<strong>It's been done before. It was a mistake to move 200,000 plus troops there because it might be nearly impossible to keep that many there as a credible threat. 50,000 would have been much easier than the expected 300,000. Of course, if our goal from the onset had been a credible threat, we wouldn't have moved that many in. But our goal was war because yes, some hawks in the government want war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it nearly impossible to move 200,000 plus troops in for a "credible threat"?
Is is a "credible threat" to move in only as many troops as is feasible for them to sit on their asses for a long time? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]So it'll look like we're weakening if we pull out.<hr></blockquote>
And it would mean nothing if we didn't fully commit.
[quote]But, it could still be done. It's been done in North Korea.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's worked like magic. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]It worked against the USSR.<hr></blockquote>
They had nukes and even so they conquered territory and killed people by the million. What a wild success! 50 years and tens of millions of deaths later!
[quote]Why don't you tell me how it COULDN'T work in Iraq?<hr></blockquote>
Because we don't have to appease him like we did the USSR and to a smaller extent, NK. We can take him out, remove that threat entirely and let the Iraqi people move forward. You don't have to contain a threat that you can neutralize.
I'm interested in reality. Where are these intelligent sanctions you talk about? Who in the UN is pushing them? I realize that peace groups can have some ideas, but how in hell will they ever work to the benefit of the Iraqi people? Ever?
[quote]<strong>You said something about how "North Korea plays along but Saddam doesn't." That doesn't make sense to me. A credible threat right now is forcing Saddam to play along.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's playing along? That's news to me and the inspectors. He's disarming to an extent but that's not the goal. The goal is full and unconditional disarmament and until he does that the deserves to be overthrown. Read 1441, full and unconditional compliance, even now we don't get it.
I am not interested in partial compliance, even 99.999% compliance. 100% or nothing. 100% or war.
[quote]<strong>So in the long term, how would it not work in Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know how many times I can say this without becoming very very rude:
You cannot hold up the illusion of force forever. There comes a time where you are either going to do it or not. You cannot say "If you don't cooperate 100% I'm going to hit you" and then NOT hit the person when they don't cooperate 100% and expect them to respect the threat. It is basic human psychology.
While a state policy of settling civlians in occupied territory might be illegal under international law, the individual act of moving into a house legally purchased is not.
Cf. my analogy with a hypothetical U.S. civilian moving to Frankfurt in the post-war years </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, concerning the act of individuals in cases like this, I'm really unsure of how international law would apply. But in principle I think a personal act could be in breach of international law. The Human Shields would actually be in breach of international law if they were stationed at military installations. But most likely the iraqis would be held accountable for this.
[quote]<strong>Would you be some kind of a Scandinavian Uri Geller?
I was told the long winters are inhibiting propehtic talents. Obviously I'm misinformed on that specific detail. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I see a war brewing... A man with a sheepish stare from the west...
No, seriously, just look at how much time we spend discussing Bush. With 9/11, Afghanistan, the UN crisis and the upcoming war on Iraq, Bush Jr. has already put himself in the history-books. The question is how history will judge him.
[quote]<strong>acts don't have opinions, so they are neither moderate nor extremist.
Moderation and extremism, as opinions as well as political approachs have both their records, as facts show.
The earlier's is more positive than the latter's if you ask me. </strong><hr></blockquote> My point was that a person could have a deep conviction for a certain issue, while being a moderate in others.
[quote]<strong>Would you care to rephrase that question? I don't understand it as it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, when you re-organize a company, you should have a clear vision of what the goals of the reorganization is. Educating the employees in front of the reorganization and including them in the process is vital. Brutal reorganization witout clear objectives can be devastating.
I think this applies to international politics as well. Some regime-changes have been successful because the people taking over were competent. They knew what kind of changes they wanted.
I don't see Iraq having a visionary, unified opposition, with the ability to make real change. Maybe South Africa is better example. Spain, Portugal, Chile. When the dictatorships fell, new generations with new ideas where ready to take over.
[quote]by Groverat:
<strong>t's not too early to tell that there has been great progress and there is a bright future for them. There is always uncertainty, yes, but it can't be denied that their chances for prosperity are now much much greater despite the very regrettable civilian casualties involved in ousting the Taliban. To me that is a great thing. I am happy for those people (and sad for those who lost friends and family on the path). </strong><hr></blockquote>
Some progress has been made, but I don't know about "bright future".
