 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
I believe Saddam will comply to everything the UN / France demands, because the UN cannot demand more than disarming, and Saddam wants to keep his throne above all. |
But don't you see that Saddam has no reason to comply because there is absolutely no thret to his throne.
He currently is not complying, and everyone but the US and the UK are willing to live with it, as long as he throws some kind of bomb to the inspectors, once a month or so.
The French and German resistance to war only proves him that there is absolutely no retribution to fear, as long as he gets the rest of the world keen to keep the order (not to be confused with peace) as it is.
The Inspectors aren't supposed to find evidence of weapons. Their work premesis is that the weapons are there and are hidden. Their job is to be supplied by Iraq their location, and destroy them.
The fact that there are dozens of weapons which are somehow unaccounted for, is already a material breach of the last resolution.
Saddam is, infact, effectively, evading any possible retribution by merely hiding the weapons well.
You can bring a population of inspectors that is twice the population of Iraq - they still won't find anything Iraq may want to hide.
The fact that they did not show all material they had in the written report in novemeber, is already a material breach.
quote:
Every time he cooperates with the inspectors, he gets more legitimacy in all countries who don't want his regime toppled through war (i.e everywhere except the US). |
Correction: Every time he creates the impression of cooperating.
Do you really think, that it is ok, that when the UN told Iraq to report everything he has on november, the UN will seem respectable, accepting reports that are minimal in essense, and very partial, 3 months after deadline, and then a refusal to disarm weapons which are deemed to be illegal?
This is infact exactly like Germany or Italy walking out of the league of nations.
As far the the original article goes - for the most part they are talking nonsense.
They start by saying that history can rarely teach us anything. That would seem convincing if they would stop at that point. But instead, they ignore their own advice, and begin trying to prove their point about how this is like or unlike anything in history. An irrelevant issue after they made their first claim.
Furthermore, some of them talk about how Iraq is not a smoking gun which can threaten Europe.
The questions that follow are:
1) are we only dealing with the security of europe? should we disregard the peace in quwait, iran, jordan, israel?
2) is it not best to stop threats before they materialize so that eventual war will be more costly
3) todays definitions of war are very different. For saddam to threaten or harm any country, he has absolutely no need for tanks or airplanes or guided missiles. All he needs is ties with people who can abduct such a weapon. Or with people who can build bombs or chemical weapons.
These "historians" are analyzing a 21st century war, with tools of 2nd world war.
They make comparisons which they can't make, because they don't take into account that this is not imperalism and the US and UK goals are not imperalistic. They ignore the change in warfare.
They ignore the change in strategy of rogue nations - from overt to covert with a good PR system.
As far as Avi Shlaim in particular goes, I've read articles by Efraim Karsh, completely ripping apart his historical reasearches as phoney, and I'll take Karsh'es word over his everyday.
I wonder why Karh, who works iirc in the London university, wasn't asked for an opinion, though Shlaim was.
It was however, and interesting insight into the mind of the brittish society.
quote:
Living standards in late Seventies Iraq were comparable to Europe. |
It's nice to know that Tribune considers a world where secret police can kindap you to take part in chemical weapons experiments, a "nice place to live in".
It's nice to know that Tribune considers a world where political threats are shot dead , rather than given a fair chance in the media and nation-wide elections, a "free place to live in".
But then again, many lefties have wierd ideas of freedom and good life. Maybe he could enjoy life under Stalin.
I know for sure that my grandparents did not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
The Guardian article is not nonsense; to begin:
1. Is is correct to say one can't draw 1-1 lessons form history. It would also be a rather short article if that is what everyoine else said.
2. Their reasoning of why 1938 has nothing to do with this is very clear and correct. The threat Hitler possed to his region, and the threat Saddam posses to his won (forget Europe) are nowhere near similar. In 1938 Most of Germany's neighboring powers were somehow alone (the USSR was isolated form everyone else, Italy gravitating towards Germany, and France and the UK without any coming US support, Soviet support, Italian support, and with the memories of WW1 fresh) and Germany was hte strongest militarily of all of them. Israel, SA, Kuwait and the Gulf states can count ont he US to defend them as does Turkey. Syria and Iran, with no regional friends, are strong enough to take on the much weakened Saddam, and Saddam is not getting stronger. Saddam may want to dominate the ME, but he has neither the capanility, or really, the time to get it.
That Iraq is not disarming is besides the point: I agree he isn't, but the question is, is that enough for war, and my answer to that is no. Those that advoctae this war ussually want to gut the UN, so their "doing it for the UN" reason is at best, utterly hypocritical. Saddam can be contained.
