Regime change

[Sirotnikov]

This has nothing to do with Democracy, Ned. If Bush gave a rat's ass about democracy he wouldn't be backing the Saudi Monarchy, Turkmenistan, Mushariff, the Kuwaiti Monarchy, or a bunch of other repressive regimes.

Ah, you need to learn to get a grip.

There are regimes which can be politically pressured into democracy. And there are those which can not.

Musharif is the closest thing to democracy Pakistan can have now, since without him a non-reasonable Fundamentalistic regime pops up.

Saddam however is in no way reasonable, democratic or toleratable. Against him there is no alternative to brute force.

Saudi Arabia - it is very very slowly moving towards some reform. Besides it is a much less threat to the outside world than Iraq is, as it is not agressive and expantionist and it is reasonable.

The Saudi Monarchy should be, and can be pressured by Bush towards democracy. Just as happenned with the Saudi proposal.


Kuwait as far as I know is infact very nice and probably as hostile to anyone as Singapore is.

This is about oil (and to a lesser extent feeding the military industrial complex).]

Still living in the 80s?

Like you said, Sadaam used to be our puppet then he disobeyed orders & invaded Kuwait (also a puppet).

Saddam was a choise the US took to support against Fundamentalist non-logical regimes.

Now Washington is getting tired of the standoff and wants to put a puppet back in charge of Iraq.

Again you're simplifying things.

Do you really ignore the fact that Saddam is a danger to the whole region, not to mention his own people, which he gassed and killed?

Bush will call the new regime a democracy but it'll actually be another puppet state.

Whether it will be a puppet state or not is to be seen.

In any case, however, the outcome will be better than Saddam for the people of Iraq (who will no longer get slain, even if the will be robbed of oil) and the rest of the world (no longer in danger from an unreasonable leader).

Promoting democracy is a fine idea; the most effective thing we can do to promote it is to stop supporting dictatorships.

False.

The most effective thing we can do is to break dictatorships and if there are people who have democratic spirit - help them.

[Sirotnikov]

Foreign Relations Institute...

Ok, I decided to draw this up for people who have troubles uderstanding how foreign policy works.

Now, there are several categories in which you categorise a country.

Infact, looks like Civilization 2.

Expansion: Expansionist - Neutral - Perfectionist.
Militarism: Peaceful - Neutral - Militarist
Civility: Civilised - Neutral - Agressive
Rationality: Rational - Neutral - Irrational
Policy: Democratic - Undemocratic - Oppressive

Now, what is the problems of the extreme lefties (or general lefties) in these threads?

They say that it's illogical how the USA is attaking Afghanistan, while not attacking Pakistan.

Lets compare.

Taliban (Al-Qeda) :
Neutral, Militarist, Agressive, Irrational, Oppressive.

Pakistan (Musharif):
Expansionist (Kashmir) with Neutral tendencies.
Militarist.
Civilised (Musharif)
Rational (Musharif)
Undemocratic (but not Oppressive).

Taliban is therefore a threat to its people, enviroment and the West. (supports Al-Qaeda).

Pakistan under Musharif is better to its people than the Fundamentalist alternative (Pakistan won't survive as democracy) and is a military threat to India.



Now lets compare Iraq and Saudia.

Iraq (Hussein)
Expansionist (war against Iran, Kuwait)
Militarist (very, plus use of chemical weapons)
Agressive (duh)
Neutral (Saddam is not completely irrational, but he is not civilised(
Oppressive (he actively oppresses his people).

Saudia
Perfectionist (when have they recently attacked anyone?)
Neutral (they have a large army, and they do support some terrorist groups, but they are the 3rd most peaceful state after Jordan and Egypt (and maybe Kuwait and small gulf states).
Neutral (support some terror, but not too agressive)
Rational (they understand threats and can be negociated with)
Oppressive-Neutral (they are oppressive but much less than say, Taliban or Saddam).


Saudia is not a threat to almost anyone. They are minding their own bussiness while supporting terror in Israel and they have some support for anti-west terror but it's not in the system, but a cultural thing.

Iraq however is a threat to its people, the west, neighbouring countries etc.

Now lets go for Israel-Palestine.

Israel
Neutral-Expansionist (I don't think its more expansionist than an avarage state, but the settler policy is hard to explain here, so lets put them both).
Militarist (it is mostly militarist)
Civilised (it is civilised. It has yet to act in unprovoked agression)
Rational (there are extreme fringes but they have 0.1% support).
Democratic (not oppressive to its own people. not even minorities, countrary to claim)

PLO Arafat
Expansionist (before the west bank he tried to set up a state in Jordan and Lebanon)
Militarist (previously a terrorist organization. Now has Tanzim militia and Fatah militia (kinda like the SA or Black Shirts)
Agressive (started organized violence aka Intifada 2000)
Neutral (arafat isn't irrational, but he is far from a rational leader. He is willing to risk himself and his achievements in the Intifada, to get even more )
Oppressive (he opresses people, like the democratic ruler he is, and takes aid money for himself / terror)

Hamas
Neutral Expansionist (they want full Israel, so they are expansionist, but that's pretty much it - so they are Neutral)
Militarist (duh!)
Agressive (duh!)
Irrational (allah hu Akabar! Kaboom!)
Undemocratic (they are far from democratic, but they are much more democratic and benevolent that PLO Arafat, since Arafat is a petty dictator, while the Hamas also acts alot as a welfare organization)


Arafat is a greater danger than Hamas IMO, because Hamas are not as expansionist or as Scheming. They simply want the whole Israel and are willing to die for it.

