12-02-2004 20:39									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I don't knock the issues being discussed. Plainly they are issues which concern US citizens.

But there is one issue which is simple. Uncluttered by questions of who did what when or who said what to whom and why.

The simple issue is this. Do we wish to live in a world where when one nation state is unhappy about what another nation state is doing it goes to war?

That is the arrangement which has been in place since nation states evolved.

Now when the US and the UK decided to invade Iraq it may well be that the risks were no greater than when such decisions were taken in the past. Even if Iraq had possessed WMD it does not seem very likely that armagdon would have ensued once they were used.

But that is a case where one of the antagonists is quite a small and disunited nation state.

If this is to continue to be the way disputes between nation states are resolved it is worth asking whether we want to carry on with it when both sides are made up of sizeable, united and powerful nation states.

It is no coincidence that in the history of wars between nation states the numbers involved and the destruction wrought increases as time has rolled on. It is because of the greater cohesiveness that modern societies can achieve and, ironically in view of the genesis of the US/UK Iraq conflict, because weapons have steadily become more long range and more destructive.

Already we are in a situation where existing arsenals are known to be sufficient to destroy all life on the planet. Indeed to do so several times over. And our ingenuity as regards creating WMD is not exhausted. Far from it. Expenditure on weaponry and upon personnel to use it in the US alone is many billions of dollars each and every year. Weapons just get bigger and better from day to day.

Can it seriously be doubted that the next major war will be a threat to each and every one of us?

So let us imagine that the answer to the question whether we wish to continue to resolve disputes between nations by war is that we do not. Well what is the alternative, if any?

Clearly something new is needed. War has been the method up to now.

But resolving disputes without recource to violence is a commonplace in other fields. Indeed it has been the norm in all developed countries for a long time. Resorting to duels held stubbornly on among the most touchy of us but by and large putting a dispute before an independant and fair minded arbiter and then abiding by his or her decision has been the way civilised people have behaved.

Can that method be used for disputes between nation states?

Not right now seems to be the answer. Because there is no tradition of doing so, no established arbiter and no particular reason to expect the states to respect the arbiter's decisions.

But nation states have nevertheless found ways to reach agreements and to resolve conflicts in some things. Which is why we have a whole bunch of treaties signed up to by nations states and some international courts - the one which arbitrates on international tarriffs and trade for example.

If the option of resolving conflicts between nation states by an arbitral process is to become a real option what we really need, as an intermediate step, is an institution which can facillitate the further development of arbitral processes. And it needs to command the respect of most, if not all, and be actively promoted by all leading players, that is by all the most powerful nation states.

Some sort of start down these lines has been made. In the creation of the UN and its continuance for long enough for people to get used to its existence and to start to come to terms with the role which it is developing.

Some are coming to terms with that role faster than others.

If, like me, you would answer the question, do we wish nation states to continue to resolve conflict by war, in the negative you will hope that more nation states support the UN and fewer ignore or undermine it.

	12-02-2004 20:53									#92
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

East Street Trader, I disagree with your premise that war is bloodier than ever. The Iraq war clearly was the least bloody war in history.Actually, given the examples of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, war seems to be a quite effective way to solve international problems, far more effective than, for example, sanctions.

	12-02-2004 21:54									#93
	Got spare money?

Ned, have a look at, say, the Napoleonic wars, the US civil war, the Great War and WWII.

The weapons used were employed at progressively longer range and with progressively greater power.

With correspondingly greater death and destruction.

After the firestorm raid on Dresden there was little left of an entire city from less than two days of bombing and we have all seen the pictures of the one building left standing in Hiroshima - that devastation was caused by a single bomb. We have bigger and better ones now.

Your illustrations involve a powerful nation state or group of powerful nation states cowing a markedly weak opponent. In the case of Kosovo there was not even an actual nation state to cow.

Anyway I take it that your own preference is for nation states to continue to resolve differences by war. You have tradition on your side in that.

I will just have to try to persuade myself that the fallout from the wars you engage in is not inevitably going to engulf me and mine.

	13-02-2004 03:16									#94
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned rev, the point I was trying to make was that it was not the UN that had contained Saddam Hussein. Without Bush and without the U.S. Congress threatening war, absolutely nothing would have been done by the UN.

I know, and I'm agreeing with you.

