| Support for the war |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: JAK ® 03/03/2003, 19:11:27 Author Profile Mail author |
Among the countries which officially support the U.S., there is overwhelming anti-war sentiment among the citizens. Today, reports surfaced that 95% of the people in Turkey oppose the use of their country as a base for striking Iraq. The Turkish Parliament voted against the U.S. (They could change that vote.) Where democratic leaders do back the U.S. (as in Britain and Spain), it is with much apprehension and concern about backlash among their constituents. Turkey is a case-in-point of a country stopped in its tracks by democratic process. The government tried to make a deal for a multi-billion-dollar American aid package in return for providing a launching platform for a northern front. While approval fell just three votes short, that vote was the democratic process at work. The Turkish Parliament requires an absolute majority. ...the price of democracy. Intense and behind-the-scenes now is debate about who will govern Iraq once a war is over. The Bush administration seems to assume a military occupation by itself and by its allies. Preparations are reported to be far advanced to start letting contracts for new “democratic text books” for Iraqi schools. When Iraqi leaders will be able to choose their own leaders is an open question. In Germany which had known parliamentary rule before Hitler, it still took four years of allied occupation before a national democratic election could be organized. How long in Iraq? Iraq has a long history of monarchs and dictators has never really known democracy. There is a question today of who will speak for post-Saddam Iraq. Opposition leaders have been meeting in northern Iraq. At odds about almost everything else, they have agreed on the right of Iraqis to govern themselves. Can those who live comfortable lives elsewhere speak for the Iraqi people who have suffered under Saddam Hussein? How does power get transferred to the Iraqi people soon after a war? This war will surely devastate much of what’s left of civilized life following the devastation which they suffered in the 1991 war. And if the U.S. attacks Iraq from both the north and the south, what will be the condition of the people remaining that will make them fit to govern themselves? In Bush’s speech last Wednesday, he said, “the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq, and the United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government.” Can any amount of “help” possibly be adequate for this task? What does Bush really mean? Does Bush really comprehend the situation? How can a people who have never governed themselves and who will have endured the 1991 war, Saddam Hussein, and finally the Bush war possibly be equipped to “govern” themselves? JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, Mar 03, 2003, 19:16:50 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
So what are you saying? Re: Support for the war -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Buck ®
03/03/2003, 19:37:58
Author Profile Mail author
If you're saying that this is a complicated situation, you're right.
If you're saying that a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq is an important part of the war, okay.If you are implying that either of these issues are good reasons for not attacking Iraq and removing Saddam, I don't think you've made a good case.
Saddam needs to go eventually. Our containment policies (sanctions, no fly zones, and limited military action) are slowly deteriorating.
We (the world) have watched over the past 12 years as Iraq has ejected weapons inspectors, not complied with resolutions for him to disarm, and has been documented seeking materials to enrich the uranium that he already has. Defectors consistently agree that Saddam is seeking nuclear capabilities. It is documented that he has palestinian suicide bombers on the payroll.
So, while your mention some good points regarding the difficulties of a post-war Iraq and building UN concensus, neither of these are reasons to let the current problem go on any longer.
-bucky
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Just this Re: So what are you saying? -- Buck Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/03/2003, 20:43:50
Author Profile Mail author
If you're saying that this is a complicated situation, you're right. If you're saying that a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq is an important part of the war, okay.JAK:
I am.Buck states:
If you are implying that either of these issues are good reasons for not attacking Iraq and removing Saddam, I don't think you've made a good case.JAK:
The weapon’s inspection process is at work. The defectors are a part of the process. Our government interviews those whom we know can provide us with information. We follow those leads, seek out those physical materials. We destroy them.Of course Saddam cannot be trusted. No one is talking about appeasing Saddam. We have to be a tough as we can possibly be. The fact of the matter is that we have been extremely successful in containing Saddam Hussein and taking out weapons of mass destruction. With the U.N. inspection team on the ground in Iraq, with the U.S. military to his south (Turkey just voted against the U.S.), his threat even to his own neighbors is curtailed. More importantly, Saddam’s military is not a threat to the United States.
It seems to me that if we can achieve that kind of an aggressive, focused standing up to Saddam and not put our people at risk, not kill innocent Iraqis, that would be an important achievement.
