War without dignity?

[onthebottom]

Godwin's Law -> http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Now that's funny.

The only value WWII provides in these topics is some historical examples that have the perspective of time. Never in history where the white hats and black hats so obvious. Only the Vichy missed them.

OTB (restraining urge to go on WWII binge)

 

[onthebottom]

Goober, note no quote

Nearly,

So what I think your saying is that the administration is beating the war drum (I would agree) and that they should step back and take a broader view. I think they (both Bush and Clinton administrations) have taken that view and decided. It's my belief after reading Ken Pollack's book that removing Sadam has been American policy for a number of years. The issue is they can't get to him any other way and are unwilling to leave him in power. If anyone in US government service could get a laser sight on the back of his head we wouldn't be having this discussion. Clinton ordered his elimination; no one can get to him.

I wouldn't be to quick to use North Korea as the less dangerous way to handle the issue (basically deterrence). I worry that North Korea will make Iraq look like a picnic. What both of these countries have in common is a dictator with large militaries and scary weapons. There are a few of those in the world; the worst part is that neither of these idiots behaves anything close to rationally. The problem with that is that the normal logic which governs deterrence does not always work.

For example, say Sadam attacked Israel with Chemical or Biological weapons. What would Israel do, attack, probably. Would they use nuclear weapons, I doubt it. Who wants to kill millions. In this scenario Sadam maintains his rule (all he cares about), his people take a hit (he doesn’t' care) and he pays almost no price. Oh, so the UN passes a resolution, has that worked in the past? It's been 12 years since the Gulf War and 3 of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council are arguing for ending sanctions on Iraq, the UN is a joke.

There is only one reason there are inspectors in Iraq, the US is holding a gun to his head. There is only one reason he will allow U2s and more inspectors, the US is holding a gun to his head. There's just one more thing for the US to do, pull the trigger. The flourish you've seen in Europe is just the Administration trying to get as many countries on it's side and pay respect to the UN and NATO as organizations. At the end of the day it doesn’t' matter, the trigger is getting pulled.

A note on your sources. One of the interesting aspects of Pollack’s book was his description of the Hawk and Dove components of the intelligence community. Like the broader population there are many views.

OTB

 

[NewCummer]

Rooting for the wrong team!

I root for innocent CIVILIANS!

You'll all heard of term "Colateral Damage". Those are unarmed women, children and elderly who didn't want to have anything with the war in the first place.

I just can't believe that some people can find explanation for a war in the 21st century. We are trying to find the cure for cancer and AIDS to help sick people and on the other side we are killing other people?!

If Bush is so pro-life (anti abortion) why does he want to kill?

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Re: Rooting for the wrong team!

You'll all heard of term "Colateral Damage". Those are unarmed women, children and elderly who didn't want to have anything with the war in the first place.

Oh for shit's sake.

Question: On September 11th, if you had the opportunity to shoot down the jetliners before they hit the WTC, would you have?

-or, more to the point-

Would you sacrifice a few lives to save countless more?

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Rooting for the wrong team!

I root for innocent CIVILIANS!

You'll all heard of term "Colateral Damage". Those are unarmed women, children and elderly who didn't want to have anything with the war in the first place.

I just can't believe that some people can find explanation for a war in the 21st century. We are trying to find the cure for cancer and AIDS to help sick people and on the other side we are killing other people?!

If Bush is so pro-life (anti abortion) why does he want to kill?

One fallacy out there is that there is a bloodless solution to this problem. Sadam kills thousands of his own people every year. Now if we sit on our hands for another 12 years is that more humane than what’s coming? In excess of 100,000 people have been killed during the last 12 years of inaction by the UN.

I don't discount the tragedy of collateral damage. In some ways it's an obscene term because it objectifies the loss on innocent life. That said, the US and allies will endure many more casualties than necessary in this war to minimize collateral damage. And those casualties are 19-year-old kids from Iowa, in other words in some ways innocent themselves.

