Iraq anyone? or North Korea?

[welsh]

Point well taken Kharn. My position was merely that the land mass had been occupied, not that the state had been captured.

 

[Sander]

What mess? That mess was going to be there no matter what. As soon as Saddam was gone, there would be a much bigger shitty mess. And everyone would be telling us to take care of it. Typical, people want us to take care of everything, but not do anything until it is a really bad situation.

As soon as Saddam was gone.
Aha, well, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that he's still alive, and that he still would've been in power, King. "Okay, he's going to be dead in a lot of years, so let's just invade the country."
Not logical.

 

[Wooz]

First of all, there wouldn't be a "mess" if Saddam was ruling. Nor if he died. One of his sons would eventually take over and become- in political terms- the continuation of his father. So no "bigger shitty mess": It would be a "Middle eastern dictatorship". And there are other countries which have been proved to finance terrorism, to torture and kill people, to perform public executions, and somehow the Brilliant Saviour States of America don't give a flying fuck about it (Libya). Say what? maybe there's less oil in them?
I doubt there would be anyone to tell the US government to "take care of it" besides weapon manufacturers and oil comapnies.

Technically, it's possible to control a whole country just by its capital. (You just nuke the rest 'till it glows, and voila. j/k )
Actually, I think you can control a country with less than the capital city, if you're able to control all the media in it. (Remember the James Bond flick "the world is not enough"? )

 

[welsh]

First of all, there wouldn't be a "mess" if Saddam was ruling. Nor if he died. One of his sons would eventually take over and become- in political terms- the continuation of his father. So no "bigger shitty mess": It would be a "Middle eastern dictatorship". And there are other countries which have been proved to finance terrorism, to torture and kill people, to perform public executions, and somehow the Brilliant Saviour States of America don't give a flying fuck about it (Libya). Say what? maybe there's less oil in them?

While it is true that there wouldn't be a "mess" if Iraq had not been invaded and Saddam had not been removed, I would have serious doubts whether Iraq would be a better place.

True repressive leaders do manage to keep the peace, usually through fear and repression. In some cases a brutal leader has been able to keep an country together that might otherwise tear itself apart, such as Tito in Yugoslavia.

But maintaining one brutal dictator or allowing his equally psychotic son to take over doesn't seem to be a great way to obtain that objective.

Libya has been fairly well contained for quite a while, since the Pan Am got shoot down over Scotland. So I think what you see in Libya is more consistent with cold war policies of containment than what you see in Iraq, which is more of an intervention.

Again, I would suggest that the issue involves a bigger picture of what US long-term policy is than a short term, lets fix the Iraq problem. It is quite possible that there is a grand strategy at play, and much of this relates to the importance of oil in the global economy.

I doubt there would be anyone to tell the US government to "take care of it" besides weapon manufacturers and oil comapnies.

Technically, it's possible to control a whole country just by its capital. (You just nuke the rest 'till it glows, and voila. j/k )
Actually, I think you can control a country with less than the capital city, if you're able to control all the media in it. (Remember the James Bond flick "the world is not enough"? )

Well, lets leave the James Bond analogy out of it, although to be fair there was some speculation that information warfare might be used to create civil war through hijacking of the media.

And even if the weapon manufacturers and oil company did support this conflict, again debateable, I would also contend that those interests might not be inconsistent with national interests.

 

[Wooz]

Nonono, the oil companies and weapon manufacturers' interests would be absolutely compatible with national interests, that's my point. Who has the biggest oil companies in the world?

My point is that all this "Operation Free Iraq" is just a cover for "Operation Let's Make Money", and the false crusade for righteousness Dubya fakes to lead just makes me puke.

And by the whole saddam thing I didn't want to prove that Iraq would be a better place with such a leader, but to say there wouldn't be a "big shitty mess" without a reason, and the Americans wouldn't be blamed for it, if they didn't start the war.

 

[welsh]

Nonono, the oil companies and weapon manufacturers' interests would be absolutely compatible with national interests, that's my point. Who has the biggest oil companies in the world?

