Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by 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.

I agree.

You can't compare the fact the we have troops still in Germany and Japan as a reconstruction force. They're only there as strategic forces and have been for years. Supposedly we will be removing our 70,000 troops from Germany in the near future. It's about time too. No sense in keeping them there, supporting an economy where they're not wanted and since the Soviet Union no longer exists - we don't need to waste money protecting Germany anymore. Just hope without our military presence they don't get any ideas of WWII grandeur again and decide they want to rule the world.

[Cirdan]

Iraq will be strategic until the oil runs out or we switch to a new fuel source or the ME is completely pacified. None of the things will happen in the next ten years. It will be similar to waiting for the USSR to fold.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No sense in keeping them there, supporting an economy where they're not wanted and since the Soviet Union no longer exists - we don't need to waste money protecting Germany anymore. Just hope without our military presence they don't get any ideas of WWII grandeur again and decide they want to rule the world.

lol .

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Iraq will be strategic until the oil runs out or we switch to a new fuel source or the ME is completely pacified. None of the things will happen in the next ten years. It will be similar to waiting for the USSR to fold.

OMG! It is not about oil for the zillionth time!!!!

[The Lady of Ithilien]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You might find this interesting...
Protesting the Protesters

Some of his questions really had them stumped. I like how he confronted them about the war for oil and asked them why the US just didn't go in during the Gulf War and take the oil.

That is a good movie. Thanks, JD.

One woman did answer his question, unfortunately: "Because we didn't have such a bastard for president then." Then there was the group of three women that shouted him down.

Scary.

But to balance them, there is this guy himself, going out there and posing the question. You could see he got some of them thinking seriously...maybe for the first time. I also like the point he made at the end -- that most of these were people he'd be glad to call friends, but that the extremist language, name-calling, etc., really hurt their cause.

It's like that link here a few pages back to the comical "Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found" page -- I enjoyed it, too, but wouldn't pass it along because of the gratuitous things about President Bush, in particular, and Mr. Rumsfeld. Dumb stuff. Spoiled the whole thing.

BTW, UPI was reporting yesterday that the Chronicle's count of the number of protestors in San Francisco was way below that of the march organizers and the police -- more like 65,000 than 200,000. Both organizers and police disagreed, but both protestors and police had vested interests, the former to show their ability to call up huge numbers of people and the latter to show their ability to handle huge numbers of people relatively peacefully. I tend to believe the Chronicle, at least until I can figure out if they've got a vested interest in it.

[L@ur@y Elven Warrior]

I don't want the war in Iraq because in Iraq the people are still sufring from the last war and because if Donreay gets bomded I'll be died.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by L@ur@y Elven Warrior
I don't want the war in Iraq because in Iraq the people are still sufring from the last war

The Iraqi people will CONTINUE to suffer even if sanctions are lifted - as long as Hussein is there. That argument against war is like saying that we shouldn't have gone into Bosnia because the people there were suffering and some innocent people might die during the attack.

and because if Donreay gets bomded I'll be died.

The US has plans to prevent any Iraqi missiles from attacking outside Iraq. I'm not saying that some won't get through. But if he continues his weapons programs - do you really think you'll be safe once he feels he has enough of them to control the Middle East? It might be 2 years from now, 5 years or 10 years - but sooner or later he will have enough weapons where he won't be afraid to take the offensive against the surrounding countries - and I'm sure he wouldn't think twice about attacking Israel. Currently he gives about $15,000 to each family of a suicide bomber.

Are you living by Donreay Scottland? If so - how do you think he'll attack you there? or even why? I'm assuming it's because of the Nuclear Power Plant. At first I was thinking you were from Israel or another neigboring country, where your fear would be more understandable.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
OMG! It is not about oil for the zillionth time!!!!

Saying it more often doesn't make it true.

It may not be only about oil, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't play an important roll. Strategic interests, baby! Even when the administration talks about rebuilding, they mention using oiil revenue to finance it. It's part of the plan. Iraq threatens the oil producing nations of the ME. If there were no oil we wouldn't be talking about this. If Saddam were Idi Amin, slaughtering his people, but had no oil, do you really think we would bother? Think Namibia, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, China, Tibet, N. Korea. If there were no oil, and it was only a matter of terrorism, then why not just invade as we did in Afganistan? Oil. The fact that the are large assets in the country makes the situation more complicated. Like it or not, the Iraq situation has always been about the oil.