Do you have a more humane solution? The key word in that sentence was solution.

OTB

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld is no Statesman

First, the US armed Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war, and continued to give aid and intelligence....

Can you please support this broad sweeping claim with something other than wishful thinking? The US sold what systems and continued selling what dual use technology? The only thing the US ever sold to Iraq during the 80's was helicopters...and just a few at that. IF that is what you mean is dual use technology, then I'll concede your point. There were a number of US firms that were listed as selling dual use parts. There were two whose owners were prosected as a result. There were several others who were found to have been duped as their shipments went to legal recipients who then forwarded the technology. It's the issue with dual use now and how it has burned us that is the cause of many of the "ridiculous" restrictions that remain on Iraqi imports. There is no authoritative source that will support your claims that the US sold Iraq anything of substance with regards to armaments. In fact all of Iraqs conventional armaments are Russian...hence the Russian lean for 9 billion dollars..that is for weapons. It is a fact that the US supplied Saddam satellite intelligence during his war with Iran. It is a matter of record that both France (Osirik reactor) and Germany have transferred nuclear and biological technology to Iraq. Dr. Hamzaa who was head of Saddams Bomb projects has confirmed as much, saying that they knew what the equipment would be used for, and looked the other way.

The top suppliers of "dual use" technology are well documented by both UN studies and independent organizations such as

www.iraqwatch.org. You will see that France and Germany are right up there. The US is about 3% of the total.

France and the Russians currently have agreements in place with Iraq for oil, once the embargo is lifted. These agreements do not include American oil interests. If the US goes to war, the US will take the oil as spoils of war, allowing US oil companies to run the oil fields "in trust for the Iraqi people", and cut out the French and the Russians.

Agree. And hence the Russians and te French act in their own self interests. You confirm my position.

This was has very little to do with Saddam arming or disarming. It has everything to do with oil and Shrub's ego, and the internal politics of the United States. In case you have not been watching, the US economy sucks, the deficit is huge and getting larger, the balance of trade deficit is out of sight, and Shrub would probably have been booted from power in the next election, if it was not for 9/11.

I've been over that logic many times and agree with muc of what you have to say. It's a little deeper than just shrubs ego. If you're as obsessed with US politics as you appear to be, I'm surprised you don't know that our foreign policy is controlled by the Likud party represented by Wolfowitz and Pearle. This predates Bush 43.

Does anyone in here really expect the US to rebuild Iraq? Take a look at Afghanistan, no rebuilding going on there. Except for the oil pipeline

Can't say I'm entirely satisfied with the US effort either. However, the US is not largely responsible for the destruction of Afghanistans infrastructure. That would be the Russians who should be forking over the cash. I still believe that we've contributed most of the money to date, and I certainly know there are a lot of countries that haven't paid what they've promised.

Iraq does not have the capability of launching an attack on the US, or even Europe. There is no reason for a military intervention at this time.

Within the context of immediate threats to the US, I'm convinced that Iraq poses little danger. The problem is that Saddam indeed does have WMDs, and if left unchecked he will use them to conquer the region. The only thing stopping him, in fact the only thing causing him to offer any semblance of compliance to UN resolutions is US MILITARY MIGHT..

Sure, Saddam is a bad man, but so was Nixon and Kissinger. It is up to the Iraqi's to remove Saddam, not the U.S. What if China decided that Bush was not elected and is a dictator and that China wanted to use military intervention to remove Bush and put in place a "military governor to look after things for 5 years or so".

That's a hoot. I'd invite the Chinese to have at it. I didn't vote for Bush anyway..LOL.

And of course, there is Blowback. Bin Laden and the boys were armed and trained by the CIA to hunt the Soviet threat.

Some of Bin ladens camp may have received training by the CIA. Bin Ladens people were imports, they were not the locals. The CIA focused training on the locals. Bin Laden refused help from the west as a matter of "principle". We were all infidels to him.
He used his own funds to equip and train his terrorists.

EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Re: Goober, note no quote

Nearly,

So what I think your saying is that the administration is beating the war drum (I would agree) and that they should step back and take a broader view. I think they (both Bush and Clinton administrations) have taken that view and decided. It's my belief after reading Ken Pollack's book that removing Sadam has been American policy for a number of years. The issue is they can't get to him any other way and are unwilling to leave him in power. If anyone in US government service could get a laser sight on the back of his head we wouldn't be having this discussion. Clinton ordered his elimination; no one can get to him.

OTB--I notice that neocons are quick to try to equate Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which sited regime change as a goal to the present wild west undertaking of Bush. Clinton NEVER advocated all out invasion. He only used a limited military option, along with encouraging local groups to accomplish an overthrow. Absent 9/11, there would never be a mandate to invade Iraq...just look at how luke warm the support is now. The other thing is that your position with regards to Clinton bespeaks the fact that subscribe to dogma and not principle. There was no oil on that swampland in Arkansas. By the time we got through finding out about the Bush's, Clinton would be relegated to a petty criminal.

I wouldn't be to quick to use North Korea as the less dangerous way to handle the issue (basically deterrence). I worry that North Korea will make Iraq look like a picnic. What both of these countries have in common is a dictator with large militaries and scary weapons. There are a few of those in the world; the worst part is that neither of these idiots behaves anything close to rationally. The problem with that is that the normal logic which governs deterrence does not always work.

What is really required to settle North Korea is a strike on that reactor in the absence of agreement to shut it down, surrender all fissile materials, and submit to inspections..that is a precursor to any further talk about aid. I'd give them 48 hours to agree, or strike the reactor and continue the Korean war. Bush as have many president's in the past, know that the loss of life would be unacceptable. We'll get another quick fix from this administration too, who totally dropped the ball on Korea, the Middle east Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, and ignored intelligence data given to them recommending a strike on Bin Laden. Because we're a nation of laws, the Clinton admistration needed legal evidence to pursue binny boy. They finally made the case connecting him with the Cole. Gore would have gone after him. Seems that George went after brothels down in louisaiana, which seemed to be the priorities of his justice department. No focus on terror, in fact Ashcroft cut 50 million for FBI counterterrorism just prior to 9/11.

For example, say Sadam attacked Israel with Chemical or Biological weapons. What would Israel do, attack, probably. Would they use nuclear weapons, I doubt it.

The only reason they wouldn't is that the US would intervene. An attack with WMD on the civilian Israeli population would be responded to with the most severe of consequences. And I can't say I'd blame them. We kept them on the ground last time..wouldn't give them our FOF codes.


EBS

 

[NewCummer]

Re: Re: Rooting for the wrong team!

One fallacy out there is that there is a bloodless solution to this problem. Sadam kills thousands of his own people every year. Now if we sit on our hands for another 12 years is that more humane than what’s coming? In excess of 100,000 people have been killed during the last 12 years of inaction by the UN.

I don't discount the tragedy of collateral damage. In some ways it's an obscene term because it objectifies the loss on innocent life. That said, the US and allies will endure many more casualties than necessary in this war to minimize collateral damage. And those casualties are 19-year-old kids from Iowa, in other words in some ways innocent themselves.

Do you have a more humane solution? The key word in that sentence was solution.

OTB

Is this war enough justified for you to send your daughter or son to Iraq?

Just yes or no?

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Goober, note no quote

Nearly,

OTB--I notice that neocons are quick to try to equate Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act which sited regime change as a goal to the present wild west undertaking of Bush. Clinton NEVER advocated all out invasion. He only used a limited military option, along with encouraging local groups to accomplish an overthrow. Absent 9/11, there would never be a mandate to invade Iraq...just look at how luke warm the support is now. The other thing is that your position with regards to Clinton bespeaks the fact that subscribe to dogma and not principle. There was no oil on that swampland in Arkansas. By the time we got through finding out about the Bush's, Clinton would be relegated to a petty criminal. EBS

neocons?

