elucidator:
Good question. Got me… maybe you should ask the Afghans?
Jeff
“Despicable” is a bit much, Chumpsky. Its funny when Daffy Duck does it. But that’s about it.
Cyber you already know I hope you’re right. But if anyone could divert Our Leader from his chosen path, wouldn’t they have done so already? What new information might be found by the CIA? What new argument could be put forward? Surely no one imagined that the UN would rise as one and shout “Hosanna!” and “Hallelujah” after Our Leader’s speech? Does anyone recall any delegates rushing to the microphones to say “Boy! What a great idea! Let’s go to war with Iraq right away!” Niether do I.
If good sense and moral gravity were the deciding factors in this situation, we wouldn’t be in this situation!
I assume, elucidator, that you are arguing by way of how Chamberlain perceived the situation. Or supposedly of how Chamberlain perceived the situation.
From 1933, when he realized that Hitler was intent on rearming Germany, Chamberlain was a strong proponent of defense buildup…but also one of appeasement. You see, the military buildup was to be insurance in case war came, but Chamberlain never believed it would come. Indeed, even after war did come, he believed that it came due to a political miscalculation by Hitler, rather than as the deliberate policy.
Chamberlain was never motivated much by a fear that Britain and France would lose a war if they intervened in Czechoslovakia, indeed, everyone believed the Allies would win it - including most of the German generals. The only people who truly believed Germany could win were Hitler and some of his confidants (Goebbels, Himmler, etc.).
No, it was not the fear of a loss that motivated Chamberlain. It was the fear of another devastating Great War. Much better that the Czechs be given up than to risk that, in his opinion.
And let’s not repeat that claptrap that the Allies were not in a position to fend of Germany militarily. They were more than a match for them in terms of equipment and manpower. The Germans conquered France due completely due to the brilliance and planning of her generals.
In addition, Hitler repeatedly said that he could get away with whatever he wanted because Britain and France were too afraid of war to stop him. Numerous instructions issued by Adolf ordered his officers to back down should France or Britain make a serious effort at opposing him.
They didn’t. It was the Allied leaders’ continued belief that it was possible to negotiate diplomatically with Hitler that led to WWII. And it was this belief and fear of the war devastation that led to the policy of appeasement. Not some attempt at buying time.
Now, having said all this, I don’t think the situation is completely analogous to the Iraq situation. For instance, I don’t think Hussein poses nearly the threat that Hitler did. And the US doesn’t have nearly the same amount of support from Iraq’s neighbors that the Allies would have had from Germany.
For these reasons and others (namely my belief that the Bushies will just repeat the mistakes of their European predecessors in the region and lead to more trouble) I don’t really support the war in Iraq. But should the Bushies come up with a realistic aftermath plan (which they won’t) that focused on a Marshall plan type…um, plan…that went hand in hand with a stablizing proposition on the Israel frontier, I would support removing Hussein.
That won’t happen, though. Sigh.
No, and neither is the same government that perpetrated the Jewish holocaust. Does a change in government absolve a country from moral responsibility? If so, I think the Germans should demand their reparation money back.
But this isn’t really my point… I’m saying here we have a country with a history of genocide committing similar (if much smaller scale) acts on the Kurds up until quite recently… and we are trying to enlist them as allies in the coming war. Just more proof (if any more were really needed) that human rights is just a sideshow for the administration.
I do welcome the recent news from Turkey, however… perhaps they have hypocrisy detectors, at least. Now if they would reconsider their policies towards the Kurds…
No, but if human rights violations were the reason for invading a country, then enlisting a country that previously committed an atrocity, then completely changed governments, is not hypocritical.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Well, of course, Mr. Perle had our favorite diplomatic persuader in his briefcase: huge wads of cash for Turkey’s “economic recovery”. Might even be some slice of the Iraqi oil pie for 'em. Not that this is about oil. Or anything.
American unemployed? Screw 'em. Turkish unemployed? Here’s your check.
The Chamberlain/Hitler comparisons are ridiculous. Hussein may be a scumbag but he is an impotent scumbag. He does not have a luftwaffe. He does not have panzer divisions. He does not have the fanatical support of his subjects. He is not a credible threat to the US.
Iran has more capability and just as much incentive to attack us. North Korea hates us and they have da Bomb. Pakistan hates us and THEY have the bomb. Libya has long been known for its beautiful and efficient terrorist schools. China is probably the the single most dangerous nation in the world today. They have LOTS of bombs… and chemical weapons… and biological weapons.
So why isn’t Junior going up against countries which pose far more credible threats to US interests? Why fight a bum when we could fight a legit contender? Could it have something to do with political calculation? With nerve? Maybe Junior’s handlers want him to look like a tough guy (kind of helps with the draft-dodging thing and the AWOL thing) but they don’t want to really get into a scrap which could hurt him. maybe they figure they’ll set him up with a tomato can, hype the hell out of it, and then try to sell the inevitable, pre-scripted knock-out as proof that Junior is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. Then he can retire “undefeated” with all the real contenders still out there.