For the record, I'm sceptic. I'm afraid Afghanistan could fall back as soon as attention is faced elsewhere. Hopefully I'm wrong.
You cannot hold up the illusion of force forever. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and we've held it up for what, six months?
My comments about 300,000 troops were in regards to the fact that most people would say it's too costly to keep them there for several years. I say go ahead and do it if that's what's it's going to take, it's better than the alternative.
So quit laughing when you can't understand english. It makes you look ignorant.
[quote]<strong>Some progress has been made, but I don't know about "bright future".
For the record, I'm sceptic. I'm afraid Afghanistan could fall back as soon as attention is faced elsewhere. Hopefully I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you're skeptical about anything involving the US. I don't expect anything different.
As far as bright futures go, Karzai seems to disagree with you.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>Yeah, and we've held it up for what, six months?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eh, no. More like one month. Our troops weren't deployed to Iraq en masse in October of 2002.
[quote]<strong>My comments about 300,000 troops were in regards to the fact that most people would say it's too costly to keep them there for several years. I say go ahead and do it if that's what's it's going to take, it's better than the alternative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We don't plan on keeping them there for several years. There is no reason to keep them there for several years. If Saddam knows he can get away with non-compliance in the face of 300,000 soldiers ready to strike why in God's name would he start cooperating?
You keep ignoring the simple fact that credible threats cannot be indefinitely maintained.
Your statement indicates that you don't really care if Saddam complies at all. Why would we be there for several years?
There is no reason to keep them there for several years.....Why would we be there for several years?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To enforce the inspections and sanctions, to enforce compliance with UN resolutions. It's called a way to disarm Iraq without war. You're so hell bent on war, you can't see it.
You're arguing my point for me. Not six months? Only one? PERFECT. That's my point. We haven't held a credible threat there long enough to be able to say the last of the war-less solutions has failed. We're in the middle of disarming Iraq without using war. We're trying to keep it that way, right?
Wrong. Some of you are so war crazy you don't really care about anything but getting your war. War is your goal. For some of us, disarming Iraq is the goal. For those of us that want to disarm Iraq, war isn't necessary. For those of you that want war, well war is obviously necessary.
[quote]<strong>To enforce the inspections and sanctions, to enforce compliance with UN resolutions. It's called a way to disarm Iraq without war. You're so hell bent on war, you can't see it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What good is a military on your borders if you believe it won't do anything? All that will do is burn money. If Saddam isn't going to cooperate now he's not going to cooperate in the future. You're just being blind now.
You foolishly believe that having our military sit there a year from now will be as threatening as it is now. That just shows ignorance of basic human psychology.
If 200,000+ troops are still sitting there "several years" later that is because Hussein has spent the interim not complying, no?
[quote]<strong>You're arguing my point for me. Not six months? Only one? PERFECT. That's my point. We haven't held a credible threat there long enough to be able to say the last of the war-less solutions has failed. We're in the middle of disarming Iraq without using war. We're trying to keep it that way, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is Iraq fully cooperating? (no) Are they answering all of the inspectors' questions? (no)
They have blown up a few missiles in the past week and you seem to think that's great progress.
[quote]<strong>Wrong. Some of you are so war crazy you don't really care about anything but getting your war. War is your goal. For some of us, disarming Iraq is the goal. For those of us that want to disarm Iraq, war isn't necessary. For those of you that want war, well war is obviously necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think it's possible to fully disarm Saddam Hussein the way things have been going for the last 12 years?
If Saddam will not comply now, with a very real and credible threat of force then what motive does he have for compliance in 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
You are so easily swayed by Saddam blowing up a few missiles you'll gladly ignore 100+ pages of unanswered questions and non-compliance. It's very very frustrating.
While a state policy of settling civlians in occupied territory might be illegal under international law, the individual act of moving into a house legally purchased is not.
Cf. my analogy with a hypothetical U.S. civilian moving to Frankfurt in the post-war years .<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well, concerning the act of individuals in cases like this, I'm really unsure of how international law would apply. But in principle I think a personal act could be in breach of international law. The Human Shields would actually be in breach of international law if they were stationed at military installations. But most likely the iraqis would be held accountable for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The individual act of a civilian shielding a military target in case of an attack is a civilian taking part in war, which seems like a breach of international law.
