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

[primitive]

DavidG:
Then we have different opinions. I have no problems with that.

Just to make it clear: I have no love for Saddam. The world would be a much better place without him.

My problem is with the coupling of terrorism exclusively to Saddam/Iraq. Only a fraction of the terrorists, the funding and training facillities stems from Iraq.

Both a full invasion and just lobbing bombs over Bagdad will be used by muslim fundamentalists from all over the world as an excuse to launch new attacks agains the US.

Any solution to terrorism, warlike or peacefull, will have to be focused over a much larger area than just Iraq.

Termodyne:
I am speechless.

Geo:
I did not intend for that response. Of course there is no justifiable reason for terrorism.

Ruatha
Good post

[Thermodyne]

Ruatha, your arguments are sound, but the scope is far too limited. The problems in Israel are far more complex. Every time the diplomats are beginning to make headway, it is derailed by the religious factions that hold much of the power base there. Without separation of church and state, there will be no peace in the region.

As to the poverty aspect, you need to study the culture. Kingdoms and such are not for the benefit of all of the people. Even in Iraq, which is not a monarchy, some are intended to be above others. The tribal structures of the region need to be put out the door with Last month’s garbage, they both stink. I think a good dose of universal civil rights would cure a lot of what is wrong in the region.

As to the timing of the war, well let’s just say that tactical considerations are coming into play now. Every day we wait, more Americans will die. What is occurring at the UN has nothing to do with war and the future of Saddam. It is economics pure and simple. When the government of Iraq changes, they will probably stop paying market +% for French goods, they will also probably want to restructure their debt with Moscow. It looks good when the world argues about halting the New American domination of the world, but it is just talk. When the coup took place in Moscow, the world became a Pax Americana. We are at least a decade ahead of every military force in the world, and still maintain a blue water navy to project our influence with. I doubt that any country in the world is willing to spend the trillions that it would take to catch up. Everyone should consider what the situation would be today if the other side had won the cold war. Then they should study history for a few years and see where appeasement and delay have taken the world in the past. Also they should study the French involvement in the region. Remember, it was France who could have prevented Khomeini from ever taking power in Iran. How many millions would that have spared?

[geoschmo]

Primitive, I don't think any reasonable person is saying that Sadaam is the only person fronting terrorism. But a jounrey of a thousand miles starts with one step. We dealt with the Taliban, no we are dealing with Sadaam.

9/11 taught the US one thing mainly. The rules have changed. Now the US is demonstrating to those that participate in and support terrorism that changing the rules applies to them as well. Hopefully any that remain will see what has happend in Afganistan and is going to happen in Iraq and realize that the days of getting what you want by these means are over.

Just as the advent of nuclear weapons has made the thought of global war between nation states unthinkable, the proliferation of these weapons and the invention and proliferation of other types of WMD such as chemical, and bioligical has made acts of terrorism to costly to contemplate or tolerate. We can't simply click our teeth at the problem any longer.

But the US can't simply go about blugeoning terrorist Groups till the end of time either. Along with eliminating the threats to our security, we must find a way to help others resolve their disputes without resorting to blowing up office buildings and buses to get our attention. This means we have to put Isreals feet to the fire as well. They have to some up with a long term solution to the issues causing so many people pain. On that were can agree 100% Primitive.

Bush and Blair have taken some constructive steps towards that goal as well. Few people notice or give them credit for it. But that jounrney will take time as well. This problem wasn't made overnight, it won't be fixed overnight either.

Geoschmo

[Thermodyne]

Primitive, don’t be speechless. This is a debate, nothing else. I am an aggressive debater and tend to use documentation as a weapon. It is not that I don’t respect your views; it is a case of finding weakness with your presentation of them. Debate is an excellent way to examine the workings of the world, but it must not be confused with other less polite forms of discussion. I have had heated debates with several of the people here, but I still consider them my friends, and think that they still respect me.

