Denoir, you really are the man. Now, I was wondering if anybody here could help me with this US guy I'm continuing to aruge with?
IRT #34 (Crazysheep 2)
When big countries mess with the internal affairs of other countries with completely different attitudes, it only leads to problems. Name one time that the USA has successfully played in the internal affairs of non-western countries and hasn't caused problems for a few years later. It just isn't practical; bear in mind that Iraq is the strictest, but also most stable, of middle east countries. It's like Afghanistan; throw out the dictatorship, but screw up the country even worse. Plus, that isn't the idea. Iraq was invaded out of self interest, not benevolence.
On the issue of problem(s), construed from past history of "medling": This is a very different issue from the past. The issue at hand is not ideology (such as in most past "meddlings"), but about the proliferation of deadly weapons, notably into the hands of extranational terrorist entities such as El Qaeda. Also, unless you're spewing propaganda (I love you, so take that for what it is, not a sly implication, but literal) it seems your allowance for error in such "meddling" is extraordinarily slim. If it is required that Iraq post-war be problem-free, and that that be the only scenario which would exempt American involvement from the errors of its past, then I must say you drive quite a hard, unreasonable bargain. For one thing, in the aftermath of the removal of any absolute dictator there is, at the very least, widespread chaos... and that has been, and remains, the biggest blemish in the operation since the end of the war: the containment of general chaos. As for pointing to past "meddlings" and implying that the replacement governments have largely been as corrupt and repressive as their predecessors (and I wish you noninvolvement-propagandists would spell out that specific fear), the efforts of this administration, as evidenced precisely in its investment of personel (and cash) and time, should point out that everything imaginable is being done to ensure that the future government of Iraq, despite the failings of past American "meddlings" elsewhere, shall be a representative one, and in due course, a fully democratic one. I would also have you note that what you consider a "worse" Afghanistan is a country in which, under the law, women do not fear execution for exposing the skin of their upper arms, children are better guaranteed a longterm education, a lasting infrastructure is a veritable prospect for the near future, virtually no citizen needs live in fear of starvation, random incarceration, torture, and summary execution at the whim of gun-toting self-righteous clerics and their henchmen. What you, perhaps, project as a "worse" Iraq, if I may draw the inference from the parallels, is one in which there is temporary chaos and lawlessness in the absence of a dictator who subjected his citizenry, on a daily basis, to the most absolute horror imaginable, having murdered a million and a half of his "subjects" and being free to torture and maim whomsoever he pleased, whenever, and under whatever pretext, not even obligated to voice said pretext for posterity.
As for this war being in self-interest: you bet your britches it was. It was in the interest of American security and, even if only by extension, the interests of any and all democratic state in the world. If it were for purely economic interests, I would have you project the costs of this war and the ensuant occupation, in American dollars (estimated at about $1 billion... a week), and compare it to the projection of oil revenues coming out of Iraq hypothetically when the machinery is running at absolute peak efficiency (estimated at about $18 billion over a decade). The self-interest, apparently, is exactly what it was purported as being, namely a security interest.
As for US meddling in internal affairs, replacing existing governments with functional democracies, I'll name only two that have any significant impact on world history, outside of the Middle East: Japan and West Germany... not to mention the governments of France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and even Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Add to that Costa Rica, Singapore, the Philipines, Taiwan, and many others, who are today what they are because of American "meddling". Only examples, not a picture of absolute success; but you only asked for examples.
So it's alright for Israel to threaten the lives of THEIR enemies so long as it isn't hurting the UN? No matter how powerful they are, the USA is one country in the UN and is not THE UN; protecting the west is not their only priority.
