Anti War Movement

a) he doesn't need scientists he needs materials. They are much harder to procure than you are implying.
b) I'd say daily bombings is pretty tough. We enforce a no fly zone over much of Iraqi territory. There are many more ways to make this tougher but I don't suppose it will be of much interest.
c) Material Breach was not included in the resolution because of the broad interpretations it could have been subject to.


What would I do?

a) Shelve the war drums. The plans can continue but the incessant beating is doing us a disservice.
b) Overhaul the sanctions. He is selling oil but everyone knows who he is selling it to and we are even cutting them a deal to sell them oil at the same low prices if war happens. We can do this without war and for a lesser cost we could stem the flow.
c) Wait it out. He is not going to live forever and there has not been any indication that he is planning to attack anyone. Sure he could, but we have nuclear war plans to use against China, North Korea and many other countries. This doesn't mean they have the right to preemptively attack us. The day preemptive becomes the rule rather than the exception is the day every tyrant will call his invasion a preemptive action. Throwing out unfounded possibilities does not change this.
d) Continue to try to undermine his regime through legal means. If it doesn't work so what? The majority of the world thinks our current "regime" needs replacing but that doesn't give them any right to do it. Unless we are willing to forget all notions of sovereignty we have to assume that there will be cases where governments that are unsavory to us will exist and that in some cases we will have no right to do anything about it.

---

But ok, let's take the status quo. I'll pick up right where the current administration is.

a) I'd stop undermining the inspections. If disarmament is the goal (which has clearly been stated to not be the case) we should not undermine the inspections.

Some hawks think that the inspections are a distractiona nd would like to see them fail. One way to do this is to constantly hint that regardless of the inspections there will be war.

So in short I'd change the tone and make disarmament the stated goal rather than war. Thus far every important administration player with the exception of one has dissmissed the idea of inspections as a delay on the path to war.

b) I'd concentrate on making the inspections optimal for, well inspecting rather than provoking a reaction. Little factors like having a diplomat with sensitive visits makes no difference toward the goal of disarmament but might make the difference between war and peace.

c) Stop using the war as a campaign issue. Telling school children that we are going to war isn't going to do anything to help the situation. It simply plays well in the domestic arena and wreaks havok on our international dimplomacy. We have taken big steps backward in our relations with the world at the cost of domestic campaigning.

d) If a threat materializes we take care of it. The "smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud" is hyperbole. We might as well blow up the moon because it might fall on our heads one day. Iraqi hostility to the United States did not pose much of a danger to us and what little danger Sadaam represented has only increased by painting a target on his head.

Every country "might" send us a mushroom cloud one day. But this happens to be a world we share. Preemptive action will not increase the security of anyone but rather undermine the security of all.

Caveat: If we can wrangle global support (this doesn't mean two countries) then all bets are off. Kill Sadaam and be happy we got away with it. But if his neighbours (with the exception of one) don't want a war and publicly state he is not a threat then it's incongruous for the country least threatened by Iraq to assert that he is a threat to the very neighbours who deny it.

If nothing else, Craven, I can agree with your final caveat. We may not be the country least threatened by Iraq (consider Peru, Uganda, etc.) but we are certainly less threatened than any of her immediate neighbors. I happen to believe that Saddam and the entire Baathist party should be removed, and forcibly if need be. I do not believe this should be done by the United States and Britain acting on their own, with or without UN approval. We are not only less threatened that most countries, we have less to gain in an invasion and more to lose, at least in a political sense than any other country in the world.

Some of the points in the preceeding discussion are impossible to argue against, though I wish I could. Others are worth some examination, and by the time the weekend rolls around, the whole discussion may have passed me by again, or been rendered moot by current events, though I happen to doubt the latter <crossing fingers>,If nothing else, Craven, I can agree with your final caveat. We may not be the country least threatened by Iraq (consider Peru, Uganda, etc.) but we are certainly less threatened than any of her immediate neighbors. I happen to believe that Saddam and the entire Baathist party should be removed, and forcibly if need be. I do not believe this should be done by the United States and Britain acting on their own, with or without UN approval. We are not only less threatened that most countries, we have less to gain in an invasion and more to lose, at least in a political sense than any other country in the world.

Some of the points in the preceeding discussion are impossible to argue against, though I wish I could. Others are worth some examination, and by the time the weekend rolls around, the whole discussion may have passed me by again, or been rendered moot by current events, though I happen to doubt the latter <crossing fingers>.

Come on, Perception. If you're going to ask questions like that, you should be prepared to give your own answer.

Perception, You pose very legitimate questions, but I think they are answered pretty well by Craven.

I see no reason why you should be exempt from saying what you'd do as president. I don't blame you for not going out on a limb. It's a tough question, but it's not like it's going to happen because you say it.

NOTE: I have split the remainder of this topic and renamed the successor thread The US, The UN and Iraq. Thank you.

My apologies, Walter, if i have responed improperly to your topic.

