my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » General Discussion   » Ready Room   » A No to War post!

   
Author Topic: A No to War post!
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-21-2003 02:20 AM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The only opinions I care came from people in this forum, this is the first point, let me know what You think.

1 The whole business makes no sense:

1.1 Iraq is no threat to US.

1.1.1 Iraq.
I know this will be very controversial, but the Iraqi regime is not such a security problem, quite the contrary.
The main reason for this argument is obvious; Iraq doesn't stand a chance against US. Saddam's not stupid; he knows that any single action against US would result in his destruction. This point is easily proved, Iraq capitulated to 1441 and allowed the return of the inspectors, he is clearly aware of this. The destruction of their missiles is another clear example, although Bush’s intransigence (See 2.1), Saddam part away from them (I heard that those missiles where a key defense element against an invasion, he become weakest even when the danger grew). Iraq will never act against US.

1.1.2 Terrorists
1.1.2.1 This is the core of the American thesis, Saddam giving the weapons to terrorist to strike the US without taking risks. The problem is that giving weapons to rogue elements is in fact a risky proposition, once you give them, you lost control over them, and terrorist would not follow orders nor respect agreements on the future. The whole proposition that the US, with the biggest espionage and intelligence agencies in the world would be incapable to find the origin of the weapons used on a terrorist attack is ridiculous. Even if the US will not figure it out it doesn’t matters. An attack of such kind will make them to attack every suspect, with more reason the culprits. 1.1.1 shows that they know better than to do that, Saddam was among the first to condemn the 9/11 attacks.
1.1.2.2 No the real problem is that some of those materials can be acquired by suborns or robbery, this is a serious issue and a truly concern to US security. But true be told, a totalitarian regimen could be very efficient (and ruthless) controlling that situation and 1.1.1 shows that under direct threat, making his regime responsible of any leak of those materials to terrorist, Saddam will not take the risk and he will destroy those arms just to be sure he will not be blamed. It is very possible he already did, the UN inspectors have found nothing, it is too risky to hide them (1.2.1) and they have little military value.
1.1.2.3 Terrorist networks like Al-Qeda don´t need Iraq to develop or get those weapons. We have see tapes about their experimentation on lethal gases, biological weapons are even easier to develop.

1.2 Pacific disarmament
1.2.1 I found doubtful that Saddam will stockpile weapons of mass destruction, if only one cache is found, he lost his only mean to avoid war. Diplomatically speaking he will be alone and that discovery would make a legitimate casus belli.
1.2.2 The majority of the Security Council thinks it is possible to disarm Saddam without the use of force, it is not only France. The only exceptions are Blair who will backup Bush no matter reason. Bulgaria is a country with economic problems, their support has nothing to do repect what they beleive. Respect Aznar, I simply don’t understand what he is doing.
1.2.3 Granted, He could begin again after the inspectors are gone, but there is still the problem that the US eventually will discover that, and that time, the Security Council will not have any other option than declare war. 1.1.2.2 advices against that also. Do You really believe Saddam is willing to take that risk when he knows there is no way to win and everything to lose?.
1.2.4 Those are enough arguments without mention the loss of human lives and wounded, I hope there will be relative few, although every one lost it’s for ever.

1.3 Repercussions.
1.3.1 This is the main point, nobody knows what could happen. The best scenario is that nothing will happen, besides increasing the frustration of the Arabic world, even this is not a good result at all. The Middle East is already a powder keg. It is plain stupid to ignite anything there. You have a few friendly governments there, but governments not always truly represent their peoples will.
1.3.2 The worst scenario is the fall of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two countries with severe internal uprising. Maybe other countries like Jordan and Pakistan (who has a nuclear arsenal!) could follow. Iran will feel threaten and it will accelerate its program to get its own bomb, another intervention. That would spread fundamentalist and forcing the US to invade the whole region. No doubt US military superiority allows that, but having a new Palestine that size would not be nice for American occupation forces. You will lose your the few support you have at the zone.
1.3.3 There are three other considerations that show how the whole thing could backfire, since the goal is to avoid terrorist to put hands on Iraq’s WMD. First are those around 325 new unemployed WMD experts, they will not be without a paycheck for long, Al-Qeda gratefully will receive those expertise. Second with the chaos of a crumbling regime, some colonel on charge of a WMD program could think about his future and secure an extra income to his retirement found. Third and most greatest risk, if Saddam knows he´s going down he likely will think to take US with him and order the supply of those weapons to terrorist groups. The US forces will reach Bagdad too late to achieve their main goal.

