Country X, the most powerful nation on Planet Y, uses a quarter of the planet's yearly crop of bananas (they grow on Planet Y too.) It is entirely addictimacated to bananas; the lifestyle of Country X depends on that nation''s continuing consumption of the curvy yellow fruit, more than any other country on the planet.
Country X has an election.
The new leader used to work in the banana industry and immediately passes laws allowing the banana barons to plant banana trees in areas of outstanding natural beauty, while refusing to acknowledge the harm his country is doing to the planet through overzealous banana consumption, pleasing his friends in the banana business no end and pissing off everybody else on Planet Y.
He has, as police lingo has it, 'previous'.
He appoints former banana barons to the MOST SENIOR GOVERNMENTAL POSTS THERE ARE in his cabinet.
He then proposes to go to war on Country Z to replace their leader, against international consensus and despite any serious evidence that Country Z is a threat to Country X AT ALL.
Country Z is has the potential to be one of the world's very largest producers of bananas. Larger than Countries A, B or Costa Rica, even.
He then
Oops, got to go: there's a peace march kicking off twenty minutes from my front door and I have to go and make a stand against American and British neo-colonialism, arrogance and hypocrisy.
I hate Saddam but if this war's fought and the US runs Iraq we're all in the deepest shit and we will be for decades. God damn the banana industry and the banana bastards running Planet Y's most powerful nation.
I'll leave you with this: Tony Blair and George Bush make a speech together. They repair to the green room for a moment to catch their breath. They are alone. Their eyes meet: and then their lips, gently, and then again, more urgently. Tony sinks to his knees, his eyes shut, a small smile playing on his lips, while George
The following opinion column is the view from an Israeli journalist (a view with which I have some divergences) which reflects much of the public opinion there:
Sorry it's in French, here's an approximate translation of the title:
Â?If Europe refuses to see the danger Saddam's regime represents for the balance of the world, and if the USA are the only ones intent on treating this problem, let them do it.Â?
While I believe Saddam is a problem which should be dealt with, I suppose that Â?fire and brimstoneÂ? might not be the most appropriate. Then again, it might be resolved as efficiently and expeditiously as the problem posed by MiloÂ?ević a few years ago (in which instance the US intervention was opposed by roughly the same bunch of people, which is telling a lot).
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>The following opinion column is the view from an Israeli journalist (a view with which I have some divergences) which reflects much of the public opinion there:
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems like the, uh, "disconnect" here is whether we should concern ourselves with direct threats only or try to stop any indirect ones before they turn the corner. Is Iraq our problem because it is a threat to us, or is Iraq a problem because it a threat to others? I think the US thinks an indirect threat can get out of hand very quickly, and therefore must be stopped before there is a critical turn for the worse. I think the majority of European nations' attitude is that if it's not a direct threat, leave it alone.
That's why a lot of Americans are warning of the dangers of appeasement; they feel that there's a parallel between European appeasement before WWII, where Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to nations like the UK and France, so they felt they could make nice and the problem wouldn't materialize. And they let allegiances slip. And then Poland fell. And before you knew it, France fell and the UK was under siege.
<strong>That's why a lot of Americans are warning of the dangers of appeasement; they feel that there's a parallel between European appeasement before WWII, where Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to nations like the UK and France, so they felt they could make nice and the problem wouldn't materialize. And they let allegiances slip. And then Poland fell. And before you knew it, France fell and the UK was under siege.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Buon Rotto,
That is a good point. But I'd like to disagree on this.
Comparing Germany 1938 to Iraq 2003 is not a good idea.
Germany was a highly dangerous military power to all of its neighbours and something like UN did not exist.
Today we can control a regime like Saddam Husseins with UN technology, if we really want to. And there is NO urgent threat today for any of the NATO countries coming out of Iraq, even if they should gather a rest of biological or chemical weapons, which MUST be destroyed of course.
No NATO country is against that. Everybody is aware of the fact, that Saddam is a cruel dictator and must be disarmed.
But the methods chosen should be carefully considered.
If you start a war, even a war against a cruel dictatorship, you will break international war that protects democratic values.
We should be proud of this achievement in Europe and the USA. If we break them, any other regime can legitimate a preventional war if they feel to do so. That would be a very dangerous situation foe the whole world and the UN would be destroyed...and it is 1938 again.
So, even if this process is slower, we can disarm Saddam without a war, if we try. We must control that open-ended to make sure that regime has no chance to rebuild a military force.
This is the only way to make a step forward in the fight against international terrorrism.
And to all American Macheads here:
In Germany, we felt great pain on 9/11 and we showed it.
We also immediatly supported the fight in Afghanistan still have a lot of soldiers out there to keep the peace. We stand for our values, but we also have the right to express ourselves, if we think the U.S. government is heading in the wrong direction. That's what you freed us for in 1945. To be democratic and remain peaceful.Well, this is what we are today. So show some respect, please.
We are in no way against the Americans, the majority right now is against the dangerous politics of the Bush administration. That's it.
