Political:Powell Spoke.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
I guess that is the reason why we have international comitees to decide upon such important issues, where thousands of lives are at stake.

And we know how useful committees are...

[DynaMup]

Just to throw in my two pennies too...

There is very little support for a war on Iraq here in Britain, despite what our esteemed foreign secretary (Jack Straw) may have said. It may also be worth noting that Straw is reckoned to be one of the most inept senior ministers ever to grace the British government.

Of course, there are those who are pro-war, but they are in the minority. Sure, you may have our bone-headed Prime Minister standing next to Dubya, delivering all these tough speeches and saying we'll back the Americans to the hilt...but you don't have the confidence of the British people.

But...of course...America can do what it likes.

[REG]

Originally posted by DynaMup
but you don't have the confidence of the British people.

So what else is new? * yawns *

[DynaMup]

Well, Americans do tend to get the job done (from time to time), but do it in a very messy way. I'm betting there will be plenty of friendly fire "incidents" in the coming months.

Seriously, if there wasn't such a moronic President in the Whitehouse, there would be far greater support for a war on Iraq.

It amuses me, though, in this "countdown to war"...Dubya probably couldn't manage to get down from 10 to zero to start the show...

[Dan Stack]

DynaMup -

I don't like it too much in debate when people are referred to as morons, whether they be Chirac or Bush. Bush couldn't count from ten to zero? Give me a break. I think that stance weakens any argument you might make as it makes me far less likely to take those arguments seriously.

[DynaMup]

We are talking about the same president that has entire websites given over to his rather ill-phrased statements? "More and more of our imports are coming from overseas" ring any bells?

Okay, taking Bush out of the picture for a moment (because he's surrounded by advisers, policymakers, etc, who really determine what America's policies are), here are my main reasons for not supporting a war, and my suggested alternative.

1) America does not support the interests of countries other than its own (like most). Why, therefore, should Britain commit to a war against a country that has neither a) aggressed us, or b) threatened any of our interests?

2) British military support is not needed. Though we still maintain some of the best armed forces in the world, we cannot compare with the sheer availability of American firepower. America can win any war it chooses, because it has more resources than most continents.

3) Soon after the horrific events of 9/11, America's response was to attack and invade Afghanistan. Terrible as these events were, I think more planning should have gone into things before the US started seeing the world only as Allies and an "Axis of Evil". Over the last hundred years, thousands have been killed in Britain from Irish terrorism (the IRA still draws most of its funding from America). Should we, therefore, go and flatten Dublin? Why not?

4) America has made it clear they will act without a UN mandate. Saying such things reduces the UN to an inept body, incapable of making any real difference. It saddens me greatly to think that the only major world political organisation can just be steamrolled into the ground.

5) Where will this stop? After Iraq, will America also attack North Korea? They have nuclear weapons, too. Or is the threat they pose to American interests in the Pacific too great? Does America actually have the guts to attack an enemy that can retaliate against its homeland? Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and have been irresponsible with them over the past decade, testing them provocatively close to each others' borders. Do we invade them too? The northern reaches of Pakistan are also a hotbed for terrorists.

6) American tanks rolling into Baghdad are not going to be greeted as "liberators" from Saddam's evil regime. They will be seen as aggressors, imperialists - whatever you want to call them. I doubt there will be much cooperation in the event of an American-led invasion, or many uprisings of note.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There, those are my main reasons for opposing a war on Iraq at the present time. All questions are hypothetical, and meant to stimulate the debate. Now, a suggested alternative:

1) I do not like the idea of a pre-emptive strike against a country based on what they "might" do. I have no doubt that Saddam Hussain is evil, and his regime is nothing short of tyrannical, however. I also doubt that it has much support from the ordinary people, despite what the TV pictures may say. Would not a covert psychological war be effective in some way? Just a thought.

2) How about threatening Saddam Hussain with overwhelming force (by which I mean nuclear) if he is seen to be planning aggressive action against another sovereign state? This threat would be serious, and not need to be made through the UN, or rely on NATO allies, or anything else. It would also possibly see a greater level of support from the international community.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If you made it this far through the post, I hope you found something in there to stimulate a few ideas. I don't expect, nor seek, to convert anybody from "Hawk" to "Dove", but I had to say my piece.

