Believe Them At Your Peril
Representatives are expert at speaking with the greatest of sincerity. In reality, everything said by governments, politicians and diplomats, concerning the welfare of the Iraqi people, W.M.D.s, terrorism and justification, or lack of it, for the invasion of Iraq, are little more than window-dressing. Specially-designed for media and unthinking public-consumption and to conceal the self-interest and true agendas of the major nations concerned. Which explains all the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors.
In the real world and in spite of an inhumane leadership, Iraq is a vital trading partner of Russia, China, France and Germany. In fact, Russia is owed billions of dollars by Iraq, whose greatest asset and only means of debt repayment is from up to 20% of the world's OIL reserves.
These nations certainly have no objection to seeing Iraq disarmed by U.N. Weapons Inspectors of all weapons (if they still exist) posing a serious threat to any neighbours including Israel. However, they cannot afford an American invasion and takeover which would abolish existing contracts and cost them many billions of dollars, both annually and in unpaid debts. In turn, seriously damaging or destabilising their economies. Hence, their refusal to support this war. Particularly since the Inspectors are visibly curing the problem without military force.
On the other hand, should the American and to a smaller extent British taxpayer-funded invasion take place or not, the rewards for the financial backers of the Bush Administration are and would be colossal. These include billions of dollars in armaments, new oil contracts and rebuilding work. These would increase still more, should an invasion of Iran follow.
It might be argued that America is just as entitled to the profits as the other countries. The essential difference is that the status quo risks no innocent lives. Whereas, an invasion guarantees the potential loss of thousands, including our own forces. Not only directly, but indirectly through later acts of revenge by terrorists.
Then there is the cost to taxpayers of keeping forces in Iraq for years to come, maintaining peace between warring factions ......
Is this a price worth paying?
John, Your thesis is probably right on target. Most wars are fought over economic loss or gain. What is so disheartening about the politics of war is that they skirt around the truth, and the media reinforces the rhetoric coming out of the administration. Peoople should have figured this out by the many different and changing reasons for why the US must strike at Iraq in a war, and why the governments of France, Germany, and Russia are against it. I'm not sure where China fits into this picture, because they benefit more from American consumption. Now that this administration seems to be changing it's mind again about getting another UN Resolution, it would seem most people would question how this administration keeps changing their minds about so many different committments they have made in the past. Where's their credibility? Do they have any left? c.i.
John - Your comments would have a bit more weight were it not for the banned weapons the inspectors have found, the obstruction they continue to report, and the twelve years Saddam has dragged out a task he was given fifteen days to complete.
But please, I did not mean to interupt your "logic".
Pray continue...
T.W., Saddam seems to have learned his lesson this time around and the Inspectors appear happy with the cooperation now being received. Providing this continues, a war would be pointless and costly - were lack of assent the genuine reason for the invasion, rather than hidden commercial objectives.
C.I., sadly, this Administration enjoy playing soldiers, having learned the horrors of war from old John Wayne movies, instead of harsh reality. I must confess to also having lost count of the various 'official' reasons for the invasion.
My greatest longer-term fear is that this episode will lead to international escalation in weapons proliferation as faith in the U.N. vanishes into history.
The threat of war is the only thing that has achieved what limited, late cooperation we have seen from Saddam. There is nothing to support the notion that absent that threat he will remain compliant, nor is it feasible to maintain the threat over a prolonged period. Therefor, the only option Saddam has left us--assuming he does not leave- or is not removed from- power beforehand--is to take the threatened action.
I had hoped that the credible threat of force would cause Saddam to throw in the towel, but it has not, and his window of opportunity is closed.
T. W. I can only agree that, without the threat, present cooperation would not have happened.
However, never forget that the finest and most expensive intelligence agencies on earth have failed to successfully identify the location of any W.M.D.s in Iraq, although they have produced plenty of fictional ones. Even the rockets which may travel about 20 miles too far, had been declared and are being demolished.
I have been assured by scientific friends that, even if not destroyed, unless kept under perfect conditions, many chemical and biological weapons would have deteriorated so much in 12 years as to be impotent, so these dangers too may have been exaggerated for political reasons.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that Saddam may have been keeping his now outdated and non-existent weapons, as an 'official' reality to deter Iran from another attempted invasion.
If this is so, then Saddam may well have nothing to declare and nothing to offer.
In which case, the war should last about 5 minutes. With America and Britain using W.M.D.s and Iraq fighting back with the equivalent of bows and arrows.
John, You are guilty of exagerating the bows and arrows bit, aren't you?
I'm guilty of that myself, so don't fret none. c.i.
On second thoughts, the war may have to be extended to last more than 5 minutes to satisfy the blood-lust and needs of the media for advertising revenues, to provide Hollywood with up-to-date material for war movies and to give the Administration more photo-opportunities.
C.I., how about sending the Iraqis some sling-shots to make the battle a little more even?
Jphn, I think you are as right-on in your "logic" as anyone I've seen, in regards to the present madness brewing in Iraq.