Indeed but then there are also other major oil companies as well BP is still British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Elf Aquitaine.

But again, I would suggest that while the interests may be compatiable, it doesn't necessarily mean that the oil and weapon lobby has hijacked policy.

To deny that oil plays a big part is to deny the obvious that oil plays a major part of everything in the Persian Gulf. But US interests in oil security go beyond support for lobby groups, but also serve a national interest as well- as morally repugnant as that might be.

My point is that all this "Operation Free Iraq" is just a cover for "Operation Let's Make Money", and the false crusade for righteousness Dubya fakes to lead just makes me puke.

And by the whole saddam thing I didn't want to prove that Iraq would be a better place with such a leader, but to say there wouldn't be a "big shitty mess" without a reason, and the Americans wouldn't be blamed for it, if they didn't start the war.

Yes, but that's the consequence of leadership, and especially hegemonic leadership. If the US wants to be leading the world than sometimes you have to get your hands dirty or bloody.

That the rhetoric is righteous is part of the parcel of any such operation. In democratic states you have to sell your wars to a morally self-conscious public.

Again, one needs to look at the broader picture.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Actually, when Saddam died, I would bet that his former army and generals would take over and kill his sons, which would lead to a "big shitty mess". And yes, we would be called up, like in Somalia, if not by the people, it would be by our allies. And if we refuse, the world will hold us to blame for not getting involved. Which would lead to further fighting in Iraq, worse than now, and to further hate towards America. I said it before, I'll say it again, we can't take care of everything at once without using nukes or really bad, Vietnam like, tactics. Libya is more dangerous land for America to try and liberate. Iraq is more of an example for hope in the Middle East. And of course we have to gain from it (oil), otherwise, why the hell are we fighting. Every war has something to gain from it, or there is no point.

 

[Wooz]

Welsh Wrote:

Indeed but then there are also other major oil companies as well BP is still British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Elf Aquitaine.

As I said, the major Oil comapnies are American. I am certanly aware of the lesser "big companies", but the strongest one (BP) is from a country that participates in the war.

Anyways my point was that the US and the Coalition nations have extremely large interests in Iraq (for oil companies and structural companies as well, such as the ones hired for the rebuilding of the state infrastructure), not to mention the strategic importance of the place, and the "we're doing the right thing, we're the good guys because we liberate nations from evil men" is just a bunch of shit to my ears.

Yes, but that's the consequence of leadership, and especially hegemonic leadership. If the US wants to be leading the world than sometimes you have to get your hands dirty or bloody.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this point. I don't believe in the right of a country to lead or rule the world, for a start. ( Actually I don't even believe in the idea of an institution called a "country", but that's another story) Nor in selling a basically dirty and bloody- a "normal" -war under a shiny freedom slogan. The "morally conscious" people who swallow that aren't conscious at all, as they don't analize what the government officials say, and believe it's OK to make a war as long as the government says it's morally right.

It seems that either we radically differ on this point or that I didn't get the "broader picture" metaphor right I don't believe wars do good to anybody, nor that they're either:

a) " Epical Holy Crusades Against Evil" (what the retarded US president tries to make you believe)

b) " The means to a more honourable end "

Well, It's the "means" that make the difference between a republic and a dictatorship.

 

[John Uskglass]

I am tired of political discussions, so Ill just fix anecdotes.
1) The current Russian state can be traced back to Ivan the Dreaded-Awesome who declared himself to be Tsar (Emporer) of all Rus. Although Russia as a culture certainly can be traced to Kieven Rus and more so the Novorods.
2) 1721 was Peter the Great, which is the beggining of European Russia (or revived it after Novgorod fell).
3) A Polish-Swedeish alliance once (or at seperate times) occupied Russia, but both had thier asses kicked out by the natives.
4) Russian culture is as old as the Vanargians, a combination of northern Slavs, Ugric and Norse cultures.

 

[alec]

No comment.

 

[Brother None]

1) The current Russian state can be traced back to Ivan the Dreaded-Awesome who declared himself to be Tsar (Emporer) of all Rus. Although Russia as a culture certainly can be traced to Kieven Rus and more so the Novorods.