[Captain Novaes]

Originally posted by The Transformed Man
Anyway, I have to go... taking my kids to play futbol this morning. I'll continue my little diatribe on Latin America later today... and boy wait until I get to the part where I start criticizing U.S. foriegn policy in the region.

Yancy

Thanks for the insight, Yancy. You are right on the money on the wages issue.

Can hardly wait for what you have to say about US foreign policy

Anyway, if you´d like to carry on this discussion via private mail, feel free. I can be found here

[The Transformed Man]

Well, let's address some of DynaMup's arguements (note this is loooonggg):

1) "America does not support the interests of countries other than its own (like most). Why, therefore, should Britain commit to a war against a country that has neither a) aggressed us, or b) threatened any of our interests?"

Great question, but with that logic why did the U.S. get involved in the European theater during WWII. Let's face it, only the Japanese had aggressed us. I mean seriously, it wasn't like Hitler had any capability to cross the Atlantic and invade us. He had very little equipment capable of transporting the sheer numbers of troops and men needed to pose a threat to us.

Or for that matter why bail Europe (and especially the French) out of WWI... yeah, that's a great idea. Frankly, we had absolutely no national interests in that war, and the Kaiser posed no threat to us. Hey, let's just go back to our isolationist policies... that will work, great strategery there ;-)

Oh, but wait... Saddam has aggressed both us (the U.S.) and the British. Saddam fired on British and US fighter planes patrolling the UN sanctioned "no fly zone" some 450 times in 2002.

Sorry, but Saddam is a threat, with the growing evidence that Al-Qaeda has ties to Iraq, how long do you think it will be before he gives them a WMD to commit acts of terror abroad... Did you also happen to listen to the part of Powell's briefing about Saddam's attempts to develop nuclear weapons.. why does he need them, and why is he trying to hide his efforts to aquire them. Hell, at least North Korea, admits it has a nuclear program, and is intending to build nuclear weapons... gotta give them credit for that.

2) "British military support is not needed. Though we still maintain some of the best armed forces in the world, we cannot compare with the sheer availability of American firepower. America can win any war it chooses, because it has more resources than most continents."

Nope, your support is not needed, but it is greatly appreciated... next.

3) "Soon after the horrific events of 9/11, America's response was to attack and invade Afghanistan. Terrible as these events were, I think more planning should have gone into things before the US started seeing the world only as Allies and an "Axis of Evil". Over the last hundred years, thousands have been killed in Britain from Irish terrorism (the IRA still draws most of its funding from America). Should we, therefore, go and flatten Dublin? Why not?"

What planning was needed??? We knew Al-Qaeda committed the act, and we knew Al-Qaeda was based out of Afghanistan, and supported by the Taliban regime... what more planning do you need? As for the "Axis of Evil" I think it's very appropriate to seperate countries, and attitudes towards those countries based on their support (or non-support) of terrorist activities.

Oh, btw, the IRAs funding come from individual Irish-Americans who support the IRA cause (not the US government). For what it's worth, I think any American who is found to send money to the IRA, or Sinn Fein should be booted out of the country. Oh, and you don't seriously advocate the bombing of Dublin do you? It's in Ireland, I'm sure you meant Belfast, right?

4) "America has made it clear they will act without a UN mandate. Saying such things reduces the UN to an inept body, incapable of making any real difference. It saddens me greatly to think that the only major world political organisation can just be steamrolled into the ground."

Good, I'll cheer the day the UN is thrown into the "ash heap of history," along with the ill-conceived League of Nations. The UN is a complete waste and has lost any moral authority it ever had in the world. The organization has become nothing more than a soapbox for countries with anti-US, and anti-Semetic sentiments. Sorry, but the organization, and it's view toward Israel are horribly racist. The UN is nothing more than a hold over from a bygone era and the old Western European attitude of the "white man's burden".