Buck states:
Saddam needs to go eventually. Our containment policies (sanctions, no fly zones, and limited military action) are slowly deteriorating.JAK:
I have suggested here that I disagree with that. The evidence does not support that there is deterioration of containment. Just the opposite is the case.Buck states:
We (the world) have watched over the past 12 years as Iraq has ejected weapons inspectors, not complied with resolutions for him to disarm, and has been documented seeking materials to enrich the uranium that he already has.JAK:
The past 12 years is ending. It is incorrect to say weapon’s inspectors were ejected. They left voluntarily. What is more important, weapon’s inspectors are in Iraq as we speak.Buck states:
Defectors consistently agree that Saddam is seeking nuclear capabilities. It is documented that he has palestinian suicide bombers on the payroll.JAK:
Where did you see that documentation? Even if were the case, and I would entertain your documentation, Saddam is contained at this point. The U.S. has 200,000 servicemen (and women) surrounding him and U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Saddam is contained. He could hardly be more contained.Buck states:
So, while your mention some good points regarding the difficulties of a post-war Iraq and building UN concensus, neither of these are reasons to let the current problem go on any longer.JAK:
Given the rejection of Turkey today, the U.S. will not launch a war for at least several weeks in all probability. We have placed nearly 50,000 troops on the ground in Turkey with all the means to launch a strike from there. So unless Turkey’s Parliament changes its vote, the U.S. will not be able to use Turkey just yet. Those troops will have to be moved along with all the military equipment.The reason to pursue the dismantling of the Iraqi military through peaceful means is the alternative, war. It carries with it a far higher price tag in loss of American life, risk that we loose what weak allied support that we have, loss of Iraqi life, the high cost in trying to take over a country about which we understand little, and much more.
We are not letting the current problem go in the view you expressed. Far from it. Iraq is surrounded. Iraq is being disarmed.
The Bush administration has down-played what the costs of this invasion are going to be. They have not told us what the costs of a ten-year occupation of Iraq would be. They have not told us how much we are spending trying to buy off allies to come into the coalition.
Case in point: we offered Turkey 26 billion dollars and it wasn’t enough.
If we are going to invade an Arab country, and hold it in one of the most volatile hostile regions of the world, we better have more support than we currently have.
If the Bush administration had not abandoned the Clinton policy of getting people to talk, nation-building, Bush might now have the support that he needs for a sustained long-term involvement in Iraq.
The fact of the matter is that Bush campaigned in opposition to “nation building.” Then when he needed the U.N. he decided to pay the U.S. dues which the Bush administration had withheld. The fact of the matter is that stability of nations is critical to peace in the region. War is a destabilizing event. Today, war destabilizes the world.
Maybe we will have to have the war. But, until the U.N. inspectors and the people of nations on whom we will rely for support have more universal agreement that the world has reached the last resort, until that, containment is working and Iraq is paralyzed so far as its military weapons are concerned.
A preemptive strike on Iraq now by the most powerful military force against what is a relatively weak force sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to follow.
Suppose North Korea decides to make a preemptive strike against one of its disliked neighbors? The U.S. will hardly be in the position of playing peace-maker. But, if Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, the U.S. is in a much stronger position as the leader of the Free world.
Support for war deteriorates rapidly once war starts. And if the harm to the Iraqi people, the Iraqi infrastructure is so devastating -- which Rumsfeld has stated it will be, the U.S. will be at risk for cost as far into the future as we can see.
Secretary Powell said that you don’t go into a war unless the American people understand the risks and support the mission.
At present, there is soft support for the war and an unawareness of the risks. Americans don’t understand the risks because we have not been told what those risks are. We deserve to have this administration give us the facts about what the war will cost. Thus far, they have minimized the cost estimates.
So I am not taking the position no war ever. I am taking the position no war yet.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, Mar 03, 2003, 20:47:28
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Just this Re: Re: Just this -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/03/2003, 23:45:30
Author Profile Mail author
A couple of points:
1) The only reason Saddam is cooperating in any way is because he has a gun to his head.
2) If we remove the gun or make it less threatening, he will continue what he has always done - evasion and deception along with token measures intended to give the appearance of compliance.
3) We cannot maintain 200, 000 troops in the desert indefinitely.
If you had the responsibility and authority to order soliders to war, at what point would you give the order? What would have to change?
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Mon, Mar 03, 2003, 23:46:20
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Just this Re: Re: Just this -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 09:09:39
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks for your observations.
Essentially, I agree with your three points. It has been the pressure on Saddam. But that pressure has been, thus far, U.N. supported. Opposition Saddam would bring to the inspection process and subsequent destruction of weapons found would be opposition to the United Nations mandate that he disarm. The U.N. is not united on a unilateral attack by the United States and war. Nevertheless, I agree with the metaphor “gun to his head.”
Second, as I stated, the process is working. There is inspection and destruction of weapons found. And I agree that removal of threat without the removal of Saddam himself would be negative, from our perspective.
Third, I agree that we cannot maintain 200,000 indefinitely. But we just got the troops there. And they are not really there, now that Turkey has voted to disallow its bases to be used as a launch site for war. So, the U.S. (absent a reversal of the Turkish Parliament) will need to be redeployed before the U.S. is “ready” for war itself.