Not true. The Grand Duke of Muscow Ivan III (Later Tzar) started building a greater Muscovy and expanding his realm in the 1490s, by claiming all of the Novgorod territories. This was the first sign of greater Muscowy, AKA Russia. He was the first to call himself Tsar and "King-of-all-Rus"

Ivan IV "Grozny" ruled for half a century and defeated the Khanata of Kazan, as I remember it. He also restructured Muscowy greatly, but he was no the first Tsar.

Also, the concept that Russia was born in the old greater city of Kiev is a bit of Russian subversion and propaganda, started by the Empire of Russia under Peter the Great. It has no actual basis in history. Kiev has nothing to do with the founding of Muscow or of the Russian Empire, same goes for the Novgorods. Of course, some of their culture was swallowed as they were swallowed by Muscow, so parts of their culture are integrated into Russian culture, for sure.

2) 1721 was Peter the Great, which is the beggining of European Russia (or revived it after Novgorod fell).

Novgorod fell in the late 15th century.

What I'm referring to was the end of the Twenty Year War or Grea Northern War between Russia and Sweden + Poland-Lithuania, which last from 1700 to 1721. At the end, when the treaty was signed, Russia made a significant move to the West, gaining East Karelia, Estonia and Livonia. At this point, Peter declared himself to be "the Emperor of the Russian Empire".

And that's when Muscowy changed into Russia. Of course, it's a bit of historical laziness to just delcare that "the birth of Russia", so you can call me historically lazy.

It's a significant date in Russian history, though, even though the move started in the late 15th century.

3) A Polish-Swedeish alliance once (or at seperate times) occupied Russia, but both had thier asses kicked out by the natives.

Aye, during above-mentioned war the Swedes did get to occupy Muscow briefly. I guess that's the closest Russia ever came to being occupied.

I wouldn't call it occupying Russia, personally, but yeah...

 

[welsh]

Anyways my point was that the US and the Coalition nations have extremely large interests in Iraq (for oil companies and structural companies as well, such as the ones hired for the rebuilding of the state infrastructure), not to mention the strategic importance of the place, and the "we're doing the right thing, we're the good guys because we liberate nations from evil men" is just a bunch of shit to my ears.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, and I also agree that there is a bit of packaging going on to sell this notion to the American people. But that packaging is consistent with past practices. Both Wilson and Roosevelt spent a lot of time packaging the war to americans before the US actually got involved in either WW 1 or 2.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this point. I don't believe in the right of a country to lead or rule the world, for a start. ( Actually I don't even believe in the idea of an institution called a "country", but that's another story) Nor in selling a basically dirty and bloody- a "normal" -war under a shiny freedom slogan. The "morally conscious" people who swallow that aren't conscious at all, as they don't analize what the government officials say, and believe it's OK to make a war as long as the government says it's morally right.

It seems that either we radically differ on this point or that I didn't get the "broader picture" metaphor right I don't believe wars do good to anybody...
......
Well, It's the "means" that make the difference between a republic and a dictatorship.

Well, I think your position is idealistic, and to a certain extent I agree with that sense of idealism. FOr example I would prefer if the US came out and said, "this is about oil, and that oil is necessary for our economy and the global economy for the next 50 years while we find an adequate replacement, and we can obtain our strategic objectives by furthering democratization in the middle east." I believe that we, as living in a democratic state, are entitled to a level of honesty and thereby let us consider the costs and policies of our foreign policy. I would also agree that too many people take what the government says as a given. A better philosophy is to be skeptical and push the government to prove its point. But this goes back to the idea that governments should be transparent and the citizens have a right to demand a government be accountable.

And yes, I agree to a large extent that the difference between the "means" and the "ends" should be one of the definitions of what makes a country moral.

However, I think some of your views on foreign policy are idealistic. That special interests benefit from foreign policy is a consistent reality of international politics. That powerful countries seek to exert hegemony has also been a norm. If the US were to turn away from the realities than it would do a disservice to itself, and perhaps the world. I, for one, have greater faith in US policy in Asia than Chinese.