You may not have pondered this in this fashion, but the world really is made up of good guys and bad guys; the good guys of course often are part-time bad guys, and possibly this applies to all of them. However, especially on the issue of posession of mass-destruction weapons, it doesn't serve your argument well to tie in Israel's posession of nuclear weapons with the American insistence that non-democratic countries not posess such weapons. By your argument, the danger posed is comparable, and the violence of the Israeli military against Palestinian civilians (or "enemies", as you put it) is evidence of the threat of those mass-destruction weapons in Israel's posession. That is nonsense, IMO. Israel has no interest in using nuclear bombs, or chemical warheads, to deal with Palestinian terrorists, or with which to kill civilian bystanders. It does this much more efficiently using conventional machinery. It makes no sense that Israel should drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza City or Nablus, as the fallout alone would plague its own citizenry. Also, and this is critical, Israel is not even remotely likely to distribute, for any consideration, such weapons to extranational terrorist organizations... that would be supremely absurd. In those regards, Israel posessing WMDs, and almost any other country in the world posessing similar WMDs, are two very different scenarios altogether. I can hardly wait for the issue to be raised again, as I love repeating the answer with variations and syncopations.
But it [the UN] works far more affectively than US foreign policy. If it weren't for the UN, both the USA and USSR would be two radioactive carparks. They also have far more experience in nation building than the US; how often have they made disastrous regimes like Afghanistan? And how many times has the USA did that with invaded countries?
I am not familiar with the UN invading any country, preceding some nation-building exercise, except possibly in South Korea, and that was primarily an American exercise. The UN, furthermore, is a conglomerate of about 2/3 of the world's states, including many of the "disastrous regimes" that you allude to. It is, literally, almost totally impotent in the arena of international law and state affairs. In those arenas, the UN can only voice, largely at the initiative of the Secretary General and his staff, high ideals to which the world ought to aspire, and to which none, not one, of the member states is legally obligated. It is, on those occasions, a glorified caucus of state representatives who like to take trips to New York every few weeks and enjoy room service on the house. In the arena of peacekeeping, the UN is quite experienced, but hardly moreso than the US military itself. Simply for economic considerations, however, it would probably make more sense to allow the UN to oversee much of the peacekeeping and policing in Iraq right now; the US can't seem to well afford it for an indefinite amount of time, and conventional military forces are not quite trained for policing civilian structures (nor should they be, frankly). So if your contention is that the UN ought be more involved in the security of post-war Iraq, I have no real qualm with that stance.
As for your contention that the UN staved off nuclear armageddon: blah! I hardly think it was anything but a platform for those two beligerent giants to vocalize their hostilities, and more often than not it served as a catalyst to hostile stance-taking, a floor upon which one side could stand in front of the world and accuse the other of aiming to take over the world (and that was merely as a platform!). Much more effective were the events that occured behind the scenes: the enormous military expenditures, infiltration of the Soviet government by spies, and direct diplomatic exchanges between American and Soviet representatives. In fact, Ronald Reagan's personal secretary, quite probably, had more to do with the aversion of nuclear armageddon than the UN in its entire history of existence.
Except, there are dozens of regimes like that, and Iraq was less likely than many of these to have viable WMD programs; not a modicum of evidence. Out of all the things Colin Powell said in his presentation, many have been proved wrong but NONE at all have been proved correct.
And by attacking all regimes which have a possibilty it is becoming as bad as them. I cannot understand how the 3,500 civilians (not soldiers) dead in Afghanistan are casualties of war, and the killing of 3,000 on 9/11 was a despicable act of evil.
Every major independent intelligence agency begged to differ with your "not a modicum of evidence" proclamation. Probably you are projecting present seeming-evidence of non-posession, to the past. There were chemical and biological stocks unaccounted for, tallied in the 1998 inspections, and mysteriously absent in future declarations by Baghdad; and that is only one example. Also, justifying the accusations made is NOT tantamount to finding the listed materials post-war. That's a logical fallacy. Several things could have been done during the course of the war, before it, and after it, to ensure those weapons would not be found. Also, that Iraq was least likely of the major regimes in question who might posess WMDs (namely Iran and Korea) to posess them does not mean it ought to be the most unlikely candidate for pre-emptive invasion; many other factors must be considered, including the feasibility of the operation, and also the likelihood that the regime will use its arsenal in self-defense. In any case, stating that it was the least likely of the three to posess WMDs as some kind of implied evidence that this shows the intentions of war had nothing to do with the threat of WMDs is misleading [and fallacious].
