Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Jersey come on. If Jimmy Carter is an idiot then George Bush has the intelligence of a bicycle tire with a hole in it. I mean the man has like a 180 IQ and a list of accomplishments so long its stunning. And are you sure you want to take pot shots at other americans when you are so valiently trying to defend american global policy? I dont think that works. And Carter is a decent man.

I agree up to a point. But when he was president he had a lot to be desired - stagflation, Iran hostage crisis, gas shortage. His family really was the Beverly Hillbillies coming to the Whte House. Remember his brother Billy?

I can have a problem with Jimmy Carter - who I think is a pacifist under all circumstances and still defend our global policy. I must agree though - the rescue of the American diplomats (although at the time Canada was given the credit inorder to protect the lives of the other hostages in Iran) was very good.

[Elvellyn]

Carter didnt deserve the nobel peace prize any more than he did last time.
Any guesses as to why he got it this year?

[Cirdan]

Jimmy Carter presided over the largest peacetime military spending increase in history. The MX missle \, the trident sub the stealth project. Some pacifist. So achieving peace between countries is nothing but mindlessly invading every annoying petty dictatorship is admirable? Carter was not very good but neither is either of the Bushes. Thimble brained war-mongerers that ruin the economy. Make jobs not war!

[Evenstar1400]

i think bush is an idiot. and hes my president!

really..... going to war doesnt seem to be the right thing right now. alot of people dont agree with going to war, like half of the US and France, Germany, and other countries. Sadam hasnt done anything to really threaten us, or Isreal, so we shouldnt get involved. i mean, were wasting our time arguing over whether or not we should go to war when we could be searching for Bin Laden who has actually threatened the country. but thats just my opinion.

[Khamûl]

JD, BoP and Dunadan: take a minute, calm down and let's get back to the subject of Iraq.

[BeardofPants]

Er... Did you just miss my posts on Iraq on the previous page? You know - the bit about sanctions?

[Khamûl]

Yeah, I saw that, it's just that the conversation has wandered away from Iraq and moved in the direction of Jimmy Carter. It seems that you unknowingly opened another can of worms.

[sun-star]

Joining in... (pretty much against my better judgement)

First of all, let me say clearly that I am in favour of a war against Iraq. Saddam Hussain is an evil dictator, and the fewer of them around, the better, in my view, so if we can get rid of him, good . I don't really know if he is a current threat to us (i.e. the West) - I couldn't presume to judge - but I think it's quite likely, and if the American government says he is, I actually trust them.

Yes, you heard me. George Bush is great. . I spend a lot of my time defending him against people I know (largely for his lack of eloquence - since when was it a crime to be inarticulate?) Sure, he's not perfect, and I have concerns about the whole environmental issue, but he does seem to have deep convictions and strongly-held beliefs. I admire that.

I don't believe the war is about oil. Lots of people who say that don't understand their own argument when you question them about it. I don't believe the war is about imperialism. I don't believe it's about some personal thing of George Bush - well, you get the idea.

The point is, I support the war. And I'm British - European, if you want, though I don't think of myself as that. I find myself pretty much in a minority here. It does seem like most people oppose the war, at least until further evidence (although I don't know what they're looking for) is provided, or until the UN gives it's blessing (the UN - not infallible, last time I checked).

So jerseydevil and company, I'm on your side. About the war. However, at the risk of opening up old wounds , I don't agree about anti-americanism, at least as far as war on Iraq is concerned.

Please, take it from me. It is possible to oppose the war without hating America. Anti-war does not equal anti-America. Some people on those peace marches were probably there because they oppose the US and whatever it does, full stop, no argument, and they would rather see Saddam Hussain running the world than support a US-led war.

However. There were lots of people marching. Some of them I knew. They're not all prejudiced bigots (which is what anti-Americanism is, IMO) - some of them just don't want war. They have several concerns. Some people are concerned about the effect of this on the UN or Nato. Some people are afraid that America is becoming too powerful (not the same as hating America! Many believe it's not a good thing for any country to be a lone superpower). Some people just hate the idea of war, and are worried that too many Iraqis will be killed. Some people in the UK think Britian should be closer to the EU than to the USA, and fear we are alienating ourselves from France and Germany. And some people fear Tony Blair taking Britain into a war so many British people oppose, and have concerns about his mandate. However, as jerseydevil is so fond of saying , those last two are specific to Britian, and since no one else elected our Prime Minister, it's no one else's business.