Have wars done good? I think your position is too extreme. Would you disqualify the two world wars? the civil war? the revolution? Did the use of US military muscle to keep the Soviets out of Europe lead to an overall good. Well, compare the quality of life in Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Should the US have fought to defend South Korea?

Hegemony? Was the world a better place after the Second World War than before? Without US leadership there would have been no UN system, no containment of communism, and perhaps a longer period of colonialism.

I am not a proponent of violence, and I think that too often we think of foreign policy in terms of military means and not more peaceful. But this position is too extreme to be practical or realistic, and while I think it healthy that the position be advocated, I would resist it be practiced.

One cannot hide one's head under a rock so as to be "more moral than thou" especially when one can make a better world than one finds. However, to do that you have to deal with the world as it is first, and then hopefully shape it in the way you wish it might one day be.

 

[Wooz]

Have wars done good? I think your position is too extreme. Would you disqualify the two world wars? the civil war? the revolution? Did the use of US military muscle to keep the Soviets out of Europe lead to an overall good?

While I agree with you in these last two examples, for a true revolution and a prevention force aren't the same as a full scale war, I seriously doubt if the world wars made the world a better place. They certainly revolutionized the mentalities in Europe, but at what cost? The second world war did good for the countries that weren't in the middle of it.

I hate to use the same argument as the average polish nationalist, but just look from an objective point of view at what this country "gained" from WW2, not to mention what the totalitarian communist state did to the people's mentalities.



On the whole, I believe most wars mainly consist of interst conflicts between elites, which succeed in convincing the average masses to slaughter themselves in the name of [ insert divinity's name/ moral cause here]. And some revolutions aren't much better, either. (Orwell's "Animal Farm" resurges form the nether pits of my memory)

So, no. War isn't good. War...War never changes

I am aware that my position is extremely idealistic and near impossible to achieve, nevertheless I believe there's always a better way than a war or violence to solve a conflict.
The world is what it is, but it doesn't mean I have to accept and adopt its methods.

In my opinion, and I guess in yours too, violence is only justified either in self defence, or in the protection of somebody unable to fight from somebody that wants to take advantage of his strength. In what we seem to differ is that that policy, IMO, is impossible to apply between countries.

Anyways, the institution of anything "good" by force/violence always kills the initial spirit of a cause. The only thing that's good and perfect is the "good will" of a subject, if he has one, to materialize an idea, the materialization of the idea itself isn't perfect, much less if it's applied by force/violence/dogma.

[/i]

 

[John Uskglass]

Not true. The Grand Duke of Muscow Ivan III (Later Tzar) started building a greater Muscovy and expanding his realm in the 1490s, by claiming all of the Novgorod territories. This was the first sign of greater Muscowy, AKA Russia. He was the first to call himself Tsar and "King-of-all-Rus"

Ivan IV "Grozny" ruled for half a century and defeated the Khanata of Kazan, as I remember it. He also restructured Muscowy greatly, but he was no the first Tsar.

Impressive Kharn. I did not expect this from you for whatever reason.

Rus is Russia however for the most part. I agree that the begginings of the Russian state can be traced back to Kiev. For what where the Kievan Rus? Slavified Vikings, with heavy doses of Byzantine and steep people (Magyars, Pechings, Cumans, Alanes). I think it is entirely justified to call the Kievan Rus at the very least Ukranian.

For instance, before the French Revolution there was no real French state- there was a very feudal structure. But would you argue that it was not infact French until the eighteenth century? The same goes for Russia-the people spoke Russian, the people where Orthodox and the people had Byzantine and Viking influence. Not to mention that Ivan IV has SO much in common with Russia's "greatest" leaders.

The main argument against this that I would make is that particualrly Ivan IV say the Empire of Rus as a sort of pan-Orthodox empire, a continuation of the dead Byzantine empire. Most of this is quite apparent- the Oprichniki where considerd a religious order for they held together the Orthodox Rus empire. Not only that, but it is quite apparent that Ivan IV excused his excess cruelty with the fact that Rus was the last Orthodox empire (which was oddly not true, Nybbysina was one in modern day Ethiopia). Peter the Great therefore was in many ways the Attaturk of the Russian people- he "invented" what it was to be Russian.

