War without dignity?

[Big Daddy]

I am not bashing US here, but I don't understand why the current administration is so inconsistent? On one hand Donald Rumsfield says "Germany and France are old Europe" and then yesterday gets his butt kicked in Germany where he was told that "Germany is not convinced". Canada openly calls President Bush "Moron".

If the administration has decided on the war then it should fight with dignity. Stop embarassing yourself. This diplomacy thing is getting way out of hand. May be that the administration is now thinking about the cost of the war after having taken the decision.

 

[John Drake]

Frankly, its not Iraq I have the problem with. I would prefer that Bush take France first. I would support anything he wishes, if he could do that.


JD

 

[Don]

Canada did not call Bush a moron. I belive it was Cretien's foreign minister(?)

 

[anon1]

I would prefer that Bush take France first.

HEADLINE: Bush does French!!!!

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Rumsfeld is no Statesman

Well,

Rumsfeld is certainly no statesman. His job is not diplomacy, it is to make war. He is the secretary of defense. That being said, all of these slights being unleashed in the press has not helped anything one bit. At this point, countries who believe that Saddam is not in material breech aren't worth further consulatation. Reasonable people may disagree on the need for war. All I know is that there will be no cooperation with the inspection regime until we get a responsible government. That means regime change. Since Saddam will not quit voluntarily, we must remove him by force.

Bush has done a poor job of "selling" this war to the American people. It's no surprise that the international community is skeptical. But Powell delivered to the UN last week. For him to support a war, is all that fence sitters here in the US needed to hear. Understand that France and Germany are making power plays of their own within the EU. This is hardly the voice of reason or concern for the Iraqi people. These guys are driven by economic self interests the same as anyone else.

France has made a living of playing US against the Soviets during the cold war. They've also sold a ton of nuclear technology to the worlds despots, including Saddam. Germany has transfered technology to Saddam as well. Yet you hardly hear this, instead you'll hear about the US who hasn't spent 10cents to arm Saddam.

I'm going to hope that we'll deliver a message to the UN next week---"See you in downtown Baghdad". I see no further reason to involve the feckless UN.


EBS

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld is no Statesman

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.

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".

Wow, a new definition of stupidity!

Comparing Sadam with Nixon - you really have no sense of history, proportion or really anything else.

So let me get this straight, as long as Western countries are not at risk directly there is no need for action? Other people don't count right?

Do you really think we are just replacing a dictator here? If that was the goal we'd have a lot more work to do.

Pull you head out of your a**

OTB

 

[mr. x]

Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld is no Statesman

Comparing Sadam with Nixon - you really have no sense of history, proportion or really anything else.

OTB

this comparison might be a little extreme - but there is a legimate argument to be made that nixon and kissinger should have been tried as war criminals or otherwise been subject to international law because of uS actions in overthrowing allende in chile and because of the bombing of cambodia...

christopher hitchens is one who has argued the case against kissenger - he recently wrote a book which is on sale at most bookstores.

 

[train]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld is no Statesman

And of course, there is Blowback. Bin Laden and the boys were armed and trained by the CIA to hunt the Soviet threat. Saddam was a favored "statesman" of Ron Regan. If you stir the shit, you are bound to get splattered. Which is what is happening.

Assuming this is true then it seems to me that the US has even more responsibility to " fix" the situation and not to ignore it .

Also your comment about France and Russia having oil deals with Iraq would seem to explain some of their actions . If you critisize the US for having suspect motives then you must also question France .

 

[Bacon]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld is no Statesman

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, SFA is getting done over there, except more killing."

Why would we rebuild a cave,,,,

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Onthebottom is no Statesman or academic

Well Onthebottom, I see that you have picked a good handle for yourself, since you are obviously a bottom feeder.

.....

I wold appreciate it if you learned to frame a arguement in a logical fashion, and give examples of why you think the way you do. I would further appreciate it if you could refraim from adhominum attacks to bolster your position.

Clever, very clever.