As I stated in a previous post, it is imperative that the U.S. have every possible support from the nations in the U.N. President Bush has done a poor job of building consensus for his war on Iraq. That is something which should have been done differently. Even the support from Tony Blair is largely support from him, not support from the people of England. They are opposed to the war. Why? Other nations which are supporting the U.S. officially also have a citizenry which is generally opposed to this war. Why?In my view, it is because of a different perspective. That perspective is one which doubts the efficacy of the kind of war which the Bush administration intends. Had Bush at the moment he took office continued the previous policies of communication with friend and foe, his position around the world might be stronger. But he did not. He abandoned the U.N. as a body by refusal to pay U.S. dues. He specifically campaigned against “nation building” (Clinton policy). He stated in pre-election debates that if those people want to fight let them fight. For two years he practiced his brand of unilateralism.
Then, when he came to realization that the U.S. could not take the position he had campaigned on and operated on for two years, he went to the U.N. and pleaded for their support. He got it. But not all he wanted. His response: if we have to, we will go it alone. That, from the world’s superpower, did not sit well with virtually all the world including many of our allies.
So before ordering the prelude to war, Bush should have done many things in relations with allies and marginal countries which he did not do. And if he “goes it alone,” he may find himself very much alone in a trillion dollar “nation building” after the U.S. military destroys in Iraq.
Even worse, he may find that a country like North Korea may decide to emulate his behavior and “go it alone” making war on one of its neighbors which it regards as a threat. Bush regards Iraq as a threat. His rhetoric has magnified the threat of Iraq, however. North Korea may well pose a greater threat. And Donald Rumsfeld said with swagger, we can fight a war on two fronts at the same time and be successful in both. Such talk is that of unilateralism. Most of the world’s countries do not like the only nuclear super-power to make noises like that. I don’t have the particular percentages, but in a survey world wide, the U.S. is regarded as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. I am sorry I cannot cite the specifics of who took that.
In short, advanced planning by the Bush administration to build a consensus that war was wise and just and necessary was never adequately made up to the point at which we are now. Had it so been made, Turkey would not have reversed course on Sunday opposing the use of its air fields for U.S. military operations from which to attack Iraq simultaneously from the north and the south. Perhaps it will change its collective mind. 95% of the people of Turkey oppose the use of their country as a base for attack on Iraq. The vote FOR use of Turkey in the Parliament was only 3 votes short. So it might try again.
With regard to the war, it may actually already have begun. The U.S. military has fired on and taken out various military installations in southern Iraq. It has destroyed moving military convoys on the fringes of Iraq. And it has done it from the air minimizing the chances for U.S. causalities and maximizing the effectiveness of the attacks. Is this “the war”? Maybe.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Just this Re: Re: Just this -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/04/2003, 22:35:13
Author Profile Mail author
I agree with your criticism of the administration's stupid unlateralism and extremely stupid rhetoric, but I do not buy the notion that the UN inspections are working.
I would only agree that inspections are working if the Iraqis presented their biological and chemical weapons for destruction. A few missiles means little. It is the minimum needed to deceive and delay. .
I have come to the conclusion that force and the credible threat of force is the only thing that deters Saddam. Unfortunately, his removal will come at a very steep price: many Iraqi and American lives will be lost, and the financial cost will also be very high. War will likely radicalize a portion of the Arab populace.The question that I asked you previously was under what conditions you would order war. What would be your trigger for war?
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: Just this -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/05/2003, 17:28:05
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and most difficult question.
Alas, I fear your analysis and mine combined any way is most likely to equal war. That “steep price” will no doubt be a correct assessment if war. We are in complete agreement on that point.
As I titled one post, “Have we reached ‘the last resort’?”, it is the question of the moment.
Hans Blix announced today (with more hope than conviction) that launchers and casting chambers are being destroyed. He counted 9 more missiles and systems which were being destroyed and declared that the U.N. was not finished.
Powell accused Saddam of trying to block a second U.N. resolution and charged that Saddam was just “playing games.” He further said that it is too little too late and meant to deceive. Given that, we might speculate on the date for the bombs to start falling.
I agree with you in this statement of yours: “the credible threat of force is the only thing that deters Saddam.” There can be no question that Saddam is under threat. Is that enough? Will the continued work of the U.N. work...and how long would that take?
You pose a most difficult question. Previously, I had suggested as an answer to your question about “under what conditions you would order war.”
Since it is an hypothetical question, my thought is also hypothetical. If the U.N. gave approval with no veto, that would be so overwhelming that the decision itself would order war. But if “support” for war were paid for through outright gifts and grants, it would be suspect -- as it is in the case of Turkey. United Nations’ approval for a preemptive attack on a country would give the U.S. a world moral authority to do such a thing. That is, it would declare that the world opposed Saddam, his regime, his policies.
Currently, France, Germany, & Russia oppose the war. Could they be persuaded otherwise? They did not specifically vow to veto.