Another fallacy: that attacking all regimes which have the possibility is becoming as bad as them. To be precise, we're referring to non-democratic, tyrannical regimes, etc. Every one of them ought to be eradicated from the face of the earth, and only for the crimes they commit against humanity. The possibility that they posess WMDs only makes the matter more urgent. To put it cynically, without the threat of terrorism being brought to Americans' doorsteps by the Sept.11 attacks, the prospect of removing Saddam from his tyrannical post would never, EVER have been realized: the American public would never, EVER have consented to the human and monetary costs of such an undertaking.
Finally, the casualties of Afghanistan are not the casualties of Iraq: the numbers do not match; factor into that the population densities of Afghani "cities" as compared to those of Iraq metropolises, and that disparity becomes startlingly more clear. Furthermore, the casualties of Afghanistan, are not the casualties of 9/11: those in Afghanistan were "collateral damage" (which is a sickening prospect for sure) in a warzone, those in the peacetime ground-zeros of 9/11 were the intended targets.
But he DID allow for unfettered inspections after the US complained. The only people who said that he didn't are those who would benefit from this war, but Blix, and the UN inspectors who actually knew whether or not they were co-operating, actually said that Iraqi co-operation was helping. And there isn't any materials that need accounting for. In 1997, when Saddam decided that his weapons programme was unnecassary and an economic liability the UN destroyed all of these and destroyed all his facilities.
He did not allow for full, unfettered inspections. When he did allow for virtually unfettered facility inspections, he did so after the US all but declared a war ultimatum, replete with gunships a stone's throw off Iraqi shores. Even then, the inspections were not 100% unimpeded, the government did issue a declaration which was worded to obfuscate and to stall the matter, and Saddam made a small show of appeasing the American behemoth by destroying a small number of illegal warheads which weeks earlier he denied even posessing. When noting interests, note that Blix, like his predecessor, rather than an objective representative of a scientific arm of a neutral multinational organ, is a peace activist in his own right, and was careful to word his presentation (similarly to the Bush administration's presentations, only with converse intentions) in the most amicable, promising light. Language is very persuasive, and we pay very little heed to its nuances when it suits our fancy. I'll repeat this again, as I predicted I would in the past: the terms of Resolution 1441 require that Saddam, at all times, and not merely in order to appease the bulldog with false shows of compliance, must submit to full, unfettered, unobstructed inspections, must submit all requested documents at all times, and must allow for full access to personel; the UN inspection team is not, never was, and never shall be, designed to ascertain that Iraq is free of WMDs; its only function, essentially, is to investigate. By logical inference, whenever there is not FULL, fully transparent cooperation by Saddam's government, this is to mean, if anything at all, that 1)there likely are weapons, 2)he is hiding them, 3)he poses a threat in their posession. The converse, namely partial compliance (and in the best of times, that is what Blix's team enjoyed), this converse DOES NOT EVER INDICATE the absence of said materials (nor Saddam's compliance). The simple reason the team is not capable of verifying, UNDER OPTIMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the absence of such materials is that the country is too large and the team too small; the circumstances were NEVER optimal (the government never fully compliant), which only makes the exercise more futile, except as a lesson in obfuscation and stalling.
