French and Ivory coast.



  • Reply 21 of 23
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:


    Interesting, I will read more of it later.

    As a general comment, I tend to distrust the faction whose banner is order as well as the faction whose banner is disorder. Yet it is no mystery with which faction I'm siding in the given non-ideal reality of our world.

    [ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

    It's simplistic but deliberately so to be polemical.
  • Reply 22 of 23
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein:

    <strong>I.G.: «Could you elaborate on the ?higher risk of globalisation of the conflict?, I have difficulty to follow.

    Thank you.»

    I see now.

    A long large-scale war in Iraq isn't likely to spread to the rest of the World or even to the rest of the Middle-East, but there's the risk it will fuel support for the terrorist organistations, and for terrorism as a course of action.

    However, the kind of approach shown by the Security Council members currently stalling action against Iraq is akin to letting the Iraqi regime keep whatever it's been doing since the end of operation ?Desert Storm?, which is even worse.

    While I'm aware of the risks, aside from pointing to precedents on whose lessons one could draw from, I'm not about to provide desktop-side coaching as to how actually dispose of Saddam's threat (the necessity of such disposing being inconctestable).</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Thanks for this interesting discussion. I have to go to bed now.

  • Reply 23 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:


    Rigth, but at this time it's the europeans who asked Clinton to interfere in the name of nato. And the goal was only to remove Serbia from Kosovo : the NATO did not invade Serbia : it looks more like the first gulf war.

    I am nearly sure if Saddam tried to invade an another countrie that all europeans countries will vote for a war immediatly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Iraq is currently incapable of offensive military action, an its abilities are even lower than those Yugoslavia could muster in 2000.

    Yet the record of its president is widely known, as well as his intentions and lack of inhibitions. Leaving him the chance to rebuild for the long-term is a recipe for disaster.

    If said European countries had such a regime at their doorstep they'd have been much more supportive of a military action, but since it's quite removed from them geographically, some of them see advantages (both political and economical) in its remaining in place.

    As for the US stance, I realise it's based on wrath and the desire for vengeance for the pain and humiliation suffered due to the terror attacks of 2001 (and any recent foe and potential threat to the US might find itself on the receiving end of that wrath, just like Saddam Hussain), but I believe this is an opportunity to do away with Saddam (the previous opportunity: that of 1991, having been stupidly avoided for some idiotic reasons).

    [ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.