Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Well Boris. It would be fair to say that few saw Hitler as being as serious a threat in the 30s as he turned out to be.

I think we can make reasonable, quantifiable comparisons here that demonstrate Hussein isn't remotely as dangerous as Hitler was in 1938. Hussein's military was smashed in 1991 and remains weak, he has no airforce really to speak of, he doesn't even control all of his own country, and his economy is in tatters. He's far less of a threat to anyone than he was back in 1990.

I still fail to see how Iraq's complete disregard for the agreements that ended the Gulf War do not translate into a "just cause".

Iraq has disregarded some for years without any penalty. The U.S. didn't take severe action then...what has changed to make it so now?

Regardless, I don't see that as "just cause" because, frankly, I don't think the first war was adequately justified. So the causes haven't become suddenly just with passage of time.

Seems like willful blindness on the part of the anti-war crowd.

I'll take that over willful warmongering any day.

If you think an invasion of Iraq is a mistake, then say so. It's certainly a justifiable view.

I have said so, many times, thank you.

But don't bull**** people by claiming that the US is morally wrong in this case. Talk about intellectual dishonesty...

If I believe the U.S. is morally wrong in this case, that is neither bull**** nor intellectually dishonest. That's simply how I feel about it. It's not opinions that are dishonest, it's the rationale behind them.

[David Floyd]

The US is just as morally wrong now as it was 10 years ago, and as morally wrong 10 years ago as it was to enter, say, WW1.

[Capt Dizle]

Upon what foundation, dear David, do your moral beliefs lie?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm hardly a warmonger. I don't want the US to attack Iraq unless diplomacy fails, but I'm not blind to the threat the Saddam Hussein poses, which is significant even if it doesn't even come close to the threat of Hitler. If Saddam Hussein is close to nuclear weapons, then the US has the right and the duty to eliminate that threat. We're the good guys in this whole deal, which isn't too hard considering who we're up against.

[Bosh]

I still fail to see how Iraq's complete disregard for the agreements that ended the Gulf War do not translate into a "just cause".

Whether we have "just cause" or not is really irrelevant since the war won't contribute to anything positive since Iraq's no a security risk to the united states (except in the minds of the paronoid) since Saddam isn't suicidal, the Israelis don't deserves us putting our asses on the line for their security until they get out of the occupied territories and the rest of the countries in the region don't want an US invasion so the whole thing would probably be just a fairly pointless diplomatic debacle...
Although if the whole thing is just brinkmanship to get Saddam to get rid of weopons voluntarily you've got to give Bush some credit for having balls.

[Drake Tungsten]

Although if the whole thing is just brinkmanship to get Saddam to get rid of weopons voluntarily you've got to give Bush some credit for having balls.

This is the scenario I'm betting on. Bush may be retarded, but his foreign policy team may be the best ever assembled...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm hardly a warmonger. I don't want the US to attack Iraq unless diplomacy fails, but I'm not blind to the threat the Saddam Hussein poses, which is significant even if it doesn't even come close to the threat of Hitler. If Saddam Hussein is close to nuclear weapons, then the US has the right and the duty to eliminate that threat. We're the good guys in this whole deal, which isn't too hard considering who we're up against.

I don't believe Hussein poses a "significant" threat to U.S. interests. He is contained, has been since 1991, and hasn't posed a significant threat to anyone since the Gulf War.

As for nuclear weapons, as we just learned this week, other "evil" nations have nukes, and we're not beating the drums to invade them. Nor should we--how hypocritical it is of us to decry nations with nuclear weapons when we have more than everyone else combined, and we're the only country that has ever used them against civilian enemy targets. If we're content to let a country like Pakistan live peacefully with its nukes, I fail to see why we should be charging into Iraq under such a justification. We have no "right" to do this, I disagree vehemently about that. We certainly don't accept any foreign power dictating our nuclear arsenal, do we?

And no, we're not the "good guys." We're not the bad guys. It's not a melodrama, for christ's sake.

[Drake Tungsten]

Boris, like many people you can't seem to recognize the obvious differences in the strategic situations of North Korea, Pakistan, and Iraq. North Korea shouldn't have been allowed to gain nukes, but luckily it is countered by a nuclear China and Japan, which can go nuclear whenever it wants to. The world would be better off if Pakistan didn't have nukes, but it is countered by a nuclear India. Notice how you need nuclear weapons to contain a nuclear power?

Now look at Iraq. What regional power is there that can counter a nuclear Iraq? Israel is one, but do we really want Israel and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? Iran is another possibility if we allow them to build nukes, but do we really want Iran and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? The only safe choice is for the US to continue to maintain a large force in the Middle East to contain a nuclear Iraq. That is a great idea, since we all know how much the Islamic fundies like a continuing US military presence in Saudi Arabia...

If Iraq goes nuclear, the chances of the whole region destabalizing is very high. Nuclear arms races are never good, particularly when the adversaries hate each other as much as Israel, Iran, and Iraq do.

[Sava]

Saddam is stuck in his little sh!t country... the US should lift the sanctions and only attack if Iraq so much as fires a pellet gun at anyone. I don't want to hear any more of that "9-11 was Iraq's declaration of war" crap. Prove that he was connected, then I'll listen.

BTW, not attacking and appeasement aren't the same things.

An estimated 500,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of sanctions. The US has killed more innocent Iraqi's than Saddam.

[Jon Miller]

ha ha ha ha

you crack me (which Fez is no longer doing, so good job )

Jon Miller

[Drake Tungsten]

Saddam is stuck in his little sh!t country... the US should lift the sanctions and only attack if Iraq so much as fires a pellet gun at anyone.

I'll bet the constant Iraqi AA attacks on coalition airplanes patrolling the no-fly zones don't count in your equation, right?

[Sava]

If Coalition forces told me I couldn't fly in my own damn country, and constantly invaded my airspace, I would fire on them.

They have no right instituting the zones, or enforcing them as such.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to defend a murderous dictator...

[David Floyd]

JT,

Upon what foundation, dear David, do your moral beliefs lie?

You won't like any answer I give, so I'm not going down that road with you

Drake,

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to defend a murderous dictator...

Oh really? So, then, on the basis of superior firepower, the US has the right to dictate where Iraqi aircraft may and may not fly within Iraq?

So, then, if Canada had enough strength, they should be able to enforce no-fly zones over, say, Minnesota?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Sava
They have no right instituting the zones, or enforcing them as such.

Unlike in Civ 2, cease-fires don't expire after 15 turns in the real world.