Just wondering, because people are all postulating that this is the demise of the UN and end of relationships between countries who have major economic connections with one another.
Just because the US has 300k troops around Iraq, does not mean that opposition will continue once everything gets going. If Saddam does something stupid like Launch a scud towards Israel - which I stated in another thread is something he would never do - then all bets are off, and we have a coalition again.
Then what will happen? A sudden enmasse attack on North Korea? After Iraq is past a regime change, and we are all a little happier, do we go to war again, against naked aggression with a huge alliance? I am sure China would not like to see North Korea launch a nuke towards the United States, knowing the inevitable outcome of such an event.
Russia would not like much either, and a huge coalition to rid the world of naked aggressors may have some benefit. But I wonder at what cost…
If Saddam doesn’t launch an attack against Israel, but does something else to convince people who currently do not support the war, that they should ally with the US. Then just how much do the stakes change?
You mean what if aliens descended in the Mother Ship because they were pleased by Dan Foley’s “National Alien Day” bill and obligingly performed mind control procedures on France, Russia, Spain, Bulgaria, Germany, Syria, Chile, Mexico, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, Pakistan, and China?
Gee, I guess Dan’s bill would get passed pretty damn fast, is what I think would happen.
And after that, Iran’s ass would be grass. And North Korea would start converting their yard to a wildflower meadow at light speed.
If the war goes well, and the U.S. is treated as liberators by the Iraqi people, then the U.S. will have gained some political capital in the middle east.
I think there may be a larger game going on in the Middle East. One of the things standing in the way of a Palestinian state is Israel’s unsecure borders. Hizbollah in Lebanon is a real problem. So I think you might see the U.S. leaning on Syria to control the Hizbollah situation. Stability in Lebanon could pave the way for a Palestinian state. At the same time, dealing with Hizbollah would strike a blow at the Mullah’s in Iran, who heavily support them.
A democratic Iraq would possibly have the greatest effect on the people on Iran. There is a growing disconnect between the young, moderate Iranian population and the aging Mullahs that control it. The U.S. in Iraq will be in a good position to aid the dissidents within Iraq and help foment a new revolution.
I think that’s the real end goal here. A Democratic (or quasi-democratic) Iraq and Iran, friendly to the United States. A real Palestinian state. Security for Israel. Breaking the cycle of 50 years of violence which has bred so much hatred and terror.
It sounds utopian, and for that reason I distrust this grand vision. As someone who doesn’t think the government is competant to run the DMV, I have serious reservations about nation building.
But having said that, I certainly don’t have any better ideas, and clearly something has to be done. The status quo is unstable and incredibly dangerous to the world.
Sam,
Why distrust a goal that just might break the cycle of war and hate? The greatest obstacles to peace and democracy in the Middle-East are those states that do not prescribe to either peace nor democracy. The Mullahs, Kings, Princes and “Presidents
elected by 100% of the vote—or self appointed Pres.-for-Life”, they know democracy in their countries would mean an end to their vast riches and ruthless regimes, so they will do almost anything to keep things as they are, including pouring gasoline on the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Phlosphr—I’ll go out on a limb here and say I believe that when we begin our attack, Sadaam will at least try to fire Scuds or anything else available at Israel. What would he have to lose? We will be looking for him, some of his own people might be out looking for him, I just don’t see him being taken in alive, so he will make Israel pay before or even after he goes. His hatred runs deep.
I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed, Sam. Glad to see someone else that thinks this may bring about positive changes in what has been one big quagmire for much to long.
That’s basically my attitude. My fingers are crossed. I have reservations about grand nation building, but at this point I’m willing to let the U.S. step up to the plate and give it a try. Because God knows, the only alternative is to let the middle east fester and continue to be the breeding ground of terror, while the various rogue states and despots attain increasingly powerful weapons and delivery systems.
You are including US-backed governments in your broad-brush condemnation there, aren’t you? Like Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and Qa’tar? Y’know, the non-democratic repressors that we help keep in power because they give us cheap oil, right? Right?
Sam I have all my fingers and toes crossed. However, you touched on something that I have been thinking about for a while. I have a collegue here who is Iranian. He’s about 30 maybe 35, my age. He says that the national view of Americans towards people of the Mid-east is clouded in many ways. However, many Iranian men and women who are young, and who’s elder uncles and father teach to be wary of Americans, are asking more and more, questions. Many are disbelieving, and forming their own opinions. Media has played a large role in their lives. And Oddly enough, he went on to say most houshold do not tune into Al-Jazera because they are broadcasting anything that comes through their doors, including known terrorist propaganda. Al-Jazera is like the Jerry Springer of the Mid-East, and not held in a very high light.
This to me is a good sign that people in the mideast are thinking more for themselves and causing an apparent split between militantism and reason.
Hmmmm, an interesting scenario indeed. What would happen if the world united against the US and it’s interests? Since it seems that the majority of the world’s populace is very distrustful of the current administration and perceives their agenda as imperialism, this is an interesting question to ponder. Could the US see a new cold war and it’s adversary encompassing a large portion of the world? Let’s see, China, Russia, much of Europe, Middle East, Central and South America, could be interesting.
Rjung,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you—, but, yes, I do include Saudi Arabia and the rest of that ilk.
Phlosphr,
I agree our view is clouded, but so is theirs towards us. Those with state run TV & radio, broadcast nothing that show us in a good light. Al-Jazera is just a propaganda mouthpiece keeping hatred toward the West alive and well.
I want to expound on ** SpeyFly**'s excellent scenario.
Lets suppose that the second US backed resolution was vetoed by the french. Bush says, “va te faire foutre!!!” and proceeds to invade Iraq anyway from Turkey, Kuwait and the Gulf. Now, the French forwards a resolution to form a coalition to stop the US from continuing the aggression (approved by Russia, China, Germany, Iraq, Syria and Belgium). If it somehow gets past the inevitable US veto, who and what army are they going to send to stop the US and just exactly how are they going to do that?
X~Slayer, your take is very possible. I think that there are some who would like to send a massage even if it were to receive a veto by the US. At the very least, let’s hope so. I have heard today that the White House has told Russia that george is very unhappy with Russia. You know what that means, more tuff talk.
Actually X~Slayer(ALE) your situation would never happen. There will never be a war like the one you describe from the nations you mentioned. There is waaaay too much at stake if there would ever be such a resolution. And with the scenerio Sam described, I’d think you would look at that as a plausible solution, it is by far the most humane and positive one. I am not trying to just think happy happy thoughts until I am blue in the face. But the scenerio you mention is not one I could ever see happening. Especially with the loss of all economic ties with those nations resulting from it. They can not afford to do that. Plain and simple econ 101.
“Especially with the loss of all economic ties with those nations resulting from it. They can not afford to do that. Plain and simple econ 101.â€
Phlosphr, econ 101 goes both ways and the US is just as dependent on imports and exports as anyone regarding global trade and trade debit.
“I believe the whitehouse said that a veto would hurt relations. Other than that, it’s all tuff talk until you swing the first punch isn’t it?â€
Saen, thinking outside the box is crucial here. Since this administration has resorted to tough talk rather than diplomacy, their rhetoric has forged an alliance between China and Russia. This is a first in modern history.