OTB

 

[train]

Re: question authority, before it questions you

Except France, Germany, Russia, China etc are not suggesting launching a pre-emptive military strike.

No matter who is at the table, you have to remember that where you stand depends on where you sit. That is, the stand you take on an issue depends upon who's interests you are looking after.

Should the U.S. help clean up the mess that is Bin Laden, Saddam etc? Sure, but I don't know how. Bombing Afghanistan has really done very little except to make the Americans feel good about themselves and to secure an area for an oil pipeline. There has certainly been no country rebuilding going on. And the U.S. installed president had close corporate ties to US oil. What a surprise!

An oil pipline through Afghanistan.....LOL.....Have you been using Afghanistans cash crop again.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Onthebottom is no Statesman or academic

Nixon: secret bombing of Cambodia, break in at Watergate, infiltration of Laos, lapdog to McCarthy during the communist witchhunts, Kent State. Sure, Saddam gassed tens of thousands while Nixon only had a handful shot, so that makes Nixon a stand up guy right? He only had a handful of unarmed students killed, so he's ok! Nixon only subverted democracy by ordering illegal wiretaps and thefts on his political opponents, but he's still a straight shooter!

Don't put me in the position of defending Nixon, he was a dirt bag (as was Clinton). My point was (and given it was only one sentence I'm surprised you missed it) that you compared Nixon with Sadam as a way of excusing Sadam. You can't compare a guy that has gassed thousands of his own and neighboring peoples and set up a Stalinist police state with a hack politician from California. You just can't. It discredits and devalues the suffering the Iraqi people have endured since 1979 and the damage Sadam has inflicted on the region. Liberal, conspiracy theory types seem to have no sense of proportion and believe that any wrong doing by the US pardons all the worlds despots.

Sadam represents a real threat to the world. He has WMD (you notice not even the French deny this outright, even they know it) and has a very recent experience with using them. He has a nuclear program that the CIA believes could produce a weapon by 2005. He has missile technology that can deploy WMD as far as Israel (were you an adult in 91?). He is sitting on the 2nd largest known oil reserve in the world and (more importantly) can threaten 25% of the worlds oil.

For 12 years the UN has required that Sadam disarm and he has not. Now the UN is not known for it's stiff backbone. The US pushed the UN into playing it's part. There is only one reason there are weapon inspectors in Iraq, it's the US military. There is only one thing that will free the Iraqi people from a dictator, it's the US military. There is only one thing that will disarm Iraq, you guessed it the US military.

To say that the Iraqi people should choose who rules them is to be completely ignorant of the situation (which your writing style would not indicate) or to take part in shameless US bashing and propaganda. I'd be willing to bet you your next paycheck (how much could that be?) that the US spends BILLIONS rebuilding Iraq and establishing a democracy in Iraq. And what will Canada do?

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Onthebottom is no Statesman or academic

As for your suggestion that I am insensitive to the suffering of others, I suggest that you stop trolling for flames. I have suggested that a military solution to the current problem is not needed, and that there is more at play than what the U.S. would have us believe. I have not suggested that Saddam is a nice guy or that he should be kept in power. But, if you agree that countries have the right to choose leadership from within, without a forced external power, then you have to let the Iraqi people find a solution to an Iraqi problem.

I answered the second part of the PP in the previous post.

What other solution (that has not been tried for the last 12 years) do you suggest? Do you have an alternative plan or are you just bashing.

What else is "at play". Let me guess, a grand oil conspiracy.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Onthebottom is no Statesman or academic

Having the United States impose a solution that serves the needs of the United States is hardly a fair or just solution. And please do not confuse "western" countries with the United States. The US looks after its own interests, not Canada's or Europe's or... Similarly, what is on interest to the "west" may or may not be of interest to the United States. American foreign policy is not about American friends and allies, it is about American interests. To be blunt, the US does not have friends, the US has interests.