One difficulty at the moment of this writing is that many people within the countries which do officially support the war is that most of the people do not. Hence, the support for U.S. policy is weak particularly for a long-term involvement in Iraq. (Tomorrow new facts will emerge and change the complexion of the world crisis.)
In my previous post I questioned in this way:
“Even the support from Tony Blair is largely support from him, not support from the people of England. They are opposed to the war. Why?""Other nations which are supporting the U.S. officially also have a citizenry which is generally opposed to this war. Why?"
May I turn to you for your consideration of those questions?
In addition, how would you answer the question you posed for me: “What would be your trigger for war?”
...continued appreciation for your thoughtful contemplation.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: The Questions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/06/2003, 00:34:19
Author Profile Mail author
You ask: Even the support from Tony Blair is largely support from him, not support from the people of England. They are opposed to the war. Why?
Yes. Blair is willing to sacrifice (and may have already sacrificed) his political future on war. His conviction that this is the right thing to do must be very strong indeed.
Why do his people oppose him? I can think of many reasons: (1) they may be less informed so they do not appreciate the real risk of inaction, (2) they may not share Blair's values, (3) they may be turned off by Bush's stupid rhetoric, (4) they may be suffering from some of the same American power envy that the French are harboring, (5) they may sincerely believe that the risk to them of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction is less than the cost of the lives that will be lost, (6) they may sincerely believe that the situation will get worse once Saddam is gone, and/or (7) they may distrust American/Bush motives.
You also ask:
Other nations which are supporting the U.S. officially also have a citizenry which is generally opposed to this war. Why?
I could list some of the same reasons that I gave above for Great Britain, and, in the case of France and Russia, I would add that these countries have powerful economic interests in Iraq. They are certainly not moral beacons of purity and righteousness.
I asked when you would order war, and you answered basically that you would not do so unilaterally. I would not feel constrained by that if I felt that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, its citizens, and the people of the Middle East.
You turn the tables and ask when I would pull the trigger. I would do it when I was convinced that we were optimally prepared to prosecute the war with minimal loss of life (soldiers and especially innocent Iraqi civilian). That would depend upon Intelligence.
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 09:04:27
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: The Questions -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/06/2003, 19:09:40
Author Profile Mail author
While some of your seven responses with regard to the differences between Blair and British people are stronger than others, all have merit.
My more complete answer to the question of when to pull the trigger was this:
"Since it is an hypothetical question, my thought is also hypothetical. If the U.N. gave approval with no veto, that would be so overwhelming that the decision itself would order war. But if “support” for war were paid for through outright gifts and grants, it would be suspect -- as it is in the case of Turkey. United Nations’ approval for a preemptive attack on a country would give the U.S. a world moral authority to do such a thing. That is, it would declare that the world opposed Saddam, his regime, his policies."
In your observance, you stated:
“I would do it when I was convinced that we were optimally prepared to prosecute the war with minimal loss of life (soldiers and especially innocent Iraqi civilian). That would depend upon Intelligence.”JAK:
Would it then be your view that regardless of any developments with Saddam himself or with nations in the U.N., the war should happen?Who will decide what is the “minimal loss of life”? How would that be calculated? What review of an opinion on that would be made and by whom? Would the “intelligence” be judged by only those who serve the Bush administration?
I have doubt that the Bush administration is calculating the commencement of the war on the basis which you have set forward.
Your position seems to disregard the views of all other nations. It seems to be unilateral. Would you agree this is an accurate characterization of your view?
I shall post this at 7:55 EST Thursday regardless of the time stamp from the forum since Bush is to appear at 8 P.M. He will no doubt work to stir up support for his policy on the war.
It will be interesting to study his performance particularly if he is genuinely open to reporters’ questions.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 19:10:19
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: The Questions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
03/06/2003, 19:45:55
Author Profile Mail author
You ask: Would it then be your view that regardless of any developments with Saddam himself or with nations in the U.N., the war should happen?
The war should not happen if Saddam discloses his weapons of mass destruction program and allows the weapons to be destroyed. Alternatively, war might be avoided if Saddam were to leave power. Neither seems likely.
You ask: "Who will decide what is the “minimal loss of life”? How would that be calculated? What review of an opinion on that would be made and by whom? Would the “intelligence” be judged by only those who serve the Bush administration?"
My guess is that some of these estimates already exist. the military must make such projections. So must the intelligence community. Even some elements of the private sector must make such estimates. it would seem prudent to me to take as much of this information as possible into consideration, including all views. Of course, such an analysis would be difficult and could be wrong, but i would prefer a reasoned analysis - even one with large uncertainties - than one that was based on nothing more than gut instinct.
