INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: OT - Can we talk about the war here  (Read 10881 times)

zevele10

  • Guest
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2003, 04:43:04 pm »

They can be part of the landscape

as hamburgers .........

15 minutes to 5 MORNING here. I may go to bed . I know i will have to read when i wake up....
Logged

Harry_The_Hipster

  • Guest
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2003, 06:14:42 pm »

I'm like CVIII on this one - a lot of 'on the one hand/on the other hand'. Hussein is a scoundrel, the international community is indecisive at best and cynical at worst ,the world is probably more dangerous now than in the worst days of the Cold War and vacillation can be a worse sin than impulsiveness. Tom Friedman is right when he says "I look around the UN Chamber and don't see any white hats".

Yet I keep coming back to one basic question: if we can do what we want, without some validating endorsement from the only international tribunal we have, where are we? In the end, we have to be guided by some coherent principle that goes beyond doing whatever we convince ourselves is the right thing to do at the moment. Because once you've endorsed that view, you can't draw any meaningful conclusions other than that  the guy with the power to do what he wants is always right.

And that's dangerous stuff. Right now, we and our supporters - Blair, Berlesconi, the Spanish PM, Bulgaria - are in the catbird's seat. But tomorrow it's China - and what do we have to say if they decide that Taiwan represents a mortal threat to them? What besides the fact that we don't agree gives us any purchase in deterring them from nuking Taipei?

There is one distinguishing principle that might have supported unilateral action in this case: that Hussein is in league with Al Qaeda and the rest of the headcases that have been spewed out of fundamentalist Islam. The problem is that proposition has been pursued by the administration (along with about 25 others) and we come up short. There is no prrof that Saddam in fact has ever been in cahoots with that gang. To the contrary, he has been ruthless in crushing extremist elements.

One of our problems is that the conclusion drawn by our government (Saddam must go) has driven our analysis, rather than the other way around. For whatever reason, Bush and his administration are obsessed with expelling Hussein, and we are perceived as fitting our rationale for doing so to this idee fixe, and the necessary invasion time-table, rather than the other way around.

The weakness of our arguments for immediate action is obvious even to our friends. Our bull-headedness and insistence on the right to act unilaterally has placed enormous strains on our traditional alliances. Right now, NATO is fragmented, much of Europe is hostile, Turkey's government may split over this issue, North Korea (a far more dangerous place) has seen an opening to revice its nuclear capacity...and the laws of unintended consequence haven't even begun to work yet.

That's why in the end I think the only recourse is to pursue diplomacy, as frustrating as that is, and to live with the molasses-like process of flooding Iraq with inspectors and grinding away at him, while recruiting broader international support for initiating action if he ever tries again to shrug off international monitoring, to expel investigators or to deny access to presidential palaces. Because diplomacy, as frustrating and inadequate as it is, remains the only possible bulwark against sliding into moral anarchy. And in the long run, I think that's far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, because long after he's gone, we'll all still be living with the adverse consequences of shredding the international political system.


HTH

Listening to: 'Easy Living' from 'Easy Living' by 'Ike Quebec' on Media Center 9.0
Logged

sub-24

  • Regular Member
  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
  • It Happens
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2003, 11:53:07 pm »

What ever happened to Bin Laden. Were going to track him down etc said the USA.

After a while it seems they couldnt find him so they have now decided to pickon Iraq instaead so as not to loose face.

I'm sure they could keep the inspectors on site indefinatley to keep Sadams plans at bay.

Another point - Why should the only country that has actually used weapons of mass destruction seem to want no-one else to have them. How come some countries can have them but not others.

America wants revenge for the twin towers and we can all understand that but their just picking on the easiest target.

I do not support in anyway Sadam Hussein and what the press tell me he's done but i think going to war and thousands dying is not required.

Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20062
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2003, 01:37:30 am »

>> I think going to war and thousands dying
>> is not required.
The 15 main countries of the UN all voted for it. This includes France, Germany and Russia.

