"US will liberate Iraq", says Bush

[Edan]

Originally posted by Demerzel
Bush resigning could only be a good thing surely?

I can understand not liking Bush - I certainly disagree with him on many, though not all, issues - but do you really want Cheney as President? I think the words "out of the frying pan and into the fire" are apt here.

[Ted Striker]

I agree with MTG's analysis.

Bush must be a horrible poker player.

[Dinner]

They only way they'll get the O.K. from the UNSC is if the US and UK reveal the classified info they have on Iraq's weapons programs and neither Bush nor Blair wants to reveal it because then it might pin-point who their spies are.

I'd say they're going to have to gamble and give up the information, unfortunately, the UN is notorious for leaking information. I have no doubt that the moment the UN gets its hands on weapon locations from the US & UK a pro-Iraqi/anti-war member of the UN will leak the info to Bagdad.

[Demerzel]

With respect to diplomacy with Iran & Iraq, true things aren't going particulary well but to undercut everything with his speech didn't help. How he expects any diplomacy to work at all after labelling them evil is beyond me. Relations with Iran had been improving for years, as you say they are still weak but they were improving. Now they're stone dead.

With regards to North Korea, calling them evil was pretty stupid imho. South Korea has been working with the north for years to try to calm down the situation, re-open links and allow some travel between the two countries. It had been working, a rail link was created and families who hadn't seen each other for decades had got to reunite.

Then Bush said North Korea is evil, which naturally causes the North to get all pissed off and the South to have to deal with the fact that its in their interests to sort things out with the north but to also keep the US on their side. If they agree with the US then they lose any hope of dealing with the North and if they sympathise with the north then the US gets all annoyed.

It's not just US diplomacy that was affected by Bush's speech, the EU's work is tainted with the same brush as affects the South Koreans as I mention above. Being allies of the US these days is pretty fraught with difficulties, I'd hate to be a diplomat for one of them. Every day you'd wake up and think what Bush quote will I have to deal with today?


*edit*

good point Cheney is possibly just as bad - maybe the majority leader as 3rd in charge could take over? or you Americans could just demand comprehensive new elections?

with regards to the US needing UN approval, Bush has already said he'll go to war with or without the Security Council asking for it. That's what worries me, he's prepared to be unilateral on the subject and ignore everyone else if he feels its right. The question is his judgement seems suspect at the moment, far too hawkish - you'd want a bit of congressional oversight at all times surely?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Demerzel - that "with or without the UN" speech was another dumb move to prod the UN (they don't want to look as impotent as they are), but unfortunately, without UN support, arab nations with anti-US populations (did I repeat myself) will have a tougher choice in allowing the US to take unilateral action from their borders.

They're our lackeys, but don't like to admit it too often, as it makes the natives restless. Having the UN sprinkle holy water on an invasion gives the arab governments an excuse to legitimize their support.

Nobody likes Hussein, they just don't want to be so obvious about being a puppet, as that didn't work out so well for the Shah of Iran.

Logistically, a war against Iraq is a lot tougher without Saudi or Turkish support.

[Dinner]

I thought Bush's policy towards North Korea was very intelligent. We've tried where both the U.S. and South Korea are hostile to the north and got nothing. We've tried where both the U.S. and South Korea acted friendly towards the north and we got lied to and had them make nukes while we gave them subsidies. Bush's plan was to play good cop/bad cop with the north where the South continues its "sunshine" policy and the U.S. acts like the disapplinarian. That way if the north does something good the South can reward them and if the north does something bad the U.S. can find a way to punish them. In theory it's a good plan.

[Ted Striker]

North Korea has been done well.

I am very optimistic about that situation, and the good thing there is that the Chinese can help out with that one. I don't think they have much choice.

Though, it has alienated the South Korean population from us.

[Demerzel]

we'll see whether it's wise or not, I'm prepared to be persuaded but the way that Bush is portraying himself as bloody-thirsty at the moment can't be wise.

As mentioned above, he risks looking a complete fool and being completed unsupported after all his comments and I suspect that he'll go to war regardless. Can't say I would want to be in the armed forces right now and risk being killed so that Bush can get his approval ratings up.

Btw MtG, I'm astounded that you think that most of the middle eastern arab countries are american lackeys. I think that most of them are trying to grapple with the problem of doing the right thing at times ( e.g. work with the US to free Kuwait ) whilst keeping themselves in power with often the majority of their peoples against their policies. Fragile balancing act. Most of the countries there are very new in most senses having being ( re- ) created after the first world war. The leaders probably see the reason in removing Saddam for stability but are not anxious to have the US just go gung-ho when it feels like it. Having the UN be involved in the process validates it in that due process will need to be observed. That way they can do the right thing without risking discontent.