Yeah, let's take a bunch of third-world countries (sorry, we need to be PC, they are "developing countries"), and force them to conform to our superior Western (i.e., white) ways. For example, your country's official religion is Roman Catholic (like most of Latin America), or at the very least over 90% of your populace supports Catholicism, consequently, Catholicism is at leat the "unofficial" state religion (as is the case in Panama). Does the UN has the right or authority to force those countries to accept abortion? Regardless of your stance on abortion, it's not the UN's business, but they sure make it their business.

Now from time to time the UN has come up with some good ideas like UNICEF, but most of their time is spent bashing the US or Israel, which now has chalked up 425 UN charter violations... but hey UN, before you start bashing Israel, why don't you speak out about the Arab custom of "honor killings" (the killing of women for alleged acts of sexual impropriety, such as holding hands with a man you're not married to) practiced in a number of Arab countires, including the allegedly cosmopolitan country of Jordan.

Yeah, this is a great organization. A organization which has now placed Lybia in charge of it's Human Rights commitee by a vote of 37-3 (the three opposed being the US, Canada, and Nicaragua), and 17 whopping abstentions (most from Europe... wow, what tremendous moral backbone there). Oh, and let's not forget in May, it's Iraq's turn to hold the UN's annual conference on military disarmament.... What a joke. Frankly if the US had any guts, we would quit the UN, and boot the organization out of New York City (which, by the way, suffers from police manpower shortages due to the vast amount of time the police waste giving out parking/driving citations to vehicles driven by diplomats from member states. At last count the continent of Africa alone owed some $28 million in driving citations, Zimbabwe being the biggest offender with over $3 miilion in citations alone. Of course, New York cannot collect this money because all of these diplomats have "Immunity").

5) I wont even bother with. It's pretty clear the Bush administration is intent on negotiating with North Korea, which by the way is great. At least North Korea has been transparent, and has admitted they have nuclear weapons, and intend to continue building them. You see, that's a negotiable position, unlike Saddam who has WMD, refuses to admit he has them, and continues to move them around the country so they cannot be found. North Korea has also shown in the past that they are very fond a saber rattling, but when bcaked into a corner, usually fold, and come to the table for talks. By the way, thanks Bill for putting us in this mess, selling that nuclear material to North Korea was a great idea.

As for a war in Iraq, what effect will it have, it will most certainly stabilize the region. We will have one more ally in the Middle East, and it will give countries like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen pause before funding further acts of terror. Maybe now we will start having some real cooperation from these countries in rooting out terrorist groups, and seizing their assets.

6) "American tanks rolling into Baghdad are not going to be greeted as "liberators" from Saddam's evil regime. They will be seen as aggressors, imperialists - whatever you want to call them. I doubt there will be much cooperation in the event of an American-led invasion, or many uprisings of note."

Sorry, but here you are flat wrong. I have a number of Kurdish and Iraqi friends who escaped Iraq, and still find ways to contact theiur families. These people cannot wait to be liberated, and US and Brisitish troops WILL be welcomed a liberators. As for Saddam, I doubt he will last more than a week after we roll into Iraq... His own generals will take care of that for us.

This is the "end game" for Saddam whether you like it or not.

Yancy

PS Again I apologize for the length of this reply.

[DynaMup]

Don't get me wrong, I'm no "Saddam lover"

Still, you made a number of very interesting points, so thanks for taking the time to reply.

So, my replies to your replies

1) On the question of history, the US entered WW2 for obvious reasons. It was aggressed by Japan, who were "allied" (even though Hitler considered them a sub-human race) to Germany. The US initially declared war on Japan, and would certainly not have preffered to get involved in the European theater of war. It was just pretty hard to fight Japan and not Germany...however, the US -had- been supplying vital foodstuffs, etc, to Britain previously. As for involvement in WW1, the US arrived very, very late into the conflict...and to go into the details will make this post far, far too long

2) Thanks

3) My problem with the attack on Afghanistan was the sheer destruction inflicted upon the whole country. Sure, several terrorist camps were blown into oblivion...but so was most of what was left of Afghanistan. I supported the action (and still do), but would like to see a little more caution and a little less gung-ho in US tactics. And of course I wasn't serious about bombing Dublin...I was just giving it as a hypothetical example - Afghanistan shields Al-Qaeda terrorists, America bombs Afghanistan. The Republic of Ireland shields IRA terrorists - we bomb Dublin? Of course not. But why not? Why is it different? And I did mean Dublin...It's not Northern Ireland that tries to be separate from the UK, but rather the Republic that wishes to take it.

