 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Well, Fez out, and some informative info in... the thread has done good. I had never seen the declaration of War v Germany. Where did you find it Slowwhand?
All of saddam's actions up to now have been 'rational', if not ethical:
He is a dictator ruling with the backing of a small minority of the population, giving them power while the vast majority has none. In that scenerio, horribly and violently crushing any opposition with any means available is key to maintain power. This is a simple and obvious calculation for anyone who wants to hold power. Why not use chem weapons against internal rebels, when the Iraqi army had integrated them into its line of battle aftre the war with iran? What, it would have been nicer if he had killed all these Kurds the old fashion way, like they d in poorer states- go in, shoot or machete everyone to death then burn the village? 'Yeah., as long as its not WMD..."
In 1980, his much larger and once more powerful neighbor falls into the throws of a revolution, many army officers killed or flee, the army in disarray, the state is now alone, without the backing of either major power: so saddam moves in to 'readjust' the borders and gain control of valuable waterways Iraq may have always wanted but simply could not ever get as long as the Shah was washingtons pet. Thats not irrational, thats very rational: enemy and power competitor now in chaos- take advantage!
In 1990: Saddam owes Kuwait 100 billion dollars for expenses during a war (Iraq owes the Saudis as much or more),that some estimates put at costing half to one trillion. the Kuwaitis (no princes of democracy, as they were protrayed) want their money back, but at the same time, they overproduce oil, cutting prices per barrel, and thus weaken iraq's ability to repay. So, after checking with the US [Iraq hinted to the US it might invade in mid-1990. The US envoy believed he had made clear the US would not allow an invasion. The Iraqis believed that the US envoy had not objected to the idea] and thus Iraq invaded, which, if it had worked, would have been a huge boon for iraq, as it woul instantly remove a 100 billion dollar debt and get more money to pay other debts, rebuild, and increase the army, Saddams intrument of power.
If Saddam has always acted rationally, for a blood thirsty dictator, why would he stop being rational now?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, Fez out, and some informative info in... the thread has done good. I had never seen the declaration of War v Germany. Where did you find it Slowwhand?
All of saddam's actions up to now have been 'rational', if not ethical:
He is a dictator ruling with the backing of a small minority of the population, giving them power while the vast majority has none. In that scenerio, horribly and violently crushing any opposition with any means available is key to maintain power. This is a simple and obvious calculation for anyone who wants to hold power. Why not use chem weapons against internal rebels, when the Iraqi army had integrated them into its line of battle aftre the war with iran? What, it would have been nicer if he had killed all these Kurds the old fashion way, like they d in poorer states- go in, shoot or machete everyone to death then burn the village? 'Yeah., as long as its not WMD..."
In 1980, his much larger and once more powerful neighbor falls into the throws of a revolution, many army officers killed or flee, the army in disarray, the state is now alone, without the backing of either major power: so saddam moves in to 'readjust' the borders and gain control of valuable waterways Iraq may have always wanted but simply could not ever get as long as the Shah was washingtons pet. Thats not irrational, thats very rational: enemy and power competitor now in chaos- take advantage!
In 1990: Saddam owes Kuwait 100 billion dollars for expenses during a war (Iraq owes the Saudis as much or more),that some estimates put at costing half to one trillion. the Kuwaitis (no princes of democracy, as they were protrayed) want their money back, but at the same time, they overproduce oil, cutting prices per barrel, and thus weaken iraq's ability to repay. So, after checking with the US [Iraq hinted to the US it might invade in mid-1990. The US envoy believed he had made clear the US would not allow an invasion. The Iraqis believed that the US envoy had not objected to the idea] and thus Iraq invaded, which, if it had worked, would have been a huge boon for iraq, as it woul instantly remove a 100 billion dollar debt and get more money to pay other debts, rebuild, and increase the army, Saddams intrument of power.
If Saddam has always acted rationally, for a blood thirsty dictator, why would he stop being rational now? |
GePap, you might also want and that Saddam had earlier settled a border dispute with Iran when Iran threatened to invade during time the Shah when Iran was backed by the full power of the United States of America. Of course, Saddam was not happy with the settlement and took the first opportunity presented to make some adjustments.
In this, and in his dispute with Kuwait where he had a arguable territorial claim dating from the days of the Turkish Empire, Saddam was acting exactly as did Hitler in undoing adverse treaties and re-adjusting borders based on historical claims.
If Saddam is to be excused, so is Hitler. Let's not have a double standard here GePap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
uh Clem, are you putting the glorious President Polk in the same class as the brutal, mass-murdering Hitler and Saddam Hussein? |
The same class? Yes, it's called "expansionist." Like about a zillion other guys in history.
It's noteworthy that when Saddam began his war with Iran, he wasn't a "brutal, mass-murdering" dictator in the eyes of Washington. Reagan's emissary to re-establish relations with Baghdad was one Donald Rumsfeld. Today, Rummy likes to pound the podium in indignation about Saddam, but in 1983 Iraqi television showed a smiling, genial Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Evil One himself. Very interesting, especially when one considers that, for the most part, Saddam's worst behavior was during the years that he was a US client. So why the indignation now?
Ditto for Cheney, another who enjoys listing all of Hitler Jr's crimes, but who had nothing against doing business (lots of it) with Saddam when Cheney was CEO at Halliburton.