Remember too that hardly any, if any at all, of the arab middle eastern countries are democracies. Yet not surprisingly, the US deals quite happily with them. As observed elsewhere, America often deals with extreme dictators whilst refusing to deal with moderate democracies. They've gone to war to defend non-democratic countries like Kuwait, where torture occurs and was commonplace allegedly after Iraq was outed, but not gone to war to defend democratic countries ( maybe the lack of oil in those countries was decisive? ).

Note, I've used America in the paragraph above but you could easily substitute every instance above with a fair few countries. It's just that America ( by that I mean Bush ) is now on the warpath after 11 years to remove Saddam by any means fair or foul and it's interesting to note how things work.

I suspect I've not made my point half as well as I'd hoped but I'm rather tired right now and should be in bed. Sadly I'm tired but not sleepy - so here i still am at 1.35am...

[Dinner]

Which modern Democracy have we refused to deal with? Iran maybe but that one is clearly explained by history.

BTW You claim the U.S. should be condemned for having relationships with dictatorships but what would you have them do instead? Cut off relations with the 50% of the worlds population which doesn't live in fully dunctioning democracies? No, it's better to deal with them and try to influence them then to just ignore them.

[Demerzel]

I should rather have said that America has dealt happily with non-democratic nations before and not tried to change their status whilst trying to force more democratic nations into change. America worked happily with Iraq and Saddam Hussein for years and sold him weapons for his armed forces, even when they ( & chemical agents ) were used against his own citizens.

Now consider Saudi Arabia, it's a Kingdom and is not democratic in the slightest. Yet America has not done anything about it, nor has it done anything with Kuwait which is likewise non-democratic. I believe there were serious accusations of torture conducted after the gulf war and corruption issues. Yet if this is indeed true, then these issues have been ignored whilst countries which are far more democratic are interfered with.

After the restoration of the amirate government in 1991, there were many reports of beatings and torture to extract confessions from suspected collaborators. The Department of State estimated that forty-five to fifty Palestinian and other foreigners were tortured to death by police or military personnel. As many as 5,800 persons, mostly non-Kuwaitis, were detained on suspicion of collaboration during the four months of martial law that followed the country's liberation.

It's simplistic and no doubt completely facetious but it really does seem that the US & most other nations will ignore the wrongs if something like oil is on the cards.

As you say, you have to deal with non-democratic nations and try to resolve things diplomatically whenever possible. I just feel its a bit iffy of Bush to use the "liberate and democratise" line with Iraq when its just an excuse for his agenda rather than something real. There are plenty of nations out there to liberate and democratise but how many will be?

[Ted Striker]

Oi.

Not the old democracies/war of aggression debate.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They only way they'll get the O.K. from the UNSC is if the US and UK reveal the classified info they have on Iraq's weapons programs and neither Bush nor Blair wants to reveal it because then it might pin-point who their spies are.

How do you know they have such information? We should report you to the authorities immediately.

Seriously, if they had anything they would have revealed it or at least given hints to the inspectors the political advantage would be too great and there would be no point in keeping them if the evidence was to be used to justify flattening Iraq. After all the spies would have served their purpose by giving Bush a public justification for a war he's desperate to fight.

I doubt they have anything much - but who cares - the war isn't about WMD anyway.

[Demerzel]

I seem to remember they promised, a couple of months ago, to release a dossier containing all the information needed to persuade people of the case for war. Well we're still waiting and no document afaik.

Not sounding good really is it? We're going to war lads but we can't give you any information whioch would prove our case to you! Trust us!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Nobody likes Hussein, they just don't want to be so obvious about being a puppet, as that didn't work out so well for the Shah of Iran.

I'd wager that ordinary Arabs like Hussein a lot more than Bush.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon Seriously, if they had anything they would have revealed it or at least given hints to the inspectors the political advantage would be too great and there would be no point in keeping them if the evidence was to be used to justify flattening Iraq. After all the spies would have served their purpose by giving Bush a public justification for a war he's desperate to fight.

A few mouths back Bush, Blair, and all were running arounf all the news stations talking about "secret dossiers" of classified info proving Sadam was lieing. They then said they didn't want to reveal what was in the dossier because it would reveal sources and methods to the Iraqis.