Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

excellent article covering the new Bush doctrine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • excellent article covering the new Bush doctrine

    I found (thanx to a guy posting the link in another forum) this excellent written article discussing the new Bush-doctrine of preemptive wars. It's wrtitten by Paul W. Schroeder and published on The American Conservative so even some of the right-wing conservatives on this forum will be able to read through it without being confronted with liberal propaganda

    It is a little bit long (but I guess this complex theme requires some space) but it's really worth reading (especially for ppl 'in the business' like Tzar and Deltapooh who should be used to reading long articles

    Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger

  • #2
    Egads, this is heresy. Off with his conservative head.
    And we are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.


    Matthew Arnold

    Comment


    • #3
      The American Conservative is Pat Buchanan's new magazine.

      From afar the American Right can appear to be monolithic but there are actually tremendous divides.

      In one group you have the neo-conservatives who have a Wilsonian view of how America should conduct its foreign policy. They are the one's pushing for a war with Iraq and nation-building afterwards.

      In another group are the newly named paleo-conservatives, who are the classical conservatives. In general they have a Kissinger-esque Realist view of how America should conduct its foreign policy. In regards to Iraq, there is a split within the group, between isolationists like Pat Buchanan who do not favor a war much less nation-building, and realists like Kissinger who see Iraq as a threat and favor a war but probably wouldn't be too keen on nation-building.

      Finally, you have the libertarians. They concede there may be a need to intervene from time to time, but place a strict threshold of important national interests at stake before engaging in such activities. Like the paleo-conservatives they are split between those who believe Iraq is a threat and those who believe non-sensical interventions in the past have put us exactly where we are today. Both sides would be a bit aghast at nation-building.

      Comment


      • #4
        The article was well-written, with plenty of good points. However, it's true motive was not to make a statement against war, but to dismiss America's role internationally as imperalistic in nature, and anything, but necessary.

        First, Iraq is not a soveriegn state. I don't see how people come to that conclusion. Resolution 687 in effect spelled out the conditions Iraq needed to meet to re-establish it's privileges. The UN establishes that soveriegnty is a privilege that can be restricted, or dissolved based on the conduct of a nation. After the Gulf War, the UN spelled-out terms to Iraq. The mistake was not in those conditions, but how we chose to enforce them. Our greatest mistake was the rapid withdrawal from Iraq. We left before our objectives had been achieved.

        The article argues against unilateralism, yet seems to promote isolation. Peace is not a constanant. It requires viligance and power to maintain. The US can not withdraw from the international community because there is no shooting going on today. Nor should we be foolish enough to assume that our power alone will ensure stability. Invading Iraq might not lead to world peace, but is the pursuit of it.

        While it might be a sin to care for one self more than others, it's human nature. Unilateralism should not equated to imperalism. It's not. Every country is concerned about their interest first then everyone elses.

        Finally, I would like to say that I strongly disagree with the "Doom's Day Projections." We didn't pull Iraq's name out of a hat. The man was begging for a butt-whipping for a long time. While the US might not be justified in going to war, the world contributed to conflict by placing ignoring their obligation. Bush's case is built in part on the signatures of those nations who oppose his view. It doesn't make him right. Yet, there is a level of accountability that must be assigned to each member of the UN who passed those resolutions. If those nations are the champions of peace, Bush is will win the nobel peace prize.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          The Present Farce
          Should we laugh or cry as we watch history come full circle?

          by Victor Davis Hanson

          Louis Bonaparte was no Napoleon. And when the pathetic nephew came to power in France aping his tyrannical uncle, Karl Marx in 1851 dismissed the silly charade with the famous line, "History always repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, and the second as farce." Marx was stealing from Hegel and Engels, as he often did; but the truth of that dictum has never been more evident than in the recent sad spectacle surrounding the pygmy tyrant Saddam Hussein and the echoes of 1930s Western appeasement.

          Saddam — in capability but not intent — is no Hitler. Even though he still tries to talk grandly about British and American decadence, blusters about liquidating the Jews, and counts on the indifference of France, his Republican Guard is hardly a Waffen SS and his scuds no more advanced than Nazi V-2s 60 years ago. Gassing the Jews while Europe watches is with us again: but while Germans once built nightmarish factories of death like Auschwitz, Saddam counts on a few missiles armed with Sarin gas to do the same to those huddling in plastic-lined rooms with their babies in gas masks.

          Once more a weak French prime minister — Mr. Chirac sounds eerily like Edouard Daladier — scurries about, worried about everything but rising anti-Semitism in his own country, his hospitality for the thug Mr. Mugabe, and the shady deals of French companies. The German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's sordid past reads like brownshirt-Lite, or at least something out of the creepy cabarets and the street brawls of Old Berlin. His boss Gerhard Schroeder screams to mass rallies about a "German Way" — as if millions troubled over a stagnant economy can again sway from far left to right or back in the blink of an eye. The slur "cowboy" (a favorite word of Hitler's) has now returned to the German political lexicon, as we all again struggle to fathom whether the massive demonstrations of the unhappy in the New Berlin are nationalist or socialist in nature — or both.

          If ex-President Hoover once worried about a looming war "over there," Jimmy Carter, who brought us economic disaster and national insecurity, gratuitously attacks a sitting president and is as ostentatious about saving the world as President Emeritus Hoover was once reticent and principled in his own relief work. Middle Eastern kingdoms and dictatorships once more have no ideology; keep their cards close to their vest; and auction off their support east or west to the highest bidder who promises weapons, debt relief, and outright largess. We are relieved only that we might buy Turkish support with the monetary equivalent of three, but not six, new aircraft carriers.