The individual act of a civilian buying a flat and moving there is completely innocuous in itself and unless there is an illegal aspect to either the moving (say, the truck is unfit for highway traffic) or in the house purchase (fraud, or something like that), then there's nothing illegal in it.
[quote]Would you be some kind of a Scandinavian Uri Geller?
I was told the long winters are inhibiting propehtic talents. Obviously I'm misinformed on that specific detail.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I see a war brewing... A man with a sheepish stare from the west...
No, seriously, just look at how much time we spend discussing Bush. With 9/11, Afghanistan, the UN crisis and the upcoming war on Iraq, Bush Jr. has already put himself in the history-books. The question is how history will judge him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since his election he managed to make me both laugh and cry as much the combined Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter presidencies, but that's far from getting him a footnote between Taft and Nixon.
[quote]Facts don't have opinions, so they are neither moderate nor extremist.
Moderation and extremism, as opinions as well as political approachs have both their records, as facts show.
The earlier's is more positive than the latter's if you ask me.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>My point was that a person could have a deep conviction for a certain issue, while being a moderate in others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[Being a moderate about an issue doesn't exclude having deep convictions about that same issue.]
[quote]<strong>Ok, when you re-organize a company, you should have a clear vision of what the goals of the reorganization is. Educating the employees in front of the reorganization and including them in the process is vital. Brutal reorganization witout clear objectives can be devastating.
I think this applies to international politics as well. Some regime-changes have been successful because the people taking over were competent. They knew what kind of changes they wanted.
I don't see Iraq having a visionary, unified opposition, with the ability to make real change. Maybe South Africa is better example. Spain, Portugal, Chile. When the dictatorships fell, new generations with new ideas where ready to take over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All these are very different cases with diverse outcomes.
But there are also many examples of external interferences contributing to the rehabilitation of a crushed country, like South Korea.
As stated previously, a post-Saddam Iraq is not going to be a pretty sight, but the ongoing Saddam alternative worries me more.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
What makes anyone think that "democracy" will work in Iraq? There isn't a single democracy in the entire Middle East anyway... (is Turkey a "middle eastern" nation, or European?).
If Iraq, through some miraculous set of circumstances gets a real democracy going....namely "of, by and for the people", as opposed to private corporations, where the Iraqi peoples' opinions and votes count for something (there's a concept!), then we are running the "risk" of the Iraqis voting for a 'people-friendly' government, where a large portion of its (potentially huge) oil revenue gets distributed back to the Iraqi people, the infrastructure...etc, as opposed to making a few tycoons and corporations even more phenomenally, extremely wealthy (as opposed to merely extremely wealthy).
Given free and fair elections (now there's another concept...), the Iraqi people may even vote in a government that is a leeeeetle bit left-of-center, for a change..having endured 20 years of restrictive, extreme right-wing authoritarianism under Saddam....and they nationalize their oil resources....
Then what....time for the US taxpayer to shell out another few hundred $billion for anther invasion?
<strong>he individual act of a civilian shielding a military target in case of an attack is a civilian taking part in war, which seems like a breach of international law.
The individual act of a civilian buying a flat and moving there is completely innocuous in itself and unless there is an illegal aspect to either the moving (say, the truck is unfit for highway traffic) or in the house purchase (fraud, or something like that), then there's nothing illegal in it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm certainly not gonna hold the average settler responsible for the state of Israel's breach of international law. Most of them are common people tempted by the generous state funding of the settlements.
[quote]<strong>Since his election he managed to make me both laugh and cry as much the combined Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter presidencies, but that's far from getting him a footnote between Taft and Nixon. </strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I feel that way to. But I also think there will be plenty of more excitement in the next two years.
[quote]<strong>All these are very different cases with diverse outcomes.
But there are also many examples of external interferences contributing to the rehabilitation of a crushed country, like South Korea.
As stated previously, a post-Saddam Iraq is not going to be a pretty sight, but the ongoing Saddam alternative worries me more. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I tend to think that Korea should be considered as one. Then success isn't really that obvious.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>What makes anyone think that "democracy" will work in Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>There's <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=drezner031203"; target="_blank">an article about this issue in the New Republic this week</a>. It argues that there is a chance democracy in Iraq could take, even though the odds seem against it. [quote][T]he most frequent context within which a transition from authoritarian rule has begun in recent decades has been military defeat in an international conflict. Moreover, the factor which most probabilistically assured a democratic outcome was occupation by a foreign power which was itself a political democracy [emphasis added]."