You also say, "Your position seems to disregard the views of all other nations. It seems to be unilateral. Would you agree this is an accurate characterization of your view? "
Obviously it is preferable to have allies. However, if I were convinced that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to his neighbors and the US and that he was planning to supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, then I would consider war justified, regardless of the position of other countries. Their interests need not always coincide with US interests for the US to act - especially when the stakes are so high.
Unfortunately, Bush has established a pattern of unilateralism, and that is hurting him now (Kyoto Accord, International Tribunals for war crimes, etc.). Moreover, he has a history with the oil industry and that makes it easy to question his motives, especially when he seems to consistently act in the interests of Big Oil in other arenas.
It will be interesting to see what Bush says .
Craig
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: The Questions -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/06/2003, 20:52:24
Author Profile Mail author
In reading your careful pondering, I consider that our views are similar.
It seemed to me that Bush presented himself much better tonight than he has on many occasions. Had he been that good in other public appearances and with other heads of state as he has attempted to persuade, there might be less opposition to his position.
I disagree with Bush’s characterization that Saddam will decide if there is war. Saddam does not want war on his country. When Bush gives the order, it will be Bush’s decision.
In a previous post on this forum, I pointed to the Bush-oil connection which is irrefutable by anyone who knows the Bush-Cheney history. Your observations on that are correct in my view.
You stated:
“...if I were convinced that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to his neighbors and the US and that he was planning to supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, then I would consider war justified, regardless of the position of other countries.”Many who oppose immediate war do not feel that this criteria has been met. Particularly given your use of “and” connecting the “U.S.” with “his neighbors” with “planning to supply weapons...,”
If you had said or, in place of the two ands, clearly the criteria would be much different. It would have been met without doubt. However, if “and” is inclusive, we have not been given adequate evidence by the administration.
Saddam clearly poses “an imminent threat to his neighbors.” Of that there can be no doubt. The other two of your three things about which you would need to be “convinced” are less clear. I think those are (in part) sticking points for France, Germany, China, and Russia.
If the war should go badly (and that could include many things), support both abroad and at home would quickly turn to criticism. And that “steep cost” to which you referred earlier would be very much in the eye of Americans. I think it will be in any case. When Americans face the realities of the hundreds of billions in deficit and/or the loss of services on which they now rely, criticism will be swift.
What was your impression of the Bush news conference? How did you think he handled questions?
JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 20:54:29
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: The Questions -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
03/07/2003, 09:10:04
Author Profile Mail author
i actually disagree. i think saddam has done nothing to avoid war. saddam knows what the consequences of his actions will be...he has been bombed by the last two presidents, bush sr. and clinton. he knows he will be bombed yet again if he doesn't comply with the UN mandate. and yet, he has done very little. i don't think he is as opposed to war as you may think...
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Questions Re: Re: The Questions -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/07/2003, 16:36:32
Author Profile Mail author
jak, you state: "I disagree with Bush’s characterization that Saddam will decide if there is war. Saddam does not want war on his country. When Bush gives the order, it will be Bush’s decision."“i actually disagree. i think saddam has done nothing to avoid war. saddam knows what the consequences of his actions will be...he has been bombed by the last two presidents, bush sr. and clinton. he knows he will be bombed yet again if he doesn't comply with the UN mandate. and yet, he has done very little. i don't think he is as opposed to war as you may think...”
JAK:
While I don’t claim to read Saddam’s mind, it is difficult to imagine that he genuinely wants war at any level. Does Saddam truly “know what the consequences of his actions will be”? I doubt he does. Bush, the administration, and the Congress don’t know yet. Bush did not expect the opposition to his war policy which it has received.Perhaps Saddam speculates that the U.N. will delay or prevent the U.S. attack. You stated: “saddam has done nothing to avoid war.” I disagree in this respect: Saddam likely has not done enough to avoid war. Today, Hans Blix told the U.N. that progress toward disarmament was being made. If that is correct, Saddam is doing something. If I am correct, Bush intends to pursue war regardless of what U.N. vote comes to pass.
Bush has shifted the conditions as this situation has developed. Having addressed this previously, I would just say that “regime change,” one of the Bush demands, is different than “total disarmament.” Now it is both. Along the way another Bush demand was “removal of weapons of mass destruction.” Total disarmament is vastly different than removal of WMD.
Both patriotism and religion tend to demand irrational commitment. Saddam has both calling him to behave as he has behaved and is behaving.
In any case, it appears the war as orchestrated by the Bush administration to begin bombing appears virtually inevitable at this point. Not unrelated to this, the ecomony is not in much “recovery” as was predicted by the Bush administration.
The “press conference” was more a scripted play with a specific list of “reporters” on whom he would call for questions. Bush used the stage to get out his message. The White House made the “rules” for that “press conference.” No questions were permitted about domestic affairs. No questions were permitted about Osama bin Laden.
