Iraq vs US

Remove all ads!

Perhaps the motives of the U.S. are nefarious joacquin. Though I think it rather disingenuous to on the one hand say that motives that might justify intervention have nothing to do with why the U.N. might force a regime change and then pick your own motives to attribute which are contrary to the stated motives. Did that make sense? I'll rephrase -- you and others say that some stated motives should be ignored as being false and that proponents bring them up just to justify a war and then turn around and pick your own motives in an attempt to make the war look unjustified. Where is the difference?

Again though, let me ask: how is it that what Iraq under Hussein has done is not enough for a forced regime change but what happened in Kosovo was enough to send Europe begging to the U.S. for help?

 

Out of curiosity, Laches, why do you feel the US should contain rather than eliminate?

 

"The chemicals Saddam so horrible used on his unrested and unwilling subjects in northern Iraq had been supplied by the US, as had the chemicals that was used against Iran. There was a hearing in the US senate about this a while ago so confirmation should be easy to get by. So you cant really judge Saddam for the atrocities he commited against the kurds and the iranians with chemical weapons during the 80's without the same time condemning the supplier of chemical weapons, the United states of America."
That doesn't make much since Joacqin. It would be like someone going out and killing someone with a firearm or any weapon and trying to accuse the person who sold the weapon to the killer of murder. It was Saddam who massacred those people not the US.
The other point I wanted to make (OK, it's my opinion not a point) is that I don't think the US should attack Iraq without probable cause: not letting the UN inspectors do their job and trying to withhold from completing his end of the resolution. If Saddam continues to not allow these inspections and does have weapons of destruction then I say that it's war time (and I'm for most forms of warfare which I won't get in to here on this particular thread.)

 

Capstone, the reason I think we shouldn't seek a regime change is that the U.S. since the Gulf War has adopted the "Powell doctrine." You now hear our military say things like, "it's our job to blow things up and kill people." It seems to now be accepted that the military should be used to go in only after achieving political support with overwhelming force, achieve a clear objective, and then leave. That's a popular idea in the U.S. today and hence politically as a reaction to the images surrounding the Vietnam War.

The problem as I see it is that sometimes the military can't just go in and leave. After WWII it was the U.S. military that rebuilt Japan. The U.S. military was so involved that military peronnel would be in the classrooms of Japan making sure what was being taught was what they had approved.

I think that to really stabalize the region a similar type of commitment would be necessary today. If such a commitment was made and handled properly the results could be one of the real shining moments in U.S. history; a moment where we could look back in the future and say that the actions of the U.S. truly resulted in a better world.

That commitment would likely take decades and an incredible amount of resources would need to be poured into the region, as we did with Japan.

With the Powell doctrine being the rule of the day though I don't think we are willing to use our military in such a manner. I also think for political reasons the U.S. would be unwilling to spend decades and the resources necessary. Some of those political reasons are domestic. Other political reasons are the complaints and pressure the U.S. would receive from Europeans who have become entrenched in relativism and an anti-U.S. mode of thought; combining the two there were many Europeans who defended the treatment of women in the middle east as "cultural differences" and I'd imagine the same type of arguments would surface.

Since I don't think the U.S. would be willing to make the commitment necessary and since the U.N. is incompetent the likely result would be to set up some type of pseudo-democracy with a hand picked dictator.

The picking would be tricky. Can't be a Kurd or Turkey will throw a fit and destabalize the region. Have to be careful with the Souther tribes of Iraq or you'll send Iran over the edge (Iran is at an VERY delicate time right now where they'll either sink back into oppression or will begin to make real strides toward reform -- there is a HUGE showdown on the horizon between elected reformist politicians and the old guard clergy/judiciary.)

In short, there are too many ways to make things worse if you aren't willing to make a serious long term commitment. While containment allows attrocities to continue (and they are going on right now in Iraq) Hussein has at least been limited. He's only murdering and torturing now by the dozens and hundreds instead of by the hundreds of thousands. If we went in and left without a commitment though I think we could destabalize Iran, Saudi Arabia (they ain't no saints), and possibly Turkey. The ramifications of strengthening the old guard in Iran, fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, and potentially civil war in Turkey would likely make any temporary stability gained in Iraq precarious indeed.

In short, IF the U.S. was willing to make a long term commitment to stabalizing the region following the war as we did with Japan I would whole-heartedly support military intervention. Since I don't think we are willing to do that the margin of error is too narrow and the possible negative consequences outgain the benefits.

A case in point on why I think we aren't willing to make the kind of commitment needed: Afghanistan today.

 

Absolutely, at some occasions there even bad as the Taliban were. like no holidays, not even the birthday of Mohammed. Arabia, being a fundamentalist muslim means you should follow the Koran, not your own heart. . Thats why I dissaprove with fundamentalist, because of their unreallistic view on the world.

