Well after seeing the troubles this type of discussion were causing on DAC i decided not to take part on this discussion, but seeing that Welsh is onboard, i can`t resist
>>Allmost all problems in the middle east can be traced back
>>to US meddling. It is us who put Sadam into power in the
>>first place.
>
>I think that might be a bit too extreme a position.
Yep, i tend to agree with Welsh`s arguments here
>
>SO yes, the US meddles and causes problems. But then, who
>doesn't. SUre the US is thinking about the regions oil. Oil
>fuels all the major economies that are US business problems.
> Let us also not forget that Debt crisis that rocked most of
>the Developing world began not in the US but in the spread
>of petrodollars and the oil shocks, when OPEC countries shot
>up the price of oil.
America suffers also from a tendency for beeing an escape goat to many governements in the region. If one watches the news from many countries (even if one doesn`t understand the language) Israel and the USA are always the countries beeing talked about on the main stories. When one catches arab newspapers america is generaly blamed for many things, while criticizing the local governement is tabu. So while not everything america does in the region is right, far from it, there`s also a bit of self victimization from arab nations, with the US beeing blamed of many ilusionary things. And when anti-americanism is censored, it becomes even more desirable, so the US are really in a no-win situation there.
Oh on the debt crisis, we can`t totally scrap the role of Nixon`s dismissal of the Bretton Woods system to finance the vietnam war.But in what regards republicans that like to spend more than they can afford i`ll be back later...
>
>Since the second world war, all major powers have had their
>hands in the middle east. If the US gave jets to Israeli's,
>the Soviets had interests in selling jets to the Arabs. The
>French had their base in Djibouti, the Brits deployed troops
>to Oman. Oh and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to stop the
>spread of Islam.
>
In essence i agree, but another important issue in the invasion were the pipelines, like Welsh states in another place in this post, still is the most important issue to the Russians, even more after the americans joined the british in trying to explore the pipes. The New Great Game...
>> I do
>>not believe that he will attack anyone in the future.
>
>Ok, if you don't count Iran and Kuwait, missile attacks
>against Israel, the tensions that have historically existed
>between Syria and Iraq, gassing his own people and the whole
>Kurdish thing.....
>
Actually, i do think that he`s contained, and that he doesn`t pose a threat to neighboring nations, except in the case of beeing attacked.
But it poses a threat to Israel, and therefore the regional balances, so a tough muscled containement policy with the control of the air by allied nations and "perpetual" inspections could do for a while. But mind you, i said for a while...
>The Gulf Cooperation Council, the closest thing you have to
>a concerted front, is more concerned about Saudi oil policy
>than Iraq. That the middle east played a part in the last
>Gulf War had to do, to quite an extent, on concessions made
>to those countries. The idea that they could deal with Iraq
>on their own is ludicrous.
>That they don't want the US involved in an invasion of Iraq? These are all countries with a history
>of being conquered and all have to deal with the fact that
>you have a radicalized group that will use the presence of
>US troops to create internal political tension. SO they
>have pretty good internal and domestic reasons for being
>worried.
Yes, increasingg the presence of troops on the Gulf is indeed worring in the side-effects it will potentialy have in the terrorism front.
But here i diverge of most of the analisys beeing made on the ultimate goal of the war. The big prize is...Saudi Arabia! That`s what made the Saudis tried that desperate move on the Arab League to try to make peace between Kwait and Irak. That is the main concern for the regimes in the area, concern that several European governements share in silence: the americans decided to take over Irak because they are settled in allowing regime change in Saudi Arabia. Now that`s a tremendous endeavour, that in my view has more probabilities of going the wrong way than it has in succeed.
But that`s not what i thing generally the american administration think, since they are tired of problems like Venezuela, Angola may succeed in getting peace but that`s still uncertain, and specially because they finaly found out (*sigh*) the real extent of Osama´s support by the Wahabites that control Saudi Arabia. It makes sense on a strategic point of view, but one can`t rush this things, as the french and the british learned on the Suez affair...
>
>>America is also in a lot of financial trouble. Last time we
>>got paid a lot of money to go in to deal with Sadam. This
>>time nobody will pay us.
