Iraq

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Islamic Extremists will always want to attack the west.

Quite possibly, but I think that these people are a very, very small minority. (Though, BTW, what most of them actually want is to kick "infidels" out of the Middle East. Pretty unlikely, for sure, so it boils down to the same thing.) They can hide anywhere (oh, and where's the evidence that they're hiding/getting trained/armed with anthrax in Iraq?)

This aspect of the issue is not decided by money, arms suppliers or safe havens; it is decided in people's minds. The more we are perceived to oppress the Arab world, the easier it is for such extremists to win over the minds of ordinary people. Invading Iraq, setting aside the question of whether or not it's justified, will contribute massively to their argument. That's why Bin Laden is sitting in some cave somewhere rubbing his hands together with glee right now.

cheers

d.

[Coney]

Interesting site-

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/f.../nowariraq.htm

[Dunadan]

Hey, guess what? The official Iraqi news agency web site is www.uruklink.net.

That's it, then. No more inpections required. Saddam's clearly an orc.

[Elvellon]

I’ll highlight a passage from JD long post that I wish to comment (with another, longer post ):

(Excerpts from a CNN article)

[i]“France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them.”

“France had asked the U.S. States for proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but Washington has failed to provide any, Alliot-Marie said.”

“Alliot-Marie said she expected arms inspectors to ask for more time, and said it was "absolutely necessary" to agree to any such request, repeating France's stance that war was the last resort. “

Jerseydevil wrote:

“This is what is so stupid in Europe.

He's NOT supposed to have any of these weapons. They were supposed to have already been destroyed. Do these idiots really think that after being lied to for 12 years that he will all of a sudden say "Oh yeah - you caught me. I'll elimate them now."

As I said - they just want to bury their head in the sand until it's too late.

Frankly, stupidity doesn’t seem to be an appropriate word to describe the “pro-war” or the “anti- war” position. It sounds too much like the America- bashing (and Euro-bashing) we have seen in forums everywhere in recent times. (I know it wasn't your intention to do that, JD ).

But it is obvious there is a clear difficulty to perceive each other motivations on this issue. Assuming that both parts have reasons for their positions, what they may be?

If I understood it right, the pro-war motivations may be described as follows:

Saddam, maintains an arsenal of mass destruction weapons. History proves that he is willing to use them. He already has used chemical weapons upon his own people and so it is probable he would use them again, even against the West.
During 13 years he failed to cooperate with the UN in dismantling those weapons, nothing indicates he would change his behaviour now.
Furthermore, he maintains relations with terrorist groups, including Al Qeada.

Under this light war is not only justifiable but also necessary to protect us from the insidious threat of bio and chemical terrorism. Those that oppose war are therefore ignorant or refuse to see the evidence that exists.

(continue)

[Elvellon]

Well, now for really long post: the other side.

As far as I se it, we have two main groups that oppose war, mainly the European and Muslin.

As it was to be expected, the reasons of one group are not coincident with the other.

I’ll speculate about the Europeans.

As it became clear recently, Europe is far from being a monolithic block (yes, I’m using the M word again BoP ) the recent letter supporting the US several European leaders subscribed (including my own country PM) seems to indicate this. (Alf jokingly, some say that more then supporting the US, those leaders were opposing the unilateral stance of the Franco-German “alliance” in internal EU affairs, and their pretence to speak for all Europe in international affairs ).

Despite the European leaders division, it is clear that most Europeans don’t favour war (including in those countries that signed the letter), so why is this?

The Soundness of Facts
The first problem is the facts that supposedly fundament war. To many, they cannot be called “facts”.
Usually, what is claimed to be “proof” is hearsay or speculation. After all, the supposed facts are presented (including by American press) as being based in someone’s accusations or in assumptions based on incomplete information. There is precious little evidence. Facts remain as illusive as they were in the first day inspectors went in 12 years ago.

Even to those that believe Saddam is guilty (and there are many among the “anti-war” group) there is a difference between suspicion and actual evidence. Without the last war is not legitimate.

The UN factor.
Many Europeans value much the UN (not surprisingly, if you consider the existence of another, more successful supra-national European organization, the EU). While few have any illusions about the UN, there is a clear belief that the road to follow in the international relations is that of Law prevailing over Might.