Skeptics will cite Afghanistan and point out that military occupation alone hardly guarantees a full democratic transition. That analysis may be right as far as it goes, but it fails to address the question of why democratization tends to occur in waves. The answer is that there's another mechanism through which external forces matter: proximity to neighboring market democracies. Political scientists Jeffrey Kopstein and David Reilly, of the University of Toronto and Niagra University, point out in their examination of the economic and political freedoms in the post-communist world that the former communist countries currently enjoying the greatest freedoms were geographically closest to the Soviet Union's noncommunist perimeter. The authors conclude, "This suggests the spatially dependent nature of the diffusion of norms, resources, and institutions that are necessary to the construction of political democracies and market economies in the postcommunist [sic] era." In other words, the closer you are to liberal democracies, the easier it is for you to become a liberal democracy.
This would seem to be of little relevance in the Middle East, a region not exactly overrun by Jeffersonian democrats. But while it's true that Iraq borders Syria and Saudi Arabia--two of the more repressive regimes on the planet--it's also true that a healthy fraction of Iraq's neighbors have built or are building democratic institutions. To Iraq's north lies Turkey, a stable, liberal, and secular Muslim democracy whose government is furiously trying to adopt Western human rights norms as part of its bid for European Union membership. Iraq's eastern border is with Iran, a country that may not be liberal, but has been a practicing electoral democracy for two decades. More importantly, the majority of Iran's population wants further democratization and liberalization and has emphasized this point through routine mass protests. To Iraq's west lies Jordan, which the 2000 edition of the authoritative Freedom House country rankings named the most liberal Arab state (admittedly a dubious honor). <hr></blockquote>
<strong>What good is a military on your borders....</strong><hr></blockquote>
groverat,
now you're just flat out lying and deceiving. We're talking about a credible force. If you're now going to pretend that 200,000 troops isn't a credible force then I think most rational people aren't going to believe you.
[quote]<strong>now you're just flat out lying and deceiving. We're talking about a credible force. If you're now going to pretend that 200,000 troops isn't a credible force then I think most rational people aren't going to believe you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
200,000 troops on the border is a credible threat *right now* and maybe for a few weeks or a couple of months. But after a while it becomes obvious that the force isn't going to be used.
Do you disagree with my assertion that the threat decreases as it is not utilized or are you just going to keep ignoring it?
Do you disagree with my assertion that the threat decreases as it is not utilized or are you just going to keep ignoring it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I disagree with it. It's no longer a threat if you actually use it. It's an attack.
The inspectors were asking for 12 months total. You say a credible threat could last some months. Bush says some days. I think you'll have to admit that the 12 month timeline the inspectors wanted would have been just fine, since we're almost half way there already. The pressure could have easily been kept up and all UN parties would have been happy-go-lucky. Bush screwed up and there's a chance we'll all pay dearly for a long time.
<strong>The inspectors were asking for 12 months total.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were? Source?
[quote]<strong>You say a credible threat could last some months. Bush says some days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At absolute best a credible threat could last a few months. At absoulte most. Bush's stance, to me, is perfectly reasonable since the threat has been there for 1+ months.
[quote]<strong>I think you'll have to admit that the 12 month timeline the inspectors wanted would have been just fine, since we're almost half way there already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They wanted it? Where?
France and Russia said they would veto ANYTHING with ANY ultimatum. I'm sorry, bunge, you'll have to do better than making things up.
Also, there is nothing in that article with the inspectors asking for 12 months. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"But we still have quite a bit of work to do, and therefore we are going to ask for at least a few months to be able to complete our job," said ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sorry, that quote was from Jan. 27. I guess a few months from Jan. 27 is less than 12. I guess that means I was wrong. The inspectors don't even want 12 months.
Comments
<strong>It's been done before. It was a mistake to move 200,000 plus troops there because it might be nearly impossible to keep that many there as a credible threat. 50,000 would have been much easier than the expected 300,000. Of course, if our goal from the onset had been a credible threat, we wouldn't have moved that many in. But our goal was war because yes, some hawks in the government want war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it nearly impossible to move 200,000 plus troops in for a "credible threat"?