          In place of the old League of Nations equivocating over the October 1935 invasion of Ethiopia, we now witness the recent pathetic speeches of the Non-Alignment Movement at the U.N. General Assembly — an amoral body once hosted in 1982 by none other than Saddam Hussein. Here was a Cuba that has never held an election lecturing about democracy. Iran, the world's leading terrorist nation, warned shrilly about extremism. Algeria acted as if talking about the need for stability would make us forget that it is a police state engaged in a dirty war with Islamic killers.

          A few African countries — none of them democratic; most of them corrupt, and all responsible for millions of their own dead and diseased — pontificated about past American culpability for this and that. I almost expected to see Franco call for democracy or a young ascendant Peron to praise tolerance.

          All the U.N.'s Security Council's resolutions and inspections will have about as much effect as the old League's threats in 1931 to dislodge the Japanese from Manchuria. Indeed, reasoning with a China that devoured Tibet or a Syria that stole Lebanon would in 1939 be like asking Italy that seized Abyssinia or a Soviet Union planning to annex eastern Poland for help in restraining Germany. In the 1930s a weak League blamed its woes on an isolationist America that refused to join; now an even weaker U.N. Assembly rails at a United States that it is too involved and trying to "bully" a debating society into giving teeth to its rhetoric. The way to wreck the U.N. is not to use force unilaterally, but — as in the case of the League — to haggle over a series of meaningless resolutions against dictators that cannot or will not be enforced.

          Meanwhile Hans Blix, as a Geneva inspector of the 1930s par excellence, could have easily assured the world that there was no evidence that the German battleship Bismarck was oversized or the Luftwaffe out of compliance. At the same time, the Vatican welcomed in the tinhorn Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, who won his chest medals and epaulettes in the early 1970s as a hack newspaper editor boasting from his office of the lynching of Jews in Baghdad. In between joint appearances with various Christian clergy, the chubby new Ribbentrop barked at a Rome news conference that he had not come to the Vatican to take any questions from an Israeli reporter. Fellow journalists booed — but nevertheless stayed glued to their seats to coax answers from a two-bit fascist soon to be in a cell at the Hague.

          In 1933 Oxford undergraduates, traumatized by a recent war, passed a resolution refusing "in any circumstances to fight for King and Country." Today there is once again dictatorship on the rise, but our pacifists, enervated by affluence rather than scarred by battle, choose street carnival over reasoned debate, and so march in our capitals proclaiming a new Axis of Evil — the democracies of America and Israel, the shared targets of fundamentalist suicide-murderers.

          Here at home in the United States we see the same 1930s antiwar coalitions of hardcore old leftists screaming about American corporatism and imperialism married with America First rightists. At peace marches swastikas appear painted over the Star of David. Meanwhile our "liberal" columnists defame Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and the bogeymen known as "the neoconservatives." So the ancient prejudice has returned, now whispering that "they" are getting "us" into war to save "them."

          Western Europe has almost gone the way of Weimar. Amoral, disarmed, and socialist, it seeks ephemeral peace at all costs, never long-term security, much less justice. Furious that history has not ended in perpetual peace and leisure, it has woken up angry that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair disturbed its fanciful slumber with chatter about germs and genocide.

          In recompense, cranky Western elites, terrified of trouble, indict on the cheap the democratically elected Mr. Sharon, while the masses in the millions go to the street to protest a war against a monster like Saddam Hussein and pay fealty to the terrorist Arafat. As in the past we see ideals in the militarily weak but spiritually strong leaders of Eastern Europe, as the Czechs and Poles once more reveal themselves to be far more moral men and women than any in Germany and France — the historic duet that so often either started or lost wars.

          Meanwhile an American president and a British prime minister, the target of this domestic vitriol and self-loathing, once again stand nearly alone against fascism. Because they do, we know the ending of this sad spectacle. Saddam will end up like Hitler in his bunker, with a mistress or two and a half-dozen doomed toadies. Postbellum Iraq will yield up the age-old horrors that may even be too sick for the tabloids; Anglo-Americans will once again rebuild a defeated enemy country — and a passive-aggressive France will triangulate, seeking to reclaim glory without power as it looks for profits among the flotsam and jetsam of war.

          The image of the French representative Dominique de Villepin — pompadour hair flying at the U.N., thin arms waving as he warns of Anglo-American bullying of dictatorial Iraq, and empty talk of France's grand historic commitment to law and justice — says it all: all this from the author of Les Cents-Jours ou l'esprit de sacrifice, a recent revisionist history that laments not the four million killed in Napoleon's mad ambitions, but the "dream" that was lost at Waterloo, a battlefield 12 miles from Brussels, the current center of the latest undemocratic European utopian fantasy.

          The world, not America, has gone off the deep end — just as it did some 70 years ago when faced with similar choices between cheap rhetoric and real sacrifice. And so just as the tragedy of Pearl Harbor for Americans put an end to all the nonsense of the 1930s, let us hope that the memory of September 11 and the looming showdown with Iraq will do the same for the present farce as well.
          "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

          Comment


          • #6
            By the way Kraut, as has been stated, the article you posted was from a paleoconservative. Pat Buchanan and the other conservatives who oppose the war, also support withdrawing from the United Nations..... They are the American equivalent of people like "Jean-Marie Le Pen" from France.
            "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

            Comment


            • #7
              kid kool, while the article I've posted was written by somebody who put some thought on the issue and tried to reason, tried to explain why he thinks the curent Bush-doctrine is wrong the article you've posted is just full of polemicand uninformed statements, here are just some of it's worst ones:

              Originally posted by kid kool
              The Present Farce
              Should we laugh or cry as we watch history come full circle?

              by Victor Davis Hanson

              The German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's sordid past reads like brownshirt-Lite, or at least something out of the creepy cabarets and the street brawls of Old Berlin.
              Just plain laughable! Mabe you should know something about our political system, intead of just 2 parties there are 4 relevant parties in germany, the two big ones SPD and CDU/CSU and the two smaller ones, FDP and Grόne. Joschka Fischer is a member of Die Grόnen, a party whos main concens are the protection of the enviroment and peace! In Fischers "sordid" past he was actively protesting against the new construction of nuclear power plants or the deployment of US nukes in germany. How on earth could this V.D. Hamson see this at "brownshirt" ??? That's as if I would say that Richard B. Cheney is a red commie bastard !!