Novgorod fell in the late 15th century.

Novgorod was borth Rus and European (it was a member of the Hanseatic leauge for instance). What I was saying was that Peter in some ways just brought back the ways of European Russia.

"the Emperor of the Russian Empire".

I fail to understand how adding -sian makes a state. Muscovy became Russia when Ivan IV was crowned. It is so because EU2 says so (sarcasm).

I wouldn't call it occupying Russia, personally, but yeah...

You are very right. I just thought it was the closest Russia ever came to being occupied.
And so this is not totally off topic.

So, no. War isn't good. War...War never changes

That is not how Americans view things. Americans view War as a last resort, not as something that should never happend and is useless. Much of this has to do with America's history at warfare. It is not fought on our soil, we sustain few casualties and we kick ass. Europeans tend to see mass devestation. Which one is correct? I think this is a matter of POV, but I tend to lean heavily towards the American POV.

Anyways, the institution of anything "good" by force/violence always kills the initial spirit of a cause.

Tell that to the Jacobians or the Islamofascists. Frankly, in some situations when you are not dealing with a rational enemy it is exactly the opposite.[/quote]

 

[Paladin Solo]

War...War never changes

Damn It! I was playing Fallout a minute ago, and decided to watch the opening sequence for the billionth time, and when he said,

War...war never changes.

I wanted to use it as a reply in one of these war posts. Damn, damn, damn! Touche Wooz.

 

[Brother None]

Impressive Kharn. I did not expect this from you for whatever reason.

Rus is Russia however for the most part. I agree that the begginings of the Russian state can be traced back to Kiev. For what where the Kievan Rus? Slavified Vikings, with heavy doses of Byzantine and steep people (Magyars, Pechings, Cumans, Alanes). I think it is entirely justified to call the Kievan Rus at the very least Ukranian.

You're trodding dangerous ground there. The "Kiev was a Viking state" is still very controversial in European historical circles.

Also, while Kiev was essentially Russian, it had nothing to do with the Russian state.

For instance, before the French Revolution there was no real French state- there was a very feudal structure. But would you argue that it was not infact French until the eighteenth century? The same goes for Russia-the people spoke Russian, the people where Orthodox and the people had Byzantine and Viking influence. Not to mention that Ivan IV has SO much in common with Russia's "greatest" leaders.

That's a bit dodgy. The Holy Roman Empire occupied most of what is now Germany, but would you say the Holy Roman Empire was Germany? No. If you trace back Germany to the birth of Prussia (or its assertion as one of the major states as the Holy Roman Empire crumbled before the French revolution), you're already walking a thin line.

Anyway, we were talking about the state of Russia, and you can not argue that that entity existed before Muscow started expanding.

I fail to understand how adding -sian makes a state. Muscovy became Russia when Ivan IV was crowned. It is so because EU2 says so (sarcasm).

Well, Rus' was just a stretch of land, not as state. Muscowy was a state, and so was the Empire of Russia. Rus', really, was not.

That said, though, as I said; lazy historians...

 

[Wooz]

CC wrote:

Quote:
Anyways, the institution of anything "good" by force/violence always kills the initial spirit of a cause.

Tell that to the Jacobians or the Islamofascists.

[/quote]

Damn right, Jacobians, Islamic extremists, neo nazis, missionaires, "holy crusaders" and the like. Don't worry, your current government isn't my only target

You said you view War as a "last resort" issue.

First, I don't believe there weren't any other issues available to prevent the war on Iraq. It was the easiest way for the Coalition countries to make money.

Second, maybe you got me wrong on the last post, I don't believe violence is always despicable and useless. I'm no hippy. I just believe it's only right to use it in self defence. And no, I don't think this war is in self defence.
I said that the world wars didn't do any good, the only good you can make out of them is to remember WHY and HOW they happened, in another way than "Hitler was Evil so we, the Good Allies kicked their ass because it was the Right thing to do" way,
so as to not trip on the same stone twice...