Anyway, I'm just trying to show that it is possible to oppose this war without hating America, without forgetting everything they've done for the world, without forgetting the World Wars (how long before we stop comparing every conflict to WW2, anyway?). It is possible. I hate to see many people who either love or don't have strong feelings on America branded "anti-American", just because they're anti-war. I know people who oppose the war. They're good people. They just have doubts about what war will achieve. It is allowed, you know

You can all ignore this if you want. I've tried to comment on anti-Americanism before in other threads, because it happens to be something I think about a lot, and people weren't interested in actually discussing the issues, only in insulting other people's countries. Not productive, in my opinion - so I've tried again. Be nice

edit- oh, and you don't need to "refute" any of the points I made expressing other people's possible motives for opposing war. I don't agree with them, I was just pointing them out. OK?

[markedel]

In my country my PM is too afraid to make a stand one way or another...

I have to vote in a year-who am I going to vote for?

[Lief Erikson]

If you want to have an informed opinion on this issue, read this thread. (Glances at the number of pages and goes cross-eyed) Er, read part of the thread. Maybe the most recent five or six pages. If by then you still want to make sure there isn't more, read more. But just start with the most recent stuff- most of the arguments are recirculated here again and again and again, anyway. The same arguments and counter arguments have shown up here a lot, so it shouldn't be necessary to read everything to get an idea for the factors at work in this issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
JThimble brained war-mongerers that ruin the economy. Make jobs not war!

The economy was falling apart the last year of Clinton's term. That was when the recession started. Then 9/11 happened which didn't help. Then the Enron scandal as well as others, whichh again occurred under the Clinton administration, but didn't come to light until Bush's presidency, the technology bubble burst during the Clinton administration - but hasn't fully recovered yet. Right now the economy is just waiting for something to happen.

The government can't make jobs - unless we go back to the WPA days and create artificial jobs. But the economy isn't that bad. The latest unemployment figures came out last week - and the unemployment rate is below 6% again. As I said - Germany's is 10.5% and the rest of Europe's is only slightly below that. The recession has been over for a while. Inflation so far has remained steady. There was the largest increase in home building in 16 years last month. Interest rates are still low. The only thing that's needed now is the stock market to pick up.

The stock market has terrorist jitters.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Evenstar1400
really..... going to war doesnt seem to be the right thing right now. alot of people dont agree with going to war, like half of the US and France, Germany, and other countries.

The majority of Americans support taking out Hussein. There is just the question as to whether we do it without the UN blessing. Which, contrary to some people's views - is not illegal. There have been numerous times that the US and other countries have gone into other countries without the UN giving it's OK. American's didn't turn our foreign policy over to the UN - and the UN is not included in our Cnstitution as a fourth branch of the US government.

Sadam hasnt done anything to really threaten us, or Isreal, so we shouldnt get involved.

North Korea was peacefully going on for years, including the last 10 secretly working on it's nuclear weapons program. maybe we should just let North Korea get on with what ever they want to do. They haven't done anything yet - so why worry about them. Let's just worry about them once a Nuclear bomb is lobbed at Tokyo. Let's just wait until Iraq gives chemical weapons to a terrorist and kills millions in the NY subway. Personally - it's not a chance I want to take. We've done the waiting game and now 2 of the largest buildings in NY no longer exist. Waiting to be attacked is not the answer.

We need to be proactive to threats. Hussein has repeatedly refused to disarm - they have this one final chance to comply and they still are not complying.

i mean, were wasting our time arguing over whether or not we should go to war when we could be searching for Bin Laden who has actually threatened the country. but thats just my opinion.

You honestly think we're not looking for Bin ladin? Just because it's not in the news - doesn't mean nothing is being done. The war against bin Ladin is completely different. It's a clandestine war. It's using special forces, CIA intelligence, to hunt him down. It's not a full scale military operation to take out Bin Ladin, since he doesn't have a country. It's a matter of hunting him down and killing him.

We now also have military in the Phillipines to take out the terrorists there. To say that stuff isn't being done to combat terrorism - just because we have a military buildup against Hussein - is very ignorant.

[Cirdan]

HAs anyone heard about Iraq's "Unit 999"? This was defector testimony so take it as is. This unit was resposible for giving chemical weapons and terrorist tactics training to Al Qaeda recruits.

There is little doubt that Saddam is evil. The question will be wether this is an effective foreign policy. Nobody claims to be planning a long term campaign to subdue all dictatorships in the world. It is only a strategic question.