Now we see that France, Germany and rusha can't keep there word and enforce the UN's requirements.

so what is the UN for?

seems like a wast of my tax money to me, just like it was before.
Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio, Music
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
https://centercitybbs.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

Harry_The_Hipster

  • Guest
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2003, 01:48:35 am »

Quote
so what is the UN for?


Frustrating, but its all we've got. Without it,  its the law of the jungle, and some day that will work to our disadvantage.  

Quote
Another point - Why should the only country that has actually used weapons of mass destruction seem to want no-one else to have them. How come some countries can have them but not others.


That was a long time ago, Mike and we can spend hours debating the rights and wrongs of that. Simple answer: some of those who have the most advanced capabilities - the US, UK -  ATM aren't selling them freely to others, or threatening to use them to correct border disputes. Its bad enough with India and Pakistan sitting on nuclear stockpiles and squabbling over Kashmir. Do you really want North Korea, Iraq and Iran to have them too?  I sure don't.

HTH

Listening to: 'Little White Lies' from 'From Battersea To Broadway - Conception' by 'George Shearing' on Media Center 9.0
Logged

sub-24

  • Regular Member
  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
  • It Happens
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2003, 02:52:03 am »

Maybe the USA should really police the world properly and advocate that we all get rid of our Nukes completely.

Then people may start to genuinely respect them.

Anyway i dont know why the USA want to start another war - their not too good at it really are they. I think the last time in the Gulf the UK lost more casualties to the Americans than the enemy.

WHen all this started out i was behind the plans to bring down Saddam etc, but the more it goes on the less i see the need.

France, Germant etc never voted for war - the voted for some UN resolution that you can bend anyway to what you want it to mean.

We can police Iraq as it is just now, or even add 1,000's more inspectors and keep it going forever. Removing Sadam is what we have come back to. Yes we should have done it 12 years ago i agree but what has changed since then to all of a sudden do it now.


Listening to: 'The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range' from 'Amused To Death' by 'Roger Waters' on Media Center 9.0

Logged

Harry_The_Hipster

  • Guest
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2003, 03:51:12 am »

Quote
Anyway i dont know why the USA want to start another war - their not too good at it really are they.


I wonder if Winston Churchill would have agreed with you.

Besides, the Europeans haven't been doing so well in recognizing the sort of threat that goes beyond mere political differences. Take a look at the experience between WWI and WWII - or the 'peace marches' with Lord Russell and his ilk when Stalin was brutalizing Eastern Europe and his own population.

One of the frustrations for those in the US who think our diplomacy has been amateurish and our policy ill-thought out is that the European opponents of our policies don't have much of a moral platform of their own to stand on.

The French for instance seem locked into an obsessive need to oppose US policy in order to assert their own primacy in world affairs - and they have been busy over the last 10 years selling nuclear technology to Saddam, despite the original UN resolution. Germany, France and Belguim amongst others provided asylum to Islamic fundamentalist groups who were busily engaged in plotting acts of terrorism - and their governments studiously ignored entreaties from the US to do something about it. To be blunt about it, Europe can hardly act as a moral arbiter in these matters.

We're facing a world-wide crisis of an entirely different dimension than anything we've dealt with before, and all of us better adapt our thinking accordingly. Mantras about 'no to war' aren't very useful in combatting people who believe that our very existence (as opposed to our policies) is offensive to them. If you haven't already done so, you would find Samuel Huntington's article on the clash of civilizations interesting reading. You can find a summary at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5188-faarticles/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations.html.

So yes, I prefer continued diplomacy to unilateral action, but that doesn't mean I endorse this mindless obstructionism and obtuseness. Its true, the US needs to engage in some self-reflection - but so do the European states, and the throngs marching around in the streets of PAris, London and Rome.

HTH
Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 72380
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: OT - Can we talk about the war here
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2003, 05:31:20 am »

HTH,
Very well said.  Thanks.

I'm going to close this now.

Jim
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up