Also, Saddam never decided that his weapons program was unnecessary and an economic liability, unless you are relying on official government statements, or are inferring this from his partial compliance with inspection efforts and weapons elimination. As late as 1998 inspectors provided a listing of biological and chemical stores which were unaccounted for, and it was under such pressure that Saddam eventually kicked that team out, to allow a new one in only after the passing of a new resolution and the implied threat of American kick-ass. Intelligence from many independent sources indicated that those programs and facilities were by no means totally obliterated from the country. It is also useful to note that Saddam was purported to have had at least a billion dollars in private offshore savings accounts, was discovered to have possessed at least that much in hard cash within his country, and had unforeseeably prosperous future decades of trade with European states to hope for, transactions which included weapons parts and schematics/intelligence/training that would suggest even German and French authorities knew enough to suspect the opposite of what you claim was his attitude toward his weapons programs.
Athanatos, I'm surprised at you. That's a very black and white picture you've painted; just because it is despotic does not mean that it is a Hollywood villain; they aren't going to attack people, with no benefit for themselves, just so they can see them suffer.
I am not sure what planet I've lived in these past 25 years, but that is exactly what despotic regimes have led me to believe they do, as a matter of course (and as for personal benefit, it is always power and status, and usually much else besides). They terrorise civilian populations, and fund extranational terrorist organizations which attack democratic targets. I wonder what mellow despotic regime you are thinking of that does not fit this MO...?
The last bit is an opinion, as you've showed some ignorance of world affairs in your post also. (no offense) But for the first bit; which is better, starting a war out of self interest of not starting a war out of self interest?
Actually, almost everything I've stated in this issue is an opinion... but I am curious to learn what indications of ignorance of world affairs I have shown. This ought to be interesting. Anyway, to quote the part which instigated your remark (most likely):
If you look closely at the motivations for abstinence on the part of the European governments, you'll see it largely revolves around potential for lost trade income, weariness of the monetary and human investment in a war effort, and weariness of the voting public, whose opposition to the war, whenever not centered on the cost itself, was and always shall be largely centered on a narrow, uninformed perspective of world affairs.
Such is the case, IMO (of course my opinion). And it seems to me the most logical explanation at that. In the arena of public opinion, there is not much going on. The issue was always torn between, on the one hand, the alleged threat of Iraq as a rogue regime possibly in possession of WMDs with possible links to extranational terrorist groups who have shown a willingness to attack western civilian targets and inflict mass casualties, (plus the tyrannical nature of Saddam's regime toward his own people and immediate neighbors)... and on the other hand, the tremendous monetary and human (military) costs of a war, its potential for engendering fresh anti-western hatred culminating in possible revenge attacks in western cities, and the civilian "collateral damage" casualties themselves in Iraq. In weighing these issues, a vast majority opted for the anti-war stance, and among the reasons, most prominent were the self-interested concerns (of costs and the threat of retaliation)... of course, my opinion. You, a young English teenager, idyllic and compasionate, have always been more inclined (I suspect) toward the considerations of those "collateral damage" Iraq civilians, among those major reasons listed: you are the exception, not the rule. Most of the anti-war rally cry, IMO, was not centered on the blood of innocent non-combatants.
The politicians, by extension, did what they are programmed to do: they obeyed the will of the public. They did this because they are essentially obligated to do it, and the fear of losing future elections was really only a suplementary motivator. They did it, also, reluctantly. Reluctance, in the years to come, shall be one of the descriptives best characterising the actions of the French representatives in the UN process and domestically, at the heels of the war preparations. In the words of the French UN representative himself, in multiple interviews, that part of the French constituency which was opposed to the war was opposed to it for very wrong reasons which stemmed from ignorance of world affairs and the nature of Saddam's regime. His words, not mine (and obviously I am not quoting him word for word, but this he stated in no uncertain terms, if you would like a reference, in an interview on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, in the days before the pending decision in the Security Council to adopt or scrap a new resolution, sometime in mid-April).
So, please, tell me where my views show ignorance of world affairs, because if this is so, I'd be inclined to remedy it.
But that is just an incorrect statement.
Not so, and your link to Blix's statements does not contradict this. I have already explained why the easing of the process did not constitute full, free and unfettered inspections... but I'll repeat it if you wish.