<strong>That's why a lot of Americans are warning of the dangers of appeasement; they feel that there's a parallel between European appeasement before WWII, where Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to nations like the UK and France, so they felt they could make nice and the problem wouldn't materialize. And they let allegiances slip. And then Poland fell. And before you knew it, France fell and the UK was under siege.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh you see there are certain differences in this situation, namely:
1) The Nazis built an extraordinary army before the war; hugely powerful airforce containing the most technologically advanced warplanes in Europe; an enormous, very well equipped infantry backed by powerful and well maintained artillery and thousands of the best tanks in the world. A poweful navy with the largest warships the world had ever seen; world-leading missile technology. And alliances with one of the most powerful nations on that continent: the USSR. It was a potential threat, and the appeasers screwed up.
Iraq has no navy. It has no airforce, as everything in the no-fly zones has been bombed continuously for the last 10 years. Maybe they've got a couple of knackered MiG's hidden somewhere. No more. They have the Republican Guard, which has morale but nothing else. The remainder of the Iraqi infantry is a joke. It has a small amount of antiquated crap in terms of artillery and crap equipment. This army is simply not a threat to anyone: it's shit.
2) Apart from the appeasers in Europe, Germany's neighbours were crapping themselves and asking for support. All of Iraq's neighbours -- even Kuwait for Christ's sake -- think that military incursion is a bad idea. Iran, Saudi, everyone. We seem to know what's good for them.
3) An attack on Germany may have reduced the amount of violence in Europe. An attack on Iraq will CERTAINLY lead to more terrorism.
Iraq is not a threat. Nazi Germany was. And appeasment is not what the Europeans are calling for -- enforced disarmament IS, even if it's a slow, frustrating process. It's better then war and the effects that will have.
<strong>Whats are your divergence ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two major points:
An all out war would more than likely fuel the Islamists' aspiration for an ?Islam vs. The World? apocalyptic conflict. It will further their propaganda, winning them the support of many more ignorants and simple-minded fools (including non-Muslims) to serve as their dynamite-belt or crashing Boeing fodder.
That doesn't mean I think the World should stand by letting Saddam's regime exist, far from it. It should be dealt with expeditiously and summarily.
Another point of divergence is, that I find the editorial overstates Saddam's actual threat. He's certainly a local threat but not a global one and is even less capable than Yugoslavia Minor was in 2000 (and it took quite a limited opertaion to take care of that annoyance).
<strong>Comparing Germany 1938 to Iraq 2003 is not a good idea. Germany was a highly dangerous military power to all of its neighbours and something like UN did not exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the analogy is inherently limited of course, I don't mean to say that it's a perfect parallel. But I do think there are some similarities, including the one you've just mentioned actually. We did have League of Nations, and Iraq is likely if not actually a military threat to its neighbors. Kuwait and Iran was proof of that. In the case of the Iran-Iraq war, I think the US would like to do things a little differently in hindsight. (Having said that, I'm afraid our support of states like Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. may land us in the same boat.) In the case of Kuwait, I think that war was more about oil than this one is. Oil is obviously a part of this conflict, but this time I don't think it's the main thing on the American government's agenda. In that sense, I think that this conflict is more justified than the prevous one, though again that's only one aspect of the Gulf War. Certainly colonizing another country is also why we fought the Gulf War, so I'd hate to think that we have any intention of annexing Iraq and/or its oil in any way.
To me, this conflict is about them breaking terms of the cease-fire, and how six previous (we're working on the seventh) UN resolutions have been conveniently ignored. I'm afraid of how empowered Hussein will be after brushing off the UN again.
[quote]<strong>Today we can control a regime like Saddam Husseins with UN technology, if we really want to. And there is NO urgent threat today for any of the NATO countries coming out of Iraq, even if they should gather a rest of biological or chemical weapons, which MUST be destroyed of course.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So far our technology hasn't proven very effective, or at least it hasn't proven it seffectiveness to put it another way. I'd like to think this would be the solution. I can't imagine that war is anything but a last resort. As you might imagine, I'm for some more time to let inspections continue, but I find the inspection process a bit ridiculous. It was never the inspector's job to hunt down WMD, but to confirm their elimination as part of the cease-fire. The essential problem with the inspections right now is that Iraq is not providing or does not have records of what happened even to their known weapons. It's a wild goose chase and it's a frustrating waste of everyone's time (except, some fear, Husseins's).
I think you can argue about Turkey's safety, though I don't think they would be a direct target of Iraq aggression. They both repress Kurds, and what I'm afraid of is that any Iraqi provocation of the Kurds could drag Turkey into a big mess whether they want to be in there or not.
Also, what I think the administration is worried about isn't Iraq's own use of their weapons per se, but like North Korea, Syria and Iran, it will sell its weapons to anyone for a price. So I think the American government is worried about those weapons of mass destruction going outside of Iraq even more than Iraq keeping them. That's why they demand full diclosure of what they had, have and what happened to the stuff. I do think the administration has at best only loose ties between the Iraqi government and terrorist groups. But turning a blind eye to terrorists running around in your country, negligence, is just as bad as active support. and selling to terrorists is just as bad as trainig them or supporting them financially, worse really. So while the ties might be loose, they could be critical. We have to find out, sleuth around.
[quote]<strong>Everybody is aware of the fact, that Saddam is a cruel dictator and must be disarmed.
But the methods chosen should be carefully considered.
