Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States...

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by Sawyer:

Oh now seriously. You can't really tell me Daddy Bush didn't want Saddam gone? It was the Public Opinion, Congress, and the UN that stopped him from doing so. And I think we probably could have, but at a higher loss of life than Bush - and the US Public - was willing to pay.
After all, look how we (err... NATO) took out the Leader of Yugoslavia. We didn't do it, but we made moves to help those that could, and did.

He did but coalition allies such as Canada and Syria didn't. That's why they didn't go in; Congress would have supported the president and the public opinion polls were in his favour. As far as the U.N. is concerned, stopping him would have been difficult then, with military resources located in the area and ready the U.N. would have been a spectator.

As much as this may seem as a personal affair, it isn't. Bush Sr. did what he set out to do (i.e. secure Saudi Oil and Kuwaiti independence) and thus U.S. interest. There is nothing more to go after here. Bush Jr. is after Al-Qaeda, terrorist supporters, sympathizers and regimes which aid them. That's his burden as a president after the sept.11th attacks.

[C5]

Originally posted by Ramage
One of the reasons that the USA has gotten the "short end of the stick" is the fact that it is the only superpower on the block. This makes it a big target for people dissatisfied with the state of the world.

It is easy in some ways to compare the position of the US to that of McDonald's and Microsoft. Both of the these corporations are huge. You cannot get away from them. They often act in an arrogant manner, as if what is good for them is good for all. But when they do good, people say it is not enough just due to their size and wealth. As the big kids on the block, they are the automatic targets for hatred.

The US is in an odd position. It has something like 5% of the world's population, about 20% of its wealth, and consumes a vast percentage of the world's natural resources. Yes, the US does aid foreign countries, but at a lower percentage level than other industrialized nations. In addition many of our largest companies may be found everywhere in the world -- Disney, McDonald's, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Starbuck's. The United States appears to be everywhere and appears to be making the world safe for its own companies, even when it hires locals at a fraction of what they would pay an employee in the USA.

The US also acts as if all people, especially those who disagree with us, should be under exactly the same form of government as the US, even if the other nation in question has never had a tradition of democracy. And yet the US has shown it is quite willing to back non-democracies as long as their leaders are willing to back the US and its corporations.

The United States has done a hell of a lot of good in this world. It has also caused many problems. Through the combination of short-sightedness, wealth, arrogance, and just luckily being the biggest kid on the block the US is both admired and hated. It goes with the territory.

I couldn't have said better, Ramage. Well done!

On the Iraq topic, I think the trouble is simply that some people feel there is not enough evidence to justify a war with Iraq. And you see, when the only superpower in the world starts to declare war with countries based on what seems like dim suppositions, it's quite easy to start fearing that they won't stop here and start to make wars with wichever country they don't like for a reason or another.

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by C5

On the Iraq topic, I think the trouble is simply that some people feel there is not enough evidence to justify a war with Iraq. And you see, when the only superpower in the world starts to declare war with countries based on what seems like dim suppositions,
[snip]

That's one of the reasons I suggested Bush's address be read in its entirety, where he outlines a history of UN Security Council Resolutions and Iraq's response to each. Based on what CNN reported (or other networks) I'd be inclined to view the Bush address as consisting of "we don't like Saddam Hussein". (Which is how the medium works - 5 secound sound bites). I think the actual address was pretty well-argured. It still might be something people disagree with, but it's definitely the best case Bush has made. In addition, he framed it entirely in the context of UN resolutions. He also urged the Security Council to take action:

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Again though, this is still a "sound-bite" - I do feel the whole address should be considered.

[Capt.Hunter]

The challenge to the UN to act was more a direct challenge of the UN, since Bush knows the UN has been so emasculated in terms of having any real muscle that it probably can't force Hussein to comply, and will therefore fail, allowing the US to ride to the "rescue".

I welcome his saying that if Hussein complies with the conditions there will be no action, but he then attached so many conditions it could take up to a year to comply (he didn't just ask for the inspectors, but for democratic elections, release of Gulf War prisoners and a lot more besides - processes that could take much longer than the US government seems prepared to wait).

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by C5


I couldn't have said better, Ramage. Well done!