              ... we all again struggle to fathom whether the massive demonstrations of the unhappy in the New Berlin are nationalist or socialist in nature — or both.
              The massive protests in Berlin were agains a new Gulf War, i think most of the ppl were quite happy and they were surely not protesting for nationalist or socialist themes but just plain and simple against the current US policy of preemtive wars!

              We are relieved only that we might buy Turkish support with the monetary equivalent of three, but not six, new aircraft carriers.
              Quite understandable if you remember that the USA promised Turkey economic support just before GW I because Iraq was Turkeys biggest business partner and Turkey was natural concerned about their economy after a GW. But, as soon as the war was over, the USA 'forgot' about their promises to Turkey, letting them slip into one of their biggest recessions and into an economic crisis.
              Quite understandable that Turkey don't want that to happen again and are therefore about getting their contracts with the US waterproof this time so that Uncle Sam cant 'forget' again to pay his allies.

              ...now an even weaker U.N. Assembly rails at a United States that it is too involved and trying to "bully" a debating society into giving teeth to its rhetoric. The way to wreck the U.N. is not to use force unilaterally, but — as in the case of the League — to haggle over a series of meaningless resolutions against dictators that cannot or will not be enforced.
              When will we see the US enforcing the UN resolutions on Israel ?? Right, never. USA is the nation that used its veto-power most extensively, blocking everything that wasn't in their mind and withholding payments if UN institutes weren't acting as wished. As long as the US is acting so unilaterally in the UN they have no right to complain about the state of the UN.

              Meanwhile Hans Blix, as a Geneva inspector of the 1930s par excellence, could have easily assured the world that there was no evidence that the German battleship Bismarck was oversized or the Luftwaffe out of compliance.
              Again completely ridiculos. Blix was able to show results and he is quite ruthless in his orders to disarm Iraq. For example the rockets that exceed the 150km limit. Firstly , why was the limit exactly 150km and not 160 or 200km or something ? No specific reason, they simply wantet to prevent Saddam from owning rockets that could threaten Israel (340km away) so they picked 150km. Now, 1/3 of Saddams rockets exceed the 150km limit, just one tested rocked out of 20 (?) reached 180km. Still way below the intended threshold that no Iraqui rocket should endanger Israel but above the agreed limit of 150km. So Blix could have said: oh well, no big problem, some rockets fly a little longer than intended but they still are far to short-ranged to threaten Israel, no big matter. But no, he radically ordered the destruction of all rockets, construction blueprints, testing structures and computer data from this rocket project !! Lax ?? No way !

              Today there is once again dictatorship on the rise, but our pacifists, enervated by affluence rather than scarred by battle, choose street carnival over reasoned debate, and so march in our capitals proclaiming a new Axis of Evil — the democracies of America and Israel, the shared targets of fundamentalist suicide-murderers.
              Again I have to disagree strongly! This time the anti-war movement (I want call it pacifistic because it's supported by all kinds of classes even by conservatives who normaly are not known ace peace-loving) is highly informed and has good arguments beside the tragedy of human lives lost, maybe you should re-read the article I've linked, it's filled with just some.
              This time its the pro-war lobby that is out of arguments, they can't tell how Saddam could be a threat to the USA but want to attack because of that. They have no prooves that Saddams still posesses WMDs or that if has them that he'll use them... but thats their reasoning for war. They were unable to deliver just the smalest clues that Saddam has Al Quaeda connections or was involved in 9/11 ... yet they say this is a war against terrorism.

              Western Europe has almost gone the way of Weimar. Amoral, disarmed, and socialist, it seeks ephemeral peace at all costs, never long-term security, much less justice. Furious that history has not ended in perpetual peace and leisure, it has woken up angry that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair disturbed its fanciful slumber with chatter about germs and genocide.
              The author has not the slightes clue about europe I guess. EU = socialist ?? There as much conservative governments as ther are socialist governments and that changes constantly. Totally disarmed ? Again, wrong. Germany for example has still an army of 300.000 men, equipped with state-of-the-are MBTs, airforce and training, our army is not as big as the US but it's more than capable of defending out country! We might have no Aicraft Carriers or extensive transport equipment necessary to wage war all around the world but that's because we don't intend to do that!
              And Bush and Blair are sudenly concerned about genocide ?? LOL as if they hadn't seeen it over the last 20 years ! Or even supported it as long as Saddam was still their good guy. Face it, the US couldn't care less about other ppl suffering, this is just one of their hollow arguments to justify this war while the real reasons are just plain strategic ones.

              In recompense, cranky Western elites, terrified of trouble, indict on the cheap the democratically elected Mr. Sharon, while the masses in the millions go to the street to protest a war against a monster like Saddam Hussein and pay fealty to the terrorist Arafat. As in the past we see ideals in the militarily weak but spiritually strong leaders of Eastern Europe, as the Czechs and Poles once more reveal themselves to be far more moral men and women than any in Germany and France — the historic duet that so often either started or lost wars.
              too...much...crap...in a singel paragraph... must resist...writing... whole articles about this unlogic and one-sided nonsens...aaarrrggggh.