1.4 New order.
Bush claims that the ultimate goal is a democratic government at Iraq. I am afraid that is more easy to said than done, a working democracy needs some basic requisites, like a good economy (remember why the Nazis reached power). Iraq’s oil can be a solution after that industry is rebuilt, but it is not warrantee. A democracy requires an educated population, this alone could take generations to achieve, a fundamentalism government can reach power through elections also. Its not so easy to remove the old bureaucracy, You need a running government, and the only trained personal belongs to the same old regime You just tackled. Some vices are not easily removed; some virtues take a strong commitment. Corruption alone could make the whole plan fail. A democratic Iraq could mean their future disintegration, remember that Iraq is composed by different peoples with no a pleasant past. Last, some of your allies at the zone, who happen to be repressive regimes only a bit better than Saddam, won’t be happy.

*adjustinghelmet* Those are part of my arguments, It won't be the first time that I am mistaken, so I count on You for some mature arguments... rats, already I am wrong!


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zhukov
Member
Member # 4446

posted 03-21-2003 10:11 AM     Profile for Zhukov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
.

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

"Didja ever notice that guy who pulls out right in front of you, then slows down to 30? Then whenever you get to a passing zone, he speeds up... Then the double solids return, and he's back to 30. And keeps his left turn signal on the whole time? Hitler was much worse than that guy" -- overheard on plastic.com


Posts: 4315 | From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-21-2003 11:21 AM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Zhukov:
Just to add to that: I don't think that many of our American friends realize that the massive protests against this war are not so much against the war per se, but more against what's perceived as a transition in the world's largest power from Republic to Imperium. This has got a lot of people spooked, and they're manifesting their concern accordingly.

Zhukie and Gonzo, I respect your intellect and the responsible manner in which both of you express yourselves, as always. I trust your character completely, and no discussion or disagreement will change our friendship.

Your assessment of world opinion is accurate, I think, but it's also what annoys most Americans right now. To us, Sadaam is the only issue here, and it looks as if the rest of the world is using this conflict as an opportunity to bash the USA because of our size and stature. We feel that disarming Sadaam is more important than partisan politics or nationalistic bickering.

Sometimes, popularlity is the price of leadership.

Remember that we didn't ask to be the most powerful nation in the world -- we became that in order to win the Second World War and the Cold War. Nobody else was capable of assuming that stature but us. And if we hadn't taken responsibility for the role, the vacuum would have been filled by fascism or communism.

Both of you know as well as I do that Americans do not want to dominate the world. All most of us want to dominate is our local golf course. We're not particularly well educated, we don't speak foreign languages, we don't travel -- we don't really care about the rest of the world at all. America is still, at its core, an isolationalist nation.

And that, my friends, is why you shouldn't worry about the USA becoming an empire. Public opinion won't allow it to happen. Vietnam is a case in point. And believe me, there is plenty of antiwar sentiment here at home, right now. Bush Sr. lost an election after winning a war in Iraq, and it might very well happen to his son, too.

If we are an empire, we're an empire in spite of ourselves.

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zhukov
Member
Member # 4446

posted 03-21-2003 01:24 PM     Profile for Zhukov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
.

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

"Didja ever notice that guy who pulls out right in front of you, then slows down to 30? Then whenever you get to a passing zone, he speeds up... Then the double solids return, and he's back to 30. And keeps his left turn signal on the whole time? Hitler was much worse than that guy" -- overheard on plastic.com


Posts: 4315 | From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-21-2003 02:16 PM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I hear you, Zhukie. And I don't like it that the USA is going against the UN, or that Bush's ham-handed diplomacy has alienated our allies. It's the one thing that has always given me reservations about the Iraq conflict. But not enough to put me in opposition to the war.