Frankly, going in without a clear sanctioning of the UN, based on concrete, undisputable evidence is tantamount to a regress to the pre-WWII world, with all it’s dark moments. The efficiency of the UN may be paper thin, but it is one of the few barriers that remain in a world progressively more chaotic. No one seems to be willing to abdicate from it, and some still arbour the hope of it regaining more prominence and efficiency.

Now, as we know, the Bush administration has been dubious at beast regarding the UN. His claims of willingness to go in without clear, undisputed proof and support from the UN is seen as a dangerous action, capable of putting the UN survival at risk.

The “what changed” factor
As we know this situation has been going for quite some time now. Saddam’s actions haven’t changed, really, at least not for the worst. In fact he now have demonstrated a willingness to comply with inspectors (of course this is motivated by his fear of war, but it worked nonetheless). So many ask themselves, why war now?

Well, what seemed to have changed is American perception of the world. Most Europeans believe that Americans, until the dreadful day of 9/11, felt confident in their security. No one would dare to strike at the US, they believed. Now Americans are suffering from a new sense of vulnerability, and desire to re-establish their security again eliminating all possible threats. This is perfectly understandable.

To many Europeans, this sense of vulnerability is an old companion. It was there during two World Wars, mainly fought on this continent, it was there during the Cold War, when Europe felt many times it’s survival was by a thread, it was there during the dark days of terrorist activity, (that didn’t quite disappeared yet), it is present in those that remember the many dictatorships that have plagued the continent and it is here now, when we realize we can became targets of the new fundamentalist fanatics.

Yes, Europeans have learned to live with insecurity, and most don’t believe wars like the one proposed against Iraq will change things, insecurity will remain.




(continues)

Yes, I told you it was really long

[Elvellon]

And finally, the last part


The Credibility/Image Factor

Let’s face it, it is not just what one says that make it believable or not. Is also who and how he say it.

In the game of international influence, the credibility and image of a leader makes the difference. Past US presidents spent much time cultivating their international image so that, when need comes, his words would be heeded. Apparently not the current one.

Repeated unilateral acts have undermined his credibility among his allies. They accuse Mr. Bush of not listening to their opinions, much less taking them into account. According to them, he takes a decision alone and then expects them to back him up. That’s not the way allies act, they say. Naturally, the allies then feel free to disagree publicly with him.

Had another president proposed the war, say Clinton, would opposition be different?
Probably. I don’t believe opposition would be inexistent, but it would be far less acute, since he was much more credible, as an international leader.

The consequences of war factor
Despite claims that this will be a war of liberation, not a war against the people of Iraq, there is a lot of pessimism about that. Many believe that, at best, what can be expected from the Iraqi are ambivalent feelings towards their liberators.

The possibility of establishing a democracy there also seems thin. There are no credible leaders, and apparently, no real desire of the people for a democracy.

Another factor is the consequence of an attack on Iraq to us. If Saddam has mass destruction weapons as claimed war makes it much more likely he will use them. The belief that he would use them against the West outside a situation of war remains unconvincing. He seems to be an immoral creature, but not a rather stupid one.

Finally we have the possible instability in the Middle East resulting from an intervention there. The possibility that fundamentalist demagogues will use the war to destabilize the zone is very real, and the consequences to the World economy, security and to the people of those countries may be very problematic in the long run. The only way to minimise this threat is by getting undisputable evidence of Saddam foul play.

End of ramble (thank goodness! ).

[Posts were later edited to clarify a few passages]

[jerseydevil]

Concerning certain aspects of your posts...

UN - the dictators don't listen to the UN - so basicallyu unless the UN uses force - it has no influence on them. It took the US's show of force in the region to get the UN to even sit down to talk about inspectors and it took further show of force for Saddam Hussein to accept them.

Concerning my comment with the French are dumb - personally that goes without saying. Their statement that US has to PROVE that Iraq plans to USE the weapons is ridiculous.

Soundness of facts - Colin Powell is meeting with the UN on February 5th to disclose facts. A lot of it has been top secret information. As has been pointed out in the US recently - the Soviet Union also denied repeatedly of having nuclear weapons in Cuba - until the US provided the spy plane photos. The problem I stated earlier though - is that there is NO way of telling if a particular building is a biological/chemical weapoins lab - or just a baby food manufacturing company that just happens to have a huge sign on the front written in ENGLISH.

So in other words - you have to use intelligence gathering means to obtain this information - this includes getting information from people on the inside. Of course no matter how much proof there is - not everyone is going ot be happy.