We meddled in Iran until the revolution soured it. We supplied arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to maintain a standoff, preventing a single power from controlling the oil supply, and punishing the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. We defended Kuwait because of the oil. George H. W. Bush didn't bother to deny that was ther reason for the first Gulf war. His son is just putting a better political spin on his reasoning.

Terrorism does tip the scales. Not everything has changed since 9/11, however. The Middle East is a disaster because of the politics of oil over the last 100 years.

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, all of those arguments have already been answered. We could have taken the oil during the Gulf War, we could have lobbied to lift the sanctions on Iraq so that we could continue trading. In the face of all history and all evidence to the contrary, your thinking that oil is a major factor in this is naive.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Think Namibia, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, China, Tibet, N. Korea. If there were no oil, and it was only a matter of terrorism, then why not just invade as we did in Afganistan? Oil. The fact that the are large assets in the country makes the situation more complicated.

Those places you've mentioned either aren't building WMDs or they are too powerful to bother any more. Iraq is a threat that we can deal with, so we are. North Korea and China we obviously can't just declare war on; those situations already are threats that have become fully developed, and thus must be treated more delicately.

We also didn't in the past have a strong enough president to lead us against countries that were becoming a threat to world peace. Ronald Reagan led us against Communism and rallies went up all over the place against him, but he helped to protect the world from a dangerous threat. Only President Bush since then has taken similar steps against evil, and just like Ronald Reagan, he's getting pounded for it.

[markedel]

Was Ronald Reagan so undiplomatic? I would't know it was before my time, but Bush and his administration are abrasive, even if they are right. Explains why him and Ariel SHaron get along so well. The IDF was never good at PR either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
Was Ronald Reagan so undiplomatic? I would't know it was before my time, but Bush and his administration are abrasive, even if they are right. Explains why him and Ariel SHaron get along so well. The IDF was never good at PR either.

Reagan was criticised for calling the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire". it was felt that his tough stand against the Soviets at that time was going to incite WWIII and nuclear holocaust. As it turned out - his tough stand was the catalyst that pushed the Soviet Union into non-existence.

Similar to Bush - Reagan said how it was and what he was going to do. Very few Europeans liked his tough talk. Margaret Thatcher was heavily criticised for standing side by side with Reagan.

There was a similar feeling of patriotism during the 80's and the similar outpouring of anti-American demonstrations throughout Europe, particularly in Germany - as there is now.

[Cirdan]

LE, none of those questions have been answered. "Coulda" meeans zip. "Couldn't" would be more appropriate. Certrainly we have the military power to destroy any nation. That does not add up to political power. We "could" have invaded Iran in 1979 but we feared a Soviet counter-invasion from Afganistan.

We "could" have invaded Iraq alone in 1991 except we lacked the political power to go it alone. We could have saved the Kurds from the post-war retalliations of Saddam for working overtly with coalition forces but we weren't that concerned for thier welfare while they we still alive. The Regan administration "could" have decided not to give Saddam's regime $10 billion in military aid including chemical and biological weapons.

The idea that one must invade weak nations and tolerate stronger ones regardless of the threat they pose is morally bankrupt. War should be the last resort, not just a matter of convenience.

Finally LE, your tactic of brushing aside arguements by saying they have been answered is pointless and a bit lazy. If you have nothing to say about them, that is what you should say, nothing.
It turns debate into contradiction.

There would never have been US invovlement in Iraq had oil not been a strategic concern.

Reagan was very diplomatic through administrative channels. The SALT agreements are a good example. While he threatened a good deal, he was genuinely negotiating for peace from a position of strength. The "Evil Empire" but was pretty funny since we were allying ourselves with the pretty evil empire of China at the time. Evil Empire Lite. The current administration would be disappointed with a peaceful solution, if it meant leaving Saddam in place. A moot point since war and/or death are the only thing that will remove him from power and resolve the current problems.