[Ruatha]

Thermodyne:
I belive you are making it to easy on yourself if you belive that France and Russia opposes the war purely out of economical reasons.
That is just as bad as beliving that the US want's to invade purely by economic reasons as some seems to think.

I think that Blairs speech when he stated that he couldn't with good consciense do nothing about the situation was a good speech.
But I do firmly belive that both France, Russia and the other nations who opposes the war do so in the belief that it is in the best interest of the Iraqi people. And I do belive that the US, UK and Spain promotes their cause for the same reasons.

Who are right? As stated I don't know but I belive that only a war may prove who was right or wrong. A bad solution at best but perhaps the only one, so there is no need to rush into it.

(Edit added
(Quote:Every day we wait more Americans die)
How?
Every day more of the Iraqi weapons are destroyed, making an eventual war easier on the attackers.
I don't see americans dying every day by Iraqi attacks.
I've not seen any evidance that Saddam has connections to terrorists, sure he appluads every terrorist action against the US and propably has connections to terrorists, but that doesn't say tha the Iraquis themself are plotting terrorist attacks. They are propably helping in funding and equipping terrorists, but if the war starts tomorrow or in 6 months it will propably not make any significant difference in stopping many terrorist attacks.
It's not the Iraqui republican guards that are blowing up planes, it's civilians that are mostly unknown until they've perpetrated their act.
The situation in Iraq has been the same for many years, a few months more will propably not make much difference.

[ March 15, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[primitive]

Geo:
It seems like we don't dissagre in the goal, just the means to get there. You make good points there for your views. However, not good enough to change my mind regarding going to war on Iraq right now. But I have not ruled out that there might be a time in the (near) future when war would be necessary.

Thermodyne
It might be some wisdom in your wievs, but the obnoxious way you present them makes it impossible for me to find any. I can have a debate anytime with anyone willing to follow some simple rules of conduct.

[tesco samoa]

Thermo... you hit the nail with a hammer there. Very good point.

No one is going to fight USA in the conventional way. Perhaps a united Europe with a good 50 years of infrastructure growth.
War is evolving again. New Doctrines are being written. And a new type of fighting is starting to take place. It will be interesting to see how the Conventional forces adapt to it. One must think that history will repeat when it comes to the evolution of the battlefield.

On another topic.

I believe in the long term goal of bringing stability to the region of the middle east.
But the USA government has a history of doing the mopping up and humanitarian side 'half assed' or ignoring it all together. This issue has been a thorn and an issue raised by many respected veterns of the US Armed forces. ( And i do not mean any disrepect to veterns, nor current active members of the armed forces )
Born in Northern Ireland and raised in Canada I think I have a unique persective on Terrorism/Freedom Fighter , I see alot of similarites between USA today and England 100 years ago. I do not want to see Canada get tied down to another empire, where when one is at war we are at war. But these issues are being debated here. You could take a newspaper from 100 years ago and read the editorals and you would be shocked at how similar they are to todays editorals.

I am shocked at how the american media and gov't has treated their long standing allied country the French. This will take decades to fix. Which is too bad as relationships between nations at that level should not be tossed away so quickly. Makes you shake your head.

Well this ramble has to end as I do not think i made a single point or added to the debate..... just felt like typing i guess. Good day to everyone.

[Thermodyne]

Of course it is not for purely economic reasons. Well in Russia it might be, they are in a very bad way there. I can only hope that the world continues to finance their transition. But France also has concerns about influence. And a Colonial Empire with ambitions along those lines is always a difficult think to accept. As I have already posted, many people see an American victory in the gulf as a keystone event that will direct the course of world policy for decades to come. I think the writer suggested that it would be for the next century. I think that this is a stretch, very little survives that long. But as an American, I do think that the time has come to act. Oil has been used as a weapon against us repeatedly for most of my adult life. If we have the ability to bring an end to this leverage, then so be it.

As a side note, the region likes to speak of the outlaw nation of Israel. If Israel has no standing as a nation state, should we give the area back to the original owners? The Last government with legal title to the land? Well folks, that would totally screw the Palestinians, they have never had anything more than a mandate from the British Empire. The Last rulers were the Ottomans, the area was taken from them after the first experiment the Europeans had with modern warfare.