Is is a "credible threat" to move in only as many troops as is feasible for them to sit on their asses for a long time? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]So it'll look like we're weakening if we pull out.<hr></blockquote>
And it would mean nothing if we didn't fully commit.
[quote]But, it could still be done. It's been done in North Korea.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's worked like magic. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]It worked against the USSR.<hr></blockquote>
They had nukes and even so they conquered territory and killed people by the million. What a wild success! 50 years and tens of millions of deaths later!
[quote]Why don't you tell me how it COULDN'T work in Iraq?<hr></blockquote>
Because we don't have to appease him like we did the USSR and to a smaller extent, NK. We can take him out, remove that threat entirely and let the Iraqi people move forward. You don't have to contain a threat that you can neutralize.
I'm interested in reality. Where are these intelligent sanctions you talk about? Who in the UN is pushing them? I realize that peace groups can have some ideas, but how in hell will they ever work to the benefit of the Iraqi people? Ever?
[quote]<strong>You said something about how "North Korea plays along but Saddam doesn't." That doesn't make sense to me. A credible threat right now is forcing Saddam to play along.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's playing along? That's news to me and the inspectors. He's disarming to an extent but that's not the goal. The goal is full and unconditional disarmament and until he does that the deserves to be overthrown. Read 1441, full and unconditional compliance, even now we don't get it.
I am not interested in partial compliance, even 99.999% compliance. 100% or nothing. 100% or war.
[quote]<strong>So in the long term, how would it not work in Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know how many times I can say this without becoming very very rude:
You cannot hold up the illusion of force forever. There comes a time where you are either going to do it or not. You cannot say "If you don't cooperate 100% I'm going to hit you" and then NOT hit the person when they don't cooperate 100% and expect them to respect the threat. It is basic human psychology.
<strong>
While a state policy of settling civlians in occupied territory might be illegal under international law, the individual act of moving into a house legally purchased is not.
Cf. my analogy with a hypothetical U.S. civilian moving to Frankfurt in the post-war years </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, concerning the act of individuals in cases like this, I'm really unsure of how international law would apply. But in principle I think a personal act could be in breach of international law. The Human Shields would actually be in breach of international law if they were stationed at military installations. But most likely the iraqis would be held accountable for this.
[quote]<strong>Would you be some kind of a Scandinavian Uri Geller?
I was told the long winters are inhibiting propehtic talents. Obviously I'm misinformed on that specific detail. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I see a war brewing... A man with a sheepish stare from the west...
No, seriously, just look at how much time we spend discussing Bush. With 9/11, Afghanistan, the UN crisis and the upcoming war on Iraq, Bush Jr. has already put himself in the history-books. The question is how history will judge him.
[quote]<strong>acts don't have opinions, so they are neither moderate nor extremist.
Moderation and extremism, as opinions as well as political approachs have both their records, as facts show.
The earlier's is more positive than the latter's if you ask me. </strong><hr></blockquote> My point was that a person could have a deep conviction for a certain issue, while being a moderate in others.
[quote]<strong>Would you care to rephrase that question? I don't understand it as it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, when you re-organize a company, you should have a clear vision of what the goals of the reorganization is. Educating the employees in front of the reorganization and including them in the process is vital. Brutal reorganization witout clear objectives can be devastating.
I think this applies to international politics as well. Some regime-changes have been successful because the people taking over were competent. They knew what kind of changes they wanted.
I don't see Iraq having a visionary, unified opposition, with the ability to make real change. Maybe South Africa is better example. Spain, Portugal, Chile. When the dictatorships fell, new generations with new ideas where ready to take over.
[quote]by Groverat:
<strong>t's not too early to tell that there has been great progress and there is a bright future for them. There is always uncertainty, yes, but it can't be denied that their chances for prosperity are now much much greater despite the very regrettable civilian casualties involved in ousting the Taliban. To me that is a great thing. I am happy for those people (and sad for those who lost friends and family on the path). </strong><hr></blockquote>
Some progress has been made, but I don't know about "bright future".
For the record, I'm sceptic. I'm afraid Afghanistan could fall back as soon as attention is faced elsewhere. Hopefully I'm wrong.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
You cannot hold up the illusion of force forever. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and we've held it up for what, six months?
My comments about 300,000 troops were in regards to the fact that most people would say it's too costly to keep them there for several years. I say go ahead and do it if that's what's it's going to take, it's better than the alternative.