They will try to get the Saudis to pay, i know the E.U. this time is tired of paying american bills, after the waste of money of the Israel-palestinian peace accords, the first Irak war and many other wars (although i enjoyed a lot when the french and the german had to pay the bill on Kosovo and Bosnia
)
Bush has managed to turn a five
>>trilion dolar surplus he had at the beginning of his term
>>into a huge defficit that does not seem to have an end in
>>sight. All I saw out of all those tax cuts was a couple
>>hundred bucks which I would gladly have given up to fix our
>>national debt and have a better economy in the future. It
>>seems now we are fucked instead, and a lot of good that few
>>hundred dolars will do me now.
>
>This I largely agree with. These tax cuts benefit the rich
>and fuck the poor. That this conflict might be part of a
>diversion away from domestic problems I think might have
>some weight. We've seen similar things with Clinton in
>Kosovo.
I don`t know about the diversion idea, but the prospect of raising the deficit a bit to increase public spendid and cut a bit of the taxes makes sense in this economic context of almost recession except...one can`t do that and war at the same time! That`s economic madness! He is turning the deficit into a serious problem, like his father did...these guys never learn, really it´s incredible
>
>But in terms of human costs? Here are your options-
>(1) go to war. Hopefully it will be short and sweet, few
>causalities and little damage. Probably not. But
>considering the state of Iraq's military the first part of
>the war- the removal of Saddam and the conquest shouldn't be
>too hard. If the occupation becomes a guerrilla war, that
>could be a mess.
>(2) Don't go to war and lets keep the sanctions- The same
>sanctions that the world has lost patience for, which have
>caused unknown numbers of deaths (although it sounds pretty
>heavy) and which have allowed Sadam to stay in power.
>(3) lift sanctions, leave the middle east alone- Considering
>Sadam's track record, this won't be good.
>
I was all for a full invasion back on Desert Fox days. Now it`s dangerous, it is streching the odds of a full political success a bit too far, and it isn´t (just yet) the time to get the Saudis. The War on Terror isn´t having the success i thought it would have, but it`s more important for now, and there are other means to go after the Saudis that are supporting Osama...
>>referring to something somebody said earlier....
>>I do know about the oil line being built in Afganistan now.
>>Apparently Kazakstan(I think) has large oil fields but they
>>were never really able to sell it all that well because they
>>lack an efficient conduit to the sea. The US is building
>>this pipeline to be able to get this oil. They started the
>>construction as soon as they were at the north-west border.
>>Seems very convenient, and does not add credibility to
>>anything the US does. It just makes us look as if we are
>>doing this solely for our profit.
The last time i checked they were reconstructing the infrastructures, not building , but i may be wrong on this.
>
>I have little doubt that there is truth here. Just like its
>true that the Chinese (which have around an 8% growth per
>year and should rival the US in GNP by the middle of the
>next century (if not by 2030)) is building a pipeline West
>to that same oil.
>
>The grim truth is that the world's economy still runs on
>petroleum products. Other viable energy sources have not
>been exploited, in large part because there has been no
>significant move on an energy policy since the Carter years.
> That the oil is flowing past Istanbul, that there are
>pipelines going through Chechnya and through Turkey, is
>pointing to the future importance of Central Asian oil.
>
>But, not all that oil flows to the US. It also flows to the
>countries of Europe, to Japan, to China, and to the
>developing world. Does it matter? Of course. Oil is the
>lifeblood of modern global capitalism, and modern global
>capitalism is a state of fact.
>
That`s Osama goal, get the oil and the pipelines from Kazhakystan, Turkemenystan , the Caspian Sea (tchechnya...) until Nigeria and Sudan. He wants a "Califah" that would run most of the oil in the world, with a weakened USA not beeing able to help northern africa and southern europe to defend themselves from the brave islamic conquerors. Oh yeah, he is that mad, although Rommel almost got to obtain what he is decided to get...
>In the world of international politics, the world is
>anarchic, there are no rules, security interests shape
>policies, and everything is a matter of convenience or
>necessity. Thucydides for theory, Macchiavelli for policy.
>Ok, so maybe there should be some consideration of
>constructivism. But lets leave that alone.
Don`t forget Hobbes
>> So
>>far we already have a reputation of starting wars but we
>>have been able to do it for reasons that were other than our
>>own explicit gain(Allthough we have proffited all the same).