No problem, Setanta! :wink:

Is the anti war campaign appeasement?
Hello all.
We could liken this anti war campaign to the CND of the 70's and 80's, where campaigners would chain themselves to the US missile base fences and stage round the clock vergils to rid Britain of American missiles, without a logical alternative to stop the threat of communism which WAS a real threat at the time. Without the resolve of Thatcher and Reagan, during the 80's, things could well have turned out different. My view is pretty much the same now in that without the tough stance taken with a real threat of war, backed up by recent destruction of more Iraqi military installations in southern and western Iraq, The problem of this tyrant will not be solved. unfortunate as it is, and no one WANTS a war, someone has to take the responsibility. The sad fact is the the UN would not have achieved the present goal without the pressure put on them, and who, apart from the US and Britain were prepared to put that pressure on.

London, i agree about prodding the U.N., and i think anyone who does not appreciate Saddam's potential threat is a fool . . . which is a far cry from believing that we need to go to war--i don't, and i do not at all appreciate this bunch of cowboys doing this in the name of my native land. It is not at all certain that the Shrub and company have wide-spread support, it is certain that everyone is assuming the Iraqis will be a push-over, always a foolish and potentially disasterous point from which to begin mililtary planning; and, finally, i have to agree with people all around the globe that there is no precedent for this action, and, that if taken, it will establish a very bad and very likely a destablizing precedent.

Hello, everyone.

This is my first visit here and I hope it's ok to just arrive without an invitation. mamajuana from Abuzz told me about this site and it looks great so far. Thanks, Jo Lee

Hi, Jo Lee. Glad to have you however you got here. You might want to post to http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23 just in case thare are people who don't check into the political forum.

Welcome Jo Lee. Glad to see you here.

It is simply false that the "demonstrations were mostly ignored by the American press" as the cited website states. I read about them in the paper here in Washington, DC; saw them on the Fox Channel; and I believe I saw a clip of them on the national news shows as well. The people who are posting this assertion seemed to be unhappy that the media is not carrying their message on the front page and so overstates their case to the point of fabulizing. I am particularly unimpressed by their attempt to protest media that do not feature their point of view. It is one thing to promote your own position. It is another thing to force others to promote your position. I recommend that the "peace" protestors strive to exercise their own free speech more and stop restricting others free speech by forcing them to parrot their views.

The fact is that most Americans are unsympathetic to the "peace" movement with respect to Iraq. The atrocities of Sep 11 have convinced most people that we can not afford to sit around and let trouble blossom. We need to nip it in the bud.

Many Americans also correctly view such "peace" organizations as posers whose true agenda is not peace, but anti-Americanism. As such, they have small credibility and should be rejected.

However, the thing that undermines the "peace" organizations most is that they are wrong, that their efforts, if successful, would almost certainly lead to war, just as Chamberlain's peace negotiations in Munich led to a world war. The choice comes down to a conventional war now in Iraq or a nuclear war in America later. The "peace" protestors would cause more blood to be shed, not less.

The entire Middle East would benefit from America's installation of a liberal democracy with free speech and an open market in Iraq. The Arabs are incapable of reforming themselves. If we get Iraq jump-started to liberty and prosperity, Iran may just overthrow its mullahs and join the movement. We could remake the core of the Middle East into a region where people are free to pursue their dreams, speak their minds, and live in comfort without want. That is the way to make a lasting peace.

Tantor

That the movements wren't ignored = true

That most Americans are unsympathetic to the peace movement in post 9/11 America = true

That the peace movements are Anti-America movements in disguise = false, but then again many people think that if someone doesn't want a superpower it's anti Americanism

conventional war now vs nulear war later = very unlikely, great hyperbole

The entire Middle East would benefit from America's installation of a liberal democracy = false, they'd benefit from the democracy but not if it's forced on them (that would just sour them to the idea. a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still)

The Arabs are incapable of reforming themselves = Obviously false but yes, it's unlikly that they will reform any time soon. But that also has to do with the fact that many western countries stifle their reform because democracy in those countries would lead to more extremism at present. We keep up the house of Suad because a democratic alternative would be very hostile to us

BTW, Iran was leaning toward the ouster of the mullah's calling them evil strengthened the mullahs and hurt the reformists who would modernize.

From the quoted website:
"If you get your news by reading newspapers and watching television, you won't find much coverage of the antiwar movement."

I just was referring to this: "...US media don't seem to cover a lot of the present status of this movement. "


And, NO, I'm not unhappy that the media in the USA is not carrying my message my message on the frontpage and so overstated my case to the point of fabuizing.

Craven, you must admit that the leaders of the "peace" movements have very little good to say about America at any time. A close reading of the papers covering campus and other anti-war demonstrations reveals that there is always a Marxist organization that organizes the protests. There is always a "workers" something or other leading the attack.



Not just hyperbole, Craven. It is a real threat. It is well within Saddam's capability to smuggle a nuke aboard a tramp steamer, sail it into New York harbor, and finish off Manhattan. The estimate of the deaths from such a nuclear attack runs to 200,000 Americans. I would rather fight the war in Iraq than Manhattan.



Installing a liberal democracy seemed to work pretty well on Nazi Germany, even though the Nazis were dead set against it and ridiculed democracy as weak and effete. I don't see any Germans voting to give up their American-imposed liberal democracy and return to Nazi authoritarianism. Certainly Europe has benefitted from a peaceful Germany to the point that they are no longer armed to the teeth and ready to attack each other on a moment's notice. That's a good thing.