So quit laughing when you can't understand english. It makes you look ignorant.
[quote]<strong>Some progress has been made, but I don't know about "bright future".
For the record, I'm sceptic. I'm afraid Afghanistan could fall back as soon as attention is faced elsewhere. Hopefully I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you're skeptical about anything involving the US. I don't expect anything different.
As far as bright futures go, Karzai seems to disagree with you.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>Yeah, and we've held it up for what, six months?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eh, no. More like one month. Our troops weren't deployed to Iraq en masse in October of 2002.
[quote]<strong>My comments about 300,000 troops were in regards to the fact that most people would say it's too costly to keep them there for several years. I say go ahead and do it if that's what's it's going to take, it's better than the alternative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We don't plan on keeping them there for several years. There is no reason to keep them there for several years. If Saddam knows he can get away with non-compliance in the face of 300,000 soldiers ready to strike why in God's name would he start cooperating?
You keep ignoring the simple fact that credible threats cannot be indefinitely maintained.
Your statement indicates that you don't really care if Saddam complies at all. Why would we be there for several years?
<strong>
There is no reason to keep them there for several years.....Why would we be there for several years?</strong><hr></blockquote>
To enforce the inspections and sanctions, to enforce compliance with UN resolutions. It's called a way to disarm Iraq without war. You're so hell bent on war, you can't see it.
You're arguing my point for me. Not six months? Only one? PERFECT. That's my point. We haven't held a credible threat there long enough to be able to say the last of the war-less solutions has failed. We're in the middle of disarming Iraq without using war. We're trying to keep it that way, right?
Wrong. Some of you are so war crazy you don't really care about anything but getting your war. War is your goal. For some of us, disarming Iraq is the goal. For those of us that want to disarm Iraq, war isn't necessary. For those of you that want war, well war is obviously necessary.
[quote]<strong>To enforce the inspections and sanctions, to enforce compliance with UN resolutions. It's called a way to disarm Iraq without war. You're so hell bent on war, you can't see it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What good is a military on your borders if you believe it won't do anything? All that will do is burn money. If Saddam isn't going to cooperate now he's not going to cooperate in the future. You're just being blind now.
You foolishly believe that having our military sit there a year from now will be as threatening as it is now. That just shows ignorance of basic human psychology.
If 200,000+ troops are still sitting there "several years" later that is because Hussein has spent the interim not complying, no?
[quote]<strong>You're arguing my point for me. Not six months? Only one? PERFECT. That's my point. We haven't held a credible threat there long enough to be able to say the last of the war-less solutions has failed. We're in the middle of disarming Iraq without using war. We're trying to keep it that way, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is Iraq fully cooperating? (no) Are they answering all of the inspectors' questions? (no)
They have blown up a few missiles in the past week and you seem to think that's great progress.
[quote]<strong>Wrong. Some of you are so war crazy you don't really care about anything but getting your war. War is your goal. For some of us, disarming Iraq is the goal. For those of us that want to disarm Iraq, war isn't necessary. For those of you that want war, well war is obviously necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think it's possible to fully disarm Saddam Hussein the way things have been going for the last 12 years?
If Saddam will not comply now, with a very real and credible threat of force then what motive does he have for compliance in 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
You are so easily swayed by Saddam blowing up a few missiles you'll gladly ignore 100+ pages of unanswered questions and non-compliance. It's very very frustrating.
<strong>Of course you're skeptical about anything involving the US. I don't expect anything different.
As far as bright futures go, Karzai seems to disagree with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course he disagrees, he is a politician fighting for his future.
No, I'm not skeptical about everything involving the US. You should really stop repeating yourself.
While a state policy of settling civlians in occupied territory might be illegal under international law, the individual act of moving into a house legally purchased is not.
Cf. my analogy with a hypothetical U.S. civilian moving to Frankfurt in the post-war years .<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well, concerning the act of individuals in cases like this, I'm really unsure of how international law would apply. But in principle I think a personal act could be in breach of international law. The Human Shields would actually be in breach of international law if they were stationed at military installations. But most likely the iraqis would be held accountable for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The individual act of a civilian shielding a military target in case of an attack is a civilian taking part in war, which seems like a breach of international law.
The individual act of a civilian buying a flat and moving there is completely innocuous in itself and unless there is an illegal aspect to either the moving (say, the truck is unfit for highway traffic) or in the house purchase (fraud, or something like that), then there's nothing illegal in it.
