|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 26, 2003 0:11:52 GMT -5
The alliance's position has always been clear: Saddam is a brutal oppressor and sponsor of terrorism who seeks (and admits to having had) WMD. He did not comply with UN resolutions and must be face serious consequences. The unarguably self-interested France, Germany, and Russia succeeded in abating pressure applied by the US to the point where it was not effective. War became necessary.
The Axis of Appeasement (which includes some HabsRus posters and all anti-Iraq-war protesters around the globe) is united by but a thread: their opposition to this war.
Thread? Yes, thread.
Stay tuned for the continuation (I need sleep now...badly) of Higgledy-Piggledy Protesters
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 26, 2003 0:46:32 GMT -5
The alliance's position has always been clear: Saddam is a brutal oppressor and sponsor of terrorism who seeks (and admits to having had) WMD. He did not comply with UN resolutions and must be face serious consequences.
Not to me. For quite a while it was WMD's, and only once that had failed were we subject to more and more rants on how evil Saddam is.... [/i] [/quote] Unarguably ? Every bit of their "self-interest" has a reciprocal equivalent in the US. If the Iraqis don't get French or Russian expertise to help them pump out their oil, then it'll be American expertise. The reasons for opposing the war aren't any more sinister than the reasons for promoting war. Not really, some are opposed to war in general, some want UN approval regardless of anything else, others are opposed to the way this one started and the fact that it's likely to lead to more trouble than it's solving. Some look at the fact that Congress has vetoed all funding for Afghanistan for 2003, and we wonder what will happen in Iraq in 2004. Is a 10-year civil war better than Saddam ? Or a Taliban or Khomeini-like fundamentalist takeover ? I might be a "dove", but give me 4 more months of inspections and a couple more Hans Blix reports saying that he can't get his job done because of Iraqi obstruction, and my mind, and I'd bet much of worldwide disapproval, would have changed awful quickly. We could tell.... |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 26, 2003 8:21:21 GMT -5
The position I am the most comfortable with is the one brought forward by Canada not the one of France. Be it allow a timeframe to have the UN inspectors finish their job and have a deadline imposed to IRAQ to disarm in accordance with what the UN inspectors find. A deadline after which consequences are already known.
A less stubborn US president would have seen the benefit of this position and would have taken a few steps back to support Canada's motion and let them be the gatherer with their middle of the road position. It would have been an easy to sell International position and at the end of the day, maybe only France would have been isolated.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 26, 2003 8:25:40 GMT -5
I largely agree with you Doc. But Bush is evangelically "going about his Father's business".
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 26, 2003 8:58:00 GMT -5
I believe the UK (and Canada, among other nations) pushed for this kind of deal (one with a clear deadline with a clear outcome for Iraq should they fail to uphold their end of the bargain...
...but Russia, Germany and France kept shooting it down saying "we do not want a deadline at which we go to war".
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 26, 2003 9:23:25 GMT -5
The alliance's position has always been clear: Saddam is a brutal oppressor and sponsor of terrorism who seeks (and admits to having had) WMD. He had some help along the way. *** Ken Pollack: We encouraged our allies to basically do the same thing, to look the other way at Iraqi transgressions, to liberalize their own export laws and as a result of this a whole range of countries began selling Iraq all kinds of military equipment and technology related to their weapons of mass destruction program. And had it not been for the US and our NATO allies allowing Iraq to buy this technology, none of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs could have gotten nearly as far as they did. Jeb Sharp: The US contribution included selling Iraq strains of anthrax. No one looks back on this period of US policy with any pride. But Richard Murphy, a senior State Department official in the Reagan Administration, is unapologetic about American support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. - www.theworld.org/Iraq/part3.html |
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Mar 26, 2003 21:28:28 GMT -5
This whole mess is Bush's fault... well actually since he can't buckle his seat-belt without reading the instructions, it was his administration's fault. By starting the Iraq debate by saying "we're going in with or without UN approval", the rest of the UN felt bullied... and rightfully so. This is not how you build a concensus, by saying you don't care what they think anyway... if you ask me the "Hawks" in the Bush's government wanted it to end this way. They want to adopt the "Wolfowitz doctrine" that involves pre-emptive attacks and an aggressive stance by the USA in foreign affairs... to ensure their continued domination on the international level. They knew the UN would never accept such a policy and would veto most if not all initiatives by the USA to implement that doctrine going forward. Discrediting the UN, and establishing a precedent for going to war without the UN's consent was KEY to the successful implementation of the Wolfowitz doctrine going forward. They played their cards right, telling the UN they didn't care what they thought while accumulating a large military presence at Iraq's border knowing they couldn't be kept there indefinitely without going in. The Hawks got exactly what they wanted. On his part, Powell who is the biggest thorn in the Hawks' side... tried as hard as he could to gain UN approval as he doesn't at all agree with the Hawks or the Wolfowitz doctrine. Sadly as hard as he tried, the Hawks had done a effective job of setting up the outcome.. and the Hawks' victory could not be