It was orchestrated to take as much wind out of the U.N. debates today. It was designed and timed in an attempt to make the U.N. irrelevant.Had the U.N. been universally on the side of Bush, he would have used the U.N. as support for his position. But, the U.N. does not support his position as a whole body. And even those countries which are supporting Bush do so with much reservation about this particular war at this particular time.
If news about the war is as controlled and manipulated as the “press conference” was 6 February, the Americans may have an unrealistic picture of events. (The U.S. was winning in Viet Nam until the actual facts of the war became known.)
In your point above, I would agree that Saddam is a major player here. His action or inaction results in reactionary response from Bush. However, the decision “to go to war” will lie with the Bush administration. Bush placed all those 220,000 troops surrounding Iraq. When “the order” goes for U.S. planes to begin dropping thousands upon thousands of bombs, it will be the decision of the Bush administration.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Just this Re: Re: Just this -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
03/04/2003, 02:50:06
Author Profile Mail author
JAK: Where did you see that documentation? Even if were the case, and I would entertain your documentation, Saddam is contained at this point. The U.S. has 200,000 servicemen (and women) surrounding him and U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Saddam is contained. He could hardly be more contained.
me:colin powell presented evidence of iraq's work on a nuclear program to the UN. tim russert on meet the press yesterday stated that if not for saddam's son-in-law, who defected, iraq would have 20 nuclear weapons already...that point was conceded on the show by a former congressman who is opposed to war. that fact seems to be accepted by both sides.
the fact is, containment IS appeasement. containment is a cat-and-mouse game. we know that saddam will do everything he can to amass weapons. he will do everything he can to deceive inspectors and the UN. he will try to develop nuclear weapons. inspectors are fighting an uphill battle. it is much easier to hide weapons than it is to find them. the fact that 7 or 8 years of inspectors in iraq failed to find the nuclear program makes this painfully obvious.
so...how long do we keep inspectors in iraq? ad infinitum? suppose iraq is completely disarmed...then what? won't saddam re-develop the weapons programs once again? why keep treating symptoms rather than dealing with the real problem?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Reflecting on your points Re: Re: Just this -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 10:09:12
Author Profile Mail author
grendel reviewed:
Buck states: Defectors consistently agree that Saddam is seeking nuclear capabilities. It is documented that he has palestinian suicide bombers on the payroll.JAK: Where did you see that documentation? Even if were the case, and I would entertain your documentation, Saddam is contained at this point. The U.S. has 200,000 servicemen (and women) surrounding him and U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq. Saddam is contained. He could hardly be more contained.
me:colin powell presented evidence of iraq's work on a nuclear program to the UN. tim russert on meet the press yesterday stated that if not for saddam's son-in-law, who defected, iraq would have 20 nuclear weapons already...that point was conceded on the show by a former congressman who is opposed to war. that fact seems to be accepted by both sides.
the fact is, containment IS appeasement. containment is a cat-and-mouse game. we know that saddam will do everything he can to amass weapons. he will do everything he can to deceive inspectors and the UN. he will try to develop nuclear weapons. inspectors are fighting an uphill battle. it is much easier to hide weapons than it is to find them. the fact that 7 or 8 years of inspectors in iraq failed to find the nuclear program makes this painfully obvious.
so...how long do we keep inspectors in iraq? ad infinitum? suppose iraq is completely disarmed...then what? won't saddam re-develop the weapons programs once again? why keep treating symptoms rather than dealing with the real problem?
JAK:
Thanks for your points.First, It appears that Bush wants war. His preparations for that far exceed any evidence that he has pursued alternative roots to achieve his shifting objectives. Powell speaks for Bush. Hence, Powell is not an objective participant in the discussion (debate). That does not preclude the possibility that Powell is correct. But it should make one be skeptical. The assertion that “Iraq would have 20 nuclear weapons already” is an assertion which can never be established. Would have is speculation. That a congressman opposing the war who agreed with Powell is of little consequence in a matter of speculation about what Iraq would have had.
In any case, a surrounded Iraq, is a contained Iraq. I disagree that it is “appeasement.” Saddam can do nothing at this point that is not observed on the ground and in the air by spy planes controlled by the U.S. Weapons are being discovered by the U.N. and destroyed. The Bush administration does not want any positive news on the finding and destruction of weapons. Such news weakens the Bush assertion that a full attack with continuous bombing raids on Iraq is necessary.
The U.N., on the other hand, is committed to find some path to disarm Saddam short of bombing Iraqi cities which will kill hundreds of thousands of people who cannot escape the bombs.
I doubt Saddam can deceive inspectors indefinitely. Up to the present, inspectors have discovered much. To argue that he can gives him more credit than is warranted. The fact that no nuclear program has been found is not evidence that there is a nuclear program. There might be a nuclear program. But, even Powell recognizes that whatever Saddam has, or plans to have, he cannot move on it under the present state of surveillance on Iraq.
