by Ian Buruma? I love the article, but cannot find it.[/quote]

 

[Brother None]

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479740234&p=1016625900922

PS: Ian Buruma is totally Dutch

 

[John Uskglass]

Hurray! I have been looking for that for a while...I keep it in my backpack to try and convert people.

Dutch? I knew you had real Leftists left!

 

[welsh]

I have to admit that this is something that pisses me off about the peace protestors-

Sure stop the war to spare the Iraqi civilians, but now that the war is over and the Iraqi civilians are needing of help, everyone seems to disappear.

Such terrible mileage in good intention, or perhaps it's a lot easier to make a sign and walk on a street than to actually do something meaningful.