I think we agree on some of this. A previous post said "countries don't have friends they have interests", I would agree with this. That said, many countries have many of the same interests, some people group these together under convenient terms (Western Democracies). I think the US, Canada and "Old Europe" have shared many of these interests, especially during the cold war when the interest was to have the US pay for the defense of "Old Europe".

The US will certainly find itself with a more friendly government in Iraq this summer than is currently there. I doubt we will impose a government but this will not be a simple process. There are 3 distinct "tribes" in Iraq (the Sunni being in power now), power sharing among them will take some, not so subtle, arm twisting. I think the US will do that arm-twisting. The real crime is that the Kurds will not get their own country out of this. All the fretting we do as a world about 14 million Jews and there are 250million Kurds without a home. If you want to worry about a people not getting self-determination I'd spend less time defending Sadam's rule and more thinking about the Kurds.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Onthebottom is no Statesman or academic

I wold appreciate it if you learned to frame a arguement in a logical fashion, and give examples of why you think the way you do. I would further appreciate it if you could refraim from adhominum attacks to bolster your position.

Other than suggesting that you disagree with my position, and that I am too subtle in my references to historical items, you really have not said S.F.A.

How did I do mom.

OTB

 

[NewCummer]

Nuclear threat?

I am tring to remember the only nation that used nuclear bomb (twice) so far. Can you help me guys?

And how many were people taken to War Crimes court for destroying lives of so many generations of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Anybody?

Don't forget the history! The Holocaust is not the only thing that happened in the World War II.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

I smell Godwin's Law....

*WARNING*

As long as this thread stays on topic and doesn't denegrate into a shit-slinging flame-war, it will stay open and visible. Once it's determined to have lost its original focus, it will be closed and/or deleted.

Stay on topic, and cite FACTS only, not mindless rhetoric regurgitated from yellowtimes.org or other such smegma-holes of the internet.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Onthebottom is no Statesman or academic

The urgency of this threat seems to be a matter of some debate. If the threat isn't quite as emminent as some would have us believe, we needn't rush headlong into any war. If Saddam is constantly having to move his mobile laboratories around he isn't likely making much progress on the development side and, sooner or later, well find the trucks and take them out.

From:

Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a coast-to-coast enterprise; mostly intelligence officers from analysis side of CIA, but Operations side also represented.



"You have said that Iraq is a "grave threat to the United States," and many Americans think you believe it to be an imminent threat. Otherwise why would you be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the Gulf area? In your major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, you warned that "the risk is simply too great that Saddam Hussein will use instruments of mass death and destruction, or provide them to a terror network."

Terrorism

Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists..UNLESS:

"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

For now, continued the CIA letter, "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, however, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." "

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm

Nearly,

I don't believe the terrorism link with Iraq is the issue. Sadam's regime has shown nothing but incompetence when operating outside it's Stalinist regime. Take the hit on Bush Sr. as an example. Iraq is not a major sponsor of terrorism because terrorists are hard to control and Sadam is a control freak, he is incapable of doing it him self because of incompetence and he fears repercussions from actions he didn't take. Sadam is also not a fanatical Islamist, he is a fanatical Sadamist and doesn’t' really care about any other cause than himself.

I think the bigger issue is Sadam using WMD to threaten the world’s oil supplies or Israel. If he could build a nuclear weapon (some say by 2005) and deliver it (or even threaten to deliver it) he could have an incredible destabilizing effect on the world. Since he has been under orders for 12 years to disarm perhaps now is as good a time as any to make that happen.

OTB

 

[Goober Mcfly]

WTF is Godwin's Law?

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

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Nuclear threat?

I am tring to remember the only nation that used nuclear bomb (twice) so far. Can you help me guys?

And how many were people taken to War Crimes court for destroying lives of so many generations of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Anybody?

Don't forget the history! The Holocaust is not the only thing that happened in the World War II.

You’re rooting for the wrong team! Start another thread where you support wartime Japan and I'll be happy to respond.

The Liberal Conspiracy Theory equation:

US does bad thing = Anyone can do anything bad without consequence

OTB