Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 03-09-2003, 09:04 PM

Posted by Zar:

Quote:

This discussion seems to be
expanding into the realm of the repetitive,[...]

I agree, but perhaps it's because BOTH SIDES have said it all before: this thread's tendentious premise:

Quote:

Notice the quotes around "right". I mean to explore what happens if the Iraq plan is a success in cynically amoral terms.

merely enables you to ascert without challenge that the proposed military action is "cynically amoral". But that is the central question on the Iraq crisis: is it "cynically amoral" to enforce UN resolutions? For the opposition (France, Russia) is opposed to military action to enforce the relevant UN resolutions at any time and under any conditions(and has said so publicly) which more or less guarantees (see the last 12 years) that Iraq will never comply. But I don't agree that Bush's strategy is wrong.....with the possible exception that he spent too much time and effort trying to get some "multilateral" okay to the enterprise.

Cheers!

Vorkosigan · 03-09-2003, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
is it "cynically amoral" to enforce UN resolutions?
Cheers!

Nice euphemism for "bomb iraq, murder tens of thousands of innocents, remove one dictator, install a new dictator V 2.0, and leave."

It is not cynical to enforce resolutions. It IS cynical to pretend that unrestrained violence is the one and only way to enforce UN resolutions.

Vorkosigan

crocodile deathroll · 03-10-2003, 01:10 AM

IMO the CIA is so corrupt I would not put is past them to plant incrimminating evidence after they have overthrown the regime.
So they will cry out Bingo! "we have found a secret stash of anthrax the Saddam had hidden away from the rest of the world all along"

Loren Pechtel · 03-10-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Nice euphemism for "bomb iraq, murder tens of thousands of innocents, remove one dictator, install a new dictator V 2.0, and leave."

It is not cynical to enforce resolutions. It IS cynical to pretend that unrestrained violence is the one and only way to enforce UN resolutions.

Vorkosigan

What else--"if you don't shape up we will complain again"? Sounds like the parenting style of a person I know. Their youngest won't go to school. He's punched holes in the house in his anger. Another was arrested for drugs not too long ago--by far not his first brush with the law.

HaysooChreesto! · 03-10-2003, 01:47 PM

If Bush is right: If the war goes as planned, Saddam is removed from power and the Iraqi people are given the opportunity at a free and open society, then what's the hitch?
Would nations like Syria and Iran feel compelled to finance and support truck-bomb driving terrorists with U.S. troops as the target? I don't think so. Not with a sizeable American military still in the region and not with a U.S. friendly Iraqi army supplied with U.S. weapons and support.
Don't kid yourselves, the U.S. Armed Services will be stationed in Iraq for years to come. With the ability to reach out and not just touch, but really hurt terrorist harboring nations, I believe that the Arab nations will suddenly find a way to work things out diplomatically with the U.S. Don't forget that with a presence in Iraq, the U.S. will be able to recruit as many on the ground intelligence assets as it can train. The intelligence game works both ways.

An Iraqi government that is friendly to America also gives the U.S. leverage against Saudi Arabia. While an invasion of Islams most sacred nation is unthinkable, not having to buy oil from them isn't. The Fahd family would face the choice of quelling their radical fundies or being shut off from U.S. dollars. Not a very hard decision.

I don't think Russia would be foolish enough to supply Islamic Fundies with anything, let alone a low yield nuke. Chechnya isn't exactly Russian for "walk in the park". To say that both parties would be loathe to deal with one another would be an understatement.
Also, once the dust settles Iraq will be open to do business with France and Russia again. That's where the "let's make up and never fight again" dialogue will happen.

I think that what a lot of people get hung up on is how long it's going to take to bring this post war Iraq to a close. It's going to take years and years. I would guess at least 5 but wouldn't be surprised at 10. The variables are too many to realistically evaluate what will happen beyond a couple of years.
But I don't buy the idea that the only things that can happen are not only bad but disastrous.

Along the way, some radical fundies will pull off a caper or two, but that's to be expected. It will be a footnote to the big picture. While Islamic terrorists threaten to rain hell on America should they invade Iraq, so what? If they could they would've already done so a thousand times over. And with most of their base of operations shut down in the ME, they will be forced to places where they are more easily found and more isolated.

Putney Swope · 03-10-2003, 03:58 PM

Suppose that Bush is right. Then What?

What do you suppose will stop China from invading Tiawan? They could turn up their propaganda machine and get up on the world stage decrying Tiawan as being a "country of evildoers". They could snub their noses at the UN and say that Tiawan is developing WMD trained upon mainland China.

Or perhaps India and Pakistan will go at it.

Austrailia might decide to invade New Zealand so they could get a democratically elected government more sympathetic to Austrailia and their need for a steady supply of strategic wool.

The implications of his hasty actions could be far reaching and potentially devistating to any form of world peace. Bush is using this action to establish the US as the defacto world security force. He sees NATO and the UN as "no longer necessary".

There's a new sherriff in town, and his name is Dubya.

Loren Pechtel · 03-11-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Putney Swope
Or perhaps India and Pakistan will go at it.

They very well might. There's not really anything we can do about it, though.