My point is this: Iraq was asked to prove a double-negative and Bush/Blair gave them an unreasonable deadline. They should have beefed up their rhetoric and placed an invasion-ready force into the area around Iraq, thereby forcing Saddam to continue to allow the inspectors to search. We should have turned over much of our evidence of WMD to the inspectors so they could independently examine and evaluate whether what we believed was true. (We did do this to some extent, and the inspectors returned with their advice: our intelligence was "garbage" -- Tenet or someone else in the White House should have immediately begun re-evaluation ALL of our evidence when the inspectors returned with that advice; the fact that our intelligence was bunk was known quite awhile before the war).

If the inspections continued and still came up with nothing, we should have re-examined our own goals and acted from there. If they had found something, Bush and Blair's invasion would have been clearly justified on the pretense that Hussein and friends weren't following the rules and in all likelihood would never follow the rules. Invasion at that point would have been justified, UN commitment (or lack thereof) be damned.

quote: France began to make the argument that there should be no dire consequences because Saddam was not a threat.

France was right (if that's indeed what they were saying, though I don't believe it was): Hussein was not a threat to the United States or Britain. He was a regional and local threat, for sure, but one worth sacrificing thousands of lives over?

	13-02-2004 03:35									#95
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, East Street, I agree that Hitler didn't solve anything by invading Poland. Neither did the Japanese by attacking Pearl Harbor.

All this shows that major powers should never go to war. To the extent that that is your point, I agree.

But, if you have situations like we had with Milosevic, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, use of overwhelming power by the world's great and superpowers is highly effective - much more effective than sanctions.

	13-02-2004 03:38									#96
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

rev, what you are asking for is to put a large American and British army in the field for an indefinite amount of time.

Nonsense.

Saddam could have complied with our demands or he could have surrendered. Open-ended inspections with an invasion force just sitting there was not an option, except if you were not Americans and it was costing you nothing.

	13-02-2004 03:41									#97
	Put an end to popups!

I cant believe Dan still believes that Saddam was a threat to the US and had weapons of mass destruction. Admit that yous was wrong. That takes a lot more then to close your mind and deny.

	13-02-2004 03:41									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned East Street Trader, I disagree with your premise that war is bloodier than ever. The Iraq war clearly was the least bloody war in history.Actually, given the examples of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, war seems to be a quite effective way to solve international problems, far more effective than, for example, sanctions.

The true Ned troll is showing through...

Iraq certainly is not the least bloody war in history.

	13-02-2004 03:44									#99
	Increase the size of your Attachments

and in the long run, a lot easier.

	13-02-2004 03:46									#100
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePaP, I am sure you are wrong about the desire of getting the inspectors back in between 1998 and 2002. The US desired it. The UN did nothing. The ONLY reason the UN acted was the US said it meant war if they did not act.

The UN does nothing-the UN is a committee- is this too hard for you to understand!!??

Damn you are a thick troll.

The US and UK wanted inspectors- the Russians and French saw no point. Then in 2002 the US comes saying either we send back inspectors, or we will invade,,so yes, once the US made it clear getting inspectors back in was top priority and that political capital would be spent making it true, the Russians and french said OK. Which is the point I made earlier..if one permanent member makes it their business to push something through the UNSC then it moves- if no power is interested enough in spending the political capital, they wont get something through past even minor resistance by veto powers.

But of course this explination is probably beyond your cognative abilities.

	13-02-2004 03:58									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

GePap, you shift the blame, then, to Clinton.

	13-02-2004 04:01									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, you shift the blame, then, to Clinton.

You trully are hopeless.

Guilty of what? Not thinking it was worht the time to spend the political capital to get them back in? Yes. But then of course, the only reaosn Bush pushed them in was becuase he was convinced by Tony they had to undertake that step before they invaded. Once the inspectors were in bush denigrated their work and did not let them do much before he wanted them out again so he could invade.

	13-02-2004 04:07									#103
	Got spare money?

GePap, Ugh!

We are going in circles.

The original point, I beleive, was that war was unnecessary because of the inspectors had Saddam contained.

I was pointing out that that was hardly true until Bush and Congress did their thing.

And, the inspectors would have continued to be welcome only so long as an American army stood by, ready to act, in Kuwait.

Containment would have been a endless and very expensive proposition. What we did at least had some finality.

	13-02-2004 04:13									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned rev, what you are asking for is to put a large American and British army in the field for an indefinite amount of time.

Which is different than what we are currently doing, how? I mean, aside from the loss of over 500 American lives.

quote: Saddam could have complied with our demands or he could have surrendered.