              Meanwhile an American president and a British prime minister, the target of this domestic vitriol and self-loathing, once again stand nearly alone against fascism.
              Hellooooo, this ist not 1939, this is not about fascism! Saddam is just a mean little dictator, this is no epcal struggle agains facism! But its oh so easy to use stereotypes I guess, saves searching for reals arguments.

              Because they do, we know the ending of this sad spectacle. Saddam will end up like Hitler in his bunker, with a mistress or two and a half-dozen doomed toadies. Postbellum Iraq will yield up the age-old horrors that may even be too sick for the tabloids; Anglo-Americans will once again rebuild a defeated enemy country — and a passive-aggressive France will triangulate, seeking to reclaim glory without power as it looks for profits among the flotsam and jetsam of war.
              ...than suddenly Bush woke up and realised thet the world is no Hollywood movie and this is no good vs evil battle with a monumental Happy End awaiting ?? Hopefully, because the above paragraph is just veeery blue-eyed bs.

              There is much more is this 'article' to comment but I'm just to lazy to point out every mistake the author made ore were he just used cheap and wrong stereotypes.

              All the best,
              Kraut
              "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

              Henry Alfred Kissinger

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kraut
                [B]
                Just plain laughable! Mabe you should know something about our political system, intead of just 2 parties there are 4 relevant parties in germany, the two big ones SPD and CDU/CSU and the two smaller ones, FDP and Grόne. Joschka Fischer is a member of Die Grόnen, a party whos main concens are the protection of the enviroment and peace! In Fischers "sordid" past he was actively protesting against the new construction of nuclear power plants or the deployment of US nukes in germany. How on earth could this V.D. Hamson see this at "brownshirt" ??? That's as if I would say that Richard B. Cheney is a red commie bastard !!
                This has been explained to you before but i will try again. After the cold war many of those who had been a communists and socialists became members of the green party in an effort to redefine themselves. They turned their attentions on the environment as a new way to attack capitalism. It's important to look at the message, not the "name of the party". Just the fact that communists and the fringe left split into various factions and renamed themselves to be more "marketable", doesn't change what they stand for.We won the cold war, and then much of Europe lost the Green war, but the United States is still standing.

                I guess you don't consider it a sordid past to beat a policeman.

                http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/0...XEGT6G0IC.html

                The massive protests in Berlin were agains a new Gulf War, i think most of the ppl were quite happy and they were surely not protesting for nationalist or socialist themes but just plain and simple against the current US policy of preemtive wars!
                Actually, this is not true. While they used the war as an excuse to show up, the actual signs and slogans protest all things anti- american and anti capitalist. Signs like "Free Palestine", references to the Kyoto Treaty....the death penalty,...end racism...
                anti-globalization.. etc etc

                Quite understandable if you remember that the USA promised Turkey economic support just before GW I because Iraq was Turkeys biggest business partner and Turkey was natural concerned about their economy after a GW. But, as soon as the war was over, the USA 'forgot' about their promises to Turkey, letting them slip into one of their biggest recessions and into an economic crisis.
                Quite understandable that Turkey don't want that to happen again and are therefore about getting their contracts with the US waterproof this time so that Uncle Sam cant 'forget' again to pay his allies.
                The IMF, World Bank and the U.S. have bailed out Turkey 19 times in the past decades amounting to many billions of dollars. And over the years the U.S. was sending Turkey billions in military and economic aid until Congress stopped it in 1995.


                When will we see the US enforcing the UN resolutions on Israel ?? Right, never. USA is the nation that used its veto-power most extensively, blocking everything that wasn't in their mind and withholding payments if UN institutes weren't acting as wished. As long as the US is acting so unilaterally in the UN they have no right to complain about the state of the UN.
                Israel has not lost a war and had to accept the terms of a surrender such as Iraq. Israel is not bound by the United Nations. It's a sovereign nation unlike Iraq.


                Again completely ridiculos. Blix was able to show results and he is quite ruthless in his orders to disarm Iraq. For example the rockets that exceed the 150km limit. Firstly , why was the limit exactly 150km and not 160 or 200km or something ? No specific reason, they simply wantet to prevent Saddam from owning rockets that could threaten Israel (340km away) so they picked 150km. Now, 1/3 of Saddams rockets exceed the 150km limit, just one tested rocked out of 20 (?) reached 180km. Still way below the intended threshold that no Iraqui rocket should endanger Israel but above the agreed limit of 150km. So Blix could have said: oh well, no big problem, some rockets fly a little longer than intended but they still are far to short-ranged to threaten Israel, no big matter. But no, he radically ordered the destruction of all rockets, construction blueprints, testing structures and computer data from this rocket project !! Lax ?? No way !
                Blix has been anything but ruthless. Here in the U.S. he is a big joke. He simply gives conflicting responses in which each side can find something they can use. Iraq was supposed to give a full and accurate declaration, which they did not. They should have been found in breach immediately at that point. It's not the inspectors job to go around like a bunch of inspector clouseaus while Saddam dribbles out info on weapons periodically as pressure mounts.




                Again I have to disagree strongly! This time the anti-war movement (I want call it pacifistic because it's supported by all kinds of classes even by conservatives who normaly are not known ace peace-loving) is highly informed and has good arguments beside the tragedy of human lives lost, maybe you should re-read the article I've linked, it's filled with just some.
                This time its the pro-war lobby that is out of arguments, they can't tell how Saddam could be a threat to the USA but want to attack because of that. They have no prooves that Saddams still posesses WMDs or that if has them that he'll use them... but thats their reasoning for war. They were unable to deliver just the smalest clues that Saddam has Al Quaeda connections or was involved in 9/11 ... yet they say this is a war against terrorism.
                I like to call the anti-war movement anti-American. Otherwise they would be protesting Russia's war in Chechnya, France's hegemony in Ivory Coast
                ( http://bias.blogfodder.net/archives/2003_01.html#006078 )
                the war that took place in Bosnia, etc


                Regardless as to whether or not Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda, we know for a fact he has ties to Hamas and other similar terrorist organizations. He also funds terrorism by paying the families of homicide bombers. It's also not our job to prove he has WMD's. Its his job to tell us what happened to them...if he no longer has them (we know he had them in the past because of the documented instances which he used them). The fact that he refuses to disclose what became of his chemical weapon arsenal leads one to believe that he obviously still has the agents. Otherwise how hard would it be to just provide the evidence as to when, where, and how they were destroyed?