4) I agree, the UN has become inept, and taking stands on issues like abortion is none of its business. As for the business with abstentions, that's a European way of saying "we oppose America, but can't be seen to do so", as I'm sure you know

5) Negotiating with North Korea? Last I heard, the US wanted to commit more troops to the region for fears of a "preemtive strike", to quote Kim Jong-Il. Sure, I know they saber-rattle a lot, and they're probably trying to stir trouble while things are happening in Iraq...but maybe not. And I agree with you about Clinton I doubt an invasion of Iraq will bring stability to the Middle-East, however. It'll certainly weed out one bad apple, but stomping over an already-weak country won't have a huge impact. If anything, I believe it'll harden opinion against the US and its allies. However, you didn't say anything about Pakistan or India.

6) We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think when the inevitable civilian casualties mount up, opinion will turn sharply against coalition forces. But what will be done when Saddam is ousted? Will we see Iraq divide into its ethnic groups? What will we do to ensure a stable country?

Anyway, its been fun so far debating the issue. I still think the -only- (and I stress -only-) good thing that will come of this war will be the removal of Saddam Hussein...but it will come at a price. If we could promise that it would be quick, decisive and with a minimum of casualties, then I would actually be in favour of a war. However, I think that the US will revert to the traditional strategy of high-altitude bombing and racking up a huge body count.

I just wish there was another way. Thanks for your post, Yancy. It certainly gave me much to think about.

[Dan Stack]

Just an observation or two...

Does America actually have the guts to attack an enemy that can retaliate against its homeland

I believe an attack on Iraq would qualify as such, given the reports of terrorists planning to attack US subways. I know I'll be having fun on the subways in Boston/Cambridge this week.

That said, one thing that I wonder about. I've heard here and elsewhere the suggestion... not quite stated, so I can be misreading - that America does not want a "fair fight" - for example, America using massive aeriel bombardment prior to any ground assault. The document qerlin referred to, while long, had some interesting insight on American military strategy. America fights to win. If the enemy has a force of ten, its best to have a force of a thousand against him. I can't believe other countries do not have a similar strategy. That leads me to...

A question - one I will not pretend is easy - in the event of what one would agree is "just war" - as just as wars get at least - it need not be Iraq, but presume America is engaged in a war with a country in a war that cannot be avoided. By committing ground troops early in a campaign, is it worth the life of an American soldier to save the life of an enemy civilian? What is the ratio? Is it worth sacrificing one American soldier's life so that an enemy civilian will live? Not an easy question for us I imagine, but from the perspective of the commander-in-chief of the American forces, I imagine the answer is straightforward - he needs to put American lives first.



Moving to the North Korea front, I see a few differences. The first, and most obvious, is the balance of power is very different. One does not get into a fight one does not think one is likely to win save in the most dire of circumstances. An enemy with an enormous army and nuclear capability is one that must be treated differently than one you are trying to prevent from gaining such a capability. Might there be a need for military intervention? Possibly, even with the cost so high. But there is a difference.

There is, for all intents and purposes, no country that the leaders of Iraq will "listen to". But North Korea is beholden to the wishes of China and there are a number of things that China wants from the United States, ranging from better relations, cooperation with the Taiwan situation, more trade, etc. Some of it the US is probably willing to give to China, some of it probably not. Probably a lot of negotiation going on behind the scenes. I hope so. It strikes me that if such negotiation were to go on publically both countries (China and US) would be forced to "dig their heels in" and refuse to compromise once a sticking point were reached (recall the spy-plane incident from 2001), but in back-channel negotiation there is a lot more opportunity for diplomatic action. Recall how the US and China secretly normalized relations over 30 years ago. It would certainly be in keeping with the relations between the two powers.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think the US is run by warmongers. Diplomacy should be persued where possible. Both Rice and Powell have stated diplomatic means were being persued with North Korea. I believe that the administration has come to the conclusion that diplomacy has run its course with Iraq.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by Dynamup:

1) America does not support the interests of countries other than its own (like most). Why, therefore, should Britain commit to a war against a country that has neither a) aggressed us, or b) threatened any of our interests?