The former is what we wanted all along. The latter was more or less impossible -- there's no way Hussein would willingly give up his throne.

quote: Open-ended inspections with an invasion force just sitting there was not an option,

The invasion force doesn't have to stay there, just long enough for the inspectors to examine and review our intelligence, other nations' intelligence, UN intelligence, etc., and compare it with Iraq's facilities, documentation, and stories. If our intelligence didn't add up, inspections could have told (and DID tell) us that. If Iraq's stories didn't add up, invasion would have been justified.

quote: except if you were not Americans and it was costing you nothing.

If our belief that Iraq had banned weapons held up, I'm sure the UN and other nations would have hopped on board. Instead, we raised a big middle finger to the international community and rushed into a war of choice -- a war that is costing us money and lives by the day. It's not costing the UN money -- it's costing *US* money because Bush felt the urgency was too great to wait.

And we were wrong.

	13-02-2004 04:13									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, Ugh! We are going in circles. The original point, I beleive, was that war was unnecessary because of the inspectors had Saddam contained. I was pointing out that that was hardly true until Bush and Congress did their thing. And, the inspectors would have continued to be welcome only so long as an American army stood by, ready to act, in Kuwait. Containment would have been a endless and very expensive proposition. What we did at least had some finality.

The inspectors contained Saddam prior to 1998 (evidence shows they had effecitvely disarmed him) and the military ring around him was more than secure. As for containment being endless and more expensive:
how much did it cost to keep US forces in the Gulf on a yearly basis? The war cost 120 billion plus about another 50 billion (lets say 45 just for Iraq) to keep the troops there (115,000 vs the about 20,000-30,000 max we had stationed all over the ME) for one year. I will go out on a simple limb and state that a single year of war-time occupation has cost us more than at least 2 years of containment, probably much more, and that is without counting in the 120 for the actual set up and going to war: so that the war in one year cost the US treasury more than 12 years of containment did, plus each year of occupation is FAR more costly than one year of containment.

NO, if money were the issue, Bush picked the far more expensive action.

	13-02-2004 04:30									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

GePap, the problem with containment was that there was no finality. It would have been just like the cold war -- it would drag on and on and on and on until there was fundamental change inside Iraq.

And Saddam would never have continued to cooperate unless the alternative was war.

	13-02-2004 04:38									#107
	Support Apolyton

Then we're down to a question of ideals: whose duty is it to bring 'finality'? The citizens'? The US?

quote: And Saddam would never have continued to cooperate unless the alternative was war.

Saddam didn't even think he was going to be invaded, and positioned his forces accordingly, in order to quell civilian uprisings -- not prepare for US invasion.

	13-02-2004 10:54									#108
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

rev, it is clear that Saddam was living a bubble of his own creation. Noone was honest to him because he apparently shot bearers of bad tidings.

A man like that is very dangerous. He twice attacked his neighbors thinking he would easily win.

Anything was possible so long as he was in power.

And his sons were worse!

	13-02-2004 11:28									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Anything was possible so long as he was in power.

Not really. Again, he was a regional and local threat, not an international one. You do him too much justice to pretend that he was a huge, international threat to freedom and safety.

	13-02-2004 15:03									#110
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The current position in Iraq can hardly be called "final".

What will emerge from the present power vacuum is unknown.

It might be thought naieve to imagine that what will emerge is a new settled state which is stable and responsible.

Whether the new situation will be more or less dangerous as regards the production of hideous weapons and the support and encouragement of terrorism is in the lap of the Gods.

	13-02-2004 17:15									#111
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned All this shows that major powers should never go to war. To the extent that that is your point, I agree. But, if you have situations like we had with Milosevic, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, use of overwhelming power by the world's great and superpowers is highly effective - much more effective than sanctions.

I am glad we agree about never engaging in major wars. It will be a good idea to make sure our political leaders either agree or at least know they will have to fight any such war on their own.

But there is a problem with solving minor hassles by way of gunboat diplomacy.

The problem is that if you resolve minor problems that way, when a serious disagreement between major powers comes along no alternative method of resolving the dispute will have been developed.

That is the position now and it has been the position since nation states evolved.

The only small advance made in that time has been the crreation of the UN. And a lot of patient work is still needed to build on that small beginning.

If I was certain that enough people take our view that there must never be a major war again then continuing to rely on gun boat diplomacy for small hassles might not be too much of a worry.