Did anyone notice that Iran is closer to WMD that Iraq at this point?

Did anyone see SNL last nigt? LOL! The "Hardball" parody with the French diplomat was too funny.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
LE, none of those questions have been answered. "Coulda" meeans zip. "Couldn't" would be more appropriate. Certrainly we have the military power to destroy any nation. That does not add up to political power. We "could" have invaded Iran in 1979 but we feared a Soviet counter-invasion from Afganistan.

We "could" have invaded Iraq alone in 1991 except we lacked the political power to go it alone. We could have saved the Kurds from the post-war retalliations of Saddam for working overtly with coalition forces but we weren't that concerned for thier welfare while they we still alive. The Regan administration "could" have decided not to give Saddam's regime $10 billion in military aid including chemical and biological weapons.

The idea that one must invade weak nations and tolerate stronger ones regardless of the threat they pose is morally bankrupt. War should be the last resort, not just a matter of convenience.

War is a last resort in the case of Iraq. Evidence points to their actively foiling the UN weapons inspectors whenever they start doing things that aren't convenient for Saddam Hussein (Mainly evidence that hasn't been covered up or is difficult to cover up). I assume you've heard or read Colin Powell's speech which described some of the evidence available? If so, then good. Call me lazy , but I'd rather not recite all of what he already said.

As for it being morally bankrupt to ignore bigger countries while dealing with little ones, I think that it sometimes only makes sense.

If a bad situation has fully developed, like North Korea or China, we can't just barrel in there anymore. A solution that would work with the developing situation isn't the same solution that will work for the fully developed situation. A different way of dealing with the problem is called for.

Meanwhile, if there is a smaller country that is (A bad solution developing) that is turning into one of the big solutions but is not yet too big for you to deal with, then it is your perogative to go and deal with it before it as well becomes out of hand. It's simple logic, not moral bankruptcy. Certainly we wish that China and North Korea weren't the problems they are now, and we still should do something about it. But we cannot go to war with either without huge risk to ourselves, and that cost must be taken into account.

Besides, China isn't threatening us.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Finally LE, your tactic of brushing aside arguements by saying they have been answered is pointless and a bit lazy. If you have nothing to say about them, that is what you should say, nothing.
It turns debate into contradiction.

You might want to look again at my post. After reminding you that those points were already answered, I went back and covered some of the main points that undermine that argument. Those were points that jerseydevil brought up in an earlier post, but you might not have been there at that time.

As for your refutation of the 'coulda', I want to point out that although you're right about some of the things that in the past we could have done, you're also right that there were always reasons for our not doing those things. Those evidences you quoted don't equal anything, all they do is describe things we could have done but it was too risky or the costs made it not worth it.

This is another issue that I've described, two points in time where we could have taken the oil (As you've claimed it is our motive to take). We obviously didn't do it, and I'm giving the reason why we didn't do it. That's the obvious reason, that even though we could have taken it, we didn't, because it wasn't what we were after. You as yet have not offered an alternative reason as for why we didn't take it that is reasonable.

[jerseydevil]

Well my personal feeling is that we need to deal with the smaller countries while they ARE small - instead opf waiting for them to blow up like they do when they develop into a North Korea.

I agree that oil plays a role in the Middle East - of course it does. There is also no problem with dealing with situations that are in a nation's self interest before dealing with others. Others may have a problem - but I elect our leaders to look after America - not after Europe or other countries. I want OUR leaders working for us - not foreign interests.

We've done the appeasement thing, the negotiation thing, the isolation thing, history shows that this does not really work. It just postpones the inevitable to the point where it is much more difficult to deal with.

[Cirdan]

From Bush's 1991 SotU address:Our purpose in the Persian Gulf remains constant: to drive Iraq out from Kuwait, to restore Kuwait's legitimate government, and to insure the stability and security of this critical region.

And why is the region critical? Anyone?

I agree, JD, these interests should be protected. I just want to call a spade a spade. "Evil" alone is not a prime motivator in US foriegn policy.

Actually the isolation, negotiation thing works with patience (see USSR, China, Cuba). To say negotiation only works when military options are less optimistic is intellectually dishonest. It's pragmatic only if the benefits outweigh the costs. The US has forced the stakes high with the mobilzation of it's forces. It basically can't "fold" now without losing authority. We must show our will to follow through now. Unless we help resolve the Palestinian issue we are treating the symptom and not the disease.

Those evidences you quoted don't equal anything, all they do is describe things we could have done but it was too risky or the costs made it not worth it.

My point was that "coulda" is a meanless arguement. It usually involves ignoring reality.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
And why is the region critical? Anyone?

I agree, JD, these interests should be protected. I just want to call a spade a spade. "Evil" alone is not a prime motivator in US foriegn policy.

I agree the region is critical because of oil. Without oil it is a barren wasteland. We would not be risking American lives over sand.

There is another problem now though and that is the militant terrorists which come out of that region. In this case - even if there was no oil - it would be in American's best interest to get inolved to put an end to this. Many "have nots" blame the "haves" for all their problems and feel like they deserve something. This breeds resentment. Unless we can improve the conditions of the Middle Eastern people - we will always have terrorism. We need to get these governments to change and I think that Afganistan and Iraq are good places to start.

My main concern is not the result of the war - but just making sure that we don't isolate the iraqi people and that we truly work to establish a democracy in Iraq. Not a puppet government or one that does not represent the people. We can successfully execute the war - and I think it is necessary - but we must do the post war properly and not half-way.

Actually the isolation, negotiation thing works with patience (see USSR, China, Cuba).

I don't think we have time to wait. Solving the Middle East problems quickly and decisively is a requirement to stop terrorism. Cuba, China and the Soviet Union were not sending in suicide bombers (although there was that attempted bombing attack on the Capitol Building 30 - 40 years ago) to the US or killing US diplomats or blowing up restaurants, night clubs, shooting passenger jets out of the sky with missile launchers, ect.

No matter what the PC thing to say is - this is a war against the Middle East extremists. Iraq is just the first phase of this. The rest may not be militarily - but we do need to take an active role and not just passively hope that the Middle East will come into the 21st Century and change. People should be outraged that Middle Eastern schools teach hatred - including Saudi Arabia.

To say negotiation only works when military options are less optimistic is intellectually dishonest. It's pragmatic only if the benefits outweigh the costs. The US has forced the stakes high with the mobilzation of it's forces. It basically can't "fold" now without losing authority. We must show our will to follow through now.

Hans Blinx in an interview which will be in this week's Time magazine said that without US pressure on Hussein - he would never have allowed inspectors into Iraq. He also stated that force may be necessary to force the issue on Iraq.

Unless we help resolve the Palestinian issue we are treating the symptom and not the disease.

I agree that we need to solve the palestian issue - but as long as Hamas supports suicide bombers - there will be NO peace in that region. Whether it's a fringe group or the majority who supports civilian bombings - peace will be impossible. it also doesn't help that Middle Eastern countries - including Iraq pay suicide bombers money. Israel will continue to retaliate, the Palestinians will then retaliate. It's a cycle that seems impossible to break without some sort of world intervention. Something more than just negotiations.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
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.

All right, I guess I'd better respond to this now. I'd like to go earlier than your first statement, "after the agreement was established to develop a Jewish homeland."

When the Jewish state was first established, there were many, many Palestinians in Israel. Because of that, the Jewish leaders were aware that if they were going to have the majority in their democracy, they knew that they had to expel many of the Palestinians that were currently living there.

The war waged between the Arabs and the Israelites gave them a good excuse. Many Palestinians were exported from their homes and from their lands during that time. Many eyewitness accounts and other evidences exist of this from the Palestinian side, but the Israelies claim that these expulsions never happened. It is true that some Palestinians were terrified into fleeing because of the reports given by the Arab army, in the hopes that it would raise up support for them. The Palestinians rather than becoming furious and attacking the Israelies, fled in terror. Also Jewish terrorists assisted others that wouldn't make this move. Some land was bought as well, but not much. Most of the people were expelled.

As I said, the Israelites deny that these expulsions ever happened, but those claims seem rather dubious due to the fact that the UN said that the Palestinians could return to their homes, but Israel never allowed it.

The logic of this move of expelling the Palestinians and the evidence for such a move is strong. America's support of the Sharon government causes us to be villified in the Middle East. Many European and nonEuropean countries can see the justice of their claims; America is Israel's prime supporter.

Now we see the more recent side of this. Israel has in the past taken land and expelled Palestinians without permitting them to return, so it's logical that we'd see the same strategy in place today. And I wasn't surprised.

Rather than accepting Bush's overtures of peace, Israel has taken an extremely tough stance against the Palestinians, not willing to yield an inch until the Palestinians yield (Something that at this point seems very unlikely to happen, particularly as the Muslim nations see them as unjustly treated and support them). Notice Israel's behavior when it entered into Palestinian territory. They were targeting the 'terrorist infrastructure'. The only possibility of this being true is if the whole economy was supporting and building up terror, something that seems unlikely to be true. In entering these territories, the Israelite army destroyed huge amounts of infrastructure and targetted the economy. Video tapes were taken of what was destroyed- electrical facilities, education materials and other things that plainly had nothing to do with terrorism but which millions of dollars were spent on by the UN and by America for the building up of the Palestinian economy.

They targeted specifically and destroyed that which was giving the Palestinians hope in the land they occupied. It is in keeping with their overall strategy of taking land and expelling the Palestinians from what they want. They also have much greater media coverage of their problems, like the suicide bombers, then the Palestinians do of all the things that have happened to them.

I realize that Israel has a lot of good and compassion in it as well; I've been painting it in a rather bad light here. But I think that there are two sides to the story and that the Israelite government's tactics have caused much of the terrorism from which they now suffer.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I realize that Israel has a lot of good and compassion in it as well; I've been painting it in a rather bad light here. But I think that there are two sides to the story and that the Israelite government's tactics have caused much of the terrorism from which they now suffer.

Well I disagree. First of all it was England and UN which created the Israeli state of Israel and divided up the land. Second - the Palestinians were screaming genicide during the Jenin affair. That ended up beig proved false by human rights organisations who went in there ot investigate the claims.

After the Passover massacre and the Bar Mitzvah attack - Israelis have a right to defend themselves. I was hoping for peace before - but now I feel that israel needs to take action. Whenever anything would calm down - israel would pull back their troops - and as soon as they did that - there would be another suicide bombing.

Until the suicide bombings stop against innocent civilians - I will not support the palestinians. They must stop the bombings.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I disagree. First of all it was England and UN which created the Israeli state of Israel and divided up the land. Second - the Palestinians were screaming genicide during the Jenin affair. That ended up beig proved false by human rights organisations who went in there ot investigate the claims.

I know that England and the UN created Israel. And about the Jenin affair . . . They weren't screaming genocide, but they were stating that many Palestinian civilians were killed in this strike. They have large amounts of evidence for this in eye witness reports. You can ignore those if you wish, or state them as unreliable.

But after the Jenin affair was over, the Israelites would not permit human rights organizations or anyone into the whole area for a large amount of time, regardless of the fact that numerous governments and agencies were demanding access. Video tapes were taken by the Palestinians of the bodies being taken out.

In any case though, what I was describing to you was history, showing that the Israelites have historically and in the present had a system of taking land for themselves. I'm not claiming that all the fault lies on them, but the situation is easy for violent or right wing Islamic fundamentalists to take advantage of. People like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others are easy to find support, and groups like Hamas can gain support in the surroundings that Israel created.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
After the Passover massacre and the Bar Mitzvah attack - Israelis have a right to defend themselves. I was hoping for peace before - but now I feel that israel needs to take action. Whenever anything would calm down - israel would pull back their troops - and as soon as they did that - there would be another suicide bombing.

Until the suicide bombings stop against innocent civilians - I will not support the palestinians. They must stop the bombings.

I agree with you that the Israelites have a right to defend themselves. I agree that the situation is very, very difficult and complex at this point in time and there are no easy answers. What I disapprove of is the way they are handling the situation currently, using the conflict to gain the land they desire and consequently making the volatile situation worse.

[gimli7410]

a war would suck because if it was nuclear it would affect us all