Concerning the US unilaterialism - the US does not NEED to get approval from ANYONE to protect us. We did not elect the UN - the only people the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA has to listen to is the people of the US. He will of course listen to the allies - but if their opinion differs from what is in OUR best interest - it does NOT mean that he or us are obligated to abide by the outside world's opinion. I know you all wish you could elect our president - but you can't. Therefore you have no say when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country or it's security.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat, maybe not now - but in the near future - we will have another North Korea situation on our hands. Saddam Hussein must be stopped now before he hijacks the Middle East and holds that part of the world hostage.

Oh - it was also resently reported that Saddam Hussein had been saving up dead babies - so he could have that show of mass funerals and act as if those babies had died all at once.

[markedel]

As a Zionist I'd say the war is probably a good thing-in the long run Saddam is a threat to Israel and should be eliminated, and any weapons he does develop will eventually be used by terrorists-first in Israel and then in the West. (kind of like targed suicide bombings, but that's really another argument in itself). Also a truly democratic Iraq would raise the prospects of a democratic palestinian state being established, a good thing for Israel.

But in terms of realpolitic the invasion of Iraq opens up a can of worms-namely that Iraq is an artificial political unit held together only by fear of Saddam, without it splits up into 3 states, or just anarchy, a very bad and dangerous thing. Can the U.S set up a new stable Iraq-I think not.

[Coney]

I watched a very interesting article on the channel 4 news today.....it was all about Iraqi football (soccer) teams

They were quite good, but played dirty.....and they were all Manchester United fans (David Beckham being the most popular poster sold in Iraq)......well if they support Man U. that settles it........'nuke 'em *nuff said*

[Elvellon]

Well, as you may have noticed, I was pointing out the different points of view over the issue, and what is behind them (since I don’t really believe it just ignorance that motivates any of them). I see you haven’t disagreed with my “pro-war” analysis; that seems to indicate that you agree with it.

Now for your points.

UN - the dictators don't listen to the UN - so basically unless the UN uses force - it has no influence on them. It took the US's show of force in the region to get the UN to even sit down to talk about inspectors and it took further show of force for Saddam Hussein to accept them.

True, by they may listen to the threat of force, as opposed to actual use of force. It does seem to be working, for now at least. Since everybody (including the US) agreed with the “let’s give peace a last chance” thing, it seems reasonable to let this path advance instead of stopping the effort now.

And, if Saddam actually does it again and the inspector’s role is denied, then war is always a possibility, and this way it would have more legitimacy.

Concerning French- bashing

Well I confess I have been guilty of such a sport in the past. (It can be lots of fun. And don’t forget, they actually invaded us under Napoleon in the early XIX century. That was practically yesterday for a Portuguese! ) But I think France-bashing is really, really becoming as ridiculous as America-bashing is, so :P

Soundness of facts - Colin Powell is meeting with the UN on February 5th to disclose facts. A lot of it has been top secret information. As has been pointed out in the US recently - the Soviet Union also denied repeatedly of having nuclear weapons in Cuba - until the US provided the spy plane photos. The problem I stated earlier though - is that theree is NO way of telling if a particular building is a biological/chemical weapoins lab - or just a baby food manufacturing company that just happens to have a huge sign on the front written in ENGLISH.

So in other words - you have to use intelligence gathering means to obtain this information - this includes getting information from people on the inside. Of course no matter how much proof there is - not everyone is going ot be happy.

That goes without saying. But for now, we are asked to go on faith alone (that was what I pointed out), and faith doesn’t move mountains in international politics, nor the opinion of the common people, apparently.

While I personally admit the possibility of the existence of such proof (as I said, I was attempting to clarify both sides positions, not necessarily giving my own) I suspect it will be disappointingly inconclusive. Why?
Because with such opposition even among allies it would seem logical that Bush would have shared at least part of the information with the other allied world leaders. If such information were so damning they would have been much more careful in stating their opposition to war, to avoid becoming discredited because of it.

Since it favours the US to have an as wide coalition as possible wouldn’t be likely he would have showed part of it?

[Elvellon]

Concerning the US unilaterialism - the US does not NEED to get approval from ANYONE to protect us. We did not elect the UN - the only people the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA has to listen to is the people of the US. He will of course listen to the allies - but if their opinion differs from what is in OUR best interest - it does NOT mean that he or us are obligated to abide by the outside world's opinion. I know you all wish you could elect our president - but you can't. Therefore you have no say when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country or it's security.

