There's a lot of nutty talk going on about Iraq these days. Should we attack? Should we first get a coalition and allies to back us? Is Iraq about to strike us?
Let me state a couple of ideas to cut through some of this crap:
Then we know that the USA, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, China and India all have Nuclear and/or chemical weapons. But iraq and other countries are of course not allowed nuclear weapons because they are 'bad guys'.
This has nothing to do with iraq ever attacking the west - it has no interest in doing so, it has interests attacking Isreal because it is an aggresive neighbour funded and armed by a nation that has declared itself an enemy.
So all in all, there is no need to attack Iraq except to get Bush relected - but heres another point - Saddam was voted in just as democratically as Bush (i.e. not a fair or valid election) so he can't be toppled in the name of democracy - after all more iraqis can vote than kuwaitis.
Bush's only hope of getting another popular war is to give a dog a bad name and hang it, essentially throwing enough mud at Saddam and Iraq that some of it sticks and america gets its 'coalition'.
The arab world quite understandably takes the stance that there is no justification for the number of innocent lives that would be lost in such a war. Given the huge death toll in afghanistan from 'collateral damage' and the lack of any real opposition in the country nothing would be gained by such a war.
Re:The problem is double standards
chromatic on 2002-08-28T14:53:56
Saddam was voted in just as democratically as Bush (i.e. not a fair or valid election)They have an Electrical College in Iraq? What?
(Seriously, I found your swipe to be unnecessarily wrong, but preferred replying to moderating.)
Re:The problem is double standards
jdavidb on 2002-08-28T15:17:26
(Seriously, I found your swipe to be unnecessarily wrong, but preferred replying to moderating.)
Thanks for saying so. Me too.
Re:The problem is double standards
TeeJay on 2002-08-28T16:11:18
electorial college's aren't important to democracy - one man one vote and the party with the most votes being elected is democracy.Unlike zimbabwe's elections, iraqs were reasonably fair, and unlike the US elections the party with the most votes got it.
Re:The problem is double standards
pudge on 2002-08-28T16:41:16
electorial college's aren't important to democracy - one man one vote and the party with the most votes being elected is democracy.
That is one form of democracy. That is never how America's election for President has worked, and yet it's always been called democracy.
Unlike zimbabwe's elections, iraqs were reasonably fair, and unlike the US elections the party with the most votes got it.
That is incorrect. The candidate with the most votes for President -- George Bush -- won. Individuals do not vote for President, they vote for electors. There is no such thing as a "nationwide popular vote." When people talk about Gore winning the "popular vote," they are talking about something that does not exist.
Even theoretically speaking, you cannot reasonably compare votes for Bush in Massachusetts to votes for Bush in Florida, because many Republicans in Massachusetts, knowing Bush has no chance at all to win the electors for that state, do not vote at all, or vote for someone else to make a statement. There is every reason to suspect that if there were popular election of the President, the numbers would be different. The mythical "popular vote" has no legal standing, nor statistical validity.
Electors vote for President, and Bush got the most votes for President. You may not like the system, but it is the one we've had for hundreds of years, it's worked pretty well up to and including now, and it is false in every way to say that Gore got more votes than Bush.
Re:The problem is double standards
pudge on 2002-08-28T15:22:23
You see UN inspectors aren't allowed to inspect any USA or UK military complexes, so Iraq is bound to quibble.
I don't see what your point is. The USA and UK didn't lose a war, the terms of which required them to subject themselves to inspections. They can quibble all they like, but I couldn't possibly care less. Inspections are not because they are bad guys, but because they lost.
Now, in addition to UN-mandated inspections, yes, they should not have the bomb because they are bad guys. Complain about Israel all you want, but everyone in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, you name it -- is afraid of what will happen if Iraq gets the the bomb. They do attack their neighbors, have done so in the past, and will likely do so again, while under the current regime. It's unreasonable to paint them as no different from the other nations of the world, or even the region.
This has nothing to do with iraq ever attacking the west - it has no interest in doing so
You are one of the few who seems to think so. We prevent Iraq from becoming the power in the Middle East (while Suaid Arabia doesn't want the US attacking Iraq, you bet your ass they don't want the US to leave Saudi Arabia, because they fear what Iraq will do if that happens). We prevent Iraq from destroying Israel, something they've tried to do in the past. They have a lot of interest in attacking the US. And there is plenty of evidence that they have attacked the US -- again, Ramzi Yousef was likely an agent of Iraq -- and it's quitely possible they continue to do so.
