Appeasement: Right or Wrong?

[Sava]

In general, I believe that getting Saddam out of power is a good thing. As is instituting forms of Democracy in any nation that is oppressed by a brutal dictator. But I feel that the US's own domestic problems are more important than Iraq. I also feel that the Republicans' motives behind wanting Saddam gone aren't based on human rights' issues, they are based on oil, and imperialistic tendencies.

THey have the right idea, just the wrong motives, and the worst timing.

Fix what's wrong with America, then worry about the rest of the world. Saddam is contained. Taking him out and destabilizing the region will be worse than leaving him in. If you really want to improve the situation in Iraq for the people, drop the sanctions.

[Felch]

Originally posted by GePap
History offers us NO LESSONS whatsoever

The study of the humanities is meant to make us better, wiser people, not to give us an FAQ for diplomacy.

The Maginot line has no specific lesson. However, by understanding why people built it, and why it was eventually irrelevant, we can glean lessons about human nature. Knowledge of human nature is more useful in more situations than knowledge of military tactics anyways.

And in some cases history does offer lessons. In the first world war the general staffs would have done well by examining recent history, and realizing that frontal assaults against machine guns and barbed wire are senseless wastes of human life. But that's not really what you're talking about, so it's not really relevant.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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.

This is silly. First, of all the countries I don't want to see in a nuclear standoff, Pakistan and India top my list. Remember how close to the brink of a nuclear war they got a year ago? And considering Musharaff has far closer ties with terrorist organizations than Hussein has ever been proven to have, I'd say his threat is greater in the long run.

Hussein's obtaining of nuclear weapons would be of relative insignificance. Israel would certainly have a far greater capacity for dealing out nuclear damage than he ever will. And Saddam has never, ever shown an inclination to be suicidal. He likes keeping power. He's not stupid, and certainly would know that using even the smallest of nuclear devices, or even threatening to use them to blackmail his neighbors, would make him instant dogmeat. Don't forget that the U.S. has the capabilities to deliver nukes to Iraq, he doesn't even remotely have the capability to do the same for us.

However, the fact is that we have no evidence Saddam has nukes or is even that close to obtaining them. As has been said many times before, the possibility that he *might* do something is not just cause to go to war. Putin *might* turn out to be another Stalin and start invading Eastern European countries. Bush *might* be the antichrist born on this earth to bring about the apocalypse. Engaging in war on a *might* is a stupid philosophy and is morally unjust.

[Sava]

Bush *might* be the antichrist born on this earth to bring about the apocalypse.

*might*?????

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We can't just assume that Congress means a declaration of war unless they say it is one

Why not? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck why isn't it reasonable to call it a duck? Seriously, if you really want to talk about illegal war the Gulf War isn't the one to point to.

and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.

That's usually how wars end. I fail to see how that can be considered an illegitimate to conduct them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Felch X


The study of the humanities is meant to make us better, wiser people, not to give us an FAQ for diplomacy.

The Maginot line has no specific lesson. However, by understanding why people built it, and why it was eventually irrelevant, we can glean lessons about human nature. Knowledge of human nature is more useful in more situations than knowledge of military tactics anyways.

In general, i would agree with this assesment, with several caveats: history can give is a general understanding of human nature, but tdiplomacy is about the specific nature of actors of today, so it can give us a 'profile', but it is no substitute whatsoever for the facts of the day. I see to many people stick to the profile and not looking at the facts;see how easy it is to gleam a 'lesson' even from recent events and twoist it to ones own views?. Still, the point stands: current policy must be based solelly on an honest assestment of the aims of all parties.

And in some cases history does offer lessons. In the first world war the general staffs would have done well by examining recent history, and realizing that frontal assaults against machine guns and barbed wire are senseless wastes of human life. But that's not really what you're talking about, so it's not really relevant.

I would disagree with one basic notion: The general staffs of WW1 begun the war with only a few 'examples' available, the best case being the bloodshed of the Russo-Japanese war, specially the Siege of Port arthur. Still, it is anochronistic to state that the general staff should have read up on reports from this far away war to come up with their own plans. The great failure of the general staffs is not that they failed to heed history, but that they failed to incorporate real time experience. After all, by late 1915, all the generals had a clear view on what type of losses they had to expect (which is why the begun to institute mass bombardments of several weeks by 1916, a new strategy that also failed). The generals were bullheaded and slow to change, but change they did.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
what's with the david lovefest loinburger and Stefu?