[quote]Would you be some kind of a Scandinavian Uri Geller?
I was told the long winters are inhibiting propehtic talents. Obviously I'm misinformed on that specific detail.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I see a war brewing... A man with a sheepish stare from the west...
No, seriously, just look at how much time we spend discussing Bush. With 9/11, Afghanistan, the UN crisis and the upcoming war on Iraq, Bush Jr. has already put himself in the history-books. The question is how history will judge him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since his election he managed to make me both laugh and cry as much the combined Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter presidencies, but that's far from getting him a footnote between Taft and Nixon.
[quote]Facts don't have opinions, so they are neither moderate nor extremist.
Moderation and extremism, as opinions as well as political approachs have both their records, as facts show.
The earlier's is more positive than the latter's if you ask me.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>My point was that a person could have a deep conviction for a certain issue, while being a moderate in others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[Being a moderate about an issue doesn't exclude having deep convictions about that same issue.]
[quote]<strong>Ok, when you re-organize a company, you should have a clear vision of what the goals of the reorganization is. Educating the employees in front of the reorganization and including them in the process is vital. Brutal reorganization witout clear objectives can be devastating.
I think this applies to international politics as well. Some regime-changes have been successful because the people taking over were competent. They knew what kind of changes they wanted.
I don't see Iraq having a visionary, unified opposition, with the ability to make real change. Maybe South Africa is better example. Spain, Portugal, Chile. When the dictatorships fell, new generations with new ideas where ready to take over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All these are very different cases with diverse outcomes.
But there are also many examples of external interferences contributing to the rehabilitation of a crushed country, like South Korea.
As stated previously, a post-Saddam Iraq is not going to be a pretty sight, but the ongoing Saddam alternative worries me more.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
If Iraq, through some miraculous set of circumstances gets a real democracy going....namely "of, by and for the people", as opposed to private corporations, where the Iraqi peoples' opinions and votes count for something (there's a concept!), then we are running the "risk" of the Iraqis voting for a 'people-friendly' government, where a large portion of its (potentially huge) oil revenue gets distributed back to the Iraqi people, the infrastructure...etc, as opposed to making a few tycoons and corporations even more phenomenally, extremely wealthy (as opposed to merely extremely wealthy).
Given free and fair elections (now there's another concept...), the Iraqi people may even vote in a government that is a leeeeetle bit left-of-center, for a change..having endured 20 years of restrictive, extreme right-wing authoritarianism under Saddam....and they nationalize their oil resources....
Then what....time for the US taxpayer to shell out another few hundred $billion for anther invasion?
<strong>he individual act of a civilian shielding a military target in case of an attack is a civilian taking part in war, which seems like a breach of international law.
The individual act of a civilian buying a flat and moving there is completely innocuous in itself and unless there is an illegal aspect to either the moving (say, the truck is unfit for highway traffic) or in the house purchase (fraud, or something like that), then there's nothing illegal in it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm certainly not gonna hold the average settler responsible for the state of Israel's breach of international law. Most of them are common people tempted by the generous state funding of the settlements.
[quote]<strong>Since his election he managed to make me both laugh and cry as much the combined Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter presidencies, but that's far from getting him a footnote between Taft and Nixon. </strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I feel that way to. But I also think there will be plenty of more excitement in the next two years.
[quote]<strong>All these are very different cases with diverse outcomes.
But there are also many examples of external interferences contributing to the rehabilitation of a crushed country, like South Korea.
As stated previously, a post-Saddam Iraq is not going to be a pretty sight, but the ongoing Saddam alternative worries me more. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I tend to think that Korea should be considered as one. Then success isn't really that obvious.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>What makes anyone think that "democracy" will work in Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>There's <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=scholar&s=drezner031203"; target="_blank">an article about this issue in the New Republic this week</a>. It argues that there is a chance democracy in Iraq could take, even though the odds seem against it. [quote][T]he most frequent context within which a transition from authoritarian rule has begun in recent decades has been military defeat in an international conflict. Moreover, the factor which most probabilistically assured a democratic outcome was occupation by a foreign power which was itself a political democracy [emphasis added]."