                Hellooooo, this ist not 1939, this is not about fascism! Saddam is just a mean little dictator, this is no epcal struggle agains facism! But its oh so easy to use stereotypes I guess, saves searching for reals arguments.
                Actually this shows how little you know of the history of Saddam and what his goals originally were, such as wiping Israel off the map and conquering the nighboring countries and becoming the "prince" of the middle east . The reason he has remained a "mean little dictator" is due to the United States containing him. The entire time we have contained Saddam the Germans and French have been pressuring us to remove the very constraints. While the French and others argue that containment has worked, the U.S. does not feel like waiting another 20 years patrolling the no fly zone, while constantly being accused of starving babies and getting constant pressure from France and Germany so they can make their precious business deals with Saddam.
                Last edited by kid kool; 01 Mar 03, 07:25.
                "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kid kool


                  This has been explained to you before but i will try again. After the cold war many of those who had been a communists and socialists became members of the green party in an effort to redefine themselves. They turned their attentions on the environment as a new way to attack capitalism. It's important to look at the message, not the "name of the party". Just the fact that communists and the fringe left split into various factions and renamed themselves to be more "marketable", doesn't change what they stand for.We won the cold war, and then much of Europe lost the Green war, but the United States is still standing.

                  I guess you don't consider it a sordid past to beat a policeman.

                  http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/0...XEGT6G0IC.html
                  Oh my, get real, the protection of the enviroment is in reality meant to be an attack on capitalism ?? LOL, yeah right, whatever you say By the way, the Greens in germany were founded long before the cold war ended and some of their political statements are in deed left but not communistically, read their party program if you don't belive me. And the beating of a policeman: he didn't just went to a policeman to beat him up, it was during a scuffle at a demo, and nobody in germany belives this to be a sordid past, not even the conservatives.

                  Actually, this is not true. While they used the war as an excuse to show up, the actual signs and slogans protest all things anti- american and anti capitalist. Signs like "Free Palestine", references to the Kyoto Treaty....the death penalty,...end racism...
                  anti-globalization.. etc etc
                  Sooo, if I would show up waving a sign 'kill all women' you'd say the whole demo was in reality millions of ppl wanting to kill all women ?? 99% of the ppl attending the demos (in London, Rome, Berlin, ...) weren't waving signs but simply attendet to support the motto of the demo, which was not "Free Palestine" but "No war" ! On every demo there is someone waving a sign with his demands, which often have nothing to do with the purpose of the demo, ignore them, OK ? This demo was against the US war-policy, nothing else.

                  The IMF, World Bank and the U.S. have bailed out Turkey 19 times in the past decades amounting to many billions of dollars. And over the years the U.S. was sending Turkey billions in military and economic aid until Congress stopped it in 1995.
                  I guess the turks won't agree with your vision of a generous USA here, I wonder why ??


                  Israel has not lost a war and had to accept the terms of a surrender such as Iraq. Israel is not bound by the United Nations. It's a sovereign nation unlike Iraq.
                  The point is that your are saying that the USA has to act now because Iraq has shown no signs to comply with the UN resolutions and that the USA is now simply enforcing these resolutions. Welll, if they are so keen to enforce resolutions, why aren't they enforcing all the other resolutins that were passed by the UN and to which states haven't complied ?? because it's not about resoulutions in general but about just specific resolution that fit into US general strategic plans. Thats why everybody sees that the USA are just following their own interests and therefor should stop to pretend that they are only doing this to enforce UN resolutions.
                  If they pretend to be the policeman arresting the baddies they have to arrest all baddies who are accused of crimes and not just the ones they want to!


                  Blix has been anything but ruthless. Here in the U.S. he is a big joke. He simply gives conflicting responses in which each side can find something they can use. Iraq was supposed to give a full and accurate declaration, which they did not. They should have been found in breach immediately at that point. It's not the inspectors job to go around like a bunch of inspector clouseaus while Saddam dribbles out info on weapons periodically as pressure mounts.
                  Blix isn't giving conflicting responses, he's simply reporting what he has done so far in Iraq and what he has found. If his findings doesn't suit your "needs" to find the 'smoking gun', too bad, maybe there is no such gun ?? If there is, you have to find it or otherwise stop to announce that you are pretty sure that there is one. And for good reasons 1441 is speaking of a material breach and not of just any breach. And there is another good reason that 9 out of 15 security council members have to find Iraq in material breach to declare 1441 breached, not just 3!


                  I like to call the anti-war movement anti-American. Otherwise they would be protesting Russia's war in Chechnya, France's hegemony in Ivory Coast
                  ( http://bias.blogfodder.net/archives/2003_01.html#006078 )
                  the war that took place in Bosnia, etc
                  Oh yeah, its that easy, isn't it ?? All the protesters are just anti-americans and can therefor safely been ignored ?? Than what are the american anti-war protesters ???? LOL !
                  By the way, I'am anti-war (not anti any war but against this planed war) but I'am not anti-american. And ppl can't potest agains everything they are against or they would spend their entire life on demos, they only bring their opinion to the streets if it's really important to them. Think about that.

