Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Andr&eacutes, the case against Sadaam is anything but wartime propoganda. If anything, he is worse than we know or will admit, because doing so makes us look all the worse for doing business with him all those years.

The official administration opinion is against an independant Kurdistan. The hope is for free, democratic Iraqi that represents the interests of all the various ethnic Groups. Admitadly, it is a lofty goal.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only 1 country has used them (Russia and china, how "evil" we thought they were never even did), anyway agree a little with you, but i think without them they would be "fine" to, the first 20 years were a lot more hostile and they survived. When a country has them, it makes them "the Law" because who would dare to oppose them? But i think i make this OT topic even more OT.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, but i think that the USA would be very angry when Indonesia would get them. And when australia get them, they would not even mind it. Not that indonesia would use them, its just:" You are our friend, you can research them, you ain't, stop or we'll.....".

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As i said, USA supports terrorists too. So are we morally superiour that our "terrorists" are good and they are bad??... Our terrorists kill a lot of people to, but they just won't get they 8 o'clock news and their terrorists do.

Its in the eye of the beholder, to one they are "freedom-fighters" to the other they are terrorists.

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What was that?
20/20 hinsight? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The Last 30 years have been "less hostile" because of the nukes!

You take the nukes out of the equation and we would be talking not just of the '67 and '73 wars, but of the '79, '85 and a war every six years (that's what it took to an Arab country to replenish losses during the Cold War)

So in Israel's case nukes have saved lots of lives, both Arab and Jewish.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, personally, I think the entire region would be much happier as part of the great Republic of Texas. Unfortunately, they are 158 years and one war between the states too late. Sigh....timing is everything.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Posted by Some1:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

But it isn't like the USA could afford to sit in Kuwait with 250,000+ troops for ever - that's a lot of mouths to feed, that's a lot of resources/money! And sitting in the middle east with 250k+ soldiers is a diplomatic nightmare, so it's a no win situation... vocal Arabs will be mad if the US invades Iraq, but they'll be mad if the US is even just present in the middle east. When it was the UN forces with US troops amongst them, it was the same catch-22.

So what is the solution? It's fine to be against war. I'm definitely against war. Unfortunately sometimes war is the only answer short of the second coming (and I'm pretty sure "Dubbya" doesn't have that much authority http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Please, tell me, what could have been done instead? If you can give me an answer, I'll go on a peace march. Until then, I have no choice but to support this war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ March 25, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well, I dislike the endless discussions, specially when feel that have no opportunity to change the mind of the other person(s). This is the main reason, because I mostly ignored this topic.
Anyway, today feel myself more cynical than other days, and will post some of my thoughts... is somewhat long, then, you could ignore this post and I'll be fine!

Some things I consider Facts.
=============================

a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal.
Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food?

b) From the times of the first civilizations to our days, the WAR always was with us, and will be here until the extinction of the mankind.
Examples? The list of wars would be endless... and think does not exist evidence that would finish some day.

c) A country doesn't need "good" reasons to invade / attack other country.
Of course that doesn't need a good excuse, because a bad one would work fine.
The ONLY what a nation need, is enough POWER (it mean money, technology, army, political alliances, etc) to carry out the attack and resist the international pressures or counter attacks.
Somebody could object that in the western democracies of our times, the crowd need a "good reason", my point is that the mass of people can be manipulated just clicking the right "buttons".

d) The Moral has little to be with the International Relations.
Is pretty obvious that the moral issues are pointless when we talk about international relations.
From Machiavelli to our days, everybody know that the "raisons du êtat" are more strong than any moral objection.
Example: If you kill somebody driving while you're drunk, probably you will go to the jail... but nobody will go to the jail, if a missile kill civilian people (yea, everybody know that the "colateral damage" can't be avoided!). Well, I admit that if a country lose a war the persons involved with "collateral damage" can be judged as a criminals... but remember: ONLY the losers are criminals!
Example 2: somebody has doubts that a free country committed with the democracy as USA, used the CIA to change democratic governments for dictatorships, just because those new governments would be pro-USA? It happened in my own country and in most of the South America countries during the 70s. USA did not this because is evil... did it because considered that was the best to server their purposes.

e) To live in peace, a nation need to be prepared to fight or at least have powerful allies.
This is old like the life: the big fish eat the small fish...
Objections?

f) In terms of power, USA is the Roman Empire of our times. Is the first power in the world, and doesn't exist a 2nd power.
Don't think somebody could object this.

Have USA the right to Invade Iraq?
==================================
Based on the "facts" I wrote above, is pretty obvious to me, that USA have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT!) to invade Iraq and attack / invade every other country that could be considered a target or menace. If USA could use the UN as shield to carry out his actions, yes, would be better for USA try to keep an appearance of legality , but if not... what the hell!!