Unlike you, I don't think that this action signals a change in the world order. To me, our disagreement with the UN is politics, and nothing more.

From my perspective, we're not starting a war. We're finishing a war that we've been prosecuting since 1991. Ask the airmen who've spent the past dozen years patrolling the no-fly zone, and I'll bet they'll tell you that they've been at war. And now, it's time to end that war. Since we've been the nation bearing most of the burden, we're selecting the finish.

This should not come as a surprise. Historically, America has always unilaterally resolved crises that affect its interests: consider the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the Mayaguez Incident, Desert One, Grenada, the Libya Raid, and Panama, to name a few of the most notable actions we've undertaken alone. Right or wrong, those incidents reflect American policy of acting in its interests despite world opinion.

We usually do try to act with military restraint in these sorts of incidents. And our forces in Iraq have exhibited great restraint, so far, especially compared with the 1991 Gulf War.

We've benefited from our world position, yes, but I would argue that this is more accountable to our economic size than our military prowess. Americans understand that peace provides the best marketplace, so we contribute generously to foreign aid in order to help maintain that peace. Admittedly, our military spent the last half of the twentieth century expanding around the world, but unfortunately, that was probably the most useful foreign aid we could offer duing that era -- a shield against the Soviet Union and communism.

Yes, it isn't pure altruism. Diplomacy isn't about altruism. Never has been. Again, that's not going to change. Nations, and people, act in their own interests. That's the organism we are, and the world in which we live.

A world, incidentally, that already tries to solve its problems through violence and war (see Rwanda, Chechnya, Bosnia, Ivory Coast, et. al.). What we're doing in Iraq won't make war more likely than it already is. However, as it has during the past half-century, the possibility of US intervention will discourage all but the most reckless and stupid from launching attacks that threaten the rest of the world.

It does suck, I won't argue that. Americans don't like being considered the world's policeman. There's nothing particularly noble about that role. It's just the way things have to be in a world that's still intent on making war with itself, even after the carnage of 1939-45.

During the 1993 Somalia crisis, I asked an Indian friend of mine why the US should be expected to shoulder most of the burden for that mission. And she answered, "Because you're the only ones who can."

There it is.

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Li'lJugs
Member
Member # 5015

posted 03-21-2003 10:58 PM     Profile for Li'lJugs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, I, for one, think the US and Britain are totally wrong.

S. Hussien is just misunderstood-he is not really a bad leader. Yes, he has done a few bad things, but what are a few lives compared to his vision for his country?

I believe he really does care for the people of Iraq. It's just that sometimes it doesn't look that way to the rest of the world-but what do they know, hey?

If you would ask the Canadians and the Frenchy Frenchmans-they would explain what I mean verily easily. (Excuse me while I puke)

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

The last thing every pilot does before leaving the aircraft after making a gear up landing is to put the gear selection lever in the 'down' position.


Posts: 1495 | From: State of Confusion | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zhukov
Member
Member # 4446

posted 03-21-2003 11:06 PM     Profile for Zhukov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
One who seeks knowledge learns something new every day.
One who seeks the Tao unlearns something new every day.
Less and less remains until you arrive at non-action.
When you arrive at non-action,
nothing will be left undone.

Mastery of the world is achieved
by letting things take their natural course.
You can not master the world by changing the natural way.


And with that, I bid you all peace.


Z


Posts: 4315 | From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-22-2003 12:01 AM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Banger:
It wasn't my intention to insult anyone (I did it once and I still regret it). I tried to do my post as objective as posible, I think I showed valid reasons against the war, I only wanted your opinion of my evaluation.

Americans have a lot of virtues, it is dificult to think of another people who values his ideals so hard and have the courage to commit to them. You are a generous people also. That's why It is so sad that I can't aprove your goverment's actions, today and in the past. It really surprise me that You do. One day You say You liked what I posted because it let You know what we think, I can´t post that here because it could become very ugly (before your flames I don´t think that way), but if You still like to know I can explain privately.