                  Regardless as to whether or not Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda, we know for a fact he has ties to Hamas and other similar terrorist organizations. He also funds terrorism by paying the families of homicide bombers. It's also not our job to prove he has WMD's. Its his job to tell us what happened to them...if he no longer has them (we know he had them in the past because of the documented instances which he used them). The fact that he refuses to disclose what became of his chemical weapon arsenal leads one to believe that he obviously still has the agents. Otherwise how hard would it be to just provide the evidence as to when, where, and how they were destroyed?
                  No, this is not unimportant. There are countless terrorist organizations worldwide but America was attacked by AlQuaida not by IRA, ETA, Hamas or other terrorist organizations!
                  And concerning Saddams WMDs: as former weapon inspector Scot Ritter stated, Saddams biological/chemical weapons had a max. lifespan of 3-5 years so if he still had WMDs in 1998 when the inspectors were thrown out than all these WMDs are useless by now. So, the only way saddam could posess WMDs today is if he could have produced new ones. Well, the facilities were he could have done this were destroyed by the weapon inspectors and the sanctions prevented Saddam from importing the instruments needed (Iraq is not technical advanced enough to build them themself). Well, there are no evidences that Saddam has reactivated his WMD program, not even the mighty US secret service was able to pinpoint a single WMD factory! Thats why Collin Powell was talking about the mobile facilities... but that are only speculations, not a single mobile chem lab was foud until today !!
                  So stop speaking of Iraqs WMDs unless you have proof.

                  Actually this shows how little you know of the history of Saddam and what his goals originally were, such as wiping Israel off the map and conquering the nighboring countries and becoming the "prince" of the middle east . The reason he has remained a "mean little dictator" is due to the United States containing him. The entire time we have contained Saddam the Germans and French have been pressuring us to remove the very constraints. While the French and others argue that containment has worked, the U.S. does not feel like waiting another 20 years patrolling the no fly zone, while constantly being accused of starving babies and getting constant pressure from France and Germany so they can make their precious business deals with Saddam.
                  anti-semitic is not equal fascism ! There is a huge difference, dont mix these two up ! And yes, Saddam was contained (and still is, another reason why the hawks arguing of an imminant danger is wrong) but the sanctions were not as human as they could have been. Sanctions on military goods... I have no problem with that. But sanctioning chlorid that is needed to sterilize drinking water (after the US bombed Iraqs sewage works in GW I there is no healthy water in Iarq) is not understandable. Death throgh diseases from unclean water is the main cause of death for Iraqui children today!
                  Sanction military good, freely allow civil good and Saddam will remain contained without starving the Iraqui civilians to death. It's really easy.
                  Oh, and the NoFly zones have nothing to do with the sanctions, they are an invention by the US and UK, not approved by the UN. You could end them anyday if you wish.
                  "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                  Henry Alfred Kissinger

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Again I have to disagree strongly! This time the anti-war movement (I want call it pacifistic because it's supported by all kinds of classes even by conservatives who normaly are not known ace peace-loving) is highly informed and has good arguments beside the tragedy of human lives lost, maybe you should re-read the article I've linked, it's filled with just some.
                    I completely disagree. Most of Europe have no ideal what they are protesting against. Many base their opinion on the perception of local media and government officials. The same can be said about Americans. Europeans seem determined to ignore their own government's culpability degression of the United Nations. It seemed that many in Europe rushed to denounce the Bush Admin-stration without carefully reviewing the situation. Many Americans responded by simply ignoring the legitimate concerns that have been raced by various people.

                    Kraut, not everyone is a Warfare HQ nerd. Most people draw gather their information and conclusions from a single source. The level of disinformation rampant on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean has degraded what should be an open and honest accessment of foriegn policy into a verbal conflict devoid of the understanding required to make objective decisions. I'm not calling people ignorant. However, people are often more influenced by phrases and smiles than facts.

                    I like to call the anti-war movement anti-American
                    Am I the only one here that believes we Americans are increasingly anti-European?

                    I first noticed anti-European sentiment in the mid 1990's. Americans were growing tired of "The New World Order" doctrine which required what appeared to be an almost endless series of police actions. As the war in Bosnia drew to close, Congress debated Clinton's proposal for the commitment of a large peacekeeping force. At the time, I recall several Republican Congressmembers objecting the commitment because they felt it was an "European Problem."

                    Note: Though I was round 18yrs at the time, I disagreed with this conclusion. The stability of Europe has and remains imperative to protecting US interest abroad. In addition, the US peacekeeping force were only following in the footsteps of British, Dutch and other European countries who were on the ground in Bosnia for sometime. These troops endured an embarrassing political snafu, which American participated in, if not dominated.

                    The ideal since then is that Europe uses America when convenient and disregard our concerns when it isn't.

                    The current debate over unilateralism also can trace it's roots to the war in the Balkans. As I stated earlier, the United States and our European allies did not have UN approval to attack Kosovo. Instead, America achieved multilateralism through NATO.

                    On September 12, 2002, as President Bush and Secretary-General prepared to deliver their debates, former ambassador, Richard Halbrook noted the US doctrine of side-stepping the UN when necessary, and the apparent support received from the European allies.

                    The argument that unilateralism, in the true sense of the word, is completely outrageous. The United Kingdom invaded the Falklands. Though there is room for debate because of the terrority invovled, it still was a single country attacking another country's armed forces.

                    Instead, unilateralism (at least in the Iraqi situation) pertains to America's apparent reluctance to consider the opinions of it's allies and world in general. In that context, it might be true. Unlike his father, President Bush Jr failed to properly consult his allies "before" announcing the policy change on Iraq. Resistance to his proposal was inevitable. He basically sprung it up on the allies and expected cooperation. The failure to discuss the matter privately brought drug world opinion into the debate before governments had time to carefully wiegh their options and draw conclusions. Countries like France and Germany had little choice, but to denounce America's war with Iraq.