If you start a war, even a war against a cruel dictatorship, you will break international [law] that protects democratic values.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We agree, at least in principle, plus also I have reservations about resorting to war. Like I said, war is a last resort. I do consider it an option if all else fails. I think we have some ways to go before it comes to that point, but I'm not sure myself about the timing. The more wait wait, the more we risk, but some more time might be able to avert war. I think the US is willing to give some time if they see progress. Blix's report really didn't help anyone's case yesterday. It was just double-speak to protect his own agenda so niehter side of the debate had much to draw on except their pre-drawn conclusions. The rest of that UN session was just posturing for the voters.
I'm not sure about the international law aspect. Certainly letting a dictator sit goes against the protection of democratic values. It's a stalemate at this point. You can either be un-democratic (unilateral) on the international scene and despose a dictator in favor of a democracy (hopefully a successful one, but that's another debate) for Iraq, or you can let a dictator repress democratic values in Iraq and let the international community work democratically. Is there any sort of win-win at this point?
[quote]<strong>So, even if this process is slower, we can disarm Saddam without a war, if we try.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you're right, but I for one am getting frustrated by al the games: cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek, wild goose chases, scavenger hunts, etc. How do we strongarm Iraq into playing ball? At some point I'm afraid these current efforts are futile and ineffective. Are there more options if these current steps with inspectors, etc fail? I'm asking because I hope so but I can't think of what they are.
[quote][/qb]We stand for our values, but we also have the right to express ourselves, if we think the U.S. government is heading in the wrong direction.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
We can respect that, we have our own very large representation of that viewpoint here. I think Americans are getting nervous about this renewed perception of "anti-Americanism." (Is that even an "ism?") So I think some are reacting defensively. We can take respectful disagreements, getting "ganged up on" at the UN, whatever. Some worry that this disagreement will spill over into a general hate-mongering. The idea of being a target of terrorists can make you a bit paranoid about just how much others are going to "disagree" with you, if you know what I mean. We have to worry more about keeping a focus on our specific disagreements, because if they lose their focus, our friendships are in jeopardy.
This is exactly the point. But I also have to admit, that this is new to both sides and we probably need some time to get used to it. So even more importantly we need to keep that focus.
I believe that this is a historical chance to keep the pressure on the Bagdad regime and let us show we can solve this without a war together. Bin Laden will be VERY dissappointed for not recruiting millions of arabs and other muslims from around the world for free.
If you wage a war now, the chance to accept the UN as a world peacekeeper is gone. Worse will follow, especially more terrorism all over the world.
So this cannot be American interest in my view. You are not safe anymore. Until the soil for terrorists has dried up. War is the perfect soil for terrorism in this case.
Afghanistan was different. It was not only chasing away the Taliban, but concretely destroying training camps and active terrorists. And even there it is hard enough to keep the peace now.
Iraq has more than 23 million people- and they have no opposition that could take over.
Imagine: the war is over, tens of thousends dead, hundreds of thousands fleeing and the weapons still not found by the Americans? Well, maybe someone managed to get them away in the last minute to sell them to Bin Laden in revenge! Okay, just imagination, but one more that tells me this war is insane.
We have to rethink the whole situation to get EVERYBODY on board. UN pressure on Iraq. Controls everywhere. With no time limit. A monitoring system. No chance for Saddam.
It's the only way in my opinion.
I think this is a crucial historic decision and so many people today seem to understand. And they are getting more as I switch on the TV
<strong>If you wage a war now, the chance to accept the UN as a world peacekeeper is gone. Worse will follow, especially more terrorism all over the world.
So this cannot be American interest in my view. You are not safe anymore. Until the soil for terrorists has dried up. War is the perfect soil for terrorism in this case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. The UN does have to find some solution to this, or else it might go the way of the League of Nations. Very bad. It shouldn't be an American interest. But whereas the US message can be criticized as heavy-handed, other nations' few proposals are impotent. The most valid aspect of France's proposal is the call for more time for inspectors. Nothing else in their proposal carries much if any weight. More inspectors? Might help a bit if they're crawling over Iraq like ants, though I suspect it will look more like the Keystone Cops. The onus is on some group of UN representatives to come up with a real alternative to endless inspections and avert forced disarmament (war).
Terrorism tends to succeed best when least expected. I tend to think that a war would be irrelevant during the war, though the risks of terrorism after a war might be higher depending somewhat on the outcome. The long-term has many possibilities, depending on how we handle the end-game and transition of power in the case of a war (assuming a victory too).
[quote]<strong>...Well, maybe someone managed to get them away in the last minute to sell them to Bin Laden in revenge! Okay, just imagination, but one more that tells me this war is insane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dare say that that's exactly where this stuff has gone and is going right now. I think a big part of the Bush administration's hard line is in response to this threat. Aside from the idea that this war threat is the only kind of 'negotiation" that gets through to Hussein, the biggest danger right now isn't Saddam per se, it's where the hell those materials are because he could be selling them off to terrorists. That's why we need to know what happened to them. This isn't about a "smoking gun" because I think the administration would be somewhat relieved to find Hussein in possession of these weapons. The bigger risk is that they've sold the arms. They've had years to unload and arguably the motivation to do it.
