Perhaps it is not the best form to quote myself, but here is and interesting series of articles on Iran, for those interested.
Enough with the Kosovo and Bosnia false analogies, which are just another manifestation of the right wing’s regular attempts to portray others as being as hypocritical as themselves.
There was no possible questioning of motives or, for the most part, factual support in the Balkan campaigns; no plausible reason to see it as anything but stopping a campaign of genocide. The issue, other than Russia’s support of its centuries-old friend Serbia and therefore automatic SC veto, was simply about raisng enough moral courage and creating enough organization to do the job. In no way can those campaigns be called unjust today.
Motives and especially factual support for Bush’s Iraq war, though, cannot avoid being questioned.
I’d be selling my stock in the World Peace Index. I think Iran will be a covert operation and NK will be a nightmare, hopefully China’s.
Elvis, before we finish with Kosovo, I found an article by James Bovard, a fine right-wing writer I’m sure, that sums up the “Clinton Doctrine”. www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp
Interesting read.
After September 11th the ‘sovereignty’ of a state such as Iraq is less important than it’s terrorists leanings and terrorist support combined with their strong anti-Americanism. Saddam Hussein was not in any way, shape or form ‘chosen’ by anyone so I have no qualms about his removal. In fact, it makes it even more morally justifiable.
9/11 wasn’t just the first act of terrorism in the US, it was an all out provocation of war. If other countries can’t accept this, well, ultimately it changes nothing.
And in a way we have to show that we can do this without the UN because the UN couldn’t do anything to prevent 9/11 from happening in the first place (or again). In fact, the UN gives the terrorists an advantage against the US.
The world system of diplomacy & peace prevention has broken down, so the US military is going to fix it. Both because our citizens are the ones most endangered by terrorism, and because the US military is the only thing capable of fixing it.
Iraq is NOT the major player in the world of international terrorism.
Iran is #1 according to the US state department.
Pakistan trained, fostered and funded the Taliban,** Al Quaida** and Osama bin Laden. The most recent major AQ bust took place at the home of a political bigwig in a neighborhood that is home to Pakistani government officials and generals. There is a large contingent of AQ sympathizers in Pakistan’s military and ISI. Pakistan’s nuclear technologies are being shared with N.Korea, (according to the US). There isn’t confidence in Pakistan’s control of their existing nuclear weapons.
Iraq is not connected to 9-11!
There is no such person as Saddama bin Laden NOR Osama Hussein.
Obviously, we couldn’t do anything to prevent 9-11 either.
What on earth do you mean about the UN giving terrorists and advantage over the US of A?
Furthermore this point is irrelevant because:
Iraq is not connected to 9-11!
Did you read this sentence after you wrote it?
Most victims of terrorism are NOT citizens/ nationals of the US of A, (nor can Americans be more dead than people of other nationalities).
Furthermore this point is irrelevant because:
Iraq is not connected to 9-11!
The vote in NATO was 16-3 with the three being France, Germany and Belgium. Resolution 1441 passed in the UN and the recent vote would have passed if it weren’t for France threatening to veto. Turn on your TV and notice how many countries are now joining in on our side. France has even said they will send support if biological or chemical warfare is used by Saddam (you know those things Chirac didn’t think Saddam had).
[ul]
[sup]POP pop POP POP pop[/sup][/ul]
Yes, but Pakistan knew better than to try an oppose us. Hussein isn’t so smart.
We would have been the only ones to prevent 9/11, but thru intelligence and military action, not diplomacy. Allowing countries such as France and Russia to veto military action over continuing diplomacy gives the terrorists a huge advantage (or it would if Bush didn’t have the intelligence & guts to ignore them).
I most certainly did. What do you think happened twice in the 20th century?
When they are butchered 3000 at a time I tend to disagree. And the US govt first and foremost must protect US citizens, at times even at the expense of so-called ‘world peace’. This is one of those times.
Saying that Iraq and 9/11 are not connected is just pathetically ignorant. Even if no Iraqi resources were used, after 9/11 Iraq is a real threat. And the elimination of Iraq goes a long way to un-emboldening other potential terrorists states such as Iran, Pakistan, NK etc. And the opposite is even more true. Backing down would guarantee that these countries adopt terrorism as the best method to deal with the US.
cite please
As evinced by the events of 9-11 I suppose?
But we didn’t because…
Which terrorists are you talking about?
And
Why does Bush ignoring them keep them from getting an advantage from a UNSC veto?
What are the steps in this logic? Are you able to articulate them?
Iran, and Pakistan are not “potential terrorist states” THEY ARE TERRORIST STATES!!!
Unlike Iraq, Pakistan actually did help OBL pull off 9-11!
Iran is THE NUMBER ONE MOST ACTIVE STATE SPONSOR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM according to the US state department.
“Allowing countries such as France and Russia to veto military action over continuing diplomacy gives the terrorists a huge advantage (or it would if Bush didn’t have the intelligence & guts to ignore them).”
I challenge the assessment of “intelligence and guts” in this case, as Bush sends the message that the government of the USA doesn’t care about public opinion and the opinion of their allies. After 9-11 pretty much the whole world rallied behind the USA, but with this pushing for war, disregarding other nation’s opinions and hindering - bordering on sabotaging - the work of the weapons inspectors, bush did his best to vaporize that support.
It’s neither intelligence nor guts, it’s the sign of a bad statesman, if anything.
“I most certainly did. What do you think happened twice in the 20th century?”