[Wooohoooo!! *me doing boogie*, a new gem!!]

[ November 27, 2002, 07:28: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Actually the chemicals Saddam used came from a couple of developed countries, including germany .... so I clearly remember a company with the name Immhausen to do so (the blessings of beeing old ). They received their tanks from France and Russia - as well as swedish antitank weapons, their artillery they got froim South-Africa, their communications equipment from the UK, their transport helicopters from the US etc etc. Every western country made good money with Saddam's buildup agaisnt the then "forces of evil", aka fundemantilst Iran.

Saddam is dangerous - he has proven to be so, starting war against Kuwait and Iran as well as cruelly crushing any internal resistance. Not only that, he pumps the money from his oil sales into his forces buildup while his people are suffering, blaming the UN sanctions and namely the US with their deaths due to uinsufficient medical supplies. He refuses to obey to the rule of international law. So if the US enforce his UN obligations that's a good thing, even if this means war.

But when the US do it in a way that makes the UN look like a weak aidee of US war plans that damages the reputation and credibility of then UN - and that it is criminal and the major stupidity of Bush is to be found in the fact that his clumsy Cowboy-rhetorics underline this (wrong) perception.

 

I'd need a couple of lessons from the history of Iraq and its surroundings and a real accurrate description of the current political conditions there and in the US and all in between. Because I don't have much of either, nor any interest in acquiring it, I'll just say this:

Obviously all this talk of "peace" and what is "humane" is not getting us far. Obviously people do have to be forced to better their ways. Obviously we of the better developed countries too often think we know better than others, that our customs and culture is more civilized and important than those of others.
I don't care wether the war comes or not. None of us really know what all is involved in it, so none of us can really base our opinions on anything realistic. Perhaps a war will come and it will be for the better, or perhaps not and that will prove to be the best solution. But honestly, whatever it is that's going to happen, probably is deserving of the good old phrase "**** happens".
As a sideremark, I can't believe the idiot that is currently acting as the president of the US. I honestly remained quite sure that he can't be as dumb as he looks and sounds and acts for a long time. But over time I learned that obviously some things are as they look, or then he has a serious lack of social skills (which makes you wonder how one such would ever get to be a president since it's a very important skill for one so powerful a political figure).

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm from Finland.

[ November 27, 2002, 10:30: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

Okay I'll make this short and quick.

Go to war with Iraq if they provoke, threaten other countries, or if weapons of mass destruction are found by the inspectors etc. and aren't allowed to dismantle them. Also, if the inspectors are suddenly never heard of.

A nuclear strike by the US or Britain would not be necessary. Basically, deploying of troops, specialized troops, gunships and a heafty number of aircraft should prove more then sufficient.

Once Suddam is eliminated, allow either the US or Britain to maintain a 'sphere of influence' over Iraq until a leader of some good reputation comes to power. Once done, the US and British armed forces should leave and let Iraq get on with it. Perhaps the US or Britain could loan Iraq money to help rebuild it. Saying that, other, more financially stable countries like Britain and the US could do the same.

Okay, so I said this would be short and quick but lets admit, once you get into it, you can't really stop now can you? Anyway, I've tried to keep this minimal. I suppose i could go on alittle bit more but i don't want to bore you readers ... yet

 

I know that everyone sold weaponry to Iraq, what got missed out during my rant above was that the chemicals and biological weapons I mean wasnt sold to Iraq by the US, they were given, free of charge. As a show of goodwill or whatever, that is why I think the US has some part of the blame as they gave it away for free with no economical goal. It is very hard to stop states to sell things to eachother as money unquestionable rules this world but when the arms are given away I think you can start to wonder why and if they couldnt imagine them being used.

Laches, I didnt say that all the other reasons are false, I just said that they werent the most important. Hussein hasnt grown any worse this last year than he has been for decades. Why then hasnt someone acted before? Saddam's atrocities and defying of the peace treaty are justification for war, not the reasons. That doesnt mean that they are not true.

 

BOC,
You are not as thick as you are behaving. You stated that the disarming of Iraq was a UN resolution (meaning it was voted on by the UN and not necessarily agreed to by the other party), then compared it to other UN resolutions that were ignored.
When I pointed out that it was not a resolution, but terms of surrender, you posted:

You correctly state that it is an agreement between the UN and Iraq. That is different from a UN resolution.
It was part of the terms of surrender
Therefore, if Iraq does not abide by the terms, the surrender is void, the war is back on.

Last, I never stated that the agreement was between the US and Iraq. So, again, the rest of you response is meaningless.