[quote]<strong>We have to rethink the whole situation to get EVERYBODY on board. UN pressure on Iraq. Controls everywhere. With no time limit. A monitoring system. No chance for Saddam.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but we have to get more answers out of Iraq about those weapons one way or another as a priority. We should have done something about this years ago when the last round of inspectors were kicked out. Like so much else, we underestimated the trouble ahead of us at that point.
Yes, but we have to get more answers out of Iraq about those weapons one way or another as a priority. We should have done something about this years ago when the last round of inspectors were kicked out. Like so much else, we underestimated the trouble ahead of us at that point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is the old game of making money and short sighted interest politics instead of a long term concept. This goes out to Europe and the US.
Well, we now have to face this mess. The critical point is how to fight terrorism.
The current US strategy suggests war till the whole region is under control. This is unrealistic. It is a naive dream to think we could install democracy in these arab countries. Sorry, the structures are different from Post-Nazi Germany.
Germany has had democracy before the Nazi regime. People were ready for this.
Look at Afghanistan. People love to have more freedom now, but there are no democratic structures. Very difficult to handle. I do question the western style democracy works in arab countries. Maybe I'm too pessimistic on this.
This is one of the main reasons I think the US strategy will blow up everything because the arab people just don't trust and understand this.
You say the opposers of war do not bring enough suggestions. Well, it is hard to suggest anything against the simple picture of war that seems as promising.
Nevertheless, we have the alliance against terrorism, which is admittedly a vague picture but when the Arab and American and Europeans concentrate their power upon fighting terrorism it will work in the long run.
There is no short term solution. As you already pointed out, it is too late for that. We all should have acted far earlier.
Not only with oppression, but also to the terrible state the people in the whole of Arabia are in materially.
We should have left out Iraq now anyway, because they the strongest inner arabic opposition to Bin Laden, as funny as it sounds. The Baarth party of Saddam despises religious people like Bin Laden and the other way round.The people of Iraq are probably the least fanatic muslims in that area.
We should have concentrated on those who really shelter Bin Laden. We still have to now. Iraq is the wrong focus now.
I propose we have to use intelligence and we have to build up UN(!) forces that are capable of striking when there is evidence of Bin Laden support anywhere in the arabic region. But we need UN for that in order to convince the muslim world that our aim is not to surpress and exploit them.
I also may add that I do not have the answer to this difficult question, but anyone who tells me he does is lying.
So, the only major mistake of the German chancellor was to rule out military action (France did not say so), very much to the anger of the foreign minister Fischer, but now he has to follow that line.
All in all we only discuss the political situation at this point.
I do not know how far the British, French, Russian and US governments especially are influenced by pure strategic and economic interests. I hope this is not their main reason to act as they do, but this may be naive as well...
You say that the Arabs cannot handle democracy, and you use the state that Germany was in at the end of WWII as a way of proving that. Well, then I ask you about Japan. Were the Japanese ready for democracy? Probably not. However,they seem to be doing quite well with it now. Also, you are forgetting that Iraq is a secular, and technically socialist, country. The Iraqi's can handle democracy.
On another note, I am surprised that so many of the posters here are being so out-rightly anti-American. It is not debate, it is America bashing time in AO.
9-11 is not the direct reason for a possible war against Iraq. It is the indirect reason. Everyone has been commenting on how weak Iraq is. THe reason we would go to war with Iraq is not their military might. THat is a ridiculous notion. Nice try Harald. The reason is that we must get rid of the weapons (chemical, biological, and pre-nuclear) that WILL slip into the wrong hands while saddam is in power, if they haven't already.
You know, the fact is that the US will always be the target for terrorist attacks against the west. So, while the entire western world enjoys the western lifestyle, the US will be the one who defends it because WE are the targets, not the French or the Germans.
[quote] Additionally I have no problem blaming France in general for ****ing things up since French and British colonialism is responsible more so than anything else the West has done IMO for how bass ackwards much of the Middle East and Africa is. Look at the troublespots in the world and see how many of them are impoverished. formerly colonies which became warzones after spin offs. Isreal Palestine. India Pakistan. Afghanstian. Congo, hey, something to blame the Belgians for! Nigeria. Ivory Coast. It goes on and on. I suppose since I am blaming the French I have to give the British their due share of the blame as well. <hr></blockquote>
I am so glad that someone FINALLY brought this up. Today, everyone blames the United States for the problems of the world. Well, in reality, we are the only western power with enough power to deal with the SHIT that the OLD EUROPEAN nations caused. All of their colonialism and imperialism in africa and the middle east jumbled these VERY different cultures together and forced them to live in extremely heterogeneous nations where only brute force and totalitarian regimes can rule, and usually, chaos is the result. So, instead of supporting the US when we go in and try to fix the situation, they balk and complain. You would think that they would be eternally grateful for us cleaning up their mess, but no, they are not. The europeans are eternally selfish.
<strong> I am surprised that so many of the posters here are being so out-rightly anti-American. It is not debate, it is America bashing time in AO.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
SNIP
[quote]<strong>
Instead of supporting the US when we go in and try to fix the situation, they balk and complain. You would think that they would be eternally grateful for us cleaning up their mess, but no, they are not. The europeans are eternally selfish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>Does anyone actually believe the US government CARES about the Iraqi people? </strong><hr></blockquote>
<cheap shot>Of course they do. After all someone have to be left to operate the oil wells for the americans</cheap shot>
Country X has an election.