You can always threadjack the thing with itelligence, if you feel that is not present. Good god, if stupidity can threadjack so many things, why can't intelligence do it as well?

ps: DF has a strict set of belief, but having read his arguments, he at least he is able to create consistent and rational undepinnings for them, which is far more than I have seen from many others.

Floyd is unwilling to debate (in good faith) the "rational" underpinnings of his beliefs. Cite. Cite. Hence it's a waste of time to debate morals with him or to bother listening to his proclamations of moral outrage, since he's unwilling and/or incapable of justifying his rigid moral code. He's got a consistent moral code, I'll grant him that, but his code is still unreasonable.

BTW, one post does not a threadjack make.

[Ned]

Actually consider the Maginot line. This does not appear to make any sense if the French were to declare war on Germany, does it? The French should all along have focused on carrying the war quickly into Germany and capturing its industrial areas. Else it was surely doomed.

The Maginot line and the Brits continued investment in surface sea power indicated a defensive strategy. It did not indicated that the Brits and French believed they could win a war against Germany.

Under these circumstances, a declaration of war by Britain and France was immoral. Appeasement was the only policy that was not immoral.

Again, one must have a high certainty of victory to justify a declaration of war. If you are equal or behind in power, you have no business dictating terms to the more powerful.

WWII was the fault of a weak Britain and France suddenly changing their policy from appeasement. It was also their fault in not cementing alliances with the USSR and the USA.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sava


OOhhhh, someones got sand in their vagina...

As long as Christian/Islamic fundies keep our world ****ed up, I will continue to rant.

Can you please identify these Christian fundies that you insist on linking to Islamic fundies? And by Islamic fundies are you refering to the segment that supports and practices terrorism?

If you are linking Christian fundies to terrorists and since you believe that morality is based on logic, I would gather you have some logical reasons based on facts to make this linkage. I would love for you to share them with us.

Unless you are just making immoral attacks on Christian fundies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point when Germany attacked them, of course. That is, France and only France would have been justified if Germany attacked France, and Britain and only Britain would have been justified if Germany attacked Britain.

That means I don't believe they should have gone to war over Poland (and they were also inconsistent to NOT declare war on the Soviets over Poland, not that they should of, of course).

David, David, I believe the UK/Polish pact was directed against Germany. Also, Roosevelt viewed the USSR as essential in establishing and maintaining a balance of power against Germany. When everyone else in Europe was jumping on the anti-Comitern pack, Roosevelt recognized the USSR an began sending them aid. I suspect the failure of Britain and France to declare war on the USSR to be 1) not required of their pacts; 2) not in their interests in biting off more than they could chew; and 3) something that Roosevelt demanded.

[Sandman]

Ned continues his quest to lay the blame for the Second World War at Britain's feet. Why, Ned, why?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
Ned continues his quest to lay the blame for the Second World War at Britain's feet. Why, Ned, why?

It belongs at the feet of both France and the UK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It belongs at the feet of both France and the UK.

The fault for the war in Europe lies with Hitler and Germany, not anyone else. Hitler's aims could only be aquired by war, so war there was. Is that so hard to understand?

[Ned]

Sandman, DinoDoc said it all. Britain's I am god and I rule the world attitude caused WWII, the current conflict in the ME, the war between Kuwait and Iraq, the instability between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, and the crazy border between Pakistan and Afghanistan dividing the Pashtoon people that has destabalized both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There is more, including Ireland. But I shall rest for a while.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is silly. First, of all the countries I don't want to see in a nuclear standoff, Pakistan and India top my list. Remember how close to the brink of a nuclear war they got a year ago? And considering Musharaff has far closer ties with terrorist organizations than Hussein has ever been proven to have, I'd say his threat is greater in the long run.

So you're saying that we should just allow Saddam to get nukes, even though it is a horrible idea, because we were stupid enough to let Pakistan get nukes? I suppose you think that we should never try to stop instances of genocide either, since we let Rwanda happen. That does a lot of good for the world...

Having Pakistan and India ready to nuke each other off the map is bad enough; we shouldn't allow a similar situation to develop in the Middle East.

even threatening to use them to blackmail his neighbors, would make him instant dogmeat.

You think that the US is going to start a war with a nuclear Iraq over something as small as blackmailing his neighbors? If Iraq gets nukes, America will back down. Protecting Kuwait and others isn't worth the threat of a nuclear exchange.

However, the fact is that we have no evidence Saddam has nukes or is even that close to obtaining them.

Bull****. The question isn't whether Saddam is trying to get nukes, but when he will have them. And once he gets them, it will be too late to do anything about it.