Simply, because he's given shelter to people who DO want to harm anything western, including Britain. Second, UK interests also exist in the region. The world price of oil, say Saddam got hold of Saudi oil fields (which he may do with WMD's in the future), have you any idea what the world price of oil would become?

Just to add something on the WW2 thing, IIR my history, Germany declared war on the U.S. thus making it their business.

Posted by Dynamup:

2) British military support is not needed. Though we still maintain some of the best armed forces in the world, we cannot compare with the sheer availability of American firepower. America can win any war it chooses, because it has more resources than most continents.

True, but its always better to show an ally your willing to risk soldiers and equipment rather than just pay lip service. I'm not exactly positive on the invasion plan, but from what I understand the spearhand into Baghdad is supposed to be led by British troops experienced in urban warfare, correct me if I'm wrong though.

Posted by Dynamup:

4) America has made it clear they will act without a UN mandate. Saying such things reduces the UN to an inept body, incapable of making any real difference. It saddens me greatly to think that the only major world political organisation can just be steamrolled into the ground.

Because it is useless. I was part of the North American U.N. run by the universities. We hardly could ever get anything done, it usually boiled down to a war of rhetoric. The U.N. is useless, its inept and completely blind to real-world facts. One of the many reasons I refused a position in the U.N. secretariat.

Everything Tranformed Man had to say about the U.N. is also true, we dealt with issues which were absolutely none of our business. Nice to see someone who also wants the U.S. to leave the U.N..

Posted by Dynamup:

6) American tanks rolling into Baghdad are not going to be greeted as "liberators" from Saddam's evil regime. They will be seen as aggressors, imperialists - whatever you want to call them. I doubt there will be much cooperation in the event of an American-led invasion, or many uprisings of note.

I covered this in another thread. Saddam rules with an iron fist, promotes his people (specifically from Tikrit his hometown), and overall your ruthless dictator. Do you actually believe that they give a damn about what Saddam wants them to say about America? Their told to come out and chant anti-american rhetoric by soldiers. Remember the NK protest, did you take a look at those people's faces? They couldn't have given a shiny rats ass what they were protesting against. Same goes for Eastern Europe, when it was communist people were also herded into public areas and told to chant anti-imperialist slogans. Then afterwards they were offered discount cigarettes (no surprise many stayed just for that, including my father who's the most anti-communist person you will ever meet).

Saddam is a Sunni while the majority is Shi'ite. May not make a big difference to you, but to them its important. He's a ruthless dictator and his people will be glad to be rid of him, by whatever intervening power. I'm not saying you should expect them to roll out into the streets and praise American GI's while Saddam is around, but don't expect any resistance from them either. From the Iraqis I know, their fed up with Saddam and his mob.

[Kevin]

I find it difficult to post here. I continue to find what I want to say already posted and said better then I could.

a couple of points I would like to bring up.

1.
1994 North Korea agreed not to produce nuclear weapons in exchanged for much needed humanitarian aid. Apart of the agreement UN inspectors were placed in their nuclear plants and camera set up to make sure they did not process weapons grade materials.

2002 North Korea anounced to the world it has nuclear weapons and plans on making more. And is now bullying its neighbors threatening to use Nukes if they don't get what they want.

2.
Years ago we had an aggressive nation penned in by restrictions on its armaments. It had a leader who dreamed of greater power and to expnad his borders. This leader and nation circumvented their treaty to create weapons they shouldn't have. This leader has waged war on its neighbors and its own people. The nation started off small and many of the world's powers did not think it would be a threat. In dealing with this nation their were calls for peace because war would have been to costly. This nation made a pact with its idealogical enemy and visa versa for a common goal. After the war to defeat this nation the nation was rebuilt by its conquerors and learned in conquerors' way of government. This nation has grown into a strong peaceful nation. After this war we all called out never again. Never again will we let this happen, let it get this far.