Nope, you clearly didn’t got the point here. Who says it needs to get outside approval? Who wants to elect your president? Frankly, it is enough to deal with my own country PM

What I say is that unilateralism begets opposition and animosity, even among allies, when they are spurned. And despite what you say, there is a lot of bad feeling because many feel that they were spurned.

Now, whatever Mr. Bush qualities are, no one can claim that he is popular in the international community. He chose that path.
If one doesn’t care about this, fine. It is his option and I accept it (of course). Yet, then it seem odd why so many that supported unilateralism in the first place (including him, apparently) feel surprised and angered when “the others” seem to neglect to follow him.
Simply put, you can’t have both ways.

Finally don’t forget this little, tinny fact. When war finally comes it won’t be just America that goes to war. Other countries are likely to follow (included mine btw, even if in a limited way since our resources are scant), so it is natural that the people of those countries also feel entitled to have an opinion about it. (It is even likely that the French will join, despite their constant complains).
Sure, 90% (at least) of the troops will be American. But other countries will likely have their people involved (not to speak about logistical support, the US couldn’t ever dream of making such a distant war without it), so the locals (as I’m sure it happens in the US) wonder if all this will make them targets for retaliation, and if the cause is a worthy one. It seems natural, don’t you think?

When war finally comes, then there will be no more possibility for any serious dissention or the discussing of options. It will be a matter of supporting one’s allies and achieving victory. Anything else will be just pointless words, sound and wind, nothing more.

believe Saddam Hussein is a threat, maybe not now - but in the near future - we will have another North Korea situation on our hands. Saddam Hussein must be stopped now before he hijacks the Middle East and holds that part of the world hostage.

I disagree, I doubt he would become a threat (to the West, that is) unless attacked, but any analysis of this is, of course, subjective, since neither of us in inside his head (fortunately ).

[Elvellon]

Markedel, I’ve read interesting points about this recently. One pointed out that dealing with Saddam now is trading a contained, localized problem, with a wider, diffuse one.

It seems likely that fundamentalist demagogues in the Middle East and elsewhere will use an invasion to fuel their intents. Instead of dealing a blow to terrorism, it may actually help spread it. And make the local Arab countries more radical. Don’t you fear the possibility of another generalized war there?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As has been pointed out in the US recently - the Soviet Union also denied repeatedly of having nuclear weapons in Cuba - until the US provided the spy plane photos.

And that case was resolved by talking if I remember correctly and NOT by sending troops to the other side of the globe to go and blow somebody else's land back to the middle ages in the name of justice. We narrowly escaped a full blown war then, I'm hoping that we can do the same here although I fear quite the opposite.

I'm not saying that no one wants to look at the evidence that America is supplying just because it's America that supplying it and just because we're all nastily anti-american. But you can't expect other nations to go and aid in an unprovoked war on shaky evidence. Too many countries have tasted the bitter results of war, I don't blame them for not calling lightly for war again.

I know you all wish you could elect our president- but you can't.

I seem to recall you didn't elect this particular president either.

Therefore you have no say when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country or it's security.

I think we do if it is something that concerns us all. Or is America the only country that may decide what can and what can't in this world?

[Coney]

Soundness of facts - Colin Powell is meeting with the UN on February 5th to disclose facts. A lot of it has been top secret information.

This worries the wotsit out of me

America is withholing these top secret facts when the Kurdish people are in constant danger and Isreal is target no.1........wtf? If they have evidence why the hell is the USA witholding it?...this is not the Cuban Missile crisis, people are not going to be impressed by America throwing the equivalent of a "full house" on the gambling/negotiating table.......

Oh - it was also resently reported that Saddam Hussein had been saving up dead babies - so he could have that show of mass funerals and act as if those babies had died all at once.

Eh? Reorted where?......not like you not to provide a link to such an atrocity JD.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat, maybe not now - but in the near future - we will have another North Korea situation on our hands.

uh huh, the world now has a real problem with NK......yet it seems to be happy to deal with the problem via negotiation thanks to neglegence ......... yet America seems reluctant to let the weapons inspectors even finish their job re:Iraq........must be something to do with the current facts they are withholding from the rest of the world

[jerseydevil]

By the way - I know you were presenting both sides - I just wanted to comment on some of the points I disagree with.

Originally posted by Eärniel

And that case was resolved by talking if I remember correctly and NOT by sending troops to the other side of the globe to go and blow somebody else's land back to the middle ages in the name of justice. We narrowly escaped a full blown war then, I'm hoping that we can do the same here although I fear quite the opposite.