                    This doesn't excuse accountability. Kraut, you regularly raise the issue of America's apparent lack of will to enforce UN resolutions against Israel. Yet, even if I thought it was not right, it would not excuse your government's or the governments' of the world role in creating the current crisis. We pay a heavy price for supporting Israel and don't complain all about it. Europe needs to do the same. No matter what Bush's reasons are, each member of the United Nations who approved those Resolutions are responsible for enforcing them, both severly and as a whole.

                    The anti-American and anti-European sentiment that exists today is the same that arose nearly a decade ago. Both sides are being selfish and unreasonable. Europe needs America, and America requires Europe. If we forget that, everyone involved suffers.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kid kool
                      This has been explained to you before but i will try again. After the cold war many of those who had been a communists and socialists became members of the green party in an effort to redefine themselves. They turned their attentions on the environment as a new way to attack capitalism. It's important to look at the message, not the "name of the party". Just the fact that communists and the fringe left split into various factions and renamed themselves to be more "marketable", doesn't change what they stand for.We won the cold war, and then much of Europe lost the Green war, but the United States is still standing.
                      As Kraut mentioned, the German Greens were around long before the end of the Cold War. The Greens were formed from dozens of various groups, some being socialists. After long internal squabbles, the more moderate and pragmatic elements within the party 'defeated' the radical elements. While some of their greenism may be leftist in nature, the Green party is in fact quite fiscally conservative.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well....

                        Well, to all liberals out there,

                        If you're going to protest the US-led coalition to war with Iraq, then I respectfully suggest you use your loud voice and ignorance to protest Russia's war with Chechyna and French troops going on in Ivory Coast.

                        No? What's wrong? Afraid to go on squabbling with little boys -- Russians and French -- but feel courageous to play with big boys -- Americans? I find it incredibly stupid.

                        The name of this situation is hypocrisy.

                        Kraut, I don't support Paul Schoeder's article, it's full of garbage.

                        While I am a conservative, I do understand the reality of this world and what it requires to handle such reality in a more reasonable manner rather than insisting upon one thing.

                        Let's for sake of your argument, Saddam doesn't have WMDs, but is going to build them, and you say he's not going to use them to attack us. Fine, I concur with this point, but everybody here is missing the point -- the main purpose of WMDs is not to attack, but to deter any enemy from using military force to stop whatever Saddam is doing at that time.

                        As we can see clearly from North Korea, it is using WMDs to deter American presence and force blackmail from us, insisting upon a direct talk with Bush Jr. If America doesn't comply, then North Korea will then push on with testing new missiles and more nuclear warheads to play with. North Korea knows nobody is willing to invade North Korea, and is using this advantage with a simple possession of WMDs, that's it.

                        Containment policy is certainly workable, but it cannot go on indefinitely. Had Saddam been more forthcoming with UN inspectors before being kicked out of Iraq in 1998, there might be some suspicions on part of US to use this a political manuevur to get what it wants out of Iraq. However, that was not case. Saddam from the beginning refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, it was only after repeated threats that Saddam half-heartedly comply with their requirements.

                        I am not interested in keeping American warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones forever and keeping an eye on Iraq to make sure it's complying with the current UN resolutions. There has to be a better way to achieve this which is to invade Iraq once for all.

                        Now, let's for sake of my argument that Saddam indeed has WMDs at his disposal. What is he going to do with them? They're there for a reason. Unlike some conservatives and other people, I don't believe Saddam is going to use them for attacks, but probably attacks on his own people, but that's not the point. I believe Saddam is going to use them for one purpose -- deter American troops and warplanes from patrolling no-fly zones. Without American presence in Middle East, Saddam then is allowed to continue his personal ambitions, redesigning the political map of Middle East with coventional means.

                        Just as Israel has a few nuclear weapons, this is done mainly to deter Arab countries from attacking Israel. And this would be a disaster for both Europe and America to see an Arab country possessing a single nuclear bomb or tons of chemical and biological weapons.

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Personally, I think Weapons of Mass Destruction are ineffective as deterents. Saddam had WMDs in 1991, and we still went to war. Israel became nuclear capable sometime during 1968. While the program was very classified. I'm certain the USSR knew of this, and briefed Egypt and Syria prior to the Yom Kippur War.
                          The United States had nuclear weapons, yet the Chinese and North Vietnamese elected to challenge us. (China is debatable. Some agrue it was indeed intimidated by America's nuclear threats toward the ceasefire.)
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Well....

                            Originally posted by Cheetah772
                            If you're going to protest the US-led coalition to war with Iraq, then I respectfully suggest you use your loud voice and ignorance to protest Russia's war with Chechyna and French troops going on in Ivory Coast.

                            No? What's wrong? Afraid to go on squabbling with little boys -- Russians and French -- but feel courageous to play with big boys -- Americans? I find it incredibly stupid.

                            The name of this situation is hypocrisy.

                            Kraut, I don't support Paul Schoeder's article, it's full of garbage.

                            While I am a conservative, I do understand the reality of this world and what it requires to handle such reality in a more reasonable manner rather than insisting upon one thing.

                            Let's for sake of your argument, Saddam doesn't have WMDs, but is going to build them, and you say he's not going to use them to attack us. Fine, I concur with this point, but everybody here is missing the point -- the main purpose of WMDs is not to attack, but to deter any enemy from using military force to stop whatever Saddam is doing at that time.

                            As we can see clearly from North Korea, it is using WMDs to deter American presence and force blackmail from us, insisting upon a direct talk with Bush Jr. If America doesn't comply, then North Korea will then push on with testing new missiles and more nuclear warheads to play with. North Korea knows nobody is willing to invade North Korea, and is using this advantage with a simple possession of WMDs, that's it.