>Yes, I agree, that the business of starting wars leaves me
>uncomfortable.
>
>> Do you know that about a year and a
>>half ago the Chinese Prime Minister announced that China
>>will now pose an economic front against the US?
>
>The Chinese can blow. Come on, this is a country that is
>willing to start a war with Taiwan, a democractic state,
>because of its own nationalistic claims.
>
>The Chinese who think the South China Sea is their backyard
>swimming pool. The Chinese that can't afford an used
>aircraft carrier.
>
>See a financial crisis in China, and see the communists
>removed from power. Economic front against US? Rhetorical
>nonsense similar to stamp the shoe and say "we will bury
>you"
>
Nowadays there are documents on the 50 years plan by the chinese. I first heard of it in a candid interview by Macao´s last governor, when he told that he had asked the chinese if they really thought that China would be communist in a fifty years period (this was around 96 or so) and got a curious reply from the chinese leader (don`t remember the name though, the one that is leaving now, damn) that "we have the certainty that the People`s Republic of China won`t be the same in fifteen years, but the west won`t be the same too.."
They are operating in a long term strategy, while America has to deal with short term problems, that´s the greatest advantage of the Chinese governement. They are very, very smart, one can´t underestimate China...
>
>>I also heard that Bush may not be planing to stay in Iraq
>>after the war. In that case what guarantee do you think we
>>will have to count on the fact that the next ruler of Iraq
>>will be any better than Sadam?
>
>None, that would be a very bad policy
>
>> Also how do we exactly
>>immagine that leaving that country in economic shambles and
>>without a clear government will help eliminate radical
>>groups bent on our own destruction?
>>
>Not sure, but I have a feeling we still don't know what the
>shape of Iraq's future will be.
>
The USA want to put ageneral in charge of Irak for two years, like in post WWII in Japan. It seems a bit silly that Irakis will go with that sollution, but then again this all adventure does seem to bring more doubts than certainties
>>Also I would like to point out that Osama is a religous
>>leader whose biggest complaint is that the US has been
>>meddling in the affairs of the Middle East.
>
>Osama is a prick and poster boy for the death penalty.
He`s a spoiled millionaire brat. A particular dangerous and ignorant one. A prick. Nothing more than that.
>
>Don't forget, the same logic applies to the governments of
>German and Japan- least we forget how they got the
>constitutions that have lasted them since the second world
>war.
Well, you know the region, and it just seems too risky to try that over there. Well, we´ll see...
>That US meddling in the Middle East is unwelcomed is widely
>known and understood. But you quoting Osama is not going to
>help your argument.
True.
>>Sadam is on the top of the list as an illegitimate
>>government. I do not see the two working together in any
>>serious capacity. One of the goals of Osama would be the
>>removal of Sadam.
Actually i believe that Osama would terminate him if we were a few years ago, or if he did get to a more powerfull position. But no doubt he`s trying to join forces with Saddam now that he needs all the allies he can get, but i guess that he isn´t beeing very successfull as in the past. There were, of course, contacts between the two in the past, but an alliance like the one Powell tried to sell to the world on the Security Counsil simply doesn`t exist. Powell knows it, the british knows it, and the French and the German really knows it, wich helps them to keep annoying the americans.
Speaking on europeans the agreement French and Germans got on new rules for the European Council and European Comission turned many other countries against them, if the americans aren´t able to pass the spin, Chirac and Shroeder didn`t got many friends either with that agreement. The problem is that for each Rumsfeld appearence on TV, or another Bush speech, we get another million europeans turning pacifists, wich is a shame since american interventions have been a good thing ,in the last twelve years,supporting the values (and the interests) that most europeans say they defend. In this case, for strategic and timing doubts i have, i`m not in a "suportative" mood...
>
>Any individual who defends these two is a fool who has to
>take a hard close look at his own sense of morality.
>
True
>I think that we sometimes forget this when we talk peace.
>The question for us is not whether Osama or Sadam deserve to
>go. The question is whether the US should do it or not, or,
>how will history judge us for our actions, and our
>inactions.
Exacly, together with if it´s the right time to do it, my main doubt (with Sadam, not Osama).
Thanks for your time
oyle