But in fact politicians are extremely good at whipping up patriotic fervour. And in the past virtually nobody has managed to resist them.

People are a little more sophisticated, a little more educated and have access to a whole lot more information to-day than in the past. But I don't think that is enough. As illustrated by the reaction in the US to the WTO outrage and to the cheap appeals to patriotism which Bush has been making. But more generally because of the very existence of patriotism itself. Love of homeland is strong and the development of nation states has made it stronger.

So we need to work up some way for nation states to resolve conflict by an arbitral process. In fact we need to reach the point where the actions of states are just as much governed by a rule of law as we nowadays all accept that the actions of individuals and small groups must be. For exactly the same reasons. Accepting that you are ruled by law involves giving up some freedom - to take action against the interest of others - in exchange for knowing that others are bound not to interfere with you. It also means that you know that conflict will be resolved without all the risks that come (whether you are involved as a principal or as a bystander) with doing so by force of arms.

Those benefits are as great - or greater - in the case of modern, well developed nation states as they are for individuals or small groups (companies, businesses, pressure groups, whatever). Because of what will happen if such states resort to force of arms.

It may be frustrating to work through the UN. In any large organisation it can seem like swimming through glue to get anything done. But it will pay off handsomely if the result of seeking to act through consensus rather than in response to the narrow interests of particular nation states is (1) for international arbitral methods to be found and (2) a strengthening acceptance on the part of those who govern nations that their actions should be subject to the rule of international law.

	13-02-2004 17:21									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

What a load of hog wash. The UN as it stands is little more than a screaming mob of a Commons, and a corrupt, veto selling Lords.

	13-02-2004 17:27									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It's not very good at the moment, I agree.

	13-02-2004 20:12									#114
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What a load of hog wash. The UN as it stands is little more than a screaming mob of a Commons, and a corrupt, veto selling Lords.

Yes. that is what it is: and fault lies with those corrput lords that keep the system like it is. sadly, there is no way to elect out the members and reform, becuase said corrupt Lords (aka the UK, US. France, Russia and China) won't allow change.

	13-02-2004 20:31									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

How might this be. A resolution invites all member states to agree that a two thirds majority vote will bind everyone subsequently upon the issue voted upon and that everyone will contribute towards whatever it subsequently takes to enforce any rule decided upon.

Let us make the issue to be voted upon the question of whether the law of each member state can or cannot allow the manufacture and sale of land mines.

Conceivably major powers such as those on the security council might be willing for an issue like that to be decided by a strong consensus. It might be hard to explain to their citizens why they should not be in favour of doing so.

I have not heard much good said about land mines and we have all seen pictures of the kids who daily lose their feet and hands to them. And our pockets feel the expense of all the endless clean ups which get attempted.

But maybe a debate would flush out some case to be made for continued manufacture.

Anyway the point would be to try out the UN as a forum for a new sort of law making. True international law (what we have at the moment is just a bunch of agreements mostly lacking means of enforcement).

	13-02-2004 21:13									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by rev Not really. Again, he was a regional and local threat, not an international one. You do him too much justice to pretend that he was a huge, international threat to freedom and safety.

OK, I surrender.

Our being there, in Kuwait, in the first place was not justified. After all, it was a LOCAL matter.

	13-02-2004 21:39									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think the UN will ever be a forum where law will prevail. It is a forum where war wages by political means, and the powerless combine to hamstring the powerful.

	14-02-2004 02:00									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Our being there, in Kuwait, in the first place was not justified. After all, it was a LOCAL matter.

There's a difference between being a local or regional threat and actually invading somebody.

	14-02-2004 07:00									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

rev, as I said, I totally lost the argument. You are right. Saddam was only a regional threat and we should have left him alone. He could invade Kuwait again, and perhaps Saudi Arabia. Whose to care? Those nukes landing on Tel Aviv -- well the Jews are not allies are they?

Yes the only people who were threatened by immediate attack from Saddam were no-account "locals." America had no interests at all to protect in the region.

	14-02-2004 07:07									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

1. Iraq didn't have nukes. They were nowhere NEAR having a nuke.

2. Pushing back an invading force and returning the land to its government or people is different than invading a country and toppling its government. Few on the left or right would not be supportive of an effort to expel an invading Saddam.

3. Hussein's armies were far weaker in 2003 than they were when he invaded Kuwait. I highly doubt he'd get far into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia before the invaded country would repel him, or before the US helped push him back.