 

[welsh]

I heard today that in Iraq, a provincial administrator involved in education was assassinated-

Do you think this kind of targetting marks a change in the Iraqi resistance?


Recently from the Economist-

Another crash, and a crackdown

Nov 17th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda

Following another deadly helicopter crash, American troops have redoubled their efforts to root out Iraqi militants. America will hand back sovereignty to an interim national assembly, with representatives from all Iraq's provinces, by June

IF AMERICA thought that promising sovereignty earlier to Iraqis would cause its casualty count to subside, it has so far been wrong. On Saturday November 15th, two American Black Hawk helicopters crashed over the northern city of Mosul, killing 17 soldiers. Reports suggest that ground fire caused one pilot to swerve into the other. This follows a tragedy last week in the southern city of Nasiriya, in which a suicide attack on an Italian base killed at least 27 people.

As the attacks continue—they are now said to number up to 35 per day—America has started using heavyweight tactics to hunt down suspected militants. Over the past week troops have staged big night-time raids against the suspected hide-outs of resistance forces in Baghdad. On Sunday, America fired a satellite-guided missile—its first since the war—at a suspected militant training camp outside Kirkuk, in the north.

Also in the hope of stemming attacks, America is speeding up the transition of power to Iraqis. On Saturday, it was announced that a sovereign Iraqi national assembly would be in place by the end of June next year. However, this will not be directly elected, as America had proposed. Instead, it is expected that, in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces, a committee of local notables, nominated by the province’s political, tribal, religious and professional bodies, will decide who will fill the province’s allotment of seats in the new national assembly. This provisional body will choose ministers who will run the country until direct elections are held—by the end of 2005 under the new timetable. In the meantime, there will be direct elections to a constitutional convention, which will draw up a new constitution, on which Iraqis will vote in a national referendum.

This plan has been backed by the Iraqi Governing Council (the current, transitional Iraqi executive with limited powers, whose members were chosen by America). It is a sharp change from the process that Paul Bremer, America's proconsul, had originally envisaged. Before, he had argued that writing a constitution should precede the restoration of sovereign government. But it has become clear that the Governing Council, whose members are drawn from Iraq’s patchwork of ethnic groups, remains too divided to contemplate a constitution yet. And with the attacks threatening to turn more Iraqis against their occupiers, America has concluded that sovereignty cannot wait much longer.

Handing over power to Iraqis will not mean a military withdrawal by America. On the contrary: the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, insisted at the weekend that the Bush administration’s new political plans have “nothing to do with US troops in Iraq”. Officials say American forces will remain “at the invitation” of the new government, to ensure Iraq’s stability and to continue with the reconstruction.

Whether this accelerated hand-over will quieten the insurgents in Iraq, as America hopes, is doubtful. General John Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the region, puts the number of “thugs” at up to 5,000. They have shown themselves keen to attack Iraqi “collaborators” as well as American, British and now Italian occupiers. Indeed, an audio tape allegedly made by Saddam Hussein and broadcast on Sunday by a Dubai-based television station urges death to anyone “installed by foreign armies”. This attitude, held broadly by insurgents around Iraq, suggests that any government condoned by the Americans will be considered a fair target. Transferring sovereignty to Iraqis will form only part of the long-term solution to a stable Iraq: the other part will be rooting out the shadowy figures who are trying to turn the entire country into a zone of terror.

 

[welsh]

I have been thinking about the entire "Is Iraq becoming another Vietnam" issue.

And I can't help wondering if the critical difference had to do with the draft. As long as we have a volunteer army there, well, that's their job.

But if we start conscripting people between 18-22, this war would be a totally different thing to the American people.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Hmmm...the draft can change people's opionions very fast. But we need one really bad. Not enough people are volunteering. I will for sure when I turn 18 and/or graduate. But a draft may one day be the only option. I think that will not turn Iraq into Vietnam, but make it pretty ugly in people's opionions, and possibly lose support.