I for one have no particular love for Israel, but in a region of despotism and untruth, they are a beacon of light. They have withstood everything the Islamic world has thrown at them and punished the Arabs in the process. I do respect Israel for being able to preserver under imposable odds. I respect them for being a damn spunky little country. Where would appeasement and delay have gotten them in the past? Personally I see no solution for the Jews. One side or the other is going to have to make war so terrible that even the Islamic terror Groups will sue for peace. Only then will both sides be willing to make the needed compromises.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
One side or the other is going to have to make war so terrible that even the Islamic terror Groups will sue for peace. Only then will both sides be willing to make the needed compromises.

That won't succed.
There can be nowar that terrible that people won't cry for revenge.
The way is to stop it and back off.
I do respect Israel for what they have accomplished and in some parts I understand what they are doing to the Palestinians but in some parts it is incomprehensible. If you look on their history in WW2 I can understand that they think, never again, but they sould also remember how it was to be on the receiving end.
(The palestinians are no saints either, they are fighting an assymetric war, not apologized but understandable.)

As to Pax Americana, just becourse you are the strongest kid on the schoolyard it does not give you the right to be a bully.
To quote the respected autority , the movie spiderman :
"With great powers come great responsiblity" (I think it was something like that)

Currently the US are ruining alot of their credibilty abroad, threatening Turkey, France, Germany, Russia and others if they won't agree with the US point of view.

Yes, I wopuldn't have liked to see the former east block winning the cold war, but to replace the cold war with bloody war is no success.

Now we have a chance of moulding the world we would like for the future, currently the US are mangling their opinions over everyone that opposes their views, it will take along time reparing.
And the bad relationships will effect the US, the US is not an isolated isle, it is dependant upon the rest of the world wether they like it or not.

I belive that many in the US are suspicious of the UN, as they can't controll it.
That part of the UN is the good part. The UN will always have a credibilty tha the US can't get.
Just becourse on nation can't control it.
Therefore I belive we must work together in the UN.
It's a slow process but so are all democratic processes, that doesn't mean it's a bad way, it gives you time to reflect upon what you are about to embark upon.

(Edit: On another issue; Thermodyne; Check your e-mail)

[ March 15, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Thermodyne]

Tesco, I would have to say that the relationship with France has never been all that good. Sure we presented a united front to the Soviets, but the French were not full participants in NATO. At the end of the Second European experiment with modern warfare, France was handed back to the French and they went about trying to reacquire their colonial holdings. This put them at odds with America. And relations have been cool at best since then. While we were Allies, France has often opposed American activities that were not to France’s direct benefit. I have no problem with this; they are a self governing nation. But a look at their history will show that more than a few of the world’s problems since 1945 involved French diplomatic policy. Very few were solved by French intervention. They have not demonstrated the needed resolve in many years. They did not have the resolve to fight a tactical withdrawal against the Germans; instead they left several hundred thousand British troops holding the bag. Then they did not have the resolve to take their fleet to sea and scuttle it. Preferring to believe that they would be able to prevent the Germans from commandeering it. What would they do, just tell Hitler that he could not have it? Let’s not even talk about what they did in SE Asia, and the about turn they made after asking their Allies for help. And I think the Algerians would have a few points to make also.

But in the end it comes down to this. The French are self serving and benefit from appeasement. So if we do not appease them, then what influence do they have? I have always wondered why France had a permanent seat on the Security Council. There are many Nations that are more deserving. Actually, why are any of the seats permanent, should the dead wood be trimmed away now and again? The UN has not changed with the times; it has become a paper factory that rivals the US government. I fear that it has also had its day, much like the French. If France had come forward and stated that they were opposed to the war because of the economic damage it will do to France, then I think America would have had a lot of respect for their objection. But to say that they are concerned for the Iraqi people. Give me a break. Since when has France given a damn for anyone but themselves?