Iraq is a problem small enough that we have a chance to solve it. India/Pakistan, China and NK are too big. We have to try diplomatic approaches and hope for the best.

Claudia · 03-13-2003, 07:23 AM

Quote:

For the opposition (France, Russia) is opposed to military action to enforce the relevant UN resolutions at any time and under any conditions(and has said so publicly)

False. Chirac specifically told that France is not a pacific country. He is opposed under any condition to the resolution that is currently discussed. He told that war is when every else failed, and he does not think it is thae case yet.

leonarde · 03-13-2003, 09:13 AM

Partial post by Claudia:

Quote:

False. Chirac specifically told that France is not a pacific country. He is opposed under any condition to the resolution that is currently discussed.

Here's Chirac in late August (ie before ANY new resolution on Iraq was tabled):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2223854.stm

A bit of it:

Quote:

French President Jacques Chirac has become the latest Western leader to speak out against an American attack on Iraq.

He condemned US threats to attack Iraq unilaterally, saying that a United Nations mandate should be sought for military action.

Mr Chirac's speech followed
a proposal by the UK
Foreign Ministry to set a
new deadline for Baghdad to
comply with UN resolutions
ordering the dismantling of
weapons of mass
destruction.

But Baghdad has dismissed calls to allow back weapons inspectors on the grounds that
the US has already made up its mind to attack Iraq.

So half a year ago France was saying that a United Nations mandate must be sought and has spent the last 6 months trying to obstruct that very thing, by among other things, threatening a veto of any resolution with teeth in it.

Quote:

He told that war is when every else failed, and he does not think it is thae case yet.

What little movement there has been both in Baghdad and at the UN Security Council has been the result of the threat of force, not in spite of it. France's role in all this has been obstructionist.

Cheers!

Amen-Moses · 03-13-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
But Baghdad has dismissed calls to allow back weapons inspectors on the grounds that the US has already made up its mind to attack Iraq.

And they were right weren't they!

Amen-Moses

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 01:10 AM	#23
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	IMO the CIA is so corrupt I would not put is past them to plant incrimminating evidence after they have overthrown the regime. So they will cry out Bingo! "we have found a secret stash of anthrax the Saddam had hidden away from the rest of the world all along"

03-10-2003, 01:47 PM	#25
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	If Bush is right: If the war goes as planned, Saddam is removed from power and the Iraqi people are given the opportunity at a free and open society, then what's the hitch? Would nations like Syria and Iran feel compelled to finance and support truck-bomb driving terrorists with U.S. troops as the target? I don't think so. Not with a sizeable American military still in the region and not with a U.S. friendly Iraqi army supplied with U.S. weapons and support. Don't kid yourselves, the U.S. Armed Services will be stationed in Iraq for years to come. With the ability to reach out and not just touch, but really hurt terrorist harboring nations, I believe that the Arab nations will suddenly find a way to work things out diplomatically with the U.S. Don't forget that with a presence in Iraq, the U.S. will be able to recruit as many on the ground intelligence assets as it can train. The intelligence game works both ways. An Iraqi government that is friendly to America also gives the U.S. leverage against Saudi Arabia. While an invasion of Islams most sacred nation is unthinkable, not having to buy oil from them isn't. The Fahd family would face the choice of quelling their radical fundies or being shut off from U.S. dollars. Not a very hard decision. I don't think Russia would be foolish enough to supply Islamic Fundies with anything, let alone a low yield nuke. Chechnya isn't exactly Russian for "walk in the park". To say that both parties would be loathe to deal with one another would be an understatement. Also, once the dust settles Iraq will be open to do business with France and Russia again. That's where the "let's make up and never fight again" dialogue will happen. I think that what a lot of people get hung up on is how long it's going to take to bring this post war Iraq to a close. It's going to take years and years. I would guess at least 5 but wouldn't be surprised at 10. The variables are too many to realistically evaluate what will happen beyond a couple of years. But I don't buy the idea that the only things that can happen are not only bad but disastrous. Along the way, some radical fundies will pull off a caper or two, but that's to be expected. It will be a footnote to the big picture. While Islamic terrorists threaten to rain hell on America should they invade Iraq, so what? If they could they would've already done so a thousand times over. And with most of their base of operations shut down in the ME, they will be forced to places where they are more easily found and more isolated.

03-10-2003, 03:58 PM	#26
Putney Swope Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Statosphere, baby. I'm stacked over LaGuardia & I'm not coming down fo no body Posts: 614	Suppose that Bush is right. Then What? What do you suppose will stop China from invading Tiawan? They could turn up their propaganda machine and get up on the world stage decrying Tiawan as being a "country of evildoers". They could snub their noses at the UN and say that Tiawan is developing WMD trained upon mainland China. Or perhaps India and Pakistan will go at it. Austrailia might decide to invade New Zealand so they could get a democratically elected government more sympathetic to Austrailia and their need for a steady supply of strategic wool. The implications of his hasty actions could be far reaching and potentially devistating to any form of world peace. Bush is using this action to establish the US as the defacto world security force. He sees NATO and the UN as "no longer necessary". There's a new sherriff in town, and his name is Dubya.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.