Saddam was voted in just as democratically as Bush (i.e. not a fair or valid election)
Like it or not, the laws we set up for our election in the US were followed; Bush was elected according to those laws. You can put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say it isn't so, but it is.
Re:The problem is double standards
belg4mit on 2002-08-29T04:00:18
NO, Iraq is "not allowed nuclear weapons"
the same as Brazil, Australia, or Mozambique.
Since the genie cannot be put back in the
bottle, there is an international consensus
of no nuclear proliferation. Heads of state
were certainly not pleased to wake up to a
nuclear club with two new members (India and Pakistan).
That's a very simplistic analysis of the situation. Any good political science class would highlight a few issues here:All this about when we should attack is crazy talk, unless there is the possibility of us attacking unnecessarily.
On the one hand, there's a case to be made for a preemptive strike. On the other hand, a preemptive strike will very likely destabilize the delicate political balance in the Persian Gulf, leaving an even bigger mess. On the third hand, there's the political fallout of going to war (and failing to lead the nation). Or not going to war (and failing to lead the nation).
The only clear issue here is that this is a very complex situation that can't be simplified down to "yes we should attack NOW!", "no we shouldn't attack", "we should wait until we are attacked", or "we should wait until we have evidence".
Or, more concisely, there are no simple answers here, no matter how you look at it.
Re:Politics
pudge on 2002-08-28T15:44:19
That's a very simplistic analysis of the situation.
Despite the apparent implication, "simplistic" is not a synonym for "incorrect."
* Iraq has engaged in and is likely continuing to engage in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. These are offensive weapons, designed to inflict civilian casualties, not achieve military objectives.
I agree with all of this except for the "is likely." "Is possibly," yes. But I should clarify the point: I am not against action against Iraq in such a case, I am against war with Iraq in such a case. If they have these weapons, we should find them and destroy them. That doesn't require a war, necessarily.
* Iraq has been at war with the US, and is likely to be at war with the US again. Future engagements are also likely to be in the form of state sponsored terrorist acts.
Yes, I believe I did say that.
On the one hand, there's a case to be made for a preemptive strike.
It depends on what you mean by "preemptive." If you mean "retaliation to assault," I agree. Imagine someone pointing a gun at you, preparing to fire, and you quickly draw your own gun and kill him. That is retaliation to an assault (an assault is defined as the threat of imminent attack). That far, I agree.
As to it not being simple: I agree that the decisions to be made about whether we are being attacked, whether the evidence we have is reliable, how it all fits together, that this is difficult. However, if at the end of the day we decide that Iraq is about to attack the US or Israel, or if we find out they haev nuclear weapons, or if we find out that Hussein is funnelling millions of dollars to Al Qaeda... then no, I don't see the decision to respond as difficult at all. And if we don't have any strong evidence of any of these things, then I similarly don't see a difficult decision.
The Economist has a thoughtful article this week, America's Iraq Policy . Personally, I don't think they'll do it as it would provoke too much backlash both foreign and domestic but it is a nice platfrom from which to make a lot of noise and distract people from noticing that after all the money spent on the current 'war' we still haven't apprehended OBL.
In the sage words of Deep Throat, "Follow the money."
Re:economist article
pudge on 2002-08-28T15:35:45
Despite political words to the contrary, I've never cared from day four (I cared the first few days:-) whether we got Osama Bin Laden. He is unimportant. Besides, it is likely he's dead anyway.
But the point of my journal entry is that foreign and domestic backlash is and should be irrelevant: we should not attack unless it is necessary to do so. If is it necessary to do so, then what anyone thinks about it is, at best, secondary. Talking about the possibility of attacking Iraq in terms of backlash is inherently admitting that attacking Iraq is not necessary to begin with.
Re:economist article
hfb on 2002-08-28T16:18:46
Well, the backlash will come from attacking without necessity. Of course, the US will attack Iraq and I'm just hoping that W waits until I'm out of the US before doing so.