The new leader used to work in the banana industry and immediately passes laws allowing the banana barons to plant banana trees in areas of outstanding natural beauty, while refusing to acknowledge the harm his country is doing to the planet through overzealous banana consumption, pleasing his friends in the banana business no end and pissing off everybody else on Planet Y.
He has, as police lingo has it, 'previous'.
He appoints former banana barons to the MOST SENIOR GOVERNMENTAL POSTS THERE ARE in his cabinet.
He then proposes to go to war on Country Z to replace their leader, against international consensus and despite any serious evidence that Country Z is a threat to Country X AT ALL.
Country Z is has the potential to be one of the world's very largest producers of bananas. Larger than Countries A, B or Costa Rica, even.
He then
Oops, got to go: there's a peace march kicking off twenty minutes from my front door and I have to go and make a stand against American and British neo-colonialism, arrogance and hypocrisy.
I hate Saddam but if this war's fought and the US runs Iraq we're all in the deepest shit and we will be for decades. God damn the banana industry and the banana bastards running Planet Y's most powerful nation.
I'll leave you with this: Tony Blair and George Bush make a speech together. They repair to the green room for a moment to catch their breath. They are alone. Their eyes meet: and then their lips, gently, and then again, more urgently. Tony sinks to his knees, his eyes shut, a small smile playing on his lips, while George
(etc.)
<strong>Cheap shots are easier than answering questions. Questions make you think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't help noticing that that's exactly what you've just done.
Anyway: must dash.
<a href="http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_analyse.php3?id_article=9684"; target="_blank">Si l'Europe ne veut pas voir le danger que représente le régime de Saddam pour l'équilibre mondial, et si les Ã?tats-Unis sont les seuls Ã* vouloir traiter le problème : alors, il faut les laisser faire</a>
Sorry it's in French, here's an approximate translation of the title:
Â?If Europe refuses to see the danger Saddam's regime represents for the balance of the world, and if the USA are the only ones intent on treating this problem, let them do it.Â?
While I believe Saddam is a problem which should be dealt with, I suppose that Â?fire and brimstoneÂ? might not be the most appropriate. Then again, it might be resolved as efficiently and expeditiously as the problem posed by MiloÂ?ević a few years ago (in which instance the US intervention was opposed by roughly the same bunch of people, which is telling a lot).
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>The following opinion column is the view from an Israeli journalist (a view with which I have some divergences) which reflects much of the public opinion there:
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whats are your divergence ?
That's why a lot of Americans are warning of the dangers of appeasement; they feel that there's a parallel between European appeasement before WWII, where Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to nations like the UK and France, so they felt they could make nice and the problem wouldn't materialize. And they let allegiances slip. And then Poland fell. And before you knew it, France fell and the UK was under siege.
<strong>That's why a lot of Americans are warning of the dangers of appeasement; they feel that there's a parallel between European appeasement before WWII, where Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to nations like the UK and France, so they felt they could make nice and the problem wouldn't materialize. And they let allegiances slip. And then Poland fell. And before you knew it, France fell and the UK was under siege.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Buon Rotto,
That is a good point. But I'd like to disagree on this.
Comparing Germany 1938 to Iraq 2003 is not a good idea.
Germany was a highly dangerous military power to all of its neighbours and something like UN did not exist.
Today we can control a regime like Saddam Husseins with UN technology, if we really want to. And there is NO urgent threat today for any of the NATO countries coming out of Iraq, even if they should gather a rest of biological or chemical weapons, which MUST be destroyed of course.
No NATO country is against that. Everybody is aware of the fact, that Saddam is a cruel dictator and must be disarmed.
But the methods chosen should be carefully considered.
If you start a war, even a war against a cruel dictatorship, you will break international war that protects democratic values.
We should be proud of this achievement in Europe and the USA. If we break them, any other regime can legitimate a preventional war if they feel to do so. That would be a very dangerous situation foe the whole world and the UN would be destroyed...and it is 1938 again.
So, even if this process is slower, we can disarm Saddam without a war, if we try. We must control that open-ended to make sure that regime has no chance to rebuild a military force.
This is the only way to make a step forward in the fight against international terrorrism.
And to all American Macheads here:
In Germany, we felt great pain on 9/11 and we showed it.
We also immediatly supported the fight in Afghanistan still have a lot of soldiers out there to keep the peace. We stand for our values, but we also have the right to express ourselves, if we think the U.S. government is heading in the wrong direction. That's what you freed us for in 1945. To be democratic and remain peaceful.Well, this is what we are today. So show some respect, please.
We are in no way against the Americans, the majority right now is against the dangerous politics of the Bush administration. That's it.