Will the terrorists be in a better position after military action in Iraq? They will lose one sympathetic state but how many will they gain? They will lose some combatants but how many will they gain from bitter feelings in other places? Will the weapons of mass destruction be found or be used in desperation or delivered to terrorists in the fog of war? Will the people of Iraq see the US as a liberator or an invader? How large and effective will the guerilla resistance be?

The law of unforseen circumstances calls for prudence but it is probably too late. War is inevitable. No president would send in 200,00 troops, make unabiguous statements as to his belief that war is the only solution, and then tuck tail and run.

We may as well start a pool on the date of the invasion.

[jerseydevil]

I think war is inevitable too - but I also think that maybe in the long run it'll have a calming affect on terrorism.

The only way to quell terrorism from the Middle East is to give people there a better life, the only way to give people a better life is to bring democracy. I think by having Iraq, Afganistan and Turkey as Muslim democracies - it will make it harder for the other theocracies and dictatorial regimes to survive. Iran is about to go one way or the other. Either it's going to become more open or the Islamic fundamentalist religious leaders will quell the student protests and take control. I think if people in the regin see that life in the "new" Iraq is much better and freer - they will turn their anger where it belongs - at their own governments.

There have been desenters from the Iraqi army lately who have said that they are just waiting for the US to invade so they can defect. During the Gulf War their defection was there for all the world to see - so to say that it is just government propaganda would be ignoring the past.

The US military has also invited 500 journalists to partake in the campaign so they can report from the battle lines. Al Jazeera has even been invited. I think the US military is doing everything to prove to the Middle East that we are going in their to liberate Iraq from a tyranical dictator and not to take control of a country. Even the possibility of Saudi Arabia going in to help after the battle is a way of preventing an outcry of Anti-American feelings in the Middle East.

We can't just let things go on like they have been in the Middle East. Something needs to be done and I think dethroning a barbaric dictator and setting up a democracy in Iraq will be a positive change for the region and the world.

People argued that we'd get bogged down in Afganistan, that going in there would produce more terrorism, bringing down the Taliban would cause the extremists to rise up. True - there were some attacks in Pakistan, but no where near the backlash that was predicted.

I'm not worry about the terrorism, I'm worried about what Hussein will do to his own country. He is planning on blowing up dams to flood cities and villiages and fields, he's planning on blowing up his oil fields and he will most likely try to attack other countries - such as Israel and Turkey.

As for the start of the war - I think the first week in March. I am seriously hoping that everything goes as smoothly as it did in Afganistan - but that is a very hard question to answer. I think in order to combat terrorism this is the type of action we need to take.

After this - the Palestinian situation will be the next situation we will attempt to combat. It's impossible to bring about peace between the israelis and the Palestinians as long as their is even a fringe group of suicide bombers. Egypt has attempted just this week to get all parties to agree to a one year cease fire, but so far Hamas has refused. Maybe the world community should start looking at establishing a coalition (western as well as Arab countries) to go into that region and attempt to enforce peace between the two sides.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
After this - the Palestinian situation will be the next situation we will attempt to combat. It's impossible to bring about peace between the israelis and the Palestinians as long as their is even a fringe group of suicide bombers. Egypt has attempted just this week to get all parties to agree to a one year cease fire, but so far Hamas has refused. Maybe the world community should start looking at establishing a coalition (western as well as Arab countries) to go into that region and attempt to enforce peace between the two sides.

It's not that easy; fighting terrorism isn't likely to be able to be accomplished by an army. The Palestinians have real grievances; if that weren't so, they wouldn't have terrorists coming from them in the first place. Poverty, hunger, suppression all are factors that breed terrorism, and Israel's behavior toward them make me think that it is likely their fault and their policy to do this. There are many evidences for this, both historical and recent. I could bring them up, but I don't want this discussion to get too off-topic . Ronald Reagan would be nothing compared to this .


About most Americans supporting taking out Saddam Hussein (This isn't meant to be proof of anything, I'm just mentioning it), I was at my fencing class today and was walking outside of the building while we were taking a break. Several of the other students were out there as well, and I was humming the French National Anthem to myself. One of the students objected because he was upset at France because of its stance on the Iraq issue and the Anti-American bias. I managed to explain to him that even if France is biased against America, if we go Anti-French we'd be no better than them.

I was however pleased that he had the same view as me about the Iraq issue, even if he was taking it to an extreme that I am not.