Speaking of still out there [cough, cough] what ever happened to our boy bin Laden?
He is in Oceania. He has always been in Oceania.
I thought he was in Pakistan.
As for North Korea, you may have noticed that there happens to be a large country in asia, with a veto in the Security Council, that might have something to say about an adventure in North Korea. To say nothing of South Korea itself. North Korea is under the protection of China.
And of course, Iran, as you say, is more populous, actually could come up with suicidal fanatics, the government still has some shreds of legitimacy in the eyes of the population, etc. Any action against Iran could be very very dangerous.
And then there’s Iraq. A country with no friends. Ruled by a single man who rules by terror, who is universally feared and despised by the population. Where we already had one war a short while ago where we won handily. Where we can get UN backing of some sort.
I don’t know why you all want to get involved in wars where we are liable to lose badly, yet are opposed to a war where we are very likely to win easily. If you really favor war with North Korea or Iran, please say so. But somehow, I don’t know why, for some reason I imagine that you all would be opposed to those wars too. You answered your own question, Diogenes. Iraq is a war we can win. Since the other two members of the Axis of Evil are tougher nuts to crack, why not go after the weakest one? After we’ve won in Iraq, THEN we can talk about whether we should roll on to Tehran, or Pyongyang. First things first.
First things first should include going after the most immediate threats.
So the sum of your argument is that we should either go after everybody, or go after nobody?
You are correct, it was too much. The statement was made in anger, and I regret having written it. However much I am angered by what I see as the slandering of honest people, name-calling is not called for.
I offer my full apologies to SuaSponte.
No, what I’m saying is that Bush’s rationale for going after Iraq is disingenuous. If he is really concerned about threats to US security then why is he targeting a country which does not even make the top five on the list of countries which can hurt us.
Iraq has not been shown to have had any connection with 9/11.
Iraq has not be shown to possess WMD or the means to fire them at the US.
The CIA has said that Iraq is not an immediate threat to the US.
Other countries are.
So why is Bush prioritizing Iraq over, let’s say North Korea?
(semi-random pre-bedtime thoughts:)
Top five according to what list? Yours?
*Iraq has been shown to both possess WMD and the means to deliver them. Getting them to the US would be fairly simple. Hence, we have inspectors going back into Iraq to see if they currently possess WMD and/or the facilities to produce more.
*Iraq’s connection or lack thereof to the events of 9/11/01 are not why we should enact regime change there; To prevent Iraq from being behind a 9/11/03 are the reason we should.
*The CIA also didn’t forsee Iraq going into Kuwait, the first WTC bombing, OKC, 9/11, and all sorts of other things. The CIA is not exactly what we may call ‘competent’, and I wouldn’t be too keen to point to them as a source.
*Iraq will be an cheap and easy war, as far as such things go. We know the roads, the weather, the good restaurants, etc.
The other countries listed will/are being dealt with as the current situation permits. Every problem does not have a ‘Desert Storm’ solution.
-Iran (CIA was brilliant there back in '79, no?) seems to be working its way back to ‘Civilized Nation’ status, and is slowly rejecting its Islamist gov’t. After Iraq is dealt with, I am sure the US may provide a nudge or two to help the matter along.
-Libya has been spanked nicely by President Reagan. Quaddafi has rejected terrorism , and while no sane person thinks he has turned a new leaf, he has learned his lesson. He is content to terrorize his own people.
-China wants to sell us cheap goods more then it wants to nuke us. Again, I agree that the PRC gov’t is chock full of nastiness, buisness can be done with them.
-N.Korea will probably just starve itself away (So long as we quit sending them sacks of frigging food). If Fearless Leader thinks about getting too restless, S.Korea, China, Russia, and Japan are in the area to provide an excellent counter-balance. No such counter exists to Iraq.
Iraq can be dealt with quickly and painlessly (from a US perspective) now, using military force. The others cannot, so we should try other means on them first.
Just a jolly romp through the sand. Badda-bing, badda-BOOM! Nothing to it.
Unless, of course, you’re wrong. “Ooopsy! Calculations a bit off, there. Spot of trouble, don’t you know. Bit short on body bags.”
War is chaos made manifest. It is the least predictable of human enterprises, as well as being the most loathesome.
Granted, odds are you are right. So what?
Lets move to your rationale, such as it were.
Everybody has WMD. Everybody. Any country with a technology equivalent to Upper Chad or Volta can produce WMD’s. If all this is as simple as you say, and Saddam bin Laden the blithering maniac you assert, why hasn’t he done so already?
See above.
This is a chestnut! Truly. The CIA is incompetent, if they tell us someone is not a threat, well, then they are a threat. Or if Richard Perle, who doesn’t know whats going on in Saddams mind, tells us they are a desperate, immediate emergency type threat, and the CIA says different, why, we should believe Mr. Perle, who’s incompetence has not yet been demonstrated.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
Droll. On any subject except war and carnage, might be rather amusing. As to cheap and easy, see above.