On the Iraq topic, I think the trouble is simply that some people feel there is not enough evidence to justify a war with Iraq. And you see, when the only superpower in the world starts to declare war with countries based on what seems like dim suppositions, it's quite easy to start fearing that they won't stop here and start to make wars with wichever country they don't like for a reason or another.

I disagree... Partially. The evidence is that Hussain is actively looking to build and make nukes, and that given access to the right materials could do so within months. All good and propper, and quite correct. we all knew this back in Gulf War 1.

Trouble is, thats not evidence. Hell a Physics graduate with the right materials can build an atomic device in a couple of weeks.

Hell I even saw the design blueprints with building instructions online once... But the Anarchists cookbook got taken offline (or moved) a long time ago...

Not to mention the 50 x 1 kilotonne briefcase nukes that the Russians have absolutely no idea about where they are... As Styro said, the fissionable material is probably old, but it would be easy enough to replace if you have the means to find one of these WMD's...

So the ability to want and build nukes is not compelling enough, what he didn't say is that Mutual Destruction only works when neither side wants to die. Fundamentalists do not have this problem, and THAT is what makes the aquisition scary.

Of course if he did say that, he is turning the point into a religious one, and that the other thing Fundamentalistslike to deal with.

Its a case of damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I totally agree that Hussain and his ilk (current and historical; Mugabe, Osama, Hitler, Stalin, etc) are a danger to their regions and if allowed to fester are like cancer... they spread. Problem is there is no real viable alternative, and war simply fans the fire.

I dont like war. I think that war means that we have lost far more than we have gained, and that the loss of many freedoms acorss the western world (both for the citizens and prisoners), the fact that it becoming increasingly clear that we have to enact one rule for us and one rule for them, and that for a moment yesterday, I found myself in horrific agreement with a TV news statement by a Nazi (see my thread yestreday)... We are being left with little option.

I dont like war. I'll question its neccesity, and oppose an unjust cause. (for the record, Iraq is not an unjust cause, but the lack of long-term plans for AFTRE Husseins removal, and the precident of simply invading sovereign state because we disagree with the government, ie; Gunboat Diplomacy, are what causes me concern here). But at the end of the day, we are on the same side, and if hostilities breakout, I will stick by my country and my friends. And I hope that I, that we, will be able to see when enough is enough, and that such a time will return...

[Capt.Hunter]

Good points, Dan. Particularly about the easy construction of basic nukes. Anyone with a ping-pong ball-sized blob of uranium, some plastique and a metal lathe with a skilled operator could make a nuke that could generate a three mile blast radius. The problem is getting the stuff in the first place. It was on the news that Hussein might be trying to smuggle in components for the big centrifuges you need to purify the uranium. What they didn't say was that each centrifuge takes up a large building and you need a row of about twenty of them. There's absolutely no way you can hide something like that from satellite photos, so he's not going to be dumb enough to try it. A lot of this stuff about nukes is mere scaremongering - the biologicals are a far worse threat, as they're much easier to make in large quantities.

As for the mutaally assured destruction thing, while you're right about Fundamentalists, I'm pretty sure we know that Saddam values his own ass very highly indeed...

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
The challenge to the UN to act was more a direct challenge of the UN, since Bush knows the UN has been so emasculated in terms of having any real muscle that it probably can't force Hussein to comply, and will therefore fail, allowing the US to ride to the "rescue".

Boy do I wish I could re-find the cartoon Beware the Paper Tiger .

[Ramage]

Should Hussein be out of power? Oh yes.

Could we do it? No questions asked.

SHOULD the US do it? There is the rub...

The problem now is a matter of building a case that will convince people. This is one of the major stumbling blocks of a democracy and the US is trying to work with two different democracies -- it's own government/people and the court of world opinion. The US has to convince both bodies that it is justified in acting. Not 100% of the members in each group, but a good, solid majority. If the US does not, it appears to act unilaterally and further undermines its own image in the world at large.