<strong>
If you start a war, even a war against a cruel dictatorship, you will break international war that protects democratic values.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, international LAW it should read
<strong>That's why a lot of Americans are warning of the dangers of appeasement; they feel that there's a parallel between European appeasement before WWII, where Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to nations like the UK and France, so they felt they could make nice and the problem wouldn't materialize. And they let allegiances slip. And then Poland fell. And before you knew it, France fell and the UK was under siege.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh you see there are certain differences in this situation, namely:
1) The Nazis built an extraordinary army before the war; hugely powerful airforce containing the most technologically advanced warplanes in Europe; an enormous, very well equipped infantry backed by powerful and well maintained artillery and thousands of the best tanks in the world. A poweful navy with the largest warships the world had ever seen; world-leading missile technology. And alliances with one of the most powerful nations on that continent: the USSR. It was a potential threat, and the appeasers screwed up.
Iraq has no navy. It has no airforce, as everything in the no-fly zones has been bombed continuously for the last 10 years. Maybe they've got a couple of knackered MiG's hidden somewhere. No more. They have the Republican Guard, which has morale but nothing else. The remainder of the Iraqi infantry is a joke. It has a small amount of antiquated crap in terms of artillery and crap equipment. This army is simply not a threat to anyone: it's shit.
2) Apart from the appeasers in Europe, Germany's neighbours were crapping themselves and asking for support. All of Iraq's neighbours -- even Kuwait for Christ's sake -- think that military incursion is a bad idea. Iran, Saudi, everyone. We seem to know what's good for them.
3) An attack on Germany may have reduced the amount of violence in Europe. An attack on Iraq will CERTAINLY lead to more terrorism.
Iraq is not a threat. Nazi Germany was. And appeasment is not what the Europeans are calling for -- enforced disarmament IS, even if it's a slow, frustrating process. It's better then war and the effects that will have.
<strong>Whats are your divergence ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two major points:
An all out war would more than likely fuel the Islamists' aspiration for an ?Islam vs. The World? apocalyptic conflict. It will further their propaganda, winning them the support of many more ignorants and simple-minded fools (including non-Muslims) to serve as their dynamite-belt or crashing Boeing fodder.
That doesn't mean I think the World should stand by letting Saddam's regime exist, far from it. It should be dealt with expeditiously and summarily.
Another point of divergence is, that I find the editorial overstates Saddam's actual threat. He's certainly a local threat but not a global one and is even less capable than Yugoslavia Minor was in 2000 (and it took quite a limited opertaion to take care of that annoyance).
[quote]<strong>I can't help noticing that that's exactly what you've just done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did I ignore a question someone directed at me?
I didn't know, please point one out.
---
Can those against war in Iraq please provide alternatives? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
<strong>Comparing Germany 1938 to Iraq 2003 is not a good idea. Germany was a highly dangerous military power to all of its neighbours and something like UN did not exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the analogy is inherently limited of course, I don't mean to say that it's a perfect parallel. But I do think there are some similarities, including the one you've just mentioned actually. We did have League of Nations, and Iraq is likely if not actually a military threat to its neighbors. Kuwait and Iran was proof of that. In the case of the Iran-Iraq war, I think the US would like to do things a little differently in hindsight. (Having said that, I'm afraid our support of states like Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. may land us in the same boat.) In the case of Kuwait, I think that war was more about oil than this one is. Oil is obviously a part of this conflict, but this time I don't think it's the main thing on the American government's agenda. In that sense, I think that this conflict is more justified than the prevous one, though again that's only one aspect of the Gulf War. Certainly colonizing another country is also why we fought the Gulf War, so I'd hate to think that we have any intention of annexing Iraq and/or its oil in any way.
To me, this conflict is about them breaking terms of the cease-fire, and how six previous (we're working on the seventh) UN resolutions have been conveniently ignored. I'm afraid of how empowered Hussein will be after brushing off the UN again.
[quote]<strong>Today we can control a regime like Saddam Husseins with UN technology, if we really want to. And there is NO urgent threat today for any of the NATO countries coming out of Iraq, even if they should gather a rest of biological or chemical weapons, which MUST be destroyed of course.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So far our technology hasn't proven very effective, or at least it hasn't proven it seffectiveness to put it another way. I'd like to think this would be the solution. I can't imagine that war is anything but a last resort. As you might imagine, I'm for some more time to let inspections continue, but I find the inspection process a bit ridiculous. It was never the inspector's job to hunt down WMD, but to confirm their elimination as part of the cease-fire. The essential problem with the inspections right now is that Iraq is not providing or does not have records of what happened even to their known weapons. It's a wild goose chase and it's a frustrating waste of everyone's time (except, some fear, Husseins's).
I think you can argue about Turkey's safety, though I don't think they would be a direct target of Iraq aggression. They both repress Kurds, and what I'm afraid of is that any Iraqi provocation of the Kurds could drag Turkey into a big mess whether they want to be in there or not.
Also, what I think the administration is worried about isn't Iraq's own use of their weapons per se, but like North Korea, Syria and Iran, it will sell its weapons to anyone for a price. So I think the American government is worried about those weapons of mass destruction going outside of Iraq even more than Iraq keeping them. That's why they demand full diclosure of what they had, have and what happened to the stuff. I do think the administration has at best only loose ties between the Iraqi government and terrorist groups. But turning a blind eye to terrorists running around in your country, negligence, is just as bad as active support. and selling to terrorists is just as bad as trainig them or supporting them financially, worse really. So while the ties might be loose, they could be critical. We have to find out, sleuth around.