averted. Now looking beyond the conflict in Iraq, the US has positionned itself perfectly to be able to pursue the Wolfowitz doctrine in the future... which is the USA's true victory in all of this, sadly not many people understand what just happened in the last few months... they will one day. There will be fundamental consequences to what just happened. Europe had concentrated on building itself up economically to gain international power, their aim being to be a counter-balance to USA's monopoly since Russia's decline. They formed the European Union, adopted a common currency to stand up to the US dollar. Problem is Europe has just realized their logic was flawed, ecomonic power gave them no leverage when it came to stopping the USA from attacking Iraq without UN approval. Europe has just realized that at the end of the day, military power has always and will always be what determines inlfuence on the international level. Expect them to start investing heavily in their military going forward. This will have a domino effect, other nations will do the same, more nations will try to develop nuclear capabilties to have that as an added card in their deck... as North Korea has done. There will be a world-wide military build-up, for the purpose of gaining inlfluence and not attacking other nations, but in the end it WILL lead to more military conflicts and will perfectly set the table for a 3rd World War in the future. The first step to this was taken about a week ago... and yet nobody sees it. This is why I am thrilled with Canada's position, who didn't say they opposed any military action like France & others, but tried to propose a middle ground where a little more time was given to the inspectors... but with the threat of military action if that didn't do the trick. This would have acomplished many things: - prevented the UN from losing credibility - Saddam would still have been forced to give up his weapons one way or the other - the Hawks would not have set a precedent for using military force without UN approval, allowing them to implement the Wolfowitz doctrine going forward - Europe would have felt more included in the decision making, would not have felt as ignored, and would have been less tempted to build up their military going forward... and thus preventing the domino effect of other nations building up their military as well, and their nuclear capabilities My only hope is that when the Democrats come back into power, they will abandon the Wolfowitz doctrine and return to a more cooperative way of conducting international affairs. But by the time that happens it might be too late... once the first domino falls, the others can't be stopped from falling themselves. Even if the Democrats come back to a more reasonable way of doing things, the rest of the world will know they're always 4 years away from the next election, and the potential return of the Republicans and the Wolfowitz doctrine. Just IMO... go Habs!  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 26, 2003 21:49:39 GMT -5
The position I am the most comfortable with is the one brought forward by Canada not the one of France. Be it allow a timeframe to have the UN inspectors finish their job and have a deadline imposed to IRAQ to disarm in accordance with what the UN inspectors find. A deadline after which consequences are already known. A less stubborn US president would have seen the benefit of this position and would have taken a few steps back to support Canada's motion and let them be the gatherer with their middle of the road position. It would have been an easy to sell International position and at the end of the day, maybe only France would have been isolated. Honestly, Doc, I was talking with Spiro the other day and I told him that though I agree with what is happening, I don't like the way it was brought about. I honestly feel that this war is a direct reflection of what 9/11 did to the American psyche. It seems that the USA and Britain are determined to not fight any kind of future actions on their own soil. Hence, let's take the fight to "them" seems to be the plan. However, I honestly believe that Iraq has had plenty of time to comply. Twelve years and a number of resolutions before that I believe. The UN continues to prove it can talk the talk but fails to walk the walk. If the security council had any gonads they would have approved not only inspectors, but a strong UN military force to show that they mean business. And they've had ample opportunities to do so in the past well before Iraq. They could have prevented the slaughter in Rwanda, but chose to ignore the substantiated warning signs. They also blew it in the Balkans big time. The problems are, as TNG pointed out, that some permenent members of the security council have financial interests in Iraq. This conflict of interest is probably why the security council has chosen to ignore any kind of followup on their past resolutions. The way this was brought about, however, wasn't on at all. Originally, Bush had no support from the American public or Congress with regards to a war with Iraq. Then, all of a sudden, he goes behind closed doors and emerges with Congress's support. On the surface at least, it looked as if he strongarmed his own Congress, though how would I know. Now, all of a sudden, American newspapers are publishing overwhelming public support for the war with Iraq, whereas the public, only one month prior, was divided . This attitude seemed to change overnight. Now, it's extremely important for the lads overseas to know their countrymen are behind them all the way. I just found it odd that only a month prior to this, the USA was divided right down the middle on the subject. But, Congress wasn't the only body that Bush influenced. The only reason those UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq was because of Bush's insistence at the UN. Anyway, Doc, you know my position on this. I support the action as an action long overdue. I just have a problem with the way it all came about. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Mar 26, 2003 22:15:28 GMT -5