As a student of history I cannot ignore these two parallels. There is a belief we can stop 2 with the same inspections as 1. But 1 has shown that such inspections does not work.

War should always be the last step. Unfortunately sometimes the path isn't that long.

[Capt.Hunter]

Dan, going back to the question about America having the guts to stand up against someone who could retaliate against its homeland.

I thought about this recently - excepting the earliest days of the Union, the USA has never seriously faced the possibility of an invasion from a military force. European nations, on the other hand, have - and often were. Even during WWII, America never suffered bombing raids from an enemy. Could this be part of the American attitude to war - especially civilian casualties? Apart from 9/11, which wasn't a sustained military attack, the US rarely suffers civilian casualties in conflict - certainly not on their home soil. By contrast, the Europeans (Britain and Germany in particular) have suffered massive civilian casualties during bombing raids in WWII. I suspect this colours our attitude to bombing cities.

[DynaMup]

On the point about British troops, we've committed the Parachute Regiment, 3 Commando and the Royal Marines, all of which could well be used to spearhead an assault on Iraq. They're some of our finest troops, and not the sort that would be used in great quantity. You can also bet your bottom dollar that the SAS are already operating inside Iraq, and I guess they need no introduction at all. So, though our manpower commitment is far less than the US (obviously), it seems we have contributed all our elite forces (it's still around 31,000 personnel, with more due to be called up).

Oh, and the Royal Air Force are around...not to mention HMS Ark Royal, our one and only aircraft carrier (which I believe is to be used to station American helicopters on board).

It's the biggest British commitment for a long, long time, and will probably outnumber the forces we sent to the Gulf in 1991 eventually. I am a reservist myself - nothing glamorous, just an LGV driver in a medical unit - and though we're not expecting to go anywhere yet, I expect at some point this year I'll be having the wrong kind of beach holiday. Equally, we are expecting to commit many members of the Royal Logistics Corps (trucks, transport, etc), the Royal Engineers and the Royal Army Medical Corps. I also expect we'll see the Army Air Corps whizzing around in their little choppers at some point.

I do take some pride in saying that we produce some of the finest troops in the world in this country, and always have done. I hope that they're used to bring the conflict to a swift end.

[Evan van Eyk]

I think it is exactly as you say, Dan. The US never saw modern war on their own ground and therefore are easy to go when a war is to be done ( no offense meant ). As Europe was a battlefield for our two worst wars in history and we still have living people who remember that, we hesitate more. I do not know about the US but over here WWI and WWII are covered intensively in history courses at school and thus our students have quite a good picture of war, although certainly far away from being complete.


Just as a side note: In WWI Germany attacked a US hospital vessel - which made the US enter the war in 1917 (?), primarily by supporting flying cavalry in French and British territory. There were some regiments in trench fights, but they performed so badly ( no offense meant ) due to lack of experience in such combats, they had to be mixed with French Troops to be effective.

In WWII Germany declared war on the US as part of its alliance with Japan - it should distract US war efforts. Divide and rule.
However US would have become target of Germany sooner or later if not Russia would have been able to stop them.
There are blueprints of orbital bombers ( yes orbital ) and long range stealth bombers which would have enough power to attack US from very high altitudes - to high to intercept. Of the second one there already existed some prototypes and a pre-version was already in existence and are actually part of modern war-machine. For thos who do not believe, take a look at B-2 and the WWII GO-Bomber its amazing. What is really unresting is that modern scientists checked the blueprints and contrsuctions and came to the conclusion they would have worked ( they even built a model of the orbital bomber ). Fortunately Germany was busy, thanks to the US and was not able to produce this war-machinery.


However it was no gallantry by US to finally free France it was fear. After years of begging for a second frontier, Stalin was able to drive Germany back. Churchill and Roosevelt siuddenly realized they had to act or loose whole of Germany to Russia - therefore Communism, which had to be prevented. that was when they landed in the Normandy.