[quote]<strong>Everybody is aware of the fact, that Saddam is a cruel dictator and must be disarmed.
But the methods chosen should be carefully considered.
If you start a war, even a war against a cruel dictatorship, you will break international [law] that protects democratic values.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We agree, at least in principle, plus also I have reservations about resorting to war. Like I said, war is a last resort. I do consider it an option if all else fails. I think we have some ways to go before it comes to that point, but I'm not sure myself about the timing. The more wait wait, the more we risk, but some more time might be able to avert war. I think the US is willing to give some time if they see progress. Blix's report really didn't help anyone's case yesterday. It was just double-speak to protect his own agenda so niehter side of the debate had much to draw on except their pre-drawn conclusions. The rest of that UN session was just posturing for the voters.
I'm not sure about the international law aspect. Certainly letting a dictator sit goes against the protection of democratic values. It's a stalemate at this point. You can either be un-democratic (unilateral) on the international scene and despose a dictator in favor of a democracy (hopefully a successful one, but that's another debate) for Iraq, or you can let a dictator repress democratic values in Iraq and let the international community work democratically. Is there any sort of win-win at this point?
[quote]<strong>So, even if this process is slower, we can disarm Saddam without a war, if we try.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you're right, but I for one am getting frustrated by al the games: cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek, wild goose chases, scavenger hunts, etc. How do we strongarm Iraq into playing ball? At some point I'm afraid these current efforts are futile and ineffective. Are there more options if these current steps with inspectors, etc fail? I'm asking because I hope so but I can't think of what they are.
[quote][/qb]We stand for our values, but we also have the right to express ourselves, if we think the U.S. government is heading in the wrong direction.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
We can respect that, we have our own very large representation of that viewpoint here. I think Americans are getting nervous about this renewed perception of "anti-Americanism." (Is that even an "ism?") So I think some are reacting defensively. We can take respectful disagreements, getting "ganged up on" at the UN, whatever. Some worry that this disagreement will spill over into a general hate-mongering. The idea of being a target of terrorists can make you a bit paranoid about just how much others are going to "disagree" with you, if you know what I mean. We have to worry more about keeping a focus on our specific disagreements, because if they lose their focus, our friendships are in jeopardy.
[meh, too lazy to fix all the spelling mistakes]
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
We have to worry more about keeping a focus on our specific disagreements, because if they lose their focus, our friendships are in jeopardy
[ 02-15-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly the point. But I also have to admit, that this is new to both sides and we probably need some time to get used to it. So even more importantly we need to keep that focus.
I believe that this is a historical chance to keep the pressure on the Bagdad regime and let us show we can solve this without a war together. Bin Laden will be VERY dissappointed for not recruiting millions of arabs and other muslims from around the world for free.
If you wage a war now, the chance to accept the UN as a world peacekeeper is gone. Worse will follow, especially more terrorism all over the world.
So this cannot be American interest in my view. You are not safe anymore. Until the soil for terrorists has dried up. War is the perfect soil for terrorism in this case.
Afghanistan was different. It was not only chasing away the Taliban, but concretely destroying training camps and active terrorists. And even there it is hard enough to keep the peace now.
Iraq has more than 23 million people- and they have no opposition that could take over.
Imagine: the war is over, tens of thousends dead, hundreds of thousands fleeing and the weapons still not found by the Americans? Well, maybe someone managed to get them away in the last minute to sell them to Bin Laden in revenge! Okay, just imagination, but one more that tells me this war is insane.
We have to rethink the whole situation to get EVERYBODY on board. UN pressure on Iraq. Controls everywhere. With no time limit. A monitoring system. No chance for Saddam.
It's the only way in my opinion.
I think this is a crucial historic decision and so many people today seem to understand. And they are getting more as I switch on the TV
<strong>If you wage a war now, the chance to accept the UN as a world peacekeeper is gone. Worse will follow, especially more terrorism all over the world.
So this cannot be American interest in my view. You are not safe anymore. Until the soil for terrorists has dried up. War is the perfect soil for terrorism in this case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. The UN does have to find some solution to this, or else it might go the way of the League of Nations. Very bad. It shouldn't be an American interest. But whereas the US message can be criticized as heavy-handed, other nations' few proposals are impotent. The most valid aspect of France's proposal is the call for more time for inspectors. Nothing else in their proposal carries much if any weight. More inspectors? Might help a bit if they're crawling over Iraq like ants, though I suspect it will look more like the Keystone Cops. The onus is on some group of UN representatives to come up with a real alternative to endless inspections and avert forced disarmament (war).
Terrorism tends to succeed best when least expected. I tend to think that a war would be irrelevant during the war, though the risks of terrorism after a war might be higher depending somewhat on the outcome. The long-term has many possibilities, depending on how we handle the end-game and transition of power in the case of a war (assuming a victory too).
[quote]<strong>...Well, maybe someone managed to get them away in the last minute to sell them to Bin Laden in revenge! Okay, just imagination, but one more that tells me this war is insane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dare say that that's exactly where this stuff has gone and is going right now. I think a big part of the Bush administration's hard line is in response to this threat. Aside from the idea that this war threat is the only kind of 'negotiation" that gets through to Hussein, the biggest danger right now isn't Saddam per se, it's where the hell those materials are because he could be selling them off to terrorists. That's why we need to know what happened to them. This isn't about a "smoking gun" because I think the administration would be somewhat relieved to find Hussein in possession of these weapons. The bigger risk is that they've sold the arms. They've had years to unload and arguably the motivation to do it.