Honestly, Doc, I was talking with Spiro the other day and I told him that though I agree with what is happening, I don't like the way it was brought about. I honestly feel that this war is a direct reflection of what 9/11 did to the American psyche. It seems that the USA and Britain are determined to not fight any kind of future actions on their own soil. Hence, let's take the fight to "them" seems to be the plan. Cheers. The Wolfowitz doctrine was written in 1991... and when it was leaked out by members of Father Bush's administration that didn't agree with it at all. It created such a negative public reaction that Father Bush asked Cheney to re-write it and tone it down.. a lot. Now in 2003 the same doctrine has come out, Little Bush has dubbed it the Bush doctrine but in reality it's the 91' Wolfowitz doctrine taken almost word for word. This time the public reaction was much more open to the idea... and you're right, it's all because of 9/11, allowing the administration to sell the idea is critical to defend them from imminent attacks... which of course has nothing to do with why they want to adopt this doctrine. If it was, why would it have been written in '91?... of course it's because it's all about world domination, nothing else. Here are a few articles that discuss the effects of 9/11: www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13979www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12853 |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 26, 2003 23:10:45 GMT -5
The Wolfowitz doctrine was written in 1991... and when it was leaked out by members of Father Bush's administration that didn't agree with it at all. It created such a negative public reaction that Father Bush asked Cheney to re-write it and tone it down.. a lot. Now in 2003 the same doctrine has come out, Little Bush has dubbed it the Bush doctrine but in reality it's the 91' Wolfowitz doctrine taken almost word for word. This time the public reaction was much more open to the idea... and you're right, it's all because of 9/11, allowing the administration to sell the idea is critical to defend them from imminent attacks... which of course has nothing to do with why they want to adopt this doctrine. If it was, why would it have been written in '91?... of course it's because it's all about world domination, nothing else. Here are a few articles that discuss the effects of 9/11: www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13979www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12853I was reading the link and some other web sites, I began to daze over, trying to figure out who is who. I was never a Bush2 supporter and never will be, primarily because he appears to be a puppet of Chaney and company. One wonders how much input each “advisor” has and how much real control Bus2 has. I recently read somewhere that he read a book on how great leaders behaved and he wants to imitate them. So here we go: Evil Side: Saddam believes himself to be the resurrection of an ancient Babylonian King. Less Evil Side: Bush2 believes himself to be Eisenhower and Churchill in the making. And I thought that I was crazy thinking that I was an alien…….. Back to the WolfPack PLan. They may be a very cohesive plan behind all these events. Several things have fallen into place and the war in Iraq is not much of a surprise. The question in my mind is how far reaching and “brilliantly” conceived is this plan? One can probably list 20 variables that have some role to play in determining various outcomes and I would be very surprised if they have thought of all of them. Plus all the wild cards that may arise. On the other hand, is it a plan or a vision? If it is a vision, do they have the brilliance that is required to manage incredible complex situations as they arises? I believe in their vision because it MAY make lives on this planet better. On the other hand, the good old boys gang scare me. So many “what if’s” and not enough brain cells to go around. One more thought on the subject of vision. Do they have to get everything right and going in the same direction? Is “close enough” an acceptable term on the ‘vision” game? Food for thought………… |
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Mar 27, 2003 18:34:08 GMT -5
This whole mess is Bush's fault... well actually since he can't buckle his seat-belt without reading the instructions, it was his administration's fault. By starting the Iraq debate by saying "we're going in with or without UN approval", the rest of the UN felt bullied... and rightfully so. This is not how you build a concensus, by saying you don't care what they think anyway... if you ask me the "Hawks" in the Bush's government wanted it to end this way. They want to adopt the "Wolfowitz doctrine" that involves pre-emptive attacks and an aggressive stance by the USA in foreign affairs... to ensure their continued domination on the international level. They knew the UN would never accept such a policy and would veto most if not all initiatives by the USA to implement that doctrine going forward. Discrediting the UN, and establishing a precedent for going to war without the UN's consent was KEY to the successful implementation of the Wolfowitz doctrine going forward. They played their cards right, telling the UN they didn't care what they thought while accumulating a large military presence at Iraq's border knowing they couldn't be kept there indefinitely without going in. The Hawks got exactly what they wanted. On his part, Powell who is the biggest thorn in the Hawks' side... tried as hard as he could to gain UN approval as he doesn't at all agree with the Hawks or the Wolfowitz doctrine. Sadly as hard as he tried, the Hawks had done a effective job of setting up the outcome.. and the Hawks' victory could not be averted. Now looking beyond the conflict in Iraq, the US has positionned itself perfectly to be able to pursue the Wolfowitz doctrine in the future... which is the USA's true victory in all of this, sadly not many people understand what just happened in the last few months... they will one day. There will be fundamental consequences to what just happened. Europe had concentrated on building itself up economically to gain international power, their aim being to be a counter-balance to USA's monopoly since Russia's decline. They formed the European Union, adopted a common