 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Actually, I think that Bush might actually do something like this after Iraq.
Bush is no Clinton. I think both sides will pay close attention to what he says. Agreement is probable - but we need first to get Iraq behind us. |
Yeah, I'd say there's just about zero chance of that happening. Bush does not know how to make peace, only war. He's one of the worst statesmen to ever hold the Presidency.
The problem beyond that, though, is that I doubt any future president would have the balls to do something that radical, and it certainly won't be backed by congress. The US, for whatever reason you want to ascribe to it, simply will never threaten Israel with withdrawing aid and arms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, From what you say here, I assume you approve of Chamberlain's appeasement policy. |
Huh? That's quite the leap in logic, since I never mentioned anything about appeasement or anything remotely close to it. But, for the sake of arguement, I'll play along.
Although I'm really not sure what you are getting at, I'll assume it's one of two things:
1. Attacking Iraq. Let's see, according to you, not attacking Iraq unilaterally = giving away land from soveriegn states because another leader demands them. Yep, that makes sense.
2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
The UN can't do anything really. Every time there is a crisis in the world, by the time they vote on the matter and act, all the killing has been done and it is too late. I have heard of peace keeping troops standing by as they watch people get killed or taken away, and God knows what happens to them. The UN is just as useless as the League of Nations that proceed it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
Huh? That's quite the leap in logic, since I never mentioned anything about appeasement or anything remotely close to it. But, for the sake of arguement, I'll play along.
Although I'm really not sure what you are getting at, I'll assume it's one of two things:
1. Attacking Iraq. Let's see, according to you, not attacking Iraq unilaterally = giving away land from soveriegn states because another leader demands them. Yep, that makes sense.
2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything. |
Well, Kontiki, the question is what are we to do about Iraq? (The policy we can discuss later.) We have 11 years of defiance by Saddam, sanctions have not worked and only harm the Iraqi people. He has chemical and bio weapons, and is seeking nuclear - all in violation of UN mandates.
What do we do?
To cave into Iraq at this time, to end sanctions, to withdraw our no fly zones will certainly reward defiance and incent aggression. Undoubtedly, millions of Kurds will die as victims of chemical weapons in the short term. In the longer term, Israel is facing a preemptive first strike that could virtually destroy Israel. What do you think will happen if Iraq attacks - even if Israel gave them a chance, which I don't think would happen.
What do we do?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I would always oppose letting any organization have any authority over the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Well, Kontiki, the question is what are we to do about Iraq? (The policy we can discuss later.) We have 11 years of defiance by Saddam, sanctions have not worked and only harm the Iraqi people. He has chemical and bio weapons, and is seeking nuclear - all in violation of UN mandates.
What do we do?
To cave into Iraq at this time, to end sanctions, to withdraw our no fly zones will certainly reward defiance and incent aggression. Undoubtedly, millions of Kurds will die as victims of chemical weapons in the short term. In the longer term, Israel is facing a preemptive first strike that could virtually destroy Israel. What do you think will happen if Iraq attacks - even if Israel gave them a chance, which I don't think would happen.
What do we do? |
This is veering quite off topic from my original post, which was ameliorating the Israel-Palestine situation, but oh well....
The problem with your thinking, IMO, is that your assuming only two options: 1. Attack Iraq ASAP with little to no international support, save for Britain; or 2. Pack everything up and let Iraq be.
There is a very reasonable third option (and likely others) which, as far as I can tell, is supported by most of the international community. Get the inspectors back in there, backed with the threat of force for non-compliance. If Saddam doesn't fully comply, then it seems that most of the rest of the world will support a US-led assault. Now, I know you are going to bring up the whole UN acts too slow/won't act at all thing, but that's where real statesmanship comes into play - sadly lacking on Bush's part.
As for your second paragraph, it seems to be a major difference of opinion between you and me. See, while you and other right-wingers assume that Iraq is itching to use WoMD, I see absolutely no evidence of that. I know I mentioned this on another thread (can't remember which one), but I fail to see where the threat lies. Saddam has, in the past, attacked Iran with the full blessing from the west, and invaded Kuwait resulting in a royal ass-kicking. He has also used chemical weapons against defenseless Kurds without the world caring a whole lot. What he has NOT done is use chemical weapons against the 1991 coalition, even though we know he had them then. He also has far less military power than pre-Gulf War (some say 1/5th, whatever - it's still substantially less). True, there have been no-fly zones in place ostensibly to protect the Kurds and Shia Muslims (or is it the Suni or something else altogether, I can never remember), but that doesn't stop him from moving ground forces into those areas and slaughtering millions of people - again, which he has not done.