[quote]<strong>We have to rethink the whole situation to get EVERYBODY on board. UN pressure on Iraq. Controls everywhere. With no time limit. A monitoring system. No chance for Saddam.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but we have to get more answers out of Iraq about those weapons one way or another as a priority. We should have done something about this years ago when the last round of inspectors were kicked out. Like so much else, we underestimated the trouble ahead of us at that point.
<strong>
Yes, but we have to get more answers out of Iraq about those weapons one way or another as a priority. We should have done something about this years ago when the last round of inspectors were kicked out. Like so much else, we underestimated the trouble ahead of us at that point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is the old game of making money and short sighted interest politics instead of a long term concept. This goes out to Europe and the US.
Well, we now have to face this mess. The critical point is how to fight terrorism.
The current US strategy suggests war till the whole region is under control. This is unrealistic. It is a naive dream to think we could install democracy in these arab countries. Sorry, the structures are different from Post-Nazi Germany.
Germany has had democracy before the Nazi regime. People were ready for this.
Look at Afghanistan. People love to have more freedom now, but there are no democratic structures. Very difficult to handle. I do question the western style democracy works in arab countries. Maybe I'm too pessimistic on this.
This is one of the main reasons I think the US strategy will blow up everything because the arab people just don't trust and understand this.
You say the opposers of war do not bring enough suggestions. Well, it is hard to suggest anything against the simple picture of war that seems as promising.
Nevertheless, we have the alliance against terrorism, which is admittedly a vague picture but when the Arab and American and Europeans concentrate their power upon fighting terrorism it will work in the long run.
There is no short term solution. As you already pointed out, it is too late for that. We all should have acted far earlier.
Not only with oppression, but also to the terrible state the people in the whole of Arabia are in materially.
We should have left out Iraq now anyway, because they the strongest inner arabic opposition to Bin Laden, as funny as it sounds. The Baarth party of Saddam despises religious people like Bin Laden and the other way round.The people of Iraq are probably the least fanatic muslims in that area.
We should have concentrated on those who really shelter Bin Laden. We still have to now. Iraq is the wrong focus now.
I propose we have to use intelligence and we have to build up UN(!) forces that are capable of striking when there is evidence of Bin Laden support anywhere in the arabic region. But we need UN for that in order to convince the muslim world that our aim is not to surpress and exploit them.
I also may add that I do not have the answer to this difficult question, but anyone who tells me he does is lying.
So, the only major mistake of the German chancellor was to rule out military action (France did not say so), very much to the anger of the foreign minister Fischer, but now he has to follow that line.
All in all we only discuss the political situation at this point.
I do not know how far the British, French, Russian and US governments especially are influenced by pure strategic and economic interests. I hope this is not their main reason to act as they do, but this may be naive as well...
On another note, I am surprised that so many of the posters here are being so out-rightly anti-American. It is not debate, it is America bashing time in AO.
9-11 is not the direct reason for a possible war against Iraq. It is the indirect reason. Everyone has been commenting on how weak Iraq is. THe reason we would go to war with Iraq is not their military might. THat is a ridiculous notion. Nice try Harald. The reason is that we must get rid of the weapons (chemical, biological, and pre-nuclear) that WILL slip into the wrong hands while saddam is in power, if they haven't already.
You know, the fact is that the US will always be the target for terrorist attacks against the west. So, while the entire western world enjoys the western lifestyle, the US will be the one who defends it because WE are the targets, not the French or the Germans.
[quote] Additionally I have no problem blaming France in general for ****ing things up since French and British colonialism is responsible more so than anything else the West has done IMO for how bass ackwards much of the Middle East and Africa is. Look at the troublespots in the world and see how many of them are impoverished. formerly colonies which became warzones after spin offs. Isreal Palestine. India Pakistan. Afghanstian. Congo, hey, something to blame the Belgians for! Nigeria. Ivory Coast. It goes on and on. I suppose since I am blaming the French I have to give the British their due share of the blame as well. <hr></blockquote>
I am so glad that someone FINALLY brought this up. Today, everyone blames the United States for the problems of the world. Well, in reality, we are the only western power with enough power to deal with the SHIT that the OLD EUROPEAN nations caused. All of their colonialism and imperialism in africa and the middle east jumbled these VERY different cultures together and forced them to live in extremely heterogeneous nations where only brute force and totalitarian regimes can rule, and usually, chaos is the result. So, instead of supporting the US when we go in and try to fix the situation, they balk and complain. You would think that they would be eternally grateful for us cleaning up their mess, but no, they are not. The europeans are eternally selfish.
<strong> I am surprised that so many of the posters here are being so out-rightly anti-American. It is not debate, it is America bashing time in AO.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
SNIP
[quote]<strong>
Instead of supporting the US when we go in and try to fix the situation, they balk and complain. You would think that they would be eternally grateful for us cleaning up their mess, but no, they are not. The europeans are eternally selfish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh.