Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kuwait was waging economic war on Iraq and stealing Iraqi oil. In both wars that Hussein started, he had valid causi belli.

Is economic war justification for use of force?

There are only two important arguments for each side here.

Anti-War: This is a first strike. The Iraqis won't elect someone we like anyway.
Pro-War: Nobody likes him. No matter who their next leader is, he will be better than Saddam.

The rest are just bull**** reasons that people use to make their case seem stronger. I find that the two Pro-War arguments carry a little more weight, but plenty of intelligent people disagree with me.

[TCO]

dp

[Kuciwalker]

Umm, what was the point of that post?

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP


Learn the geography. Read Schwartzkopf's book. Pull your head out of your ass. Get drunk in Lincoln Park. Enjoy the summer.

Run out of intelligent points? I thought so.

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
Umm, what was the point of that post?

You assume the poster had any in the first place.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, read the book by Clancy (coauthored by [former] Air Force General Chuck Horner, who was commander of all Coalition air forces in the first Gulf) called Every Man a Tiger. Wonderful book, very informative.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Is economic war justification for use of force?

It is, ultimately, the only real reason any war is ever fought. The deliberate destruction of the Iraqi economy by Kuwait caused real harm to the Iraqi people and state. Furthermore, the Kuwaitis knew that what it was doing would result in war. Granted, Iraq could have done it more intelligently, such as seizing the disputed territory plus a buffer zone to keep the Kuwaits from slant drilling while at the same time either blocakding or destroying Kuwait's port facilities, but Hussein always did prefer to use a sledgehammer where a scalpal would do. Something he and our Usurper have in common.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GP


Do you favor a more anti-US politician (or less pro-US) down there? Who?

I don't have too much problems with Fox being a bootlicker, but he's being an ineffective bootlicker, which is what really bothers everybody. He doesn't exert effective control of the congress, he lost his coalition, and he'd rather see gridlock than "lower" himself to make deals with congress to get things done. Other than coming up with creative new taxes, the general feeling is that the Federal government isn't doing anything, and isn't really being run by anyone.

Fox's logical successor within the PAN is Santiago Creel, who runs the Sectraria de Gobernacion (sort of a domestic policy ministry on roids) who is unfortunately being tainted by Fox's legacy of ineffectiveness.

Across the country, people are actually starting to talk about bringing back the PRI, despite it's legacy of vote manipulation and corruption, because at least things happened more or less occasionally. That's not a majority pov yet, though.

Right now, the hot ticket would seem to be Andres Lopez-Obrador, the mayor of Mexico city. He's PRD though, which is pretty damn socialist (not that anything in Mexican government isn't), but Lopez has shown he's more or less at the right within the PRD spectrum, and he's capable of allying himself with business interests and political interests across the spectrum.

He'd definitely be more capable than Fox, far more popular and less tainted than Creel, but it's a question of how much, if anything, he'd have to give away to the farther left majority within his party to buy the nomination. If they give him too much ****, he could also do what people do all the time down here, and form his own party.

wrt anti- or pro-American policies down here, Mexico is never going to get off the ground following pro-American policies, but it is also too weak economically to go overtly anti-American. Myths of NAFTA aside, Mexico is largely an ecnomic colony of the US, and the US has no perceived interest in seeing that relationship change much.

To me, the ideal would be for at least the large economies of Latinamerica to form internal free trade and political agreements, and try to act as a bloc in dealing with the EU, Asia and the US. There's still a lot of structural reform and economic growth necessary in those countries before that could be attempted, and there's a lot of little basket case contries that would have to be ignored initially.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava

Run out of intelligent points? I thought so.

You're not worth it. You know perfectly well that you have strong opinions and poor fact-base.

[Sava]

Too bad you can't educate me.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

To me, the ideal would be for at least the large economies of Latinamerica to form internal free trade and political agreements, and try to act as a bloc in dealing with the EU, Asia and the US. There's still a lot of structural reform and economic growth necessary in those countries before that could be attempted, and there's a lot of little basket case contries that would have to be ignored initially.

I think they would be better served by unilateral free trade policies and by introducing more free-market reforms. oh...and the rule of law. If they form a pact like the EU that promotes free trade in the region, that will be good. But if they try to get into pecker-flexing contests, than I think it will be counterproductive.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sava
Too bad you can't educate me.

Who let you out of the penalty box? You are supposed to hold hands with Faded Glory there.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Pro-War: Nobody likes him. No matter who their next leader is, he will be better than Saddam.

Saddam was a buffoon who reveled in a cult of personality dictatorship.

A "better" leader (depending on your point of view) would be one who rebuilt and reorganized Iraq's military with a genuine view to how and why it failed, and developed nuclear capability, before invading Kuwait.

A future "better leader" will still have the ability to rebuild the Iraqi military, and to develop nuclear capability.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GP


Who let you out of the penalty box? You are supposed to hold hands with Faded Glory there.

IIRC, you told me to stick my head up my ass. I may troll myself into oblivion, but I've been very good at not personally attacking people. Keep on trucking. Maybe you can say hi to FG and Bodds soon.

[SlowwHand]

Sava, gawd man. Like you aren't a flame-warrior.