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-22-2003 12:28 AM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
LJ:

I don´t like Saddam and I am not defending him. This war even goes against your own best interests. Prove my points wrong.

If the disarment could be made by pacific means, then that was the only moral option. Your defiance to the UN makes You the agressor, It is unaceptable that any country, less a superpower imposes migth over law.

We need the UN, just remember one of the most stupidest wars ever, WWI. A war which begun with a single death and scalated to 10 millions just because the countries involved never realized the long term consecuences and were caught on an endless massacre because neither side has the means to win nor way to give up without a victory. Nuclear weapons narrows the error margin to nothing.


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-22-2003 02:56 AM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Zhukie and Gonzo, I honestly do enjoy hearing your points of view, even if I don't agree with them.

Responding with my own opinon is by no means an effort to belittle your reasoning -- I certainly hope you didn't take my posts that way. I tried to state my views in as objective a manner as possible, keeping them free of any personal comments.

As did both of you. There was nothing insulting in the posts you made in this thread. Zhukie, if you want to remove your posts, that's up to you, but to my way of thinking you hadn't said anything inappropriate or inflammatory.

Gentlemen, we may not change each others' minds in these sorts of discussions, but we do expand our understanding of each others' perspective. And I thank you both for giving me the opportunity to hear your thoughts. The insights we share are valuable.

Hey, we're all North Americans here, after all.

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Stag
Member
Member # 9549

posted 03-22-2003 05:21 AM     Profile for Stag     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Banger:
Hey, we're all North Americans here, after all.


Am not!

Morning all. Welcome back, LJ.

Gonz, you make a load of points, that's the problem. I'm working through your essay. And I'll post my thoughts later. Z, I wish you hadn't felt the need to do that.

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

4013+


Posts: 497 | From: | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sulla
Member
Member # 3988

posted 03-22-2003 03:27 PM     Profile for Sulla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I just want to say that the position of the Canadian gov't is not the same hard line view as France. Unlike them, or anyone else for that matter, we tried to put forth ideas, including clearing up the question of war in favour of the US. But it was too late and wouldn't have fitted into the plans of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Livy and Cohen anyway, so it was rejected.

Our leaders, Federal and Provincial, are urging the population show respect. There is a very sizeable pro-war faction here.

And our anti-war protests are not as bad as the the ones in the US.

But if the US only wants yes-men for friends well, then there's a problem. War does have the tendancy to stifle freedom of expression.

Personally, I loathe yes-men.

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

"What we do in life, echoes in Eternity"

"Strength and Honour"

"At my signal, unleash Hell"


Posts: 3945 | From: Essex, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-22-2003 10:31 PM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stag:

Am not!

Gonz, you make a load of points, that's the problem. I'm working through your essay. And I'll post my thoughts later. Z, I wish you hadn't felt the need to do that.


Stag, that´s only the first point.

I don´t want to insult my friends, not sure if I must continue. My second rant is about how poor Bush diplomacy was, as president, he has the responsability of protect his coutrymen. But soldiers are citizens also. If this war could have been avoided by pacific means, He had the resposability of seek those means.

Those numbers are for a easy reference to my arguments, I really hope for a counter-reply to my points.

Tell me Staggers, how are the polls about War/Blair going in your country?

BTW While at Canada I read a US newspaper who describe Mexico as centro-american country. North American ends at Mexico, it is a geological division, not political nor cultural. It is people like to think that way.


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-22-2003 10:36 PM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sulla:

Personally, I loathe yes-men.


Yes, how true, right as always Sulla!.


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-22-2003 10:55 PM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Gonzo.:
BTW While at Canada I read a US newspaper who describe Mexico as centro-american country. North American ends at Mexico, it is a geological division, not political nor cultural. It is people like to think that way.

Sorry about that, Gonzo. I was always taught that Mexico isn't part of Central America. Culturally, of course, I realize that it's part of Latin America. I wasn't trying to insult you by calling you a North American. I was only trying to imply that we do have some things in common.