Likewise, installing a liberal democracy seemed to work pretty well on Japan, which was much more religiously fanatical than any Muslim state. They don't seem to want to return to the good old authoritarian days of the 1930s, even though their liberal democracy was imposed on them. A peaceful Japan has come as quite a relief to the Pacific rim.

I don't see where either Japan nor Germany has soured on democracy. They seem to embrace it. Since those are the only two examples available of America imposing democracy on a foreign nation, I'd say the track record is pretty good.

My guess is that the Iraqis are not sold on Saddam's authoritarian regime and are not likely to support it once its gone. Middle East hands call the Iraqis the Germans of the Arab world, hard working types. It seems reasonable that if we give the Iraqis an environment where their hard work reaps rewards for themselves, rather than a corrupt and brutal set of thug leaders, they might just come to favor it. Their success might well prove the most effective refutation of the failed Islamic theocratic state the Islamists favor.




We did not install the Saudis as rulers of Arabia. They conquered the country themselves long before America took an interest in them. We simply dealt with the players who were in place. I can not fail to note that the same people who criticize America for dealing with foreign thug leaders also criticize America for kicking thugs out of power.

The decision to deal with many Third World nations involves making a choice between bad or worse leaders. For example, in the case of Iran the Shah was bad but Khomeini was worse. Neither required any help from America to stifle reform. The assumption that the people of these countries favor reform is dubious. The bottom line is that these little thug nations are responsible for screwing themselves up, not America.

There is no real democratic option in any of these Arab countries. The practical result of democracy in most of them is that the Islamic fundamentalists, being the most organized and less corrupt than the incumbents, would win the election and then dismantle the democracy that elected them to erect an Islamic theocracy. It's akin to supporting democracy in Germany in the 1920s, allowing the Nazis to overthrow the democratic state after they were elected to office.

Tantor

Fabulizing? That's quite a word. Does that mean they are trying to make it into a fable, trying to make it a lie or maybe trying to make it fabulous? Definition, please.

Walter,

Yet I read the newspapers in America and watch the TV news and saw the "peace" protests covered the same day and after. That is an undeniable fact. Yet the same website falsely said that the US media ignored the protests.

From this, I'd say that the writers of this website are either unaware of what the media covers in America or are giving a false account of it.

Tantor

Gotta be quick, I'm, supposed to be working.

Yes, many Marxist orgs organize peace protests, the anti nuke demonstrations of the past come to mind. But there are as many in the peace camp who protest out of their own concerns about the way this war might be prosecuted.

::

I don't think war in Iraq will make the Manhattan scenario any less likely than it already is. But here we are in the realm of the what ifs. So this is a futile argument.

::

Japan and Germany are bad examples. I'm not saying that Iraq would reject a democracy but that the democracy isn't going to be the beacon of freedom to Arabs that you paint it as.

::

I never said that we are responsible for the house of Saud. But we are not "dealing with who's in power". We are deploying troops to keep them in power. There's a big difference.

I agree with most of your acessment about the effect of a democracy on most current states.

Where I am faiuling to make my point is that since we are widely hated there we are not the best people top give them advice. I hope they reform but don't harbor any illusions that we can both lead them to water and make them drink.

If reform is forced I hope it's under as broad an umbrella as we can manage.

The writer says the protests were mostly ignored. True.

So am I, but you don't see it stopping me. I'm actively looking for alternatives to work today.



The problem is the Marxist tactic of gathering useful idiots to their cause to gain power, then using that power surreptiously to achieve their wrongful ends.



I don't know of any other nuclear powers other than Iraq who might smuggle a nuke into America and detonate it. The only other likely case is if the Islamists took over Pakistan and its nukes.



And the alternative would be?



We deployed troops to Saudi Arabia to defend it against Iraq, a classic bad or worse decision. It was a choice between a bad Islamic theocracy and an evil dictatorship. Almost certainly, had Saddam taken over Arabia, its oil money would have been put to evil purposes. The silver lining to such an event would be that he would have killed a lot of the Islamic fundamentalists.



If we are widely hated, how come people keep immigrating here? Shouldn't they be spending their life savings going to a country they like? I can't walk down the streets of DC or New York without tripping over immigrants from all over the world, including plenty of Arabs. The fact is that America is widely and deeply admired all over the world. The way we live is a benchmark for them. Their awareness of the way America lives is the source of much of their discontent.

I can tell you from living in the Philippines that many Third World citizens have a weird love-hate feeling for America. I could walk the streets of the Philippines and be welcomed into virtually any home anywhere, something like Donald Trump walking around some town in the midwest and be welcomed into every home like he was king. They talk down the US but also slavishly copy everything we do, sometimes in a crazy compulsive way. I think they view us as something like lottery winners who just had our wealth handed to us. It's not fair to their minds but they would like to know how that lotto works.



Agreed. Iraq is composed of factions who hate each other. Teaching them to work and play well with each other will be a century's work.

Tantor