What I dislike
==============
I think in some way, USA try to justify his acts with some hypocrisy... but of course that my stupid objections are pure BullS###t considering the "fact" c).
Here some of the published reasons, and my opinions (irrelevant opinions!).

1) "Operation Iraqui Freedom" think is a bad name... sounds a bad joke to me. They had free elections and Saddam got all the votes!!!
Yes, Saddam is a tyrant, a sanguinary one, and so what?
If the goal of this war, is release the people of Iraq, then, why Bush father didn't removed Saddam after the first war in the gulf? Why nobody helped the Kurdish and Shiites that started revolts against Saddam after the first war in the gulf? And finally, as others wrote here, USA have/had many tyrants as allies, and it not mean that USA will invade those countries to release the local population (well, Panama was an exception!).

2) Because Iraq is a menace to USA.
Still I want to know how Iraq could hurt USA.
Using Scuds? With those old 60's missiles?
With anthrax or Chemicals? Then, how they could spread it to cause enough damage?
With those old rusky tanks?
Using Nukes? hehehe, although somebody would decide to use it some day, everybody knows the reprisals after an attack against USA (do you remember Afghanistan?).
Yes, I think that Saddam was (and I'm saying was, because has not many days to live) a menace for his people and for his neighbors, agree. But for USA? Remember to me the Grand Fenwick!

N.Korea claim to have Nukes that could use in "preventive attacks"... and can bet 100 to 1, to everybody want on this board, that the US marines will not put their foots in NK.

3) Because Saddam have links with Al-Quaida, and probably helped to do the 9/11 attack.
The arguments to support this, that I was able to read/hear seems very weak to me, honestly.
And although both have common enemies, Saddam is an heretic for Ossama just a bit better than the "Great Satan"

4) Because Iraq has not filled the UN resolutions and still had WMD.
A good reason... but the question is that the UN decided to continue with the inspections instead to authorize a new attack against Iraq. This is related with the next argument:

5) USA doesn't need to have a new UN resolution, because still they're at war from 1991, due Iraq doesn't filled the conditions to sign the peace.
Then I ask, why so many words so many pressures to get the enough votes in the UN, to authorize a new attack?

What Think are the probably Reasons for this war
================================================
The polls in most the world, show that the people doesn't agree with this war. Only in USA is popular and think I know the reason: the 9/11. IMHO this is the clue.
First all, think the "hawks" in the Pentagon / White House, used the 9/11 to move the machine war and get the strength to impose the "preventive doctrine".
Second, specifically about the reasons of this war:
1) The Oil of course. Is not a secret that Iraq is an strategic place and have one of the biggest reserves of "crude". Is not a secret that "to save Kwait" was not the main reason to save them from Saddam in the frist war in the gulf.
2) To show to other enemies what USA can do if a country have an hostile attitude... and show that support the terrorism against USA will involve a great danger.
3) Bush need to show to his country, that the crusade against the Terrorism, "The War on Terror", has not finished and he will fulfill their promises to annihilate the terrorism.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

From the NY TIMES... Interesting article

Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

y and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has Banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the Last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Perhaps the best hope of a swift resolution between the warring sides would be some sort of "peace deal" that would allow both sides to save face.

Saudi Arabia, according to the Agonist, is floating such a proposal. No details have been released, and none of the major media outlets had run stories, but Riyadh was supposedly still waiting to hear back from the two respective capitals (DC and Baghdad -- Bush's lackeys in London get no respect).

Problem is, I can't imagine a scenario in which Bush could halt the war and still "save face". Indeed, this war was predicated in large part to the argument that withdrawing US forces massed in the Gulf region without utilizing them would be "losing face". Any resolution to this conflict that would leave Saddam in power would be clearly unacceptable to Bush.

But, how about this: Saddam steps down and takes exile in Bahrain (which has graciously offered). A government of "national unity" takes control, with no (or token) representation from the Baath Party. This new government promises a full accounting of Iraq's WMD program.

In return, the US must withdraw all forces from Iraq.

Would Bush agree to this? If he didn't, it would be conclusive proof that the US isn't there for freedom, democracy, or any of that other bull (otherwise, why is Uzbekistan listed in the "coalition of the willing"?), but for military domination of a vital economic and strategic region.

Hopefully we'll hear more about this Peace Plan soon.

taken from http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002143.html

An Interesting question. I would like to dicuss it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

an interesting article about the prisoners and the Taliban prisoners...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Another well written post jimbob. I couldn't agree more.