I was just searching for a link to an article I read yesterday that clearly laid out the third alternative besides war or nothing. It had to do with severely intrusive inspections maintained for a prolonged time. Inspections agreed upon in the UN, that would be far different, in that thaey would always be unannounced, completely unrestricted, and accompanied with an armed contingent of US led UN forces that would immediately react with force to any resistance.
The problem that has seemed to prevent this administration from seeing any alternative to war as feasible is not the illogic of those plans. On the contrary, it is simply that it has not even tried to work toward any outcome but all out war. The lip service paid to the UN has been, just as you say, obvious "window dressing", devoid of any sense of the urgency we citizens feel about finding that alternative. To the contrary, recent events uncovered falsified reports and documents used to convince one and all of Iraq's imminent threat to the world, and those have been passed on with zeal by Powell to the UN. That says to me that they not only don't want that third alternative - they have been actively working to make sure everyone settles for the second.
As a vision for American national security, global hegemony is profoundly flawed.
According to theorists like Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. should indefinitely dominate Europe and East Asia, in order to prevent Germany, Japan, France, and others from developing the capability to defend themselves independently of the U.S. This policy naively assumes that America's former Cold War allies will indefinitely tolerate the use of their countries as launching pads for actions in the Middle East and elsewhere of which they disapprove. Equally naïve is the assumption that other major countries will defer to the U.S. in security matters--as the opposition of virtually every significant European ally except Britain to Bush's Iraq policy has now proven.
This is where the Bush rhetoric of humility and the arrogance of the actual policy most profoundly clash. Bush likes to talk about working with our allies. But in point of fact this administration acts kindly only towards those who agree with them and smears as appeasers and dilettantes anyone who expresses reservations. And even those that side with them often get screwed in the long run anyway.
If indeed "Iran is next" as is being heard in the government propaganda mouthpieces (that would be Fox News, talk radio, and the Washington Times, for starters), or if, God forbid, we must be forced to deal with North Korea militarily, who's going to be left to stand with the US?
A grim analysis I heard on the radio last night as I drifted off to sleep: "Just wait for what they 'discover' in Iraq -- the 'weapons of mass destruction' as yet undiscovered by inspectors, the 'clear plans for 9/11' etc. etc."
No wonder they're in such a hurry. Self-justification is an urgent matter for a wounded administration...
Tartarin said ""Just wait for what they 'discover' in Iraq -- the 'weapons of mass destruction' as yet undiscovered by inspectors, the 'clear plans for 9/11' etc. etc."
Some cruel people, with little faith in the integrity of the Administration, might be astonished if no evidence was 'found' after an invasion.
Such insightful wisdom in these many posts, both for and against, and my mind is reeling.
I have been struck by how thoroughly planned out, to every possible contingency, this military action has been, thus far. With that degree of investment, you just know that Bush wants to go to war. Also, his post 9/11 simplistic and religious mindset is to strike out at everything and anybody that is not perceived by this administration to be in the anti-terrorism (and thus pro-US) camp.
And yes indeed, JW, many thanks for contributing here. I am here to learn, and somehow clarify my mind, about what I feel and think about this morass. I usually have nothing substantive to contribute - just a cheerleader on the sidelines.
PD writes:
Quote:As a vision for American national security, global hegemony is profoundly flawed.
According to theorists like Paul Wolfowitz, the U.S. should indefinitely dominate Europe and East Asia, in order to prevent Germany, Japan, France, and others from developing the capability to defend themselves independently of the U.S.
This is just window dressing for expansionist Imperialism and radical unilateralism!
Which, BillW, boils down to that old belief, "Me First, At Any Cost."
John -- I think there's a good chance no evidence will be found but I'm sure "evidence" (and plenty of it) will indeed be found.
Like some policemen working for our 'protection.' c.i.
"-isms" are fine for intellectuals, but in this case I prefer to boil it down:
Once Iraq has been 'disarmed'...
If Iran is next, and if, God forbid, we are forced to deal with North Korea on a military basis even sooner; or if China should invade Taiwan; if India and Pakistan shuld start launching nukes at each other; should there be more terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda...
...how does our newly-devastated relationship with our former European allies, and an emasculated UN, bring us saftey and securty "for the sake of peace"?
What does that kind of conflagration, set in motion by a vengeful megalomaniac, a man operating under the perceived will of his God, do for the safety and security of our children and grandchildren?
I fear this attack will be history's witness to a great folly for generations.
Which is why I so strongly oppose it.
Quote:However, never forget that the finest and most expensive intelligence agencies on earth have failed to successfully identify the location of any W.M.D.s in Iraq, although they have produced plenty of fictional ones. Even the rockets which may travel about 20 miles too far, had been declared and are being demolished.
You do not know that. You only know that they have not told you anything either way. I'm not going to go into the issues involved with not compromising sources, etc.. You either understand this stuff better than you choose to indicate, or you don't.
When we do go into Iraq, I predict we will have teams that will be tasked with going straight to what Saddam has, and we know he has. I also know--as sure as night follows day--that some in these discussions will at that time claim that the evidence produced was manufactured by the US and will be nothing but lies and propaganda. At that time you will see how truly filled with hate for this country some people are.