But I would understand you believing they had some WMDs, but smallpox? Where did that come from? It's small, but not easy to acquire. You can't just assume they have it because Bushy say's they're evil, you could invade every country in the world by saying it's possible they possess smallpox.
I did not mean to imply they had smallpox, not at all. Sorry if that's the vibe I gave off. I used smallpox only as an example of the potency of biological warfare, and to indicate that biological agents do not require enormous storage facilities, and are not easily detectable. Most of the world opinion seems centered on the fact that nuclear weapons technology is so enormously costly, unwieldy, difficult to process and maintain, and relatively easily detected (by virtue of its cumbersome nature). The gravest danger, in the case of Saddam, has always been his penchant for chemical and biological warfare.
I have not, I fear, stated to my full satisfaction, the case for why despotic tyrannies should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to possess such materials, and that the only foolproof way of assuring this is to eliminate those very regimes... but we have time, if we have anything (I hope).
In any case, to respond to that last statement of yours, any nondemocratic country which might (even remotely) posess biological and chemical weapons, should feel the pressure of retaliation, and the threat of eradication. This is classic Cold War stuff, only on a different scale (and perhaps, realistically, a vastly more dangerous one).
No they haven't been thwarted. It amazes me how the US public just FORGET that they were destroyed in '97! (also it's impossible for him to re-start a weapons programme as all his weapons labs were destroyed)
If this were fact (and you present it as such) there would not even be the slimmest grounds for declaring him a threat. By his impeding of the UN investigations (and please refer to my previous statements as to why they were never free and unimpeded) he clearly indicated, and this is the only logical presumption, that those programs were not merely mirages from the past.
I think I've been here before.
As have I. The role of the UN inspection team was never to confirm that the weapons programs had been obliterated, but ONLY to relay whether or not Saddam was being fully compliant with the process (and the inferences to be drawn from noncompliance have been stated, but I'll be glad to reiterate them). And, no, the process was never full, free, and unfettered. It improved, perhaps significantly, as a result of the war machine building offshore, but even at its zenith it was never ideal.
IRT #35 (Hammer&Sickle)
You're not the only cynical one. I just believe that that is what they'll do, based on past actions. And as for risk, I believe I already made that clear, but in case I didn't, I meant that Iraq was a nice easy target where there was no risk of failure or heavy loss, unlike either Iran or Korea, where the enemy might be able to put up some kind of resistance. It was this cowardice I refer to.
It tickles me, frankly, that you call it cowardice, as if to spite the idea that the Americans chose one villain over two other worse villains because the one was an easier target... this smacks of duplicity. Either they are completely unjustified in attacking Iraq, or they are cowards for prefering one baddie over the others because the one is a more manageable baddie. Both?
(#38)
I would hardly call control of a third-world shithole (if you'll pardon my language) immense power, as I would hardly call empty chemical warhead evidence of an advanced WMD production programme or attacking your weakest, least threatening enemy when you could deal with the strongest and most dangerous bravery.
The power need not be immense (and Doom972 only stated that it would increase, not that it would be immense), but if you have (IF you have) a few tons of chemical and biological agents at your disposal, it hardly matters that your country is a relative "shithole", as you describe it. It is not a country that wields power, it is individual humans. And again I find your reference to "bravery" a little funny... seeing as it is seemingly used as a positive descriptive of character, and the entity to which it is ascribed (in the hypothetical, if it chose to attack Iran or Korea, for example) is offensive and criminal in its penchant for imposing its ideals and stripping lesser countries of their power.
IRT #37 (Crazysheep 2)
However, he also has a less biased view than Israelis-I bet he'd know about how the Palestinians suffer than you do for instance. But let's not dwell on that.
