0
   

preemptive attack on Iraq.

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:43 pm
Won't get it if they don't help, make that list Iran, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and this is the order of the ones that follow. Shrub will come up with some kind of off the wall reason to attack - such as, they don't wash their hands before eating!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:46 pm
Damn! Shrub is going to attack Ireland then - we don't wash our hands before eating! Cool
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:48 pm
Yeah, but there is probably a lot more reasons to attack Ireland.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:51 pm
I bet you can't list 5 reasons.

Just to make it fair, none of your reasons can contain any of the letters A through Z! :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:52 pm
I believe there is some similarity to Afghanistan, but the Iraqi social dynamic is very different from Afghanistan's. In Iraq, for instance, there is no widespread brigandry and petty armed squabbles among autonomous warlords. Afghanistan was boiling merrily under and even preceeding The Taliban before we turned up the heat. Perhaps the real danger in Iraq will be more akin to explosive decompression than mere boil-over. A regimented, tightly controlled society suddenly turned loose is a most unpredictable thing. There was no reason for us to have been surprised and dismayed by developments in Afghanistan. There is little reason to suppose will will be able to predict more accurately the course of Post-Saddam Iraq than the course of a balloon suddenly released to propell itself fluttering, dipping and darting, into the air.



timber
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:52 pm
1
2
3
4
5

BTW, this is Bush's list and all the reason he needs!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:55 pm
Just as I thought...no reasons, just blank expressions!

Anyhow, I've rambled off-thread here long enough - I'll leave the stage now and make room for more serious commentators.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 05:57 pm
Better hurry if you want to catch up - timber is already trying to get serious again!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 06:01 pm
More like I was unaware the conversation had drifted Bill. I'm a little slow here. Must be that damned arthritis. I'll try to keep up ... I promise Laughing



timber
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 06:19 pm
Timber and I are of one mind on the question of what might happen in a post-Saddam Iraq.

One possiblity is to break Iraq up into smaller entities. The Kurds are going to press very hard for an indepenant Kurdistan, but the Turks and Syrians will be pretty resistent to the idea. I expect that Syria and Turkey will want to grab off a nice chunk of Iraq in the process. Remember Syria's behavior when Lebanon was in chaos? A division along Islamic sect lines might be considered, the danger there is that it might increase Iran's influence in the region. The Bath Party should be broken, and the current ruling elite banished, though more likely killed in reprisals. I think that an occupation by Arabs, but strong guidance from Washington -- a good job for Powell -- might be a good idea.

Afghanistan has been ruled by rival warlords as long as it's written history. This is a terribly poor land where the margin of survival has never been great. It has been caught time and again between contending forces ever since Alexander's adventure. There isn't really anything that the West can do to change the social and cultural values of Afghanistan. The country harbored and supplied Al Queda, that was why they were the focus of our rage. With the defeat of the Taliban, the best we can hope is to get out of country as soon as the political situation stabilizes just a tiny little bit. Pakistan and Iran are much more important elements in finding regional stability.

Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator who supports the United States and the war on terrorism. The ISI is almost a government within the government, and it has always been a strong supporter of the Taliban and Al Queda. As much as 70% of the Pakistani people continue to believe that the Taliban, Al Queda and other Islamic terrorist groups are patriotic heros. If we supported the democratic Will of the Pakistani people, Bin Laden would have a new homeland. Pakistan has nuclear warheads and the means of delivering them onto strategic Indian targets. Kasmir has been a festering boil for decades, and conventional war between India and Pakistan is a constant threat. The military and logistical power of India make it likely to drive deep into Pakistan if general war to break out. Pakistani battlefield commanders finding themselves facing defeat might launch tactical nuclear weapons against India. The current government of Pakistan walks a fine line, but has actually been a moderating force in the equation.

Iran has shown some signs of moderation as Revolutionary zeal has come face to face with the practical realities of governing a country with grave problems. Iran is still dangerous, it still regards Western Civilization as Satan's dominion, the Arch-Enemy whose defeat good Moslims should be willing to die. Iran is no friend to Saddam, and Iran might also have some territorial dreams about oil in the eastern part of Iraq.

Our policy in Afghanistan is tempered by these collateral interests. Post-Saddam Iraq may engender similar problems. The problems are diplomatic, not military.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 06:22 pm
The 'morning after' regime change: Should US force democracy again?