Bottom line? I don't like Saddam and I'd love to see him go. But I don't think that the US acting in defiance of the vast majority of the world and just about all Arab states is smart. On the contrary, it WILL stir up a hornets nest. It seems pretty evident to me that Iraq is not an immediate threat to anybody, and spending a little more time building up international support isn't going to hurt anyone. In the meantime, I'd rather see something done about Israel-Palestine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
quote:
In the meantime, I'd rather see something done about Israel-Palestine. |
Personally, I'd rather see Israel and Palestine do something about the Israel-Palestine situation. |
So would I, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen. The reality is, the US is the only agent that can actually affect change, if only it wanted to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
Well, Kontiki, you and I are on the same page. I agree with you. Surprising for a far right, conservative fascist, huh?
But, you do have to give Bush a lot of credit for going to Congress and going to the UN. As for statemanship, that speech he gave at the US was terrific. The whole speech, delivered without ever taking his eyes off the membership, was delivered with a seriousness that no one could mistake. A tremendous speech that has move the world. Without the speech, a tough new SC resolution on Iraq would simply have been impossible.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything. |
The plan does not state that anyone who approaches the U.S. in military power risks being attacked, so please calm down. It says that the U.S. will simply build up it's own forces even more in such a case.
The bottom line? The administration hopes that this will keep others from trying to build themselves into parity or superiority with the U.S. Talk is a lot cheaper than defense spending. Will it work? Perhaps in the short run, but certainly not in the long run.
As for the preemption idea, I agree that in many ways it is troubling. However it has been a part of U.S. policy since the Cold War, albeit in a different context. This is another clause which IMO is meant to have more rhetorical effect than actual use. Bush want's some leverage to use on perrenial bad boy states as well as permissive states who allow terrorists to base themselves with impunity, and to put those terrorists themselves on the defensive.
This policy has already paid some dividends. North Korea is making more pleasant noises these days. Though sympathy and the carrot played a large part in most of the world in regards to aiding the war against terrorists, you can bet that the threat of the stick also played a part in generating unprecedented cooperation against terrorists.
As for the European-American relationship being reduced in importance, this was part of Bush's pre- 9/11 foreign policy. Bush's original foreign policy goals were to pull back U.S. military involvement wordwide. The Cold War is over, and Europe seems to be more than strong enough to take care of itself. Thus the importance of NATO and the requirement that the U.S. and Europe constantly cooperate closely were de-emphasized. This was not popular in Europe, but much of the criticism by Europe was indirect, ie criticism about Kyoto etc. This criticism was also in large part caused or encouraged or tolerated by various European governments in an effort to harm the administration. It was not however very honest in many cases, mainly because IMO most of the European governments didn't really know how to react to it. So the consensus was resist it indirectly by resisting the Bush administration and hope to prevail that way. As far as I can see little provision has been made to deal with the implications of Bush success in implementing this policy.
The most direct rhetoric out of Europe that I hear uses the phrase "unilateralism". There is hardly any mention at all about the military realities involved, namely that the U.S. has power projection capabilities which it pays dearly for, as well as numerous security interests worldwide. Europe does not get a vote about the use of this capability or U.S. policy in other parts of the globe in many cases because it doesn't deserve one. While we were sharing the burden of the Cold War, a global war where action in various parts of the globe were often related it made more sense to cooperate more closely. By 2001 with few exceptions it did not.
Europe was not the only Cold War legacy that needed to be tidied up. The Korean conflict has kept tens of thousands of troops in Korea and Japan for 50 years. In the Middle East unsolved problems abounded. Both Iran and Iraq pose grave threats to stability in the region. In the case of Iraq, a regime which has twice sneak attacked it's enemies in an effort to gain territory, as well as using chemical weapons for the first time since the 1st world war cannot be taken lightly. It's willingness to toss Scuds at a nuclear armed Israel even while it is being pounded by a mighty coalition stood the idea of the sort of deterrence we were used to in the Cold War on it's head. Iran for it's part not only fights a proxy war against nuclear armed Israel in Lebanon, but also stoops to murderous terrorist acts unheard of in the Cold War as well. What will it do when it too manages to marry nuclear weapons to delivery systems?
Hence the Axis of Evil, states that by their very nature make a hasty withdrawl of U.S. power in their respective regions a recipe for disaster. A nuclear war anywhere on the globe would be a disaster of global proportions. Add in the proximity to the largest deposits of petroleum on the planet and the implications are even graver for the rest of the world than the threat from fallout. Economies will be gravely threatened, the West will be thrown into economic chaos, and the more marginal economies will likely suffer far worse as transportation systems grind to a halt. Mass starvation already exists in many places, how bad would it be if there were a serious disruption in oil production?