Re:economist article
pudge on 2002-08-28T16:43:19
Well, the backlash will come from attacking without necessity
Then we shouldn't talk about the backlash, but the necessity, or lack of it. That's what is important.
And frankly, not one of us has any real idea of whether or not an attack is necessary. We only have, at best, weakly educated guesses. I hope it is not necessary; I hope if we do attack, that it is necessary; I hope if it is necessary, we are all presented with at least some of the compelling facts before action is taken.
Re:economist article
hfb on 2002-08-28T16:58:40
With the prevailing prevarication I doubt anything will be presented to the public in clear realistic terms. The stage for this foregone conclusion has been set for quite some time and the necessity will stem from that rather than any compelling evidence of provocation on Iraq's part. I hope the US doesn't attack Iraq without just cause either but, then again, hope is for those who can ignore history and why wars are fought.
Re:economist article
pudge on 2002-08-28T17:13:21
With the prevailing prevarication I doubt anything will be presented to the public in clear realistic terms. The stage for this foregone conclusion has been set for quite some time and the necessity will stem from that rather than any compelling evidence of provocation on Iraq's part.
I sincerely doubt it. But, we shall see.
The question is: what will happen first, a baseball strike, or an attack on Iraq? And which will we care about more?;-)
I hope the US doesn't attack Iraq without just cause either but, then again, hope is for those who can ignore history and why wars are fought.
Hope is also for those who know history, and can see its ameliorating effects on the present.:p
The republicans are in tough place. There are mid-term elections around the corner and the economy is in the crapper. What's more, the House and Senate are very evenly split. The Republicans really want a majority in the senate, but voters can be so uncooperative about voting for the dominate party when they don't have jobs.
What can the GOP do?
Start a war! Everyone loves a war. American's gather around the flag, watch "Black Hawk Down" and get misty-eyed about the "valiant sacrifices our boys make defending our freedoms." Presidential approval ratings often sky rocket for the opening salvos (until the casualities get reported).
I'm with Pudge on this one: defend yourself, but fix your broken foreign policy as a first deterent against hostility. After all, Hussien wouldn't be a threat today if we didn't arm him in the first place. It's not like 9-11 or the previous WTC attack were random acts of violence -- the US is backing some unpopular players in the Mid-East (Isreal, Saudi Arabia).
Whether we go to war or not says a lot about Bush's power in America. Whatever happens, this is going to be a very interesting fall.
Re:Look at the monkey
pudge on 2002-08-29T03:48:25
While I agree that our policies in regard to Saudi Arabia and Israel are big reasons Why They Hate Us, I am not in favor of changing those policies, and I do not think they are bad.
Israel is mostly a good friend to us, and without our support, they very well may all die. It would be in every way wrong to turn our back on Israel merely because other people don't like it.
As to Saudi Arabia, while I don't like them much, it's not like we are controlling their country's destiny, like we did with Iraq and Iran, except insofar as we protect them from Iraqi aggression. I don't have a problem with that kind of "intervention," and we get three important things out of it: oil, military bases, and an important political partner in the region.
Anyway, I agree with you that whether we go to war says a lot about Bush's power if that war is not clearly justified by Iraqi aggression. I am not in any way convinced that we are going to war, and that if we are, that there's not a good (read: justifiable:-) reason for it. We'll see!
My opinion? It's a bluff to get Saddam to make the first move. Lot's of talk. Lot's of press. Scare the bejesus out of Saddam. Get him rattled. Try to make him do something stupid to give us a casus belli
Why do I think this? I haven't heard about any real troop movements. No mass C-130 migrations. No reserves being called up. I just heard today about "tank sized crates", but that ought to be another clue. Do we really need to conceal our forces? Hell no. We could send the Iraqi high command hourly faxes of our plans and troop positions and they still couldn't do a damned thing about it.
I'm just sitting back, smiling, enjoying the show because that's all it is at the moment - a show. Who will blink first?
Re:Cool bluff
pudge on 2002-08-29T18:54:37
I am not convinced it is a bluff, though it certainly might be (well, I am convinced it is in part bluffing, as most politics is:-). But I do think war is not imminent, for reasons you state: we are not ready. I guess that's part of why I am kinda laid back about this whole thing right now. If we had troops amassing on their borders, I might be a little more nervous.