You asked how long to we keep inspectors in Iraq? First, it is not “we” in the sense of the U.S. only. I know you did not say that. But it is important to be clear that the inspectors are their by authority of the U.N. which is a duly constituted body. One answer to your question is this: Keep the inspectors as long as the multinational inspectors feel they are making progress and report that progress to the world through the U.N. If or when the inspectors come to the U.N. and declare they are at an end or that Iraq is denying them access to that which the U.N has authorized, the case for war will be far stronger as will be the support for it from our allies.
Turkey might change its vote on use of Turkish bases. That would alter war strategy.
If Saddam were to completely disarm as you mention, the cost of surveillance on Iraq to guarantee that he stay disarmed would be far less than a war on Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq (nation building). Bush was opposed to nation building, but he has shifted his view on that...late. And he and subsequent administrations will be required to be in Iraq “indefinitely” to assure any kind of democratic government there.
Not only would the cost in dollars be reduced, the cost in lost life and infra-structure destruction would be virtually eliminated.
The Bush plans fore re-election cannot be underestimated here. Bush wants war on his terms, his time sequence, for his political purposes.
However, the time for disarming Saddam ought not to be so constrained in my view. Saddam will not be there indefinitely. How old is Saddam? (I don’t know the chronological answer, but he is not young). The problems in that region and the oil there will exist long after Bush and Saddam are no longer players. Hence the longer view is better than the shorter one.Democratizing Iraq, a nation which has never known democracy, will extent long beyond Bush and Saddam. You raise a good question about “how long” with regard to inspectors. But you imply a shorter time frame than may be wise. My response to that would be as long as the inspectors themselves feel they are making progress and can present that progress to the world. By the time Saddam is completely disarmed, Saddam himself may be gone by any number of possible scenarios. He might die. He might be killed. He might decide to exit (though I think that unlikely as he is committed to his view). But, enough pressure from the world community for Saddam to leave might help make it happen. Pressure from the U.S. alone will not.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Just this Re: Re: Just this -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Buck ®
03/04/2003, 12:00:25
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks for the reply.
So your general theory is that containment is working, and can continue to work. Correct?
Indefinitely? If not, at what point would war be justified?I agree with you on some points; I agree that containment has worked to limit Saddam from invading neighboring countries. That we have been able to criple his WMD creating capability.
However, my argument is that containment is currently deteriorating, and is not a sustainable policy over the long run. This is why:
First, sanctions: As part of the containment policy, US sanctions on Iraq were meant to bring Saddam and his military operations to a grinding hault have not worked. It has only spawned a heavy increase in smuggling from neighboring countries. Neighboring countries are not supporting the sanctions. The government has not felt the sting; the Iraqi civilians have. Sanctions are not working.
Second, Military presence/No fly zones: US Military presence in neighboring countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey) over the last 12 years continue reinforce the Mid-East's perception of the USA as an imperialist country. We already have spent any political equity that we may have had. Support for such an open-ended presence (as an ongoing containment policy would require), is unrealistic, considering that we have already worn out our welcome with the governments of those countries, let alone the public.
Third, UN inspections: Saddam continues to play cat and mouse with UN operations in Iraq. His arm has had to be twisted for every bit of information he has turned over. He says he has accounted for all of his weapons, the UN finds more. This is a common pattern. This alone is reason to distrust Saddam, and seriously question his motives; let alone his track record. His strategy, as he said in an Egyptian newspaper is to "buy more time," and the US/UK alliance would "disintegrate because of…the pressure of public opinion on American and British streets." Good strategy as it turns out. If this inspection turns out like the inspections over the last decade, the inspectors will, "leave volutarily," (as you put it, but I won't get into semantics) after continued frustration, non-compliance and the deterioration of public support. (We both know that won't be the case this time. They'll leave to avoid being bombed.)So that's my theory: Containment has worked, but is not a good strategy over the long haul.
-buck
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Some further thoughts Re: Re: Just this -- Buck Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 21:27:19
Author Profile Mail author
Buck states:
Thanks for the reply.So your general theory is that containment is working, and can continue to work. Correct? Indefinitely? If not, at what point would war be justified?
JAK:
No easy answers. When U.N. inspectors report they can make no further progress. When U.N. inspectors cease to be able to reveal evidence of destroyed weapons. “Indefinitely” is a difficult as well. If the cost of the war is trillions in the long run...a decade of occupation in a very hostile place, administration of oil enterprises, rebuilding of Iraq, humanitarian aid for more than an decade -- that will be a very high cost which could undo the U.S. along with other possible wars it may attempt.Buck states:
I agree with you on some points; I agree that containment has worked to limit Saddam from invading neighboring countries. That we have been able to cripple his WMD creating capability.However, my argument is that containment is currently deteriorating, and is not a sustainable policy over the long run. This is why:
First, sanctions: As part of the containment policy, US sanctions on Iraq were meant to bring Saddam and his military operations to a grinding hault have not worked. It has only spawned a heavy increase in smuggling from neighboring countries. Neighboring countries are not supporting the sanctions. The government has not felt the sting; the Iraqi civilians have. Sanctions are not working.