[Cirdan]

Well, at least you weren't humming "Deutchland Uber Alles"

The Euros are probably smart for bailing. The cost is estimated to be about 1 trillion dollars. That's a whole lot of oil to "use" for "reconstruction".

Turkey is on the fast track toward an Islamic Republic. They will play the fence as long as they get MA fron NATO and the US. Syria, Lebannon, and Jordan will be lucky to last 10 more years. Afganistan will stay "together" only as long as US troops are there to play enforcer.

The worst aspect of the coming war, other than causualties, is seeing the news services slavering over the ratings potential. Vultures!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It's not that easy; fighting terrorism isn't likely to be able to be accomplished by an army. The Palestinians have real grievances; if that weren't so, they wouldn't have terrorists coming from them in the first place. Poverty, hunger, suppression all are factors that breed terrorism, and Israel's behavior toward them make me think that it is likely their fault and their policy to do this. There are many evidences for this, both historical and recent.

I know it's not that easy and I'm not saying attack with an army.

I disagree with you that it is Israel's fault. I'm not saying that they don't always have a role to play. After the agreement was established to develop a Jewish "homeland" and give the other section to the Palestinians - the Arabs weren't satisfied. They tried to take over all the land. Israel almost lost everything. Israel eventually gained the upper hand and ended up gaining land. The Palestinians started a war to take over Israel in order to destory Israel - now that they lost they call the land Israel gained control of during the conflict as the "occupied territories". If Jordan, Egypt Syria, etc didn't start the war with Israel - there would be NO occupied territories. The Palestinians are hellbent on reclaiming land they lost in a war THEY started. In other words - it's SEVERE case of being a sore loser.

In terms of the poverty and so forth. The Palestinians are in pverty because they'd rather support the suicide bombers than support the peace. There are Palestinian groups that support peace - but it's Hamas that gets all the support. Saddam Hussein even pays somethine like $15,000 to every family of a suicide bomber.

Given a chance - the Middle Eastern countries would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The Euros are probably smart for bailing. The cost is estimated to be about 1 trillion dollars. That's a whole lot of oil to "use" for "reconstruction".

The majority of European governments support the US. France and Germany are really the only desenters and that is because they have billions in deals with Hussein, as does Russia. As commentators have said - it's common knowledge that both countries have also had dealings with Iraq that go against the UN resolutions. It will be interesting after the war to see all the stuff that has "Made in France", "Made in Germany" stamped on it.

Nightline the other night had on the cost of the war - with breakdowns. It was estimated to cost 50 billion. Most of the cost of the war is actually the transport of troops to the region - which we've already done. The 50 billion of course only covers the cost of the war - not the reconstruction. But even so I do not think that the cost comes anywhere near $1 trillion. I have never once heard that figure - so if you can supply me a link that states that figure - I would like to see it.

Also - once the war is won - the countries against the war at this time will support helping in the reconstruction. If they don't - then they know they'll be cut out of any future business deals.

Turkey is on the fast track toward an Islamic Republic. They will play the fence as long as they get MA fron NATO and the US. Syria, Lebannon, and Jordan will be lucky to last 10 more years. Afganistan will stay "together" only as long as US troops are there to play enforcer.

I disagree concerning Afganistan. The reconstruction of Japan and Germany wasn't completed in a day and although Afganistan will be much more difficult I think it can be done.

The worst aspect of the coming war, other than causualties, is seeing the news services slavering over the ratings potential. Vultures!

I don't really care, just as long as it goes well and there aren't a lot of casualties. I do hate the networks naming their war coverage though. I think that goes a bit too far.

[Dúnedain]

Good lord have I missed a lot. I guess I will spend the next week catching up

[Cirdan]

The 1 trillion figure was for the war, the reconstruction, and the occupation for ~10 years. If you look at S. Korea, ten years is not a very long time.

Without two of the three largest economies (France and Germany) out, help isn't coming in large amounts. The "billions" in deals are miniscule in comparison to the economies. Eastern Europe's support is worth about two nickels, economically. It's only value is political.

As for Afganistan, they have nothing. Germany and Japan had huge industrial, economic, and educational foundations. Afganistan has dirt. Economics is what it is all about. Iraq is oil rich, so the chances are better there. Neither has the cultural cohesion of Germany or Japan. Too many factions at odds. Besides, we still have troops in Japan and Germany. It's still al large expense to us.