Now, on the "liberating Iraq" issue: This is, in theoyr, just fine. CT is wrong, I am sure the vast majority of the Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam. at the same time, I have seen no planning, or even statements coming out of this admin. that shows they are putting together a worthwhile plan for the transition. Their dealings with the Iraqi opposition, basically shoving them to the side to appease local powers (The Kurds for Turkey, the Shia's for SA) does not bode well for how the US will set up civl administration, and in the end, that is where this whole thing could gpo terribly wrong. The war does not matter much, the US will win without question (just another reason why this is so different from 1938. No one here can say that if the UK and France had declared war on germany in 1938, they would have won without question, given the status of the USSR and the US, Italy), but whether the US wins the pease, that is totally up in the air, and given the previous acts of this admin. and how far they go with fulfilling their promises, well, that's not a good sign.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
Nobody likes Saddam. In 1991, the UN was clearly in the right to prevent the invasion and annexation of a member state, even one of such doubtful legitimacy as Kuwait. The UN and the US-led coalition deserve great credit for acting then and for keeping casualties to a (relative) minimum.
But I agree with GePap that there is no lesson of history to be drawn here. In terms of the threat he poses to regional security, Saddam is not Hitler. He isn't even close to Hitler.
But even if he was, Iraq hasn't done anything to merit invasion. Saddam may indeed be trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He may be violating certain terms of the cease fire. But we now have inspectors on the ground in Iraq who can go basically anywhere they want at any time. If he has weapons of mass destruction, then we can eventually find them. In any case we can certainly ensure that Saddam is not in a position to deploy them.
We don't need to invade to enforce the terms of the cease-fire. We just want to. Specifically George Bush wants to. That's not good enough. This is a UN action and the UN must authorize any enforcement proceding on the magnitude of an invasion with the intention of forcing a regime change.
The UN can authorize such an action if it wants to. There are, in this case, sufficient grounds. But France, Russia and China are completely within their rights in insisting that their vetoes be respected. They are members of the Security Council. They do have vetoes. The US cannot willy nilly decide to take unilateral action in the name of the United Nations. If it does, then it will be violating the UN Charter and acting against its own interests.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
"Racist"
I'm white, French people are white...
Nice try Lung, but wierd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Negative Growth Rate is not Negative GNP. With a high GNP, you can have negative Growth Rate and still be comfortable. What matters is actual per capita living standard.
Wish people thoughteth before they posteth.  |
Apologies on the semantics.
Let's look at the fact: $35,000,000,000/24,000,000(population-approx) = $1458.33
$1458.33 per capita GNP. This is not up to European standards.
Let's compare this with the neighborhood:
Syria : $3,200 per capita
Iran : $6,400 per capita
Kuwait: $15,100 per capita
Saudi: $10,600 per capita
Jordan: $4,200 per capita
Turkey: $6,700 per capita
These are all 2001 estimates, so lets be fair...
Iraq (2001 est.): $2,500
Now Let's look at a couple of European countries:
Austria: $27,000 per capita
France: $25,400 per capita
Germany:$26,200 per capita
How about Eastern Europe:
Czech Republic: $14,400 per capita
Poland: $8,800 per capita
Hungary: $12,000 per capita
Your argument has no merit whatsoever. Iraqi GNP has been dismal from the time Saddam came into power and growth has been less than stagnant since. To state, in any form, that the Iraqi economy has benefitted from dictatorial rule is to show an incredible ignorance of the facts.
You state that what matters is per capita living standard. On that we may agree. You have made my argument for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO1003
Apologies on the semantics.
Let's look at the fact: $35,000,000,000/24,000,000(population-approx) = $1458.33
$1458.33 per capita GNP. This is not up to European standards.
Let's compare this with the neighborhood:
Syria : $3,200 per capita
Iran : $6,400 per capita
Kuwait: $15,100 per capita
Saudi: $10,600 per capita
Jordan: $4,200 per capita
Turkey: $6,700 per capita
These are all 2001 estimates, so lets be fair...
Iraq (2001 est.): $2,500
Now Let's look at a couple of European countries:
Austria: $27,000 per capita
France: $25,400 per capita
Germany:$26,200 per capita
How about Eastern Europe:
Czech Republic: $14,400 per capita
Poland: $8,800 per capita
Hungary: $12,000 per capita
Your argument has no merit whatsoever. Iraqi GNP has been dismal from the time Saddam came into power and growth has been less than stagnant since. To state, in any form, that the Iraqi economy has benefitted from dictatorial rule is to show an incredible ignorance of the facts.
You state that what matters is per capita living standard. On that we may agree. You have made my argument for me. |
No, I havenīt.
First of all, you should have compared ca.1980 numbers, not 2001. I was clearly saying: *Before the war with Iran*, so if you donīt bother to understand my post, there is nothing I can do.
Also, you have to compare GNP per capita with the actual prices of consumer goods at the time and in that country. In a developing country you have low wages, but also low prices, so, yes, you need a price index as well to arrive at meaningful conclusions. So, yes, you 'got' me on that I should have explicitly said so. I thought that was understood.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2003 02:01
)
|
|