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-22-2003 11:06 PM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Zhukie:
I came late to read your post, judging from Banger answers, I think we share some common thoughts. If You don´t like to post them here, at least let me know what You think.

Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-23-2003 12:40 AM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Banger:
I will like your opinion about my first post. Why Don´t You agree with those points?

Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-23-2003 12:02 PM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Gonzo, I will make my response now, point by point:

1.1.1 -- Iraq is a threat the the US because it's a threat to the entire world. Sadaam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait demonstrates that he is capable of the most reckless aggression. Sadaam's presence in the Middle East will always render the region unstable and unpredictable. That undermines world security, and thus, US security.

1.1.2.1 -- Iraq is a state that, even if it did not directly support the 9/11 attacks, could do so in the future, and would definitely do so if it got the opportunity. This is a man that has already tried to assassinate a US president.

1.1.2.2 -- The US relied on dictators during the Cold War, and look where it got us. As a Latin American, I would think you would severely disapprove of the US relying on a dictator to control his own people. That was a mistake the US made in places like Nicuragua, a tragic failing of our foreign policy.

1.1.2.3 -- Eliminating Sadaam eliminates one more avenue for terrorists to acquire weapons. Yes, they could get them somewhere else. But they won't get them from Iraq.

1.2.1 -- This might be true, were we dealing with a rational leader. But Sadaam is not a rational individual, as he's demonstrated on many occasions.

1.2.2. -- I do agree that Bush should not have put the US in the position of going against the UN. That said, the UN is a political body, composed of nations eager to embarrass the US -- perhaps legitimately, as you say, since much of the world is afraid of the US's military and economic power. But the fact remains that the UN is using Iraq as a political issue. No member of the Security Council will go on record as supporting Sadaam on his own merits. UN sanctions haven't yet disarmed Sadaam, and there's not reason to believe that the past dozen years of sanctions will suddenly start working, simply because Jacques Chirac says they will.

1.2.3 -- Again, I believe that Sadaam is capable of any sort of madness.

1.2.4 -- I agree, the loss of life is abominable. But we'll lose fewer lives by acting now, and acting swiftly. Many, many people will continue to be murdered in Iraq each year that Sadaam is in power. And men and women will lose their lives enforcing the no-fly zone and other sanctions.

1.3.1 -- Sadaam has no real friends in the Arab world. He even renounces Allah. While Arab states must publicly oppose this war, privately I believe they will be glad to be rid of Sadaam. I'm speaking of these nations' leadership here, not the masses protesting in the street. That' just bread and circuses.

1.3.2 -- I agree, keeping a US occupation force in the region after Sadaam falls would be a mistake. Let the French have the job. If they want it, that is.

1.3.3 -- These are all credible threats. Of course, terrorists have been benefiting from unemployed WMD experts since the fall of the Soviet Union. And Sadaam won't be able to make the last-ditch effort you describe -- he's already hemmed in, thanks to our invasion.

1.4 -- Nation building is the UN's charter. Let's see how they do.

Well, that's where I stand, Gonzo. I respect your views, and I hope I've expressed my differences in a manner that honors your own integrity.

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zhukov
Member
Member # 4446

posted 03-23-2003 02:36 PM     Profile for Zhukov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Banger, Gonzo, stag and Sulla,

If you guys want to continue this discussion privately, email me at [email protected]

LJ's emotional ketchup burst has just confirmed my belief that doing this over public forums is a waste of time.

Z

p.s. Gonzo, email me re: SE4 as well

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

"Didja ever notice that guy who pulls out right in front of you, then slows down to 30? Then whenever you get to a passing zone, he speeds up... Then the double solids return, and he's back to 30. And keeps his left turn signal on the whole time? Hitler was much worse than that guy" -- overheard on plastic.com


Posts: 4315 | From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Sulla
Member
Member # 3988

posted 03-23-2003 05:12 PM     Profile for Sulla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Oh that's just LJ, firey as always.