People - and especially George W. Bush - should realize that this isn’t 1939. The world has grown up and starting a war for economical gains or as a political tool isn’t going to work in the 21st century. Well, perhaps it does work out for Bush, but by all means, it shouldn’t.
“Saying that Iraq and 9/11 are not connected is just pathetically ignorant.”
Constructing a connection is manipulative and wrong, though. Sure, Saddam needs to be removed from power, we agree there. Twisting facts to justify a war against the united nations and against a strong public opposition world wide on the other hand isn’t something we can agree on.
Optihut,
Welcome to the SDMB.
Hmmm, odd: For some reason I cannot edit my post. Therefore I have to clarify the end a bit with a follow up post:
“Twisting facts to justify a war against the united nations and against a strong public opposition world wide on the other hand isn’t something we can agree on.”
That should read: “Twisting facts to justify a war with Iraq against the will of the united nations and against a strong public opposition world wide on the other hand isn’t something we can agree on.”
No one but Mods and Admins can edit posts here. Check out the About This Message Board forum.
Optihut,
Bush does care about the opinion of America’s allies, just not the ones with hidden and not so hidden agendas. As far as public opinion, at least in the USA, it backs his play.
Most countries did little more than give lip-service to seem sympathytic towards America. But when we stated that we were not going to just hope it doesn’t happen again, but bring to bear the full power of the US military to make sure it doesn’t, with or without the UN’s ok, they all screamed bloody murder. And they did so for the most part because they know we don’t need their help and because they know they couldn’t stop us if they tried.
And this fear that America is going to create some global empire is not even worth acknowledging. We ruled the planet after WWII and we not only wound up with less territory than before but we gave billions to our former enemies to rebuild themselves. Russia captured and bled dry half of Europe, and even Britain only reluctantly finally gave up India. We turned Japan, (West) Germany and South Korea from war torn wastelands into economic superpowers with democratic govts.
And yet the world still thinks we’re the bad guys?
Ungrateful bastards. I say we teach 'em a lesson about who the real good guys are.
Yes, we should, by removing Saddam from power and by helping Iraq form a stable, democratic government.
And that’s exactly why I doubt this war will be fast or even remotely easy. Only in Hollywood does the brave, lone gunslinger ride into town, whump the varmits and then ride off, leaving grateful townfolk firmly in control. As far as I understand it, this is a region with very deep-seated divisons among its peoples. “Help create a democratic government”, of whom, precisely, that will be, if not embraced, at least respected by all parties? We aren’t restoring even a dubious government back to power. Part of the deal is creating a whole new, workable government (to our tastes) out of deeply antithetical, mutually antagonistic forces. And keep in mind the volatile mix surrounding Iraq’s borders.
Just by invading, we’re throwing a deeply foreign and resented element into the mix. The odds against our simply “kickin’ butt and layin’ down the law” and then just leaving are astronomical. It’s one thing to start a war, when war merely implies winning a military objective. But it’s considerably more problematic to end an actual “war” and then undertake a lengthy, uncertain, dangerous occupation. War will morph seamlessly into a “peacekeeping mission”, but one which most other nations want no part of, thank you very much, especially since they deemed it folly to remake the MENA by force in the first place.
This won’t be Gulf War: The Sequel.
Veb
Absolute rubbish. You think France was the only dissenter of this crazed and self-serving initiative? France’s contrarian actions may not be condoned in the world of international diplomacy any more than Bush’s numerous blunders, but don’t try to put the entire blame on them–so far that has been the prime tactic of dishonest politicians/debaters. The world in general clearly disagreed with the course of action that the US, and to a slightly lesser extent the UK, pushed upon it regarding Iraq.
Obviously I don’t need to tell you to turn on the TV, but I can definitely suggest switching to a slightly more intelligent channel. What do you think the allies and friend of the US ought to do? Stand by and let the US do this on their own, watch an ally’s forces suffer WMD attacks in this age of crumbling international unity?
It is precisely because certain countries (including, strange to say, France) understand more about diplomacy and international relations than Bush will ever comprehend that they are offerring support now that war may not be avoided.
I remind you of Blair’s impassioned speeches recently. Interesting tactic he used–he assisted Bush in rendering the coming war unavoidable, and then, once the brink was reached, his main argument was that “there could be no turning aside now” either by refusing to aid the US or by standing down from the military offensive. Blair’s arguments, as almost always, were sound. The problem isn’t his reasoning for the need of war at this advanced moment, the problem is that he and Bush pushed this unnecessary war upon an unprepared world in the first place–and they still have not convinced anyone that the war is absolutely necessary now. All they’ve done is make the war unavoidable.
Despite the foolish swagger in the US’s step in recent times, the world understands that inclusion and multilateralism solve problems, whereas exclusion and unilateralism simply create them. Very, very few nations want to see the US isolated, because they have enough foresight to understand that in the long term US isolation will only result in problems.
Only someone egregiously ignorant of international affairs would see the emerging international support for an unavoidable war as a vindication of Bush’s idiotic tack the last months.
I wouldn’t sweat the opinions of Europeans. The hsitory of Europe in the Twentieth Century, particularly World Wars I and II, gives one every reason to believe that the Europeans are a bunch of fuckups, royal and otherwise.
Problem is, Dubya is a fuckup, too. You can almost smell the ignorance and stupidity coming out of the white house nowadays. Glad I didnt’ vote for him, I’d be ashamed.