 

I've been beating this drum before joacqin: who cares? Assume that the motives are nefarious for wanting Hussein out. If there are independent reasons (read genocide) which would mean his removal is a good thing then isn't it still a good thing for him to be removed. The only ramifications of Bush not having good motives is he doesn't deserve moral praise for doing the right thing.

It's like if I decided to give to charity only for tax reasons. I wouldn't deserve a moral pat on the back because my reasons weren't altruistic. That doesn't make giving to charity bad though. It's still a good thing to do.

So, once again, since I think it disingenuous for many Europeans to blame the U.S. for not getting involved quickly enough in the war in Kosovo, justified by genocide, and then blame the U.S. for wanting to remove Hussein while they ignore a similar type of genocide and a similar type of regime of torture and murder. If war is justified in one isn't it in the other?

It's not that I think war would be unjustified here, just that what follows might do more harm.

 

Laches, I hear comments like "I think it disingenuous for many Europeans to blame the U.S. for not getting involved quickly enough in the war in Kosovo" all the time, but I've lived in Europe half my life and the only time I ever hear complaints that Americans don't get sufficiently involved in foreign wars, is from Americans themselves. Who are the "many Europeans" to whom you refer? Certainly most of Europe values United Nations peacekeepers, but contrary to what Americans seem to believe, the average European does not reproach the United States for not getting directly involved in such matters. Quite the contrary.

 

Saddam is like a bankrobber - he's holding his country and the future of the middle east captive for a couple of years now and over all the negotiations and his playing cat and mice with the UN and the US and the UK we got used to it, so much we no longer care.

Underway and mainly unnoticed in the time after the armistice he again massacred both kurds and shiites in his country using again gas against them (it was the shiites turn this time). Without US presence keeping an eye and the occasional bomb on him be would again bully his smaller neighbours, if not again occupy them.

Even though I'm still sceptical about the general US Iraq policy and Bush's ability to guide it I recognise the need to deal with Saddam. The primary goal is to force him to again accept the UN disarmamanet inspections. However, you never know what he dug in in the vast deserts of his country - the inspections have to be taken seriously, intensively and over a longer period to grant success.

[ November 27, 2002, 17:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

dont complain on the religion... the christian have also been bad before and now... like king Arthur of England and king Gustav Vasa of Sweden...

 

What does religion have to with anything? Dubya isn't trying to convert anyone, just enforce agreements that have been abused for 10 years. If he can protect the interests of the petroleum companies that are some of his biggest backers, that's just a side benefit. When in doubt, follow the money. Pardon me, my cynical side is showing.

In some ways it's too bad that Saddam and the US haven't maintained the relationship they had during the Iran/Iraq conflict, when he was our best friend over there. Right now Iraq is the most secular state in the Middle East. Seems to me that we all could use a little less violence in the name of religion.

 

i think that they down there is just wanting the money... darn capitalistic pigs... then they just say "its the religion"...

 

Sprite, the U.S. didn't want anything to do with the war in Kosovo. The Clinton administration was particularly reluctant to be involved there but the Europeans continually lambasted the U.S. for not getting involved soon enough.

The U.S./NATO's involvement in Kosovo came late and only after tremendous pressure since Clinton didn't want to touch it; you would commonly hear officials in the U.S. say that the Europeans should take care of their own backyard. Under mounting international pressure though the U.S. finally became involved on March 24, 1999. Milosevic came to power in 1987. The U.S. in 1992 under the first Bush warned Milosevic that it would use force if necessary to push the Serbs back if they attacked Kosovo. Bush lost the presidency to Clinton who retracted these statements and took a hands off policy with regards to Kosovo. In October of 1998 the U.S. finally agreed to try to broker a deal. The deal fell through but the U.S. still stongly opposed sending any troops into the region. Under pressure from Europe -- particularly France, Germany, Sweden, and England the U.S. finally agreed to send troops and did so in 1999.

I'm certain if you search long enough you can find old newspaper articles archived back in 1998 and 1999 about the reluctance of the U.S. to become involved and the outcry from Europe.

EDIT -- I also mean the U.S. was being lambasted by European governments and press, the circle of people who you knew then may not have wanted the U.S. involved, I have no idea about that.

[ November 27, 2002, 20:34: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

What I don't understand is why we have to bomb them for them not letting us inspect there missiles and other millitary based objects the only reason we want to get in there and check it out is because we want to make sure that we have the toughest army suplies at all times if any one is coming close to being strong we bomb them to protect us. I think other countries need there own self defense to. Now once they act upon us with bombing or invading with troops then we should go after them.

 

Heh, can you imagine how theyre inspecting the weapons..

Inspector points at abonded rocket: Ey whats that over there
Iraqi Soldier: iet ies a olde roacket, we no uses anymore
Inspector writes in his notebook while mumbling: Two rockets with nuclear launch aimed at D.C.