JAK:
“Working” is relative as you suggest without intention really to do that. I would disagree that the that Saddam and those in his government have “not felt the sting.” The fact that they can still do some business does not mean they have not been damaged. (Consider 9-11 and post 9-11 in this country. The whole country has felt the sting. That is not to say that we have been bought to a grinding halt. Terrorism has worked.)It would have been unrealistic to expect that “neighbors” of Iraq would have supported the sanctions. Sanctions rarely if ever are wholly successful, and often they have little effect. They are used as a weapon.
Buck states:
Second, Military presence/No fly zones: US Military presence in neighboring countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey) over the last 12 years continue reinforce the Mid-East's perception of the USA as an imperialist country. We already have spent any political equity that we may have had. Support for such an open-ended presence (as an ongoing containment policy would require), is unrealistic, considering that we have already worn out our welcome with the governments of those countries, let alone the public.JAK:
You make good observation here.
Buck states:
Third, UN inspections: Saddam continues to play cat and mouse with UN operations in Iraq. His arm has had to be twisted for every bit of information he has turned over.JAK:
That is correct, but his “arm” is being “twisted.” He can do little under the present state of his situation.Buck states:
He says he has accounted for all of his weapons, the UN finds more. This is a common pattern. This alone is reason to distrust Saddam, and seriously question his motives; let alone his track record.JAK:
Absolutely, he is not to be trusted. And neither we nor our allies trust him. He has been contained successfully for 12 years for 30 billion dollars. That is cheap compared with what a war will cost the U.S. How much pain to our nation will an actual war be worth? I suspect not what it will cost compared with containment. We have the largest deficit in the history of the country given Bush policies now in place, and that does not include the cost of a war and maybe another with North Korea. Despite my humorous tone in that editorial about North Korea, it is not a humorous situation.Buck states:
His strategy, as he said in an Egyptian newspaper is to "buy more time," and the US/UK alliance would "disintegrate because of…the pressure of public opinion on American and British streets." Good strategy as it turns out.JAK:
As the U.N. inspectors find and destroy weapons, he is not buying time cheaply. The cost, if the process continues, may be so high as to put Saddam out of commission without a war.Buck states:
If this inspection turns out like the inspections over the last decade, the inspectors will, "leave voluntarily," (as you put it, but I won't get into semantics) after continued frustration, non-compliance and the deterioration of public support. (We both know that won't be the case this time. They'll leave to avoid being bombed.)JAK:
Given the status quo, I have serious doubt that the inspectors will leave as they did before without compliance with the U.N. resolution. If they do leave without that compliance, the U.S. will attack with those 200,000 troops, and Baghdad will be virtually obliterated along with every possible place which U.S. intelligence had on its bombing target. John McCain said tonight on CNBC, that we are a week away from war. He added that he had no inside information.
Buck states:
So that's my theory: Containment has worked, but is not a good strategy over the long haul.JAK:
I would agree with that depending upon what other options develop. If John McCain is correct, we won’t have long to wait.You make important points. While I don’t concur entirely, I recognize the situation is most difficult. I appreciate your comments.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Tue, Mar 04, 2003, 21:28:50
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: Support for the war Re: Support for the war -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/04/2003, 21:08:29
Author Profile Mail author
Democratic textbooks, that's a good one.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Support for the war Re: Re: Support for the war -- Another Bob Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 21:53:11
Author Profile Mail author
Democratization is done through the teaching of language, literature, written math problems, etc. What is selected for the texts now in process in American publishing houses is material which uses the Arabic language with pro-democratic ideals and ideas to teach in a post-war Iraq with the assumption that the United States will occupy Iraq into the foreseeable future.
Of course we don’t know if the U.S. will occupy Iraq. But if there is war, we will try and the task of bringing democracy to a people wholly unfamiliar with it will be a formidable one.
Iraq cannot be left as a vacuum after it is destroyed by the U.S. While Bush is opposed to “nation building” (as he campaigned for the Presidency), he will be forced to spend billions to rehabilitate a country he bombed.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Kumbaya m'lord. Re: Re: Support for the war -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/04/2003, 22:16:37
Author Profile Mail author
Hey, while we're at it, why don't we start getting them to say the Lords Prayer at school as well? I can see it now, 'Iraqi' summer camps...
(aside) What do you think would happen to the war effort if it were put to the american people as a (truly)democratic vote?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page