The rest of your post is an outline for a permanent state of war. I will credit you with enough good sense to believe, until you state otherwise, that you aren’t really serious.
That ain’t close to a full apology, Chumpsky; you still accuse me of slander. I demand that you retract that statement.
Mr. Ritter did not merely change his opinion; that would be fine. Instead, he has made directly contradictory statements of fact.
Actually, I have, earliler in this thread. Allow me to repeat myself:
Let me explain; changing your assertions of fact over a period of less than one year (Ritter “found religion” sometime between January 1999 and September 1999) does equal lying.
As for Ritter’s “explanations,” he alleges that in the 1998/early 1999 period, he was speaking in the “context” of Saddam’s failure to comply with the Security Council resolutions, but since then, he has been speaking in the “context” of Saddam’s potential threat.
Changing context does not change facts. It only changes their meaning. Ritter has failed to explain - nor can he - why he has radically changed his assertions of fact.
Chumpsky, I have provided evidence to back up my statement of fact. You have provided nothing, yet accuse me of slander.
I expect the full retraction today.
Sua
Uh-uh. Kindly note the dates in the quotes I have provided. Ritter has stated that he knew in 1997 that Iraq was disarmed, etc., etc. Yet in 1998, he asserted that Iraq was not disarmed, etc., etc.
So after he claims he knew differently, he was asserting that Iraq was not disarmed, and was advocating a military invasion of Iraq.
So it wasn’t any “new” information that changed his mind. He claims he had the information all along.
Sua
It appears you have no knowledge of the events in Munich in 1938. At the time of the British and French appeasement of Hitler, it was Hitler who was the “impotent scumbag.” His own generals have acknowledged that the luftwaffe and panzer divisions you speak of would have been unable to defeat Chechoslovakia, much less the British and French.
Here are some excerpts from their testimony:
General Jodl testified at Nuremburg that:
quote:
It was out of the question, with five [German] fighting divisions and seven reserve divisions in the western fortifications, which were nothing but a large construction site, to hold out against 100 French divisions. That was militarily impossible.
June 4, 1946 testimony, Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XV, p. 361
Field Marshall von Manstein, also at Nuremburg:
quote:
If a war had broken out [in 1938], neither our western border nor our Polish frontier could really have been effectively defended by us, and there is no doubt whatsoever that had Czechoslovakia defended herself, we would have been held up by here fortifications, for we did not have the means to break through.
August 9, 1946 testimony, TMCW, vol. XX, p. 606.
Indeed, most German generals were so convinced that a war in 1938 would be disasterous for Germany that it is highly likely that there would have been a coup d’etat against Hitler if Britain and France hadn’t caved at Munich. (no direct cite right now; I’ll get back to you if you want one.)
On September 12, 1938, two weeks before the capitulation at Munich, General Gamelin, Chief of Staff of the French Army at the time, assured the French Premier, Daladier, that if war came in 1938, “the democratic nations would dictate the peace.”
Gamelin, Servir, pp. 344-346.
So the lesson of Munich is, if one doesn’t take care of the scumbags while they are still impotent, bad things happen.
Sua
Nope, despite all attempts to find some, we have thus far failed to do so. W has had to resort to flat out lying and pulling fictional reports out of his ass in order to convince us that Iraq has nukes. It is absolutely not “easy” to fire them at the US, and I defy you to produce a cite that Iraq has any thing close to such technology.
Your idiot president keeps saying that getting Saddam is crucial to the “war on terror,” but if Iraq has no proven connection tyo 9/11 or any other significant terroristic assaults on the US, then why is it crucial? Invading other countries to stave off some imaginary, hypothetical, future attack is exactly the rationale that Hitler used. What’s to stop a 9/11/03 attack from Iran? How about freelance Saudis? What’s so special about Iraq?
The CIA did so know that Iraq was going to invade Iraq. In fact, April Glaspie, the American embassador in Baghdad, on instructions from Bush senior, greenlighted the invasion and assured Hussein that the US would not interfere. It seems that contriving phony causi bellorum is de rigueur for the Bush family.
At last, something we agree on. Let’s just add “gutless” to your list of adjectives and we’ll be in perfect accord.
How, exactly, are they being “dealt with?” Why don’t they have “Desert Storm” solutions? Because W doesn’t have the sack to fight a country that can fight back?
The most recent US Intelligence report specifies Iran and NorthKorea as both being greater current threats to the US than Iraq.
[quote]
From the report
The mostly likely ballistic missile threats the United States will face in the next 15 years will come from North Korea and Iran – Iraq is less likely, though possible – “barring significant changes in their political orientations,” the report said. Other likely threats come from the strategic forces of Russia and China, the report said.
Furthermore, Iran is also believed to be hiding Al Qaeda operatives.
Yeah, god forbid a president show any genuine courage or ask the American people to show any real sacrifice (other than their own civil rights). The strategy is to APPEAR to be fighting a “war” so that Bush can exploit the word for its rhetorical value at home, but under no circumstance will he actually put himself in a fair fight. That would be bad politically.