Arafat only takes care of his own power, pretends to be civilised and democratic for a while, and then throws it all away for future territorial gain.

[spartak]

Hey! This isn't a ME thread. If you want to discuss the ME start your own thread. This is Saddam vs Bush!

STOP! Threadjacking!

[Ned]

Spartak, You raise perhaps the single most thorny question on Iraq.

It was my understanding that even the Euro's are pressuring the Turks to give the Kurds autonomy as a price of membership. How can a ME country that brutalizes a substantial portion of its people even be considered for membership?

[Sirotnikov]

Its a simple explanation.

[spartak]

Originally posted by Ned
Spartak, You raise perhaps the single most thorny question on Iraq.

It was my understanding that even the Euro's are pressuring the Turks to give the Kurds autonomy as a price of membership. How can a ME country that brutalizes a substantial portion of its people even be considered for membership?

I take it that you mean membership of the EU? I understood that for precisely these reasons Turkey was not being seriously considered for inclusion into the EU, let alone worrying about the Greek veto on Turkish membership that is inevitable should Turkey seriously be considered for membership. There would be many obstacles to Turkish membership at this time and to my mind there are several that are currently insurmountable. Being a substantial military power with feet both in the ME and Europe and controling the Bosphorus, it sort of requires European governments to be nice to the Turks and say nice things about them, but don't expect them to be joining the EU any time soon.

Strategically and historically the Bosphorus is very important. The Crimean war (1885-6 IIRC) was directly sparked off by fear that the then latest Russian-Turkish war would lead to interfearance with the passage of ships into the black sea. IIRC there was an international treaty that still holds rwquing the Turks to allow any ship to pass between the med and the Black sea that even today causes them angst because they consider the oil tankers passing through to be unsafe, likely to sink and destroy their tourism inductry and basically be too much for such a small area of water.

[Combat Ingrid]

Turkeys EU ambitions is a good thing, because they know they will have to act very nice and take human rights issues (Kurds, death penalty etc) seriously to have a chance to ever become a member.

[Urban Ranger]

To me, Dubya has so far caused more international instability than Saddam ever can. Missile Defense anyone? That alone will ignite an arms race because nobody wants to be the victim of nuclear blackmail.

[Jac de Molay]

The Coming October War in Iraq

[Az]

. Missile Defense anyone? That alone will ignite an arms race because nobody wants to be the victim of nuclear blackmail.

come on, you can clearly see that noone ACTUALLY made ANY move because of that . he stepped on some toes , but they all just moved their feet because of that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
The Coming October War in Iraq

There isn't going to be an October Suprise given the fact that Bush hasn't recived consent from one of Iraq's neighbors to serve as a staging area.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spartak


And I have a right to point out that you are spouting crap.

So for you the truth is crap?

I insulted your debating style not your intelligence. debates are won on an intellectual level not by hoocking your mouth to your emotions and spouting illogical crap.

**** you. Give a me a break, your debating style is so degenerate whenever you open up your mouth you look foolish. I mean read some and stop acting like a complete fool.

Grow up Fez. Of course you lost it - you reduced yourself to denouncing my argument instead of discussing it. Emotion over intellect again.

I only speak the truth.

I don't understand that point fez. Thgen again you often don't make sense.

Stop talking about yourself. Is that so damn hard for a two year old like you to understand?

[Ned]

Detroit Dave, Ritter may be right and he may be wrong. Here is a current AP story where Israel seems to corroborate what we have heard from the Bush administration that Iraq does have renewed programs to develop WoMD and is nearing completion.

"Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin told The Associated Press. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.


As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.

"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.

Gissin said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat of one, Saddam was fast developing weapons."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spartak


I take it that you mean membership of the EU? I understood that for precisely these reasons Turkey was not being seriously considered for inclusion into the EU, let alone worrying about the Greek veto on Turkish membership that is inevitable should Turkey seriously be considered for membership. There would be many obstacles to Turkish membership at this time and to my mind there are several that are currently insurmountable. Being a substantial military power with feet both in the ME and Europe and controling the Bosphorus, it sort of requires European governments to be nice to the Turks and say nice things about them, but don't expect them to be joining the EU any time soon.

Strategically and historically the Bosphorus is very important. The Crimean war (1885-6 IIRC) was directly sparked off by fear that the then latest Russian-Turkish war would lead to interfearance with the passage of ships into the black sea. IIRC there was an international treaty that still holds rwquing the Turks to allow any ship to pass between the med and the Black sea that even today causes them angst because they consider the oil tankers passing through to be unsafe, likely to sink and destroy their tourism inductry and basically be too much for such a small area of water.

We told Musharraf to cool terroism and he seemingly complied. We, and the EU, should tell Ecevit that Turkey MUST provide for Kurdish autonomy or independence if a new Kurdish state is formed. The fact that the Turk military is largely financed by the United States should weigh heavily in the Turk response. If the EU supports the US in this, a peaceful solution of the Kurd question is entirely possible.

[spartak]

Originally posted by Fez


So for you the truth is crap?

The Truth is how you see it? Just because something is your opinion doesn't make it true. I could hold my opinions as strongly as you do but I would at least admit they are opinions and avoid giving myself airs and graces by declaring the infallibility of my opinions. You do realise that you aren't the pope?

**** you. Give a me a break, your debating style is so degenerate whenever you open up your mouth you look foolish. I mean read some and stop acting like a complete fool.

I don't recall swearing at you so don't swear at me thank you.

I only speak the truth.

I refer you to my question about whether you are the Pope.

Stop talking about yourself. Is that so damn hard for a two year old like you to understand?

Pot and kettle comes to mind....