Skeptics will cite Afghanistan and point out that military occupation alone hardly guarantees a full democratic transition. That analysis may be right as far as it goes, but it fails to address the question of why democratization tends to occur in waves. The answer is that there's another mechanism through which external forces matter: proximity to neighboring market democracies. Political scientists Jeffrey Kopstein and David Reilly, of the University of Toronto and Niagra University, point out in their examination of the economic and political freedoms in the post-communist world that the former communist countries currently enjoying the greatest freedoms were geographically closest to the Soviet Union's noncommunist perimeter. The authors conclude, "This suggests the spatially dependent nature of the diffusion of norms, resources, and institutions that are necessary to the construction of political democracies and market economies in the postcommunist [sic] era." In other words, the closer you are to liberal democracies, the easier it is for you to become a liberal democracy.
This would seem to be of little relevance in the Middle East, a region not exactly overrun by Jeffersonian democrats. But while it's true that Iraq borders Syria and Saudi Arabia--two of the more repressive regimes on the planet--it's also true that a healthy fraction of Iraq's neighbors have built or are building democratic institutions. To Iraq's north lies Turkey, a stable, liberal, and secular Muslim democracy whose government is furiously trying to adopt Western human rights norms as part of its bid for European Union membership. Iraq's eastern border is with Iran, a country that may not be liberal, but has been a practicing electoral democracy for two decades. More importantly, the majority of Iran's population wants further democratization and liberalization and has emphasized this point through routine mass protests. To Iraq's west lies Jordan, which the 2000 edition of the authoritative Freedom House country rankings named the most liberal Arab state (admittedly a dubious honor). <hr></blockquote>
<strong>What good is a military on your borders....</strong><hr></blockquote>
groverat,
now you're just flat out lying and deceiving. We're talking about a credible force. If you're now going to pretend that 200,000 troops isn't a credible force then I think most rational people aren't going to believe you.
[quote]<strong>now you're just flat out lying and deceiving. We're talking about a credible force. If you're now going to pretend that 200,000 troops isn't a credible force then I think most rational people aren't going to believe you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
200,000 troops on the border is a credible threat *right now* and maybe for a few weeks or a couple of months. But after a while it becomes obvious that the force isn't going to be used.
Do you disagree with my assertion that the threat decreases as it is not utilized or are you just going to keep ignoring it?
<strong>
Do you disagree with my assertion that the threat decreases as it is not utilized or are you just going to keep ignoring it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I disagree with it. It's no longer a threat if you actually use it. It's an attack.
The inspectors were asking for 12 months total. You say a credible threat could last some months. Bush says some days. I think you'll have to admit that the 12 month timeline the inspectors wanted would have been just fine, since we're almost half way there already. The pressure could have easily been kept up and all UN parties would have been happy-go-lucky. Bush screwed up and there's a chance we'll all pay dearly for a long time.
<strong> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I know what you mean.. after a while you learn to ignore her raving idiocy, and accept her for what she is ? a Troll.
<strong>The inspectors were asking for 12 months total.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were? Source?
[quote]<strong>You say a credible threat could last some months. Bush says some days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At absolute best a credible threat could last a few months. At absoulte most. Bush's stance, to me, is perfectly reasonable since the threat has been there for 1+ months.
[quote]<strong>I think you'll have to admit that the 12 month timeline the inspectors wanted would have been just fine, since we're almost half way there already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They wanted it? Where?
France and Russia said they would veto ANYTHING with ANY ultimatum. I'm sorry, bunge, you'll have to do better than making things up.
<strong>
They wanted it? Where? </strong><hr></blockquote>
A quick <a href="http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:Ute8PwQn4HMC:news.findlaw.com/international/s/20030113/iraqelbaradeidc.html+iraq+inspections+timeframe&hl =en&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">Google</a> comes up with a lot of links, even when you get home drunk.
When asked if the timeframe of a year quoted by the IAEA spokesman was conservatively lengthy, ElBaradei replied, "yes."
Blix said months would be required given full Iraqi cooperation. But you want to keep ignoring that "full Iraqi cooperation part.
Also, there is nothing in that article with the inspectors asking for 12 months.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>
Also, there is nothing in that article with the inspectors asking for 12 months. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"But we still have quite a bit of work to do, and therefore we are going to ask for at least a few months to be able to complete our job," said ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sorry, that quote was from Jan. 27. I guess a few months from Jan. 27 is less than 12. I guess that means I was wrong. The inspectors don't even want 12 months.