The attack on the U.S. last year has thrown the Bush administration's plans into turmoil. The Nato charter was implemented for the first time to deal with an attack on a member state. Indeed, the U.S. has been drawn into more areas like South and Central Asia where it's plans had called for little or no focus. An administration which philosophically was ill-suited to internationalism has now been forced to engage even more widely with the world, and the results have been mixed at best. IMO it's a shame that this administration didn't follow immediately after Bush I. It would have had the time and freedom to tie up some of these loose ends and America could have withdrawn from some of the world intact.
Instead we had 8 years of Clinton dithering, where we managed to let Al Quaida and Sadaam do their thing while we fought Europe's war in the Balkan's rather than using that occasion to help shape European identity and institutions by letting them figure it out themselves. Instead of shouldering the President's main duty (foreign policy leadership), Clinton was happy playing the statesman by trying to please the (mostly) Europeans, and spending his time politicking a domestic audience (it's the bubble economy stupid). We will pay for the opportunities squandered for some time.
Now we have to see if Bush is up to the task of growing into the job at hand rather than applying a plan that has not survived contact. So far the results are mixed. The campagin in Afghanistan has gone pretty well so far. (Go back and read some of the doomsaying threads from last year at this time to see how much it has exceeded the expectations of those who love to hate Bush, the U.S. and / or the military.) The Arab-Israeli conflict continues on the downward spiral begun during the Clinton administration. Bush's attempt to ignore this problem failed, and his own policy solutions have not yet proven failures, but they certainly are not building a lot of confidence either. Failure here is par for the course, but the consequences keep escalating. Whether Bush is being too ambitious by going for Iraq at the same time he fights the war on terror is still an open question IMO, though I myself would tend to be more cautious.
The rest of the world should be on notice though, that the United States is not going to be capable of this level of involvement in the rest of the world for very long. I look at this generally as a positive development, and I'm sure that many agree with me. The eventual retreat may not be as pretty as it was drawn up on Condi Rice's white papers. It's time for a lot of the world to grow up and fend for itself, a prospect that contains at least as much opportunity as it does peril.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Good points. |
Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"There is hardly any mention at all about the military realities involved... Europe does not get a vote about the use of this capability or U.S. policy in other parts of the globe in many cases because it doesn't deserve one."
Depends. Unless the US rebukes the Nürnberg precedent and the UN charta, pre-emptive wars are illegal without SC backing. As for other matters, the US wants us to put up the tap in peacekeeping and rebuilding. So if you look at the package beyond the simple "bomb'em" there is some merit to the criticism of unilateralism. |
I tried to be careful with my language here because I agree with you, both sides are being reasonable at times and unreasonable at others depending on the case.
I'm not happy about the potential for preemptive attack believe me, but I also have to acknowledge that the potential damage from letting your enemy get in the first blow is much greater than it was in WWII. The U.S. made changes in it's laws during the Cold War to make MAD possible, giving the power to wipe the Soviet Union off the map to the National Command Authority and cutting Congress completely out of the picture in the interest of expediency, so the precedent for this sort of thing in U.S. law is there. In such a situation we didn't worry too much about international law. Now when the potential for losses on the enemy side is much less, the spectre of prosecution is infinitely greater. Oh the irony.
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"An administration which philosophically was ill-suited to internationalism has now been forced to engage even more widely with the world, and the results have been mixed at best."
Well they have mostly used 9/11 to push the agenda they had before. But I think I have to give uo the assumption that they are playing some cold-blooded games. Several actions and the rhetoric point to a megalomaniac messianism. |
They are actually trying to do both at once. There is a lot going on around the world right now, much of it in places that the Bush team in their wildest dreams couldn't have imagined they'd be involved. India, Pakistan, Central Asia, Georgia, Djibouti, Yemen, The Phillipines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. The war on terror doesn't need as much political persuasion, so it doesn't get as much ink, but it's big.
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"The campagin in Afghanistan has gone pretty well so far."
It has, problem is it's going nowhere now. |
This is an area I would tend to move more slowly and thouroughly than Bush is. He has us stretched pretty tight right now. The sorts of people we need to help build up Afghanistan either don't exist in the numbers we need (like linguists and area experts etc.) or are on duty in one of the many places mentioned above. There are enough military forces to carry on in Iraq (if something else doesn't pop up that is), but we will face the same shortage of personnel during the rebuilding phase, with the same risk that we don't put an end to things.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-09-2002 09:22
|