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

"What we do in life, echoes in Eternity"

"Strength and Honour"

"At my signal, unleash Hell"


Posts: 3945 | From: Essex, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Sulla
Member
Member # 3988

posted 03-23-2003 05:25 PM     Profile for Sulla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Earlier last week on CNN's Crossfire, one of the guests was former Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleberger. He was presented with a list of names of Bush and his Administration, 7 names in all. He was asked how many of them wanted the UN to fail. After a quick scan he quite matter-of-factly said "three ... (waving his hand) ... maybe more".

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

"What we do in life, echoes in Eternity"

"Strength and Honour"

"At my signal, unleash Hell"


Posts: 3945 | From: Essex, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-24-2003 02:08 AM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Banger:
Gonzo, I will make my response now, point by point:


1.1.1 -- Iraq is a threat the the US because it's a threat to the entire world. Sadaam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait demonstrates that he is capable of the most reckless aggression. Sadaam's presence in the Middle East will always render the region unstable and unpredictable. That undermines world security, and thus, US security.


1.1.2.1 -- Iraq is a state that, even if it did not directly support the 9/11 attacks, could do so in the future, and would definitely do so if it got the opportunity. This is a man that has already tried to assassinate a US president.


1.1.2.2 -- The US relied on dictators during the Cold War, and look where it got us. As a Latin American, I would think you would severely disapprove of the US relying on a dictator to control his own people. That was a mistake the US made in places like Nicuragua, a tragic failing of our foreign policy.


1.1.2.3 -- Eliminating Sadaam eliminates one more avenue for terrorists to acquire weapons. Yes, they could get them somewhere else. But they won't get them from Iraq.


1.2.1 -- This might be true, were we dealing with a rational leader. But Sadaam is not a rational individual, as he's demonstrated on many occasions.


1.2.2. -- I do agree that Bush should not have put the US in the position of going against the UN. That said, the UN is a political body, composed of nations eager to embarrass the US -- perhaps legitimately, as you say, since much of the world is afraid of the US's military and economic power. But the fact remains that the UN is using Iraq as a political issue. No member of the Security Council will go on record as supporting Sadaam on his own merits. UN sanctions haven't yet disarmed Sadaam, and there's not reason to believe that the past dozen years of sanctions will suddenly start working, simply because Jacques Chirac says they will.


1.2.3 -- Again, I believe that Sadaam is capable of any sort of madness.


1.2.4 -- I agree, the loss of life is abominable. But we'll lose fewer lives by acting now, and acting swiftly. Many, many people will continue to be murdered in Iraq each year that Sadaam is in power. And men and women will lose their lives enforcing the no-fly zone and other sanctions.


1.3.1 -- Sadaam has no real friends in the Arab world. He even renounces Allah. While Arab states must publicly oppose this war, privately I believe they will be glad to be rid of Sadaam. I'm speaking of these nations' leadership here, not the masses protesting in the street. That' just bread and circuses.


1.3.2 -- I agree, keeping a US occupation force in the region after Sadaam falls would be a mistake. Let the French have the job. If they want it, that is.


1.3.3 -- These are all credible threats. Of course, terrorists have been benefiting from unemployed WMD experts since the fall of the Soviet Union. And Sadaam won't be able to make the last-ditch effort you describe -- he's already hemmed in, thanks to our invasion.


1.4 -- Nation building is the UN's charter. Let's see how they do.

[/QUOTE]
Well, that's where I stand, Gonzo. I respect your views, and I hope I've expressed my differences in a manner that honors your own integrity.
[/QUOTE]

1.1.1
Iraq is a threat no more. Saddam invaded two countries:

Iran: Maybe US had something to do there. Kuwait: After a war who let nothing and with the expenses of the 4th biggest army on the world, they had to find a way for that "inversion" to paid off.
They had clear motivations in the past, right know they don´t have even the means to sucessfully invade another country. Remember this point is about of Iraq´s military capabilities.