And the ships and everything blockading Cuba - that was nothing? By the way - recently many stuff was just declassified regarding the Cuban Missile crisis - there was A LOT no one knew about. There were shots fired to make the Russian Submarines surface.

I seem to recall you didn't elect this particular president either.

Actually we did vote for Bush - can't help it if half of Americans and the rest of the world never knew what the Electorial College is or how we elect a president. maybe if people read the Constition they would have known that popular vote doesn't matter at all - what matters is how each state votes.

I think we do if it is something that concerns us all. Or is America the only country that may decide what can and what can't in this world?

We're the only one's who have a decision in what determines our self interest. Whether you agree with it or not is your self interest showing.

Concerning unilatrialism again - if we didn't and don't take a hard line with Iraq - the rest of the world will just turn their backs on the situation like they did before. Europe would be VERY happy to lift sanctions - even though Iraq is not complying - nor has EVER complied with the UN resolutions. Most of Europe seems to want to just take the "cover their eyes and hope the problem goes away" stand.

Coney - it was on ABC the other night. I don't know if they have a link for the information. It was on World News Tonight.

The NK is a different situation anyway. We basically have a choice with Saddam Hussein - we can deal with Iraq now - or face ANOTHER Norh Korea situation with them. That would be great to have TWO sadistic regimes to deal with and worry about them selling nuclear as well as biological and chemical weapons to terrorists. Hans Blix also had said North Korea was clean - so we know how much they were fooled there.

[Elvellon]

[quote]
Concerning unilatrialism again - if we didn't and don't take a hard line with Iraq - the rest of the world will just turn their backs on the situation like they did before. Europe would be VERY happy to lift sanctions - even though Iraq is not complying - nor has EVER complied with the UN resolutions. Most of Europe seems to want to just take the "cover their eyes and hope the problem goes away" stand.
[quote]

Actually, at this time, it is grudgingly allowing the inspectors to do their work.

The issue is not simply if he complies or not, but if it is worth a war. If his actions make a war justifiable.

And then there is what happens next, once the war is won.

Are the repercussions worth it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

Actually, at this time, it is grudgingly allowing the inspectors to do their work.

The issue is not simply if he complies or not, but if it is worth a war. If his actions make a war justifiable.

And then there is what happens next, once the war is won.

Are the repercussions worth it?

So yo'll be happy with Iraq having these weapons? Holding the Middle East hostage? Of supplying them to terrorists? Anyone who thinks he won't go after his neighbors once he has them are naive. If he has enough weapons - the only choice the US will have to take him out - is to go nuclear. His stated goal has always been to rule the Middle East and the elimination of Israel.

[Elvellon]

Put it this way.

Are we going after North Korea next? Byelorussia? Iran?

What about Saudi Arabia? From were I stand it looks like a powder keg. Not to speak all that covert funding of Al Qeada…

If not, why not?

You seem to think that simply putting him out of business will make the zone more stable. That is a possibility, but is it the most likely one?

What if Iraq collapses becoming a leaderless state, with warring factions spreading chaos there, and exporting that very same terrorism we all want to stop?

What if the attack actually triggers a wave of fundamentalism in the region, destabilizing local countries and sending them into the clutches of the Fundamentalists?

Doesn’t this worry you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

Doesn’t this worry you?

yes it does worry me - but i think it would be much worse to just let the status quo be.

I think that we can keep Iraq together and help the people there form a thriving society. The Kurds live in much better conditions than the majority of Iraqis do - and that's because we have kept Saddam Hussein at bay in the no-fly zones.

it will be difficult to help them form a conhesive new government - but I believe it can be done. We have to work within the frame work of the current Iraq - even if it was artificially created by England.

The key to bring stability to the Middle East and combat terrorism is to bring the standard of living up for all the people in the Middle East. This is not going to be done by just giving them money - the governments need to change. Saudia Arabia is a problem too. Mainly because they have, just like all the middle east - no industry other than oil. If you want to cause more terrorism - stop buying oil, because it'll bring down the middle Eastern economies even further.

Basically - the economies will have to become more diversified, unemployment needs to be lowered, allow people to have a greater say in their government, etc.

[Coney]

We have to work within the frame work of the current Iraq - even if it was artificially created by England.

Eh?........The state may have been created by the UK government in the past...but it has very little to do with the tin-pot dictator that the USA installed in Iraq