Actually, that statement of bias of views is likely incorrect. For many reasons, even the biased view of Israeli citizens (although probably laden with some ignorance of Palestinian suffering, and of history) is likely better informed than that of most western outsiders. One indicator of this is the failure of most anti-Israeli viewpoints to recognize the self-serving motives of the primary militant groups responsible for the breakdown of the peace process and the slaughter of innocents. This'll come up again, probably, but I beg to differ with your cursory assessment of one's perspective who lives not 50 km from the violence itself.
(#39)
Saddam was losing power, not gaining it; his army was something like a quarter of what it was in 1990.
His army is hardly an indicator of power, frankly, when the issue of power has been primarily focused on his possession, or lack thereof, of WMDs. Also, an anecdotal thing: but, the size of his conventional army shrank, but the size and training of his elite forces went the opposite way... but again that's almost totally beside the point.
(#41)
In Reply To #40
Kodanshi wrote:
Sorry if I've offended you - I don't mean to piss you off since you so obviously love your home country (only natural really!), but I don't see why Israel can keep WMD and flaunt UN rules and no other middle eastern country can't.
Well, duh. Because Israel is friends with America and therefore all its actions, no matter how dubious, are justified.
That is rife with explanation, Kodanshi, and it is only partly what Crazysheep claims. Of course, as America's close friend, Israel has historically gotten away with actions that were obviously criminal. But, to wonder why Israel should be allowed to possess WMDs, and NO OTHER MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY be allowed the same priviledge, is a little more academic. The nature of democracy allows for the best possible circumstances under which a WMD may be kept safely, and with the least possible likelihood of its use. No other Middle Eastern country is democratic (if you exclude Turkey, and that one is always on the brink). It is as simple as that (if you, Kodanshi, are really asking a question, namely why should they be treated differently).
(#48)
That's good-Iraq has the USA's ally at the time, and it's good that Israel stood up against the USAs orders and stuck up for itself.
When Israel destroyed that reactor, it did not merely stand up for itself, it rid the free world of a veritable, and almost immeasurable threat. As for championing this act (as it seems you are) I find it odd that at the same time, in other remarks, you decry the fact that certain autocracies are denied the capacity to develop WMDs. So where do you stand exactly on that issue (and must I re-address teh difference between a democracy and a despotic autocracy as regards WMDs)?
IRT #49 (Kodanshi)
Yeah but now the US seems to have gone power mad. If anyone tries to stand up against it these days then BAM! America carpetbombs the hell out of you...
Iraq was never really "carpetbombed the hell out of". Afghanistan, if deplorably so, suffered the consequences, not of "someone standing up against the US these days" as you seem to imply, but an organization, housed and funded by the Taliban, ramming two passenger airliners into the WTC, and one into the Pentagon. That does not constitute "standing up against", and if it does (through some convoluted propagandist’s vocabulary) then military action is not outrageous as a response.
IRT #50 (Crazysheep 2)
Or condemn them and they impose sanctions on you. If Bush wins the next election, then an America v The World war is not out of the question.
Condemnation was not for "standing up against the USA" it was for suspected development of WMD programs, and following the annexation of a neighboring country. This is not quite a boardgame, fellas. As for the projection that Bush’s re-election would mean a world war, I’d like to hear an elaboration please, before I decide where I disagree with the projection.
IRT #51 (Kodanshi)
Though in his defence I must say that Bush would probably have gone more off his head and straight into Iraq without letting inspectors in, etc. had Blair not held him back slightly.
I wonder where it shows that he allowed or disallowed the inspectors in, etc. The inspection process, overall, was a 12-year endeavour. Repeated offenses yielded nothing but new resolutions and lukewarm condemnation by UN member states, with the exception of the US delegation, which pushed for more stringent measures. I wonder what it is that you people choose as your timescale for deciding that the US action was "hasty" and that the US was champing at the bit… what timescale are you using?
(#46)
I just noticed your "give peace a chance" bit... What is the process of "peace", by the way? How does one wage "peace"? I can hardly wait for you to respond with something like "diplomatic pressure" and "economic sanctions"...