currency to stand up to the US dollar. Problem is Europe has just realized their logic was flawed, ecomonic power gave them no leverage when it came to stopping the USA from attacking Iraq without UN approval. Europe has just realized that at the end of the day, military power has always and will always be what determines inlfuence on the international level. Expect them to start investing heavily in their military going forward. This will have a domino effect, other nations will do the same, more nations will try to develop nuclear capabilties to have that as an added card in their deck... as North Korea has done. There will be a world-wide military build-up, for the purpose of gaining inlfluence and not attacking other nations, but in the end it WILL lead to more military conflicts and will perfectly set the table for a 3rd World War in the future. The first step to this was taken about a week ago... and yet nobody sees it. This is why I am thrilled with Canada's position, who didn't say they opposed any military action like France & others, but tried to propose a middle ground where a little more time was given to the inspectors... but with the threat of military action if that didn't do the trick. This would have acomplished many things: - prevented the UN from losing credibility - Saddam would still have been forced to give up his weapons one way or the other - the Hawks would not have set a precedent for using military force without UN approval, allowing them to implement the Wolfowitz doctrine going forward - Europe would have felt more included in the decision making, would not have felt as ignored, and would have been less tempted to build up their military going forward... and thus preventing the domino effect of other nations building up their military as well, and their nuclear capabilities My only hope is that when the Democrats come back into power, they will abandon the Wolfowitz doctrine and return to a more cooperative way of conducting international affairs. But by the time that happens it might be too late... once the first domino falls, the others can't be stopped from falling themselves. Even if the Democrats come back to a more reasonable way of doing things, the rest of the world will know they're always 4 years away from the next election, and the potential return of the Republicans and the Wolfowitz doctrine. Just IMO... go Habs! All that writing... and not one response, disappointing.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 27, 2003 18:39:19 GMT -5
All that writing... and not one response, disappointing. War fatigue. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 27, 2003 18:42:13 GMT -5
I agree. With both of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 27, 2003 18:42:25 GMT -5
All that writing... and not one response, disappointing. The pro-war faction sees your post as a bunch of babble and it lacks specific points to blast, while the not-this-war faction essentially agrees with the gist of your post, so won't bother arguing with you over relative details. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 27, 2003 21:10:19 GMT -5
All that writing... and not one response, disappointing. Very good post. I think people give Powell too much credit but I agree with most of what you said. I would have liked Canada to come out strongly against the war to give more support to that side, rather then just sitting on the fence and trying to upset people on both sides as little as possible. I think Chretien always operates on the principal of least harm.... to himself. |
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Mar 28, 2003 5:19:43 GMT -5
Very good post. I think people give Powell too much credit but I agree with most of what you said. I would have liked Canada to come out strongly against the war to give more support to that side, rather then just sitting on the fence and trying to upset people on both sides as little as possible. I think Chretien always operates on the principal of least harm.... to himself. Well if Canada opposed the war too strongly we would have been subjected to the "horns" HA mentionned... staying more or less neutral without giving official approval sent the right message while minimizing the retribution costs. Actually the opposition is screaming bloody murder because it has come out that something like 30 Canadians troops are actually fighting in Iraq despite our official disapproval... go figure that one. The 30 soldiers are embedded in one of the British divisions. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 28, 2003 7:16:29 GMT -5
I'd dispose of my American cheese and American wine, if I had any.  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 28, 2003 19:59:41 GMT -5
Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe is right, regardless of the consequences to yourself....
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 29, 2003 17:11:40 GMT -5
Not to me. For quite a while it was WMD's, and only once that had failed were we subject to more and more rants on how evil Saddam is.... Our position has always been the same: Saddam seeks weapons of mass destruction; Saddam is evil. It's unfortunate that you are unclear as to how these signifcant facts relate to one another. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 17:15:30 GMT -5
Our position has always been the same: Saddam seeks weapons of mass destruction; Saddam is evil. It's unfortunate that you are unclear as to how these signifcant facts relate to one another. The US also has WMD; what are we to conclude from that? |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 29, 2003 17:19:35 GMT -5
The US also has WMD; what are we to conclude from that? Tell me you are joking. PLEASE. I'll wait to hear if any of the others opposed to the Iraq-war share your logic before responding further... |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 17:28:28 GMT -5
Yeah. Actually that was kind of a joke. But it had a point to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 29, 2003 17:43:04 GMT -5
The continuation:
Isn't it fascinating how divided and disorganized the opposition to this war really is? This is precisely the purpose of my first Higgledy-Piggledy Protesters post.