Clinton did not advocate an invasion. Assassination, yes, coup, yes, invasion no. If 9/11 didn't happen we wouldn't be having this conversation. That statement is sometimes meant to say that the US is overreacting because it took a shot. I don't see it that way. What I think 9/11 did was convince the American people that they are not safe. Americans have been living with a false sense of security for a long time. This realization has given impetus to taking the offensive on countries / organizations that are bent on violence against the US. Iraq is a poster child for this. You couldn't invent a better villain. If Clinton were president today (shutters at the thought) there would be 100,000 American kids in Kuwait.

Nearly,
What is really required to settle North Korea is a strike on that reactor in the absence of agreement to shut it down, surrender all fissile materials, and submit to inspections..that is a precursor to any further talk about aid. I'd give them 48 hours to agree, or strike the reactor and continue the Korean war. Bush as have many president's in the past, know that the loss of life would be unacceptable. We'll get another quick fix from this administration too, who totally dropped the ball on Korea, the Middle east Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, and ignored intelligence data given to them recommending a strike on Bin Laden. Because we're a nation of laws, the Clinton admistration needed legal evidence to pursue binny boy. They finally made the case connecting him with the Cole. Gore would have gone after him. Seems that George went after brothels down in louisaiana, which seemed to be the priorities of his justice department. No focus on terror, in fact Ashcroft cut 50 million for FBI counterterrorism just prior to 9/11.

Now your advocating attach?

I believe that North Korea is a very dangerous situation. They very likely already have multiple nuclear weapons. They have very good missile technology. They have 1.3 million men in the regular armed forces. They are less than 50 miles from 37K American troops. Their leader is a nut. This is your ideal situation for an ultimatum and aggressive military action? I think Bush is showing a remarkable amount of restraint here (not often a phrase you would use, and I voted for him). He's engaging with trying not to reward bad behavior (treating N. Korea like a 5 year old is about the right method). He's trying to get others (China, Russia) who have influence and a stake to get involved. All very prudent. Terrible timing given Iraq. I really think we (US) should play a role behind China on this (you won't read this from me very often either), it's more directly in their sphere of influence and if they lead we can get out of the US vs. World trap. That or we could order our kids home, set up a barricade and tell the Japanese it's time for them to earn their keep for once.

Nearly,

The only reason they wouldn't is that the US would intervene. An attack with WMD on the civilian Israeli population would be responded to with the most severe of consequences. And I can't say I'd blame them. We kept them on the ground last time..wouldn't give them our FOF codes.
EBS

You missed the point here. Regardless of who responds (US or Israel) if Sadam is left in power he would consider it a victory. What could either country destroy that would deter him. Remember, if we could kill him he'd be in the ground now. There's no deterrence for a guy who's ONLY concern is his rule, other than to take that away from him. That will happen this spring.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Rooting for the wrong team!

Is this war enough justified for you to send your daughter or son to Iraq?

Just yes or no?

Given that they are 10 and 2 respectively I think not, but I understand your point.

Is there any world cause that you would give your children’s life for, for any parent worth their salt the answer has to be no. I would put up with any world tragedy to save my two children, as I think any parent would. If you told me I could have stopped the World Trade Center attach by killing my children I would have let the planes hit. I'm no Abraham, my courage is not that great, or I'm too selfish.

If your point is (as I suspect) that if I wouldn't send my kids why should anyone else. I truly believe that this war is justified, I think the world will be a better place when it's done than if we did nothing. I think it will be better for the people of Iraq, their neighbors and the world as a whole.

This was certainly the argument in 1939 for the US not entering WWII. Why send a kid from Iowa to France or North Africa? What business is it of ours?

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I don't know

Nearly,

There has certainly been a shift in Government policy, I'm not so sure that the American people are all that excited about the commitments their Government has made on their behalf. You also have to note that there has been a power and economic shift between 1939 and 2003. The US dominates the world economically and militarily, this was not true 60 years ago.

OTB