Maybe Saddam is everything the administration says he is. To me, the much more interesting question is what is the administration really after (and why), since the case they've built against Saddam is so bogus and insulting to people's intelligence that it's not even meant to be taken seriously.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Chris,
Your turn on responding to Marcus. I don't have the energy. |
Be quiet Marky-Mark!
quote:
I guess our disagreement comes down to 2 things:
1) You do think Saddam is insane - or at least irrational enough to actually use WoMD against us (or give to terrorists for use against us). I don't.
2) You seem to think that might makes right. I don't. |
Yes to the first, no to the second.
If I thought that, then I would not be an American, our nation and all my beliefs are based on the rights of man.
Unlike some people, like the fellow directly above me for example, I don't believe the case agaisnt Iraq is laughable or shoddy, on the contray, it's dangerous naveite' to assume that all the US government is, is a pack of lying cuttroats.
This "Vietnam era" mentality still pervades American society, we are becomeing infected with the "do nothing, hope it goes away" desease that our erstwhile allies now display at every opprotunity.
quote:
Let me ask you this: If Saddam lets the UN weapons inspectors back in and complies with their requests and basically plays by the rules, do you still think we should invade and change the regime? I ask that because it sure seems that Bush & Co. are hell bent on invading and regime change no matter what happens with the WoMD inspection issue. |
No, it that case, but do you really believe inspectors will accomplish anything?
It was tried for years and was stoned walled, this is the crux of Bush's postion, the idea that to turn back the clock to 98 is satisfactory.
I have seen the new inspector proposal the Swedish fellow presented, it's no-nonsense and quite through.
It remains to be seen if Saddam will try his usual shell game.
I believe the Bushies want it made clear that the moment he tries, he is finished.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
Chris,
OK, so you do not believe that might makes right. Fine. Then explain again to me how the United States of America has the right to tell other nations whether they can or cannot have WoMDs?
Let us review the facts:
1) The United States has a massive stockpile of WoMD (largest in the world? probably)
2) Many of our friends and allies do too, including Israel (which as I understand it does so in violation of UN resolutions)
3) The United States has used 2 nuclear weapons in the past, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever the justification, it WAS done.
4) Iraq has WoMD stockpiles - chemical and biological weapons. It does not as yet have nukes, but sure would like to have 'em.
5) Iraq has used chemical weapons during its war with Iran, and IIRC, against rebellious Kurds in the north.
6) Iraq has no missle system capable of delivering any of its WoMD to targets in the United States. The only method available to them would be to provide terrorists with the weapons. Iraq does, however, have the ability to hit Israel.
I fail to understand how we have the right to dictate who can have what. If we were to unilaterally destroy our entire WoMD stockpiles, my opinion would be different - then we would be leading by example... trying to close Pandora's box again. But we're not doing that. We're saying "do as we say, not as we do." But we're only saying it to countries like Iraq. We dare not say it to China or Russia because we can't back it up with force, and we won't say it to our friends and allies because... well, they're our friends and allies and we don't mind it if they have WoMD.
So it comes down to anyone who opposes the US will not be allowed to have WoMD? Who died and appointed us Policeman of the World?
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Chris,
OK, so you do not believe that might makes right. Fine. Then explain again to me how the United States of America has the right to tell other nations whether they can or cannot have WoMDs?
I fail to understand how we have the right to dictate who can have what. If we were to unilaterally destroy our entire WoMD stockpiles, my opinion would be different - then we would be leading by example... trying to close Pandora's box again. But we're not doing that. We're saying "do as we say, not as we do." But we're only saying it to countries like Iraq. We dare not say it to China or Russia because we can't back it up with force, and we won't say it to our friends and allies because... well, they're our friends and allies and we don't mind it if they have WoMD.
|
I think this is where the American-British position has been misunderstood (perhaps deliberately by some). This situation is not about whether Iraq has WMD, but whether they might actually use them to achieve political ends. I agree with GePap, Sad-ie has not acted in an insane or irrational manner. Thus, it is unlikely that Iraq itself would overtly use such weapons today (who knows what a senile Sad-ie would do though). It is more likely that Iraq would pass the weapons to terrorists who would provide a covert means to achieve the same ends. The question then becomes can we envision a scenario where it might benefit Sad-ie to pass such weapons to terrorists. Given that its not an impossibility that such a scenario might exist, the solutions are to either change the regime, or to destroy the weapons. Either solution works fine for me. Ignoring the risk today when we can do something about it simply increases the chances of its occurance in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
|
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by uh Clem
SpencerH:
You could make the same argument about other nuclear powers.
If Israel could give nukes to Islamic fundalmentalists in the US with, say, at least a 98% chance of not being detected, would they do it?
In answering that question, keep in mind that any answer that is not an immediate and unequivocal No is in effect a Yes.
And by "Israel," I don't necessarily mean the Israeli government. It could just as well mean the pro-transfer, red heiffer, God-promised-us-everything-from-the-Nile-to-the-Euphrates nutcases.
If you think that's anti-Semitic, then substitute "India" for "Israel." Given the well documented violence and end-times rhetoric of Hindu nationalists, it might even be a better example. |
Jewish fundamentalists giving nukes to Islamic fundamentalists?
Building a bomb essentially requires state support. While there may be lunatics in every country that would happily bring a bomb here the point is that the governments who control the weapons dont hand em over, and are not likely to do so. That may not be the case with Iraq, and I'm not willing to take the chance. I would feel the same way if Libya or Syria (for example) embarked on large scale production of WMD.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2002 03:45
|
|