Reconsider the US success rate before forcing democracy again

By Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper

WASHINGTON – Recent press reports of the Bush administration's plans for a post-Hussein Iraq have underscored Washington's determination to seek a regime change in Baghdad, even though the White House claims that its primary objective remains disarming Iraq. Instead of becoming giddy over the prospects of a new democratic Iraq, President Bush's advisers should review Washington's own - decidedly mixed - record of regime change and temper their optimism.
Among the major powers, the US has engaged in the largest number of regime changes. Since the past century, it has deployed its military to impose democratic rule in foreign lands on 18 occasions. Yet this impressive record of international activism has left an uninspiring legacy. Of all the regimes the US has replaced with force, democratic rule has been sustained in only five places - Germany, Japan, Italy, Panama, and Grenada. This suggests a success rate of less than 30 percent. Outside the developed world and Latin America, there hasn't been a single success.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0115/p09s02-coop.html
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 06:37 pm
Our goal is not, and should not be the spread of Western style democracy. Many of the governments in Southwest Asia are more in tune with Western values than their people. Given a free and open plebiscite most of the countries in Southwest Asia would become radical Islamic states on the Iranian, or the Taliban models. The Will of the people in that region is overwhelmingly for reactionary Islamic rule. The People of the region want to expunge Israel from the map. Mullah rule would almost certainly disrupt the flow of oil to all Western nations and their allies.

This is serious business, no place here for idealism. When someone confronts you in a darkened alley with a cheap pistol, and burned out eyes, is not the time to be agonizing over how society failed to keep little Johnny from becoming a menace to the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 06:44 pm
The 'morning after' regime change: Picking up the pieces

Disposing of a dictator requires picking up pieces

By John Hughes

SALT LAKE CITY – While public attention is focused on a US military build-up for war in Iraq, the Bush administration is quietly thinking through what comes after Saddam Hussein. Exiled Iraqi opposition leaders met with President Bush last week, and are due to meet among themselves in the next few days in the northern Iraqi town of Salahuddin. Their aim is to participate in the transition to democracy after Mr. Hussein has left the scene. Like most politicians, their ambition is to lead, as well as participate. This isn't as simple as it seems, for the exiled Iraqi opposition is fragmented and, come Hussein's departure, will face competition for power from the opposition to Hussein that has remained inside Iraq.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0115/p09s01-cojh.html
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 10:24 pm
This is serious business, no place here for idealism. When someone confronts you in a darkened alley with a cheap pistol, and burned out eyes, is not the time to be agonizing over how society failed to keep little Johnny from becoming a menace to the rest of us.

Only thing is, we're going to go beat the crap out of that guy in the alley with guns, knives and baseball bats because of alleged reports he had a knife and bloodshot eyes.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 11:28 pm
Snood,

So you don't think that Saddam, or Kim Jong Il pose any threat to the Western world? Neither of these are truely bad, they're just the creation of our imagination? Actually, they are both cowards who urge others to do evil deeds for them. They supply the money, the arms, expertise and cover for the teenaged idealiststhey send to blow themselves up on someelses streetcorner. They like to look innocent and picked-upon as they ask, "Who, me?"

You damned right we are going to kick the snot out of these two thugs, because that is the only thing they understand or respect. Saddam has not accounted for weapons that he is required to destroy, and he continues to resist every effort to disarm him. These are not weapons that have any purpose whatsoever, but to threaten and harm his neighbors. He cannot himself harm us, but his proxies can. If we cannot be relied upon to protect Saddam's neighbors, both Arab and Israeli, then our prestige will suffer, and our allies will abandon us. Only if we are strong, and have the Will to disarm Saddam can we remain strong.

We are militarily strong and capable, so our enemies expect to defeat us by undermining our willingness to use that might for the good of the entire civilized world.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2003 11:48 pm
au1929 wrote:
Reconsider the US success rate before forcing democracy again

This seems like arguing that if most battered women return to their batterers we should reconsider intervening when they are being beaten. What's the point, right? We won't change anything.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2003 12:40 am
Laughing That analogy is out on the limb, fallen over and floating down the creek.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2003 12:46 am
I think it's a good point (the analogy) but how's this for using the same analogy:

Battered women who don't testify rarely get help.

If the people don't want our help I'd say we shouldn't lead them to water.

In addition democracy at gunpoint seems to be an oxymoron to me.

That being said I render my arguments moot. There is no way to objectively poll the Iraqi people.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2003 01:10 am
Craven - You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. You seem to have a rare talent for knowing what you believe while still being open to the other point of view.

It's refreshing to see, and I hope more people here in A2K will emulate it over time.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2003 01:20 am
Don't worry, Crave, it's late and in the morning someone will realize what happened to their analogy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 09:37:16