                            Containment policy is certainly workable, but it cannot go on indefinitely. Had Saddam been more forthcoming with UN inspectors before being kicked out of Iraq in 1998, there might be some suspicions on part of US to use this a political manuevur to get what it wants out of Iraq. However, that was not case. Saddam from the beginning refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, it was only after repeated threats that Saddam half-heartedly comply with their requirements.

                            I am not interested in keeping American warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones forever and keeping an eye on Iraq to make sure it's complying with the current UN resolutions. There has to be a better way to achieve this which is to invade Iraq once for all.

                            Now, let's for sake of my argument that Saddam indeed has WMDs at his disposal. What is he going to do with them? They're there for a reason. Unlike some conservatives and other people, I don't believe Saddam is going to use them for attacks, but probably attacks on his own people, but that's not the point. I believe Saddam is going to use them for one purpose -- deter American troops and warplanes from patrolling no-fly zones. Without American presence in Middle East, Saddam then is allowed to continue his personal ambitions, redesigning the political map of Middle East with coventional means.

                            Just as Israel has a few nuclear weapons, this is done mainly to deter Arab countries from attacking Israel. And this would be a disaster for both Europe and America to see an Arab country possessing a single nuclear bomb or tons of chemical and biological weapons.

                            Dan
                            Why can't containment go on indefinitaly ? Do you think is is fair for Israel to possess WMD's but no Arab country to possess them ? Are you anti-Arab, it would appear so. Saddam did not use WMD's on his own people he used them on the Kurds (who are seeking independence) and at the time the US did nothing and said nothing. The no-fly zones are illegal. The Russians are wrong in Chenchecnya, and the French in Ivory coast, it is simply that no one is talking about that - it's boring. And most French and Russians realise it's wrong, whilst most Americans agree with aggressive invasion and it is simply to make them feel better for September the 11th.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why can't containment go on indefinitaly ?
                              I doubt the situation in Iraq, and the Middle East in general, would allow indefinite containment. The United Kingdom and United States have been strongly criticized for their efforts to put a lid on Iraq. And there is no evidence that any of the allies would participate in, and finance indefinite containment. Even if they did, it would not be a honest statement.

                              Sanctions are designed to force a nation to alter it's political policies by creating hardship. The UN tried to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people by creating the "Oil for Food" program, but that was clearly ineffective. Global support would once again fall. Saddam will act a fool, and we're right back to square one. I believe it was France and Russia who were drawing up plans to send in peacekeepers. Saddam said no, and they left it at that. Europe doesn't support containment anymore than they do war.

                              In order for Iraq to be disarmed, Saddam must believe Weapons of Mass Destruction are no longer required to ensure his regime. That's unlikely to happen for a number of reasons, including the policy of containment. Europe seems to differ. Either it's leaders are as doped up as Bush in college, or they're just simply trying to delay the issue hoping time collapses support for war in America.

                              Do you think is is fair for Israel to possess WMD's but no Arab country to possess them ? Are you anti-Arab, it would appear so.
                              Israel has possessed nuclear weapons since the late 1960's, and have yet to nuke one of their neighbors. Their nation is litterely surrounded by a host of fragile governments who's stability is questionable. Israel can't depend on the west to come to it's rescue. The only reason I don't support Israel possessing nuclear weapons is because of the intense pressure it's country is under. It's only a matter of time before a fanatical hardliner who's seen one too many bombings comes to power. Then we'll be regretting the ever tolerating Israel to possess WMDs. However, my level of sympathy for the Palestinians continues to deteriorate.

                              I said it before and I'll say it again, Palestine can find no justification for their ruthless tactics in the ideal of being oppressed. They are perfectly capable of securing their freedom without resorting to violence. Furthermore, the Palestinian people have to accept their own screw-ups and quit blaming everyone around them. Their issues over land goes further than Israel. Jordan has also oppressed them. However, I don't see the kind of relentless campaign being waged there. These terrorists don't want to live with Israelis. Their true motivation is the religious and social issues that seems to be rampant in Middle East.

                              Saddam did not use WMD's on his own people he used them on the Kurds (who are seeking independence) and at the time the US did nothing and said nothing.
                              Saddam is President of Iraq, not just the President of those with his tribal background. And no we didn't say anything because we really didn't care. No one did. That don't justify anything. The Regan Administration was too busy fighting the USSR to really focus on Iraq. In fact, Regan paid little attention to the Middle East. A close examination of his foreign policies pertaining to this region illustrate the lack of fore-thought required to make objective decisions.

                              The no-fly zones are illegal.
                              The control of Iraqi airspace is required to pursue containment.

                              The Russians are wrong in Chenchecnya, and the French in Ivory coast, it is simply that no one is talking about that - it's boring.
                              Not our problem. Chechnya is not going to effect me in the short term. And France is protecting it's interest on the Ivory Coast. Again, this does not threaten American interest, which is the first question a President asks before making a decision. That doesn't mean I support what is happening. I don't believe it's my fight to get involved in.

                              And most French and Russians realise it's wrong, whilst most Americans agree with aggressive invasion and it is simply to make them feel better for September the 11th.
                              Problem with Europe is that they simply fail to understand the impact 9/11 had. It wasn't just some bombing. Alot more attacked than a building. The faster Europe realizes, the better off they will be on the diplomatic front.

                              Besides that, I don't associate the war with Iraq with 9/11. Nor do I support Bush doing so. Yet, I also don't support Europe acting like they are the saints of the world who want to bring peace and good will to all men. I'm neither French, nor Russian. Their opinions on how their country is responding to a situation is there business not mine. If that changes, I'll alter my decision.
                              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X