1.1.2.1
Good point this Banger, no doubt that assesination intent was a stupid move, even irrational. I agree that my arguments are based on a sane Saddam. This would require futher annalisis. I will PM about this later.
1.1.2.2
Again this is best explained on a private mail to maintain our forum moderator´s few sanity left.
1.1.2.3
You can't blame Saddam if another group develop the weapons, my intention was to show that terrorist don´t need Saddam. Besides, the only group crazy enough to use those weapons is Al-Queda, who are pro-Iran and don´t share Saddam´s views.

1.2.1
Most of Saddam's motives are wicked, but not irrational, the only exception is 1.1.1.2, I think.
1.2.2
You can doubt about France or Rusia since it has strong interest on Iraq, but not all the Security Council, they really beleive it is possible to disarm Saddam by pacific means. Even France who interest You jeopardized was reasonable (approved 1441). Bush´s diplomacy its so bad that US lost the world´s support against a dictatorial regime even after 9/11!.
1.2.3
I consider Saddam a megalomaniac and cold blooded, but not a man completly out of reality. He tried to avoid a conflict with very little posibilities to win, He was pushed to an end-road. Off course that He didn´t acept the exile shows how power hungry He is. Still I beleive that given an option, Saddam would yeild. The man seeks power, but He would not risk the power He already has.
1.2.4
A dictatorial regime generally left You in peace if You also do that (Most Mexicans know, the few socialist who don´t are dead). Of course the Kurds are another history, so basically You are right. But I think there are another ways to achieve that. I begin to think about this problem seeking a solution for your real terrorist problem: Saudi Arabia (and later Egipt). I concluded that the best way for America to defuse fundamentalism is speaking clear to those governments and force them to implement a real investment on social programs, no need to the public to know ,You can left the rulers there until the people is ready to depose them.
1.3.1
Your comments supports my 1.1.2.3 reply. I don´t believe others arabic states will be happy seeing Saddam´s going out and replaced for a democracy, that will put dangerous toughts on their own populations. Those masses see the problem from a religious perspective and don´t want a infidel country dictating internal policies. See 1.2.4
1.3.2
Here we agree, no need to said more.
1.3.3
I disagree here Jim, WMD caches could be already in other countries, waiting the signal to their delivery to terrorist groups. My point was that the invasion could have the opposite result that it tried to avoid. Again a PM is in order.
1.4
That´s right, it is a UN responsability, not one of US. See those No blood for oil signs? Any US's imposed government would be suspicious.


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-24-2003 01:21 PM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good discourse, Gonzo. While I may not agree with all of your conclusions, I do find great insight in your arguments.

You've reminded me just how much the world fears America's economic influence and military power. My father spent his career in the merchant marine, traveling the world, going places most Americans never see. From a very young age, at his knee, I learned that Americans weren't very popular overseas.

During the Vietnam era, the average American knew that our policies were hated abroad -- we saw it on the television news, every evening. Perhaps we forgot that fact during the Reagan years, and allowed ourselves to be persuaded by his populist optimism.

But now, we need to pay closer attention to presenting and discussing our motivations with other governments. We need to listen to what other cultures expect from the United States. If it's not too late for that already ...

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gonzo.
Member
Member # 9435

posted 03-25-2003 12:01 AM     Profile for Gonzo.     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Dear Bangdarklock:

I think We can reduce our differerences that You believe Saddam insane while I not.
I would like to said that Saddam is not alone, there are others who can influence him. I know your best counter is that Hitler proved this wrong. Is this exactly the same case?

With or without Saddam, points 1.3 and 1.4 will not be resolved. I think US have too little to win and too much to lose.


Posts: 450 | From: Huatusco, Ver. México | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Banger
Member
Member # 5631

posted 03-25-2003 10:01 AM     Profile for Banger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As you know, Gonzo, even Hitler was susceptible to influence from his minions. Insanity is tough to define. Is Sadaam truly mad? Well, he's at least delusional.

Time will tell whether this war was a good risk for the US, amigo. And let's hope it's the last war for a long, long time.

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

February 1, 2003
Keep reaching ...


Posts: 1077 | From: Idora Ave. | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved