|
| Thread: WAR on IRAQ |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Silx87
Supreme Hero
|
posted March 29, 2003 01:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If this war/invasion is justified, does it mean that 9-11 is henceforth justified too?
My answer is NO, a big one.
Any kind of violence directed at civilians no matter what the reasons are - ! liberation from a tyrant ! or terrorism - cannot be justified by any means.
What do u say then?
What do we do?
Leave Iraq as it is?
Until Saddam starts a war of his own?
I say,better strike him before he starts a war,that's why this invasion is justified.
____________
|
|
TheEmperor
Hired Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2003 07:01 PM |
|
|
not justified
IMO this war isn't justified.
The reason of war is because USA says Iraq do not follow the 1441 resolution. USA have a much larger number of nuclear, biologican and chemical weapons than Iraq. They also gave Iraq the chemical weapons Iraq they needed to kill the Curds. China and India have much larger amounts of illegal weapons than Iraq. Attacking Iraq over illegal weapons you have yourself makes no sense.
If it is the terrorists they're after, most of them behind 11th September is located in Saudi Arabia and not in Iraq.
If the USA government cared about peoples lives (now they seem to "care" about the civilians in Iraq), why don't they stop selling weapons to Israel which almost on a daily basis kills and hurts palestinians?
Also USA dropped 2 a-bombs on Japan in 1945, God knows how many innocents were killed.
: TheEmperor :
____________
Guitar, black metal and HMM4
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2003 07:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also USA dropped 2 a-bombs on Japan in 1945, God knows how many innocents were killed.
OOHH COOME OON!!!
Again with the nuke!
Don't start with this crap!
How come everyone always speaks of how many the nuke killed?Do u have ANY idea how much it saved?
Okay,lets say the total pop of Japan that time was X ppl,the amount that the nukes killed is then Y ppl,and the amount it saved is then Z ppl,then we get the following:
X(total pop)-Y(killed by nuke)=Z(piipol saved)
So you see,it saved tens times mo ppls arses than it killed!
The Japanese were so desperate at that time,all had been lost,one island was the last one left.The whole pop was armed at the shores.The UUSSA had a choice:to invade and kill atleast 1/2 the Japanese pop or drop a few nukes to scare them into fofieting from the war.So you see,when u want to make the UUSSA look bad,don't remind the nuke,cuz that makes them good!
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 29, 2003 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
IMO this war isn't justified.
The reason of war is because USA says Iraq do not follow the 1441 resolution. USA have a much larger number of nuclear, biologican and chemical weapons than Iraq. They also gave Iraq the chemical weapons Iraq they needed to kill the Curds. China and India have much larger amounts of illegal weapons than Iraq. Attacking Iraq over illegal weapons you have yourself makes no sense.
It makes a lot of sence if you knew what has been going on for the past 12 years, like, oh let's say 16 other resolutions he didn't follow. Or the 100's of thousands of his own people he killed. And now you are worried about the 190 or so civilians that have died in the war?
Quote:
If it is the terrorists they're after, most of them behind 11th September is located in Saudi Arabia and not in Iraq.
If we don't take out Saddam it would be like a Kwik Shop, terrorist goes in with $1,000,000,000 or so and leaves with a brand new WMD.
Quote:
If the USA government cared about peoples lives (now they seem to "care" about the civilians in Iraq), why don't they stop selling weapons to Israel which almost on a daily basis kills and hurts palestinians?
You talk about the Palestinians who die everyday? The Palestinians kill the Israelis too. It is about equal.
Quote:
Also USA dropped 2 a-bombs on Japan in 1945, God knows how many innocents were killed.
It is speculated that if the US didn't drop those bombs, more people would have been killed on both sides.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 29, 2003 11:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It makes a lot of sence if you knew what has been going on for the past 12 years, like, oh let's say 16 other resolutions he didn't follow.
You have to decide: If you accept the authority of the UN, then you have to follow its decision not to legalize the war. If you don´t accept the authority of the UN, then why even mention the broken resolutions?
Quote:
Or the 100's of thousands of his own people he killed. And now you are worried about the 190 or so civilians that have died in the war?
Interesting numbers ... anyway, I think there are also some thousand Iraqui soldiers killed, 99% of them exactly as innocent as every civilian.
Quote:
If we don't take out Saddam it would be like a Kwik Shop, terrorist goes in with $1,000,000,000 or so and leaves with a brand new WMD.
Stupid, neither the existence of Saddam´s WMD, nor the connection to Al Quaeda has been proven. You have a funny signature, I´m tempted to think that you´ve made it in a rare moment of self-irony.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 29, 2003 11:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If we don't take out Saddam it would be like a Kwik Shop, terrorist goes in with $1,000,000,000 or so and leaves with a brand new WMD.
I find this interesting, it would be much easier to buy one off a hardup, annoyed with the world russian General via perhaps the mafia there than to lay their hands on the few (and low grade few at that) Hussain may have. Any weapons Hussain does have are not going to be stacked up waiting for sale I think, russia on the other hand....... 30,000 nukes anyone? Highest bidder, never been used, one careless owner.....
Quote:
It is speculated that if the US didn't drop those bombs, more people would have been killed on both sides.
As a side issue, the first bomb was dropped in order to make Japan surrender as an alternative to invasion. Any invasion would have likely inflicted massive casualties on both civilian's, japanese and allied soldiers, far in excess of the numbers killed in the Atomic Raids. Only issue I have here is the use of the second bomb. It was clear enough after the Hiroshima bomb that the japanese were willing to surrender brought to this by not only the bomb, but the fire raids on Tokyo (which killed more than both atomic bombs combined), but were dragging their heels over some issues (their emporer for one). In the time the japanese were taking Russia was overunning Manchuria and hinting at being involved at an invasion of Japan. A combination of speeding Japan up, proving to the world that America could drop another bomb if needs be, and a will to test out the alternative design of the second bomb caused the second raid.
Now I can accept that bomb one saved lives, but bomb two was little short of murder in place of diplomacy with russia. Therefore IMO the second raid was unessecary and a war crime.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
X(total pop)-Y(killed by nuke)=Z(piipol saved)
Simply BRILLIANT!! Why haven't I figured that out!!? What is bush waiting for then? Nuke the Iraqi, save Z people from all the sufferings, and make UUSSA good!! 
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
madmartigan
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
who will never walk alone
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If this war/invasion is justified, does it mean that 9-11 is henceforth justified too?
My answer is NO, a big one.
Any kind of violence directed at civilians no matter what the reasons are - ! liberation from a tyrant ! or terrorism - cannot be justified by any means.
What do u say then?
What do we do?
Leave Iraq as it is?
Until Saddam starts a war of his own?
I say,better strike him before he starts a war,that's why this invasion is justified.
You say, terrorists should have striken before Bush started a war of his own, thats why 9-11 is justified?
____________
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2003 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You say, terrorists should have striken before Bush started a war of his own, thats why 9-11 is justified?
lol
NO
Lets keep 9-11 out,okay?
I was talkin that UUSSA shud attack Iraq befo Saddam starts another war.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 12:39 AM |
|
|
Nice posts. Nidhgrin, it's good to see you chiming in. PH, you keep us all honest, and are no fly in the ointment.
Now, in the spirit of wishing to know what you all think of this, someone very close to me offered a hypothetical similar to Nidhgrin's, but presuming we did NOT go to war at this time. While I find this whole mess generally horrifying, the scenario presented to me was also quite compelling, and equally horrifying. As you read, recall that I remain instinctively against this war, so you need not feel like you are on a quest to persuade me personally. I really want to know what you all think of this, and want to know WHY you think that way:
It is eight years from now. Instead of concerns about Saddam developing nuclear weapons, now he has actually done so since he was not removed from power back in 2003. He begins invading surrounding countries again, this time with the threat that anyone who tries to stop him will encounter nuclear retaliation. In his invasions, he also uses a combination of conventional and biochemical warfare, killing tens of thousand of people, again, like he has done on approximately a dozen occasions in the past.
SO Instead of the thousands dying right now in this war, we would have the thousands or more dying then, only then we would also have the consolidation of a nuclear-armed, dictatorial regime consuming local nations on top of it. As this consolidation grows, the threatened size of the conflagration would grow with it. Instead of the coalition stopping this looney now as the leader of one fairly small nation, we would be fighting against a much larger regime. This much larger regime further institutionalizes terrorism on a growing scale, supplies terrorists with their weaponry, and provides a growing fertile resource for the fanaticism whence terrorism arises.
Is this not what happened to bring about WWII (short of the terrorism part, for which the true theatre of war remains illusive to me)??? Many I have spoken with have said to me that WWII would never have happened if we had stopped Hitler early, when we still had the chance to do so without a global effort. PH, as somewhat of an expert in the data on WWII (that is my opinion and is NOT DESIGNED TO DRAW FIRE AGAINST PH PLEASE), what do you think of all this??? Nidhgrin, as a person who appears motivated by the prevention of loss of human life like myself, (PH as well) what is your reaction to this???? Silx87???
As a person opposed to violence, who believes that a problem cannot be solved from the minset whence it arose, I am still left wondering how we can stop this man, except through the use of violence?? Granted the United States blew this whole thing early by acting like an arrogant cowboy, alienating many allies, and squandeing the international solidarity among nations which emerged after 9/11. However, now having made those horrible blunders, how do we proceed now to prevent his rise?
Or do those of you who respond perceive that he would have risen thus??? If not, why not???
I eagerly await all your responses to this troubling scenario.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 01:26 AM |
|
|
WWII:
Basically the scenario facing the allies in 1933 when Hitler took complete control was that taking him out was more than achievable. France alone dwarfed the German army and could have easily defeated her. Britain was in the process of re-building her army after heavy cutbacks in the 1920's and early 30's, but could field a sizable force of entirely mechanised troops, highly unusual at that stage.
Trouble was the fear of communism replacing Hitler, which the Anglo/French feared every bit as much as Hitler. Neither country had the stomach for rebuilding Germany and/or ensuring a transition to democracy was fully carried out at that stage, france was still demanding reparations for WWI. Whilst it was possible, the result could have been an early communist germany, linked with russia, a fearful thing as East Germany and russia alone was powerful after WWII.
By about 1936-38 when hitler began overruning places like Austria (peacefully through a vote, unsure of authenticity of vote, but seems unlikely to have been too unpopular) and Czechosolvakia (with partial british approval) he was firmly entrenched and more than capable of proving a worthy adversary for the anglo/french. Too late by when even the British Hawks were advocating war.
Ultimately the British and French picked one of two evils, and Europe paid the price for that choice, Jews especially. Whether a communist Germany would have been any worse, given the stregnth communism would have then attained we will never know.
As for Sadam, I have already stated we should have blown his head off long and killed the high command long ago before he went down into his bunker to sit out the bombing. Or maybe supported a rebellion using trained elite forces as a backbone and prelude to invasion. Or done any of those things. Shame we never tried them really.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 01:35 AM |
|
|
Do you now perceive an alternative threat waiting to rush into the void that may be left by overthrowing Saddam, similar to the threat of communism rushing in to fill the void that might have been left by Hitler????
(Not to truncate responses by others -- please also do still respond to the above scenario!!!)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 02:15 AM |
|
|
Well it was partly that fear affecting the decision not to invade Iraq in 1991 as the Shi-ite muslims would have taken power, with their strong links to Iran this was deemed unnaceptable. As for right now, depends on the post war plans. If america is going to withdraw after 90 days beyond the end of a war then there's every likelyhood that there will not be sufficient millitary clout to enforce any peace we might bring. Either through this or through democratic elections (when the allies allow them that is) there is still the chance that whomever takes power could be just as bad as Hussain unless we either enforce a regime on the country or stay to ensure stability.
Problem with that is that it brings in accusations of imperialism and undemocratic regimes. Yes this is going to be much more about how we secure peace long term than it will be about removing hussain. Much harder to do than win the war. Unfortunately Bush has already indicate his lack of will to support peacekeeping operations in peacetime, withdrawing or threatening to withdraw troops from kossovo. We can only wait and see just how he will deal with the peace in Iraq, it's about much more than throwing money at the country and rebuilding it's infrastructure.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 10:21 PM |
|
|
I know this is a difficult analogy to make because our major global conflagrations have begun at times when there was not a threat of nuclear proliferation. Maybe that's the greatest distinction between other wars by analogy and this war(perhaps Europe would have decided differently about Hitler if he were on his way to developing nuclear capabilities??? Just speculation)
Anyway. PH, (not to exclude anyone else also responding) based on your knowledge of war from a historical perspective, how do we keep hostile, aggressive regimes from engaging in nuclear proliferation?
(No I'm not talking about the US even though clearly there would be many who would consider us hostile  )
If we (by "we" you may take your pick -- either UK/US/European coalitions, or individually, or whatnot) anyway if we DON'T do this, what do you see happening?
If we DO do this, what do you see happening?
Ultimately, do you see any way out of this???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
TheEmperor
Hired Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 10:52 PM |
|
|
Both of you have very good points. The rebuild like PH says it's going to be a very tough and costy job. Also how would you make peace when most people seems to have a negative opinion about US because all the bombing in highly populated areas. A whole lot( I do not know percentage of peopulation) people in Iraq can't even read. How are they supposed to vote for what they believe when they have no neutral/non-propaganda views from whats going on. How do you prevent the government to pay cilians to vote for them.
Lots of questions like this. If we manage to build a democratic Iraq and make it actually work, it is a very good thing. But I doubt it can be done short term, it will take lots of years and lots of money if it ever will be done.
I see both many good and bad views about the war. I have changed my for/against war opinion many times because there is both bad and good things about going, and not going to war.
____________
Guitar, black metal and HMM4
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 01, 2003 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
(perhaps Europe would have decided differently about Hitler if he were on his way to developing nuclear capabilities??? Just speculation)
Perhaps not prior to the war, but part way through WWII through intelligence the british learnt that the germans were building a heavy water plant in Norway with the intention of developing nuclear weapons. Fortunately for the world British agents, backed mostly by Norwegian Resistance personnel blew the place to pieces long before it produced enough material......
Proof that even small nations like Norway really did have a big hand in helping to win WWII
Quote:
Anyway. PH, (not to exclude anyone else also responding) based on your knowledge of war from a historical perspective, how do we keep hostile, aggressive regimes from engaging in nuclear proliferation?
Simple answer firstly would be to stop selling them the means and technology to produce WMD's in the first place! Trouble is this would require world wide agreement and enforcement, especially given the wealth of unused talent from the former Russian empire..... It also is next to impossible to stop ALL nations developing nukes whilst keeping our own as it smacks of hypocrisy frankly. But as recent history shows, nations like the US and UK have chosen countries worldwide to give these weapons to, or not be bothered by the country owning them, Israel for one. But as soon as Hussain even hints at owning one? NO!!!!!!!! We are again back to the judgement of one or two nations relied upon to ensure that the right people have these weapons, and that they themselves will only use them for good.
Frankly the policy sucks and the idea that somehow nations like France, UK and the USA will NEVER use these weapons unless a dire emergency is frankly niaive. The world's come damn close 3 times since WWII to nuclear war (Cuban missile crisis, the 1973 war and one I can't remember in the 80s, could dig the info up though) and each time the then 2 superpowers never once ruled out the idea of nuclear deployment.
To take another example, in the midst of the French-Indochina war the americans supplied the french with planes for use in bombing the vietminh. France followed this by requesting 4 nuclear weapons...... Ike refused at the time luckily, but the french just ran off and built there own in time.
So before we decide "can we stop them" we should also figure out "why do we have them and not allow them?" Because we're bigger than them? Because we have more right to defend ourselves than them? Please.....
In the case of sadam though, it's hard, the best thing would be clearly not to encourage such a madman in the first place, rapidly followed by not GIVING him WMD's, followed by taking the right chances to remove him from power (ie when he was on his knees at the end of gulf war 1!). Leaving him there to regain power, ignoring his actions and allowing his elite forces back into the country, then selling even more WMD producing equipment to him, helping build oil things etc doesn't strike me as a particularly good thing to be doing.
Basically the morale would be, don't **** the thing up in the first place and you won't have to go in and take back the WMD's we sold him in the first place......
Edit: the 1980's one:
Interesting scenario played out here. In november 1983 the Americans and their allies launched the exercise called "able archer". Suddenly the allied monitors were astonished, levels and urgency of alertness/communication in the waraw pact armies soared immediately to levels not seen except when in the midst of crisis like the Cuban missile crisis. No-one in the west had a clue as to why as exercises were pretty common things....... The state of play in the east remained the same until a few days later when Able Archer passed and one by one, soviet units climbed down from their states of emergency. No high level communication was undertaken, and no-one in the west had a clue what had happened. In short the west was in the dark, asleep so to say.....
After the end of the cold war though the truth was released. Basically the americans had begun production of the new Pershing II missile, with the earth penetrator warheads and shorter flight times. The russians literally wet themselves, they knew it was a perfect first strike weapon they could not match.
Through their head of the KGB, one Vladimir Kryuchkov (later failed to depose Gorbachev in the infamous coup) they panicked and the ailing leadership under the ill Andropov frantically searched for signs of imminent war. They began to get paranoid, in June 1983 Andropov described the situation as "marked by confrontation unprecedented in the entire post-war period" and soon afterwards russian interceptors shot down a korean passenger plane they accused of spying. Then they saw Able Archer.....
This time the two sides met across the table, but not eyeball to eyeball and neither blinked. One was hallucinating and the other was asleep! This time high level communication and global will did not occur (like 73 or cuba) this time it was blind luck.
And the pershing II missiles? They hadn't even been deployed by Able Archer and no-one had any idea of their exact range by then.
Nukes are highly dangerous things, even in the hands of the so called "civilised" countries. They're sure better with us than with terrorists or iraquis, but they're none too safe with us. If my reccolection serves me correctly wasn't Bush flown to the largest nuclear base in america soon after the twin towers were hit? That gives you some idea of a possible reaction of america if the **** had continued to hit the fan and got even worse. Nukes aren't really safe with anyone.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 08:33 AM |
|
|
Apologies in advance for the long-winded post.
Excellent dialogue, PH. Your responses show the real problems behind my questions, as well as what's wrong with the American mindset about this whole thing (including my own). The problem here is one of relativism. The U.S. cannot see that exactly the same logic could be applied to justify attempts to disarm it as it is using to disarm Saddam.
Let's see if I can take a stab at illustrating this.
The U.S. (like any nation) is ethnocentric, only in the case of the U.S. it is the single "superpower" in the world right now. So while blindness to one's own nation's shortcomings tends to be a fairly universal phenomenon, the U.S. can actualize its myopic views of itself by imposing them on other countries because it has the power to do so, or at least labors under that illusion. I keep having discussions here with very intelligent people and I am not joking you when I emphasize VERY intelligent people. They simply cannot see the hypocricy behind assuring the disarmament of another country. The dialogue in a nutshell goes something like this:
-- "But this guy's already proven his a madman several times! He's killed tens of thousands of people! The United States does not pose that kind of a threat!"
(Response: the U.S. has also done so, and many believe it is doing so right now)
"This is a war in self-defense -- t keep him from getting nuclear weapons before it is too late!! I's not analogous at all!!! And other exmple you can come up with has always been in self-defense!!"
(Response: This is not true, but these people are usually unaware of historical examples because they tend to already believe their country is GOOD and doesn't do BAD things and must have had a GOOD reason if it ever did do such things. For instance, the U.S. engaged in deliberate genocide against American Indians for over a century, with a staggering degree of success. The U.S. has surreptitiosly engaged in numerous internaional conflicts involving untold numbers of deaths since then when it was in the U.S.'s interest to do so -- example -- arming the Contradoras in Nicaragua during the 1980's, which were an absolutely murdering bunch of lunatics who tortured tens of thousands of people to death -- PH (or others) PLEASE FILL IN OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE HERE -- It's really late and my mind is slipping)
"None of those examples is on point. Most of them happened a long time ago. Our president has not directly engaged in any such attacks and has not invaded neighbouring countries like Saddam."
(Response: PH I need your help again here. The bottom line is that the U.S. has engaged in atrocities, it's just much better at concealing them/spinning them, etc.)
"Our country would never use nuclear weapons as leverage against the world community in an attempt to gain control over other regions and engage in empire-building."
(Response: First, We don't have to do so overtly. We already have the largest nuclear arsenal on the globe and everybody clearly knows this. Any time we engage in a conflict others are fully aware that the potential absolutely exists. Second, it is clearly up for debate in the world community whether we have engaged/are engaging in empire-building right now. Third, just to be clear, I have no doubt whatsovere that Saddam would do this if given the chance.)
"We are NOT engaged in empire-building!!! We're trying to free the Iraqui people!!!"
(Response: A minute ago I thought we were trying to overthrow a madman. So let me get this straight. Now we are trying to impose our secular, Western form of government in an Islamic country during a time when all things American are increasingly despised, most particularly because of the war we're fighting to liberate these people???)
"The Iraqui people are relieved that we are there!!! They WANT to be freed!!!"
(Response: There may be some truth to this, but it is also true that the coalition is meeting much more indigneous resistance than originaly anticipated. The real problem, however, is that while we may be making a few friends in Iraq right now, we will probably not stay so popular when we either:
A. try to impose a democracy in the middle of a fundamentalist islamic country with powerful factions just waiting to blow up like vinegar and baking soda the minute they don't have tyrant keeping the peace
B. oppose this culture's attempt to install an Iatollah, which is as dirty a word in the US as apple pie is in Iraq; and/or
C. abandon them after eliminating their government because we can't afford (or claim as much) to finish what we've started since our economy is falling apart.
Also, while we may be making a few short-lived friends in Iraq right now, they are exponentially outnumbered by the enemies that grow in count by the day as this war carries on and Pan-Arabism is revived like no wrath any white man has ever seen. This kind of wrath is all it will take to produce a thousand more Bin Laden's. I just can't wait to see what their next homeland firework stunt will be. Hell, maybe we'll pissem off so badly they will actually finally overcome their centuries-long difference, form a single fundamentalist nation, and blow our doo doo right off the planet. THEN we won't have to worry about this anymore, my confident American buddies.
Let's see, didn't we start with the idea that this war was part of the war on terrorism???)
To make a long story short, PH, I think my original questions were quite telling, particularly when you shed the light on them you did with your responses.
Never to worry, I'll probably have changed my mind again by morning. I can't get over the fact that, yes, history has shown us that there are madmen who are particularly maniacal, murderous, sociopathis, destabilizing forces on the globe like Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam, the SOB. So I guess I've gone all the way around the block here, and once again ask, what should we do at this juncture???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 08:36 AM |
|
|
By the way, Emperor, welcome. Sorry to have neglected a greeting you right off in my last post. I'm with you. This thing is all over the map for me too.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 08:55 AM |
|
|
PH. I guess it would help if I read you entire post before responding to it. Since I was a tiny child I felt that nobody on earth has a right to possess weapons like these. While once I was a tearfully screaming anti-nuclear protestor in college (you can just imagine knowing what you know about me), many years have passed and I have become somewhat more of a realist about the timetable for global disarmament.
I just wanted you to know that my apparent acceptance that the U.S. and certain other nations simply will be armed with nuclear weapons into the indefinite future is a begrudging acknowledgement at best, and has only come after decades of increasingly weary resistance to the idea. But yes, my arguments anticipate that things will remain thus for a long, long time, especially as long as there are lunatics about like Saddam, Kim Jong Il, and others. The more of that stuff that goes on, the longer it's going to take to convince our hawkish conservative constituency that we can even think about disarming.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted April 02, 2003 09:45 AM |
|
|
Peacemaker,
I really hate to have to take issue with you on a couple of points (because I agree with nearly everything you've said), but, for clarity's sake, I want to point out a couple of things.
First, as far as I know, Russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. In many ways, though, this point of fact is irrelevant because each of the five permanent members of the UN security council (the US, Russia, the UK, China, and France) has enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life on the planet. Suffice it to say, I agree that the US gains influence from its nuclear arsenal, but so do the other 4 permanent members of the security council. More influence is gained, I think, from our having the world's biggest economy and the best conventional military. We have 12 carrier groups, for example, that we use to project our military might around the globe. The UK (the world's 2nd greatest naval power) has only 3 carrier groups, and, conveniently, the mother country is our greatest ally. France and Russia each have 2 carrier groups, I think, and China has none. More than anything else, it's our conventional military (and especially our navy) that makes us the world's only superpower. We spend as much on our military as the next 10 most powerful nations on Earth combined, and no other empire in the history of the world has ever been able to match that. That's power ... much more power than our nuclear aresenal affords us.
Second, I have to take issue with your description of Iraq as a fundamentalist Islamic state. Iraq, in fact, is a predominantly secular and moderately pro-Western state. Note that Saddam Hussein prefers to dress in a suit and tie or a military uniform (just like Western leaders), as opposed to an Islamic fundamentalist, like Osama Bin Laden, who prefers to wear traditional dress. In many ways, Iraq wants to be Western. Ironically, the Iraqis who are happiest about our removing Saddam from power are the fundamentalist Shi'ites in the South and the fundamentalist Kurds in the North. One possible and ironic outcome of this war may be the replacement of a progressive, moderately pro-Western society with a fundamentalist Islamic society in Iraq.
Having said that, though, I think you're absolutely correct to note that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to "force" democracy on Iraq. The British tried it and failed when they abandoned the country in 1932. Iraq still has the parliamentary body that the British helped establish, but it's virtually powerless. In reality, soon after the British left, Iraq reverted to a totalitarian dictatorship, and it remains that today. Cultural change of the kind necessary for democracy to work takes a long time to develop. We English-speaking (and English-thinking) people, on the other hand, have a long history of "democratic" thought built into our culture. The English nobles forced king John to sign the Magna Carta, which limited the power of the monarchy, in 1215. We've been working on democracy for nearly 800 years, now. By the end of the 17th century, while France was still an absolutist monarchy, Parliament had the power to depose kings and install new ones. The English "Bill of Rights" was adopted in 1689. By the end of Victoria's reign, the British monarchy had become little more than a figurehead. France, by comparison, has struggled with democracy because democracy is a much newer concept to French culture. They're on their 5th republic now, and each new republic represents yet another "try" at a stable democratic government.
So, in conclusion, I agree with you. The notion that we can "bring" democracy to Iraq is absurd. Iraq has been working, culturally, on the concept of democracy for nearly 100 years, now, and our presence may help accelerate the process that leads to a democratic form of government in Iraq, but let's not get our hopes up. And let's not, for one second, believe that we're "liberating" anybody by "bringing" democracy to them. What works for the US and the UK is not necessarily what works best for the rest of the world. I am not one who believes that democracy is the best form of government. It is, simply, what my culture has developed, and we developed it because it worked for us. It is hubris, pure and simple, that leads us to believe that what works best for us must also work best for the rest of the world.
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
| |
|
|