Some protesters say they are against this war because it is about Islam, others say raping oil, others say world stability of oil prices (some even say raping oil first only to later say world stability of oil prices after being hit with the reality that there's no way the US will get a return on investment here), others say WMD but that more time should have been given, others say WMD but the war is wrong because it'll inflame Muslims and Arabs because their brothers (although enemies) will die,... and so forth. Some even are against the war just because anti-American or anti-war sentiment is high in their country (Germany), or because they have excellent relations with Saddam (France, Russia).
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 17:50:19 GMT -5
The continuation:Isn't it fascinating how divided and disorganized the opposition to this war really is? This is precisely the purpose of my first Higgledy-Piggledy Protesters post. Some protesters say they are against this war because it is about Islam, others say raping oil, others say world stability of oil prices (some even say raping oil first only to later say world stability of oil prices after being hit with the reality that there's no way the US will get a return on investment here), others say WMD but that more time should have been given, others say WMD but the war is wrong because it'll inflame Muslims and Arabs because their brothers (although enemies) will die,... and so forth. Some even are against the war just because anti-American or anti-war sentiment is high in their country (Germany), or because they have excellent relations with Saddam (France, Russia). Some people say they are for this war because it is about terrorism, others say WMD, others say the plight of the Iraqi people (some even say WMD first only to later say the plight of the Iraqi people after being hit with the reality that there's no immediate threat posed to the US by Saddam). Some even support the war just because anti-Isalamic sentiment is high in their country (US), or because their economies are so dependant on oil (Britain, US). |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 20:33:08 GMT -5
Or, in other words MC - there are many reasons for the US to fight this war. Not just one or two.
Funny, you think you'd be more pro-war given your acknowledgement of all these reasons.
Oh - the last point. Can you find for me one war supporter who has said that they're in this war for the oil? Or for that matter, any evidence to support your theory besides "other war protestors are saying this, therefore it must be true?". I've been waiting for some time now for someone to back up the 'blood for oil' theory.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 20:44:29 GMT -5
I didn't say anyone actually said they supported the war because they were after the oil.
And I'm still waiting for some evidence that this war is about WMD and liberating Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 20:47:49 GMT -5
And many reasons to oppose the war too.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 22:08:52 GMT -5
Because it is the logical solution? Because when you stack up the possibilities, it's a lot eaiser to believe that Iraq presents a threat to regional and global security through the push to develop WMD's, their failure to adhere to UN policy regarding disarming their country and their constant mistreatment of their populace rather than that this whole war is some elaborate plan that's been in the works since the late eighties to create an new imperialistic age spearheaded by the US, which will give the US control of the world's oil supply (ignoring that the war, in the short term, will likely endanger what little 'control' they have of the Arabic peninsula's oil supply).
Thomas of Ock covers this clearly. Simple is, more often than not, correct.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 29, 2003 23:09:55 GMT -5
Because it is the logical solution? Because when you stack up the possibilities, it's a lot eaiser to believe that Iraq presents a threat to regional and global security through the push to develop WMD's, their failure to adhere to UN policy regarding disarming their country and their constant mistreatment of their populace rather than that this whole war is some elaborate plan that's been in the works since the late eighties to create an new imperialistic age spearheaded by the US, which will give the US control of the world's oil supply (ignoring that the war, in the short term, will likely endanger what little 'control' they have of the Arabic peninsula's oil supply). Thomas of Ock covers this clearly. Simple is, more often than not, correct. Later It's already been pointed out that there are other countries to which all of what you said applies, so I won't go into it all over again. Obviously, we believe different things, and it's not likely that either of us will change our beliefs without some new evidence. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 29, 2003 23:36:14 GMT -5
You have - but none of them meet all of the conditions (rather than one or two). The lone possibile exception to this is N. Korea, but they have THE bomb, rather than relitively (to nuclear weapons) wimpy chemical and biological weapons - which means they get special treatment. Care to list another country which could concievably cause the entire world to grind to a halt by counquering two of it's neighbours (and that has a chance of actually beating the neighbour - Mexico doesn't count as it would likely never be able to conquer the US).
Later
|
|