As I have said in previous posts I both hate war and admire W.T. Sherman. My feeling is that wars should be fought to win -- that means you have to have a very clear goal and then go "balls out", not kidding around in the slightest. That was the greatest problem with the Gulf War -- the goal was unclear and we went in strong and then pulled back. If Saddam Hussein had been taken out then there would have been little resistance. Since then we have had to try and build a solid case again and have done a poor job.

But fighting is the easy part of any war. It is the peace afterwards where matters really get messy. Currently the US has a notion to getting Hussein out of power. There is no, zero, zippo, nada plan for what to replace him with other than a vague "let the people decide". Would the US allow Iraq to fracture into multiple states if that is the will of the local people? Would it allow the election of a Sunni Muslim government aligned with Iran? Would it allow the Kurds to form their own nation when the Kurds want to unite ALL Kurds, including those in several surrounding nations? Or would the US back yet another strongman to keep the nation pacified?

Certainly at the moment there is no organized or unified group fighting against Hussein poised to take power when he is toppled. Many of the Iraqi "leaders" who showed up in Washington have little backing in Iraq and little or no love for each other.

It's very easy to start a war.

What's tricky is to end one.

[Cybrludite]

We didn't have much of a plan for ending WWII, either. (Except for maybe, "putting Hitler & Tojo's heads on a pike"...) I seem to recall hearing this same complaint about Afghanistan this time last year...

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
We didn't have much of a plan for ending WWII, either. (Except for maybe, "putting Hitler & Tojo's heads on a pike"...) I seem to recall hearing this same complaint about Afghanistan this time last year...

Do you want to show me how Afghanistan is a stable political climate.

How the emplaced government still isn't under threat from the Taliban (or Al Queda apparently last week)... Despite their US supplied bodyguards...

How the Warlords havn't divided the countryside that nobody is interested in into petty fiefdoms restricting travel and the civil liberties of the people within theise 'fiefs'. After all, no Warlord moved his troops into a base in use by the Royal Marines and declared victory, please remove your troops NOW!...

Your absolutely right. Its a model society... How could I have thought thne long-term goals were flawed???

Really guys. It must be getting late if I can spot the gaping holes in these arguements!

[Ramage]

Actually I remember a lot of people wondering/complaining about governments-to-be for Afghanistan last yeat, but I guess I just hang around such a crowd. There was also the matter that the al Queida network had been tied to Khabull and the government there was generally on everyone's "bad guy" list, including all their neighbours. For many governments it was assumed that a destablized Afghanistan would be no worse than Khabul under the Taliban.

I think this also points to part of the problem of Iraq. Since the would-be invasion has been couched in terms of, and in conjunction with, the "war on terrorism" (a singularly ill-defined conflict, to say the least), many people have been expecting that the Bush administration would somehow connect Iraq with current terrorist efforts. Such has not happened and so this leaves a hole in the equation for many people, including our potential allies.

So, yes, the question of a government post-Hussein does come up and it is a legitimate concern. Unlike Afghanistan, where there was already a (actually multiple) organized opposition groups within the nation, Iraq has several individual voices of dissent, but no organized group -- indeed, many of the individual voices are vehemently at odds with each other to the point where it would be impossible for them to work together to create a single state.

The debate continues. It has not been decided. In the end there will probably be violence because people disagree. The problem is that the violence may solve one problem, but it will probably create several more.

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Ramage
I think this also points to part of the problem of Iraq. Since the would-be invasion has been couched in terms of, and in conjunction with, the "war on terrorism" (a singularly ill-defined conflict, to say the least), many people have been expecting that the Bush administration would somehow connect Iraq with current terrorist efforts. Such has not happened and so this leaves a hole in the equation for many people, including our potential allies.

You mean besides the $25,000 he gives to the families of sucessful suicide bombers in Israel? There have been reports that Saddam's been using an Al Queda group in northern Iraq to harrass the Kurds. And there was the small matter of sheltering Abu Nidal until he became too much of a security risk.

[First of Two]

Originally posted by Dan Gurden


Do you want to show me how Afghanistan is a stable political climate.

How the emplaced government still isn't under threat from the Taliban

etc...

Your absolutely right. Its a model society... How could I have thought thne long-term goals were flawed???

You see? THIS is why Japan is beating up on the Western world, technologically speaking! Westerners think six months is LONG-TERM!