No 2nd Resolution

[Lord Merciless]

Europeans are always good at going after bad guys(Pinochet, Milosevic) no longer in power, and at sucking up to bad guys(Saddam, Ghaddafi) still in power.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ned
Adam Smith, It does appear that France and Germany are 1) not operating on the same set of facts, or 2) they are drawing different conclusions from a common set of facts, or 3) they are being disengenuous.

I say the French and Germans are being disengenuous. I believe the facts strongly suggest more Saddam obstruction with only the appearance of cooperation.

As you say, Adam Smith, I too am deeply disturbed by the French and German obstructionism. This presages a wholesale rearrangement of alliances. As Che would say, the world, or at least some of it, appears to have united against America and the UK.

(Just as an asside, I am just finished listening to Band of Brothers on tape. It appears the French had a very hostile, anti-American attitude even as we liberated them in WWII. Now, someone, please explain that!)

Oh, just remember the French have a chip on their shoulder because the only thing they have left from the days of Napoleon's grandeur is the feelings of inferiority due to short stature (physical in his case, military and political in France's current national standing).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sorry.

No problem. I understand how posts can become buried.

It seems pretty self-explanatory.

It does save for one salient point. Your theory about the US's stance causing it to loose credibility on this issue doesn't seem to be carried over into reality.

[Arrian]

Dino,

Hypocrisy does damage credibility. People tend to get upset about hypocrisy, especially when the hypocrit is powerful. It's true in private life, and it's true in the world at large. I personally think it is a major factor in "anti-Americanism" around the world.

The problem is that our argument ends up coming down to this: we can have them because we're responsible enough and you're not. To which the rejoinder is: "Say what? You're the ones who actually used the damn things!" Our position, even if it wasn't hypocritical, is also patronizing (even if we're right about pisspot dictators not being responsible enough to be allowed to have nukes).

-Arrian

EDIT: However, as I've said before, Saddam did indeed agree to terms that required him to disarm following the Gulf War. That's seperate from the larger debate over the US's position on non-proliferation.

The problem I have with a war at this point is that we cannot seem to prove he has any WoMDs. If he's got them, I'm sure he's hiding them, in which case the inspectors will not find them. If he doesn't have them... the inspectors will not find them. Bush says this, Saddam says that. I don't think there is a good enough case for war.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GePap
So when do we fit this thread with a Gun rack? Maybe one of those "don't mess with texas" bumperstickers?

reminder : must get myself one of those stickers.

already got one

[DinoDoc]

Arrian: Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree on the hypocrisy point for the moment in order to avoid being bogged down by it and move on to what I consider to be the more substantive points. I still fail to see how it helps DF's position on nuclear proliferation become more rational in light of the dangers presented by thier spread.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Frogger


No, the Iraqis were just not encouraging the scientists to be interviewed alone. No scientist said "yes" when the inspectors asked if they wanted to be. Now Iraq has promised to encourage scientists to be interviewed alone, but has said that it will not compel them to do so.

omg. do you honestly think a scientist would agree to talk freely, putting his family in mortal danger?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Richelieu


While i think that the US would most probably be able to invade IRAQ without any problems, i'm not so sure about what you say here.
I just hope the lessons of Mogadeshiu haven't been forgotten if it gets to that.

No way is this going to be like Mogadeshu. I believe the Bush administration when they say the white flags will be waving quickly.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I've never understood this oil colony business. Is there actually any out there simple minded enough to really believe this is the truth? Hello! Earth to space cadet. Have you ever heard of the commodities exchange market? Anyone with money can already buy all the oil the want. It would be ten times more expensive to occupy a country to try to set up an oil colony then it would be just to buy the oil at market rate. Ergo it is not about setting up an oil colony.

It's about getting rid of someone who's been a pain in the backside and making an example out of him. It's about demenstraiting that bad things happen to people who try to upset the apple cart. That the guy happens to be an SOB and that we will once again get to experiment in creating spin-offs in our image is just icing on the cake.

Is that fair? No. Is it effective? Yes. Will it make make countries like North Korea and Iran think long and hard before they get into any pissing contests with us? Yes, and that's why knocking off Saddam is a good idea.

Thank you... god damn, whenever my friends (who are about as educated and well read on geopolitics as Poly Shore...) say we are going to war 'just for oil', i feel like slapping them. The ignorance is upsetting, i suppose...

Kman

[Arrian]

Dino,

Well, I'm not Floyd, but here's my take on it:

We have essentially 2 (non-hypocritical) choices.

1) Accept that Pandora's Box is open, and that more and more nations will gain nuclear weapons, ala Pakistan & India. This is Floyd's position, right?

2) Alternatively, we could work out an agreement with the other nuclear powers that we will all disarm and cooperate in getting everyone else to disarm as well. The problem here is that such an agreement will be awfully difficult to get: a lot of countries see the power of nukes as a foil to US hegemony. But I think it's worth a try.

What we're doing now is clearly not working.

-Arrian

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DuncanK


No way is this going to be like Mogadeshu. I believe the Bush administration when they say the white flags will be waving quickly.

I can only hope... but im not so sure. On the BBC world news I now see marches in Iraq daily, where men brandish AKs and vowing to fight for their "glorious" leader to teh death. If it comes to war, my guess is there will be stiff fighting at first, but as the masses see their dead piling (in Mogadishu, there were about 100 Americans, with 17 deaths... there was practically a city of Somalians and 1000 deaths...), the white flags will begin to wave. Bitter feeligs tho will probably prevail for some time, unfortunately.

[Garth Vader]

I've never understood this oil colony business.

Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money.

Understand?

This should also allow you to understand why this administration is the one pushing for this.

[Kramerman]

2) Alternatively, we could work out an agreement with the other nuclear powers that we will all disarm and cooperate in getting everyone else to disarm as well. The problem here is that such an agreement will be awfully difficult to get: a lot of countries see the power of nukes as a foil to US hegemony. But I think it's worth a try.

also, the US would be unlikely to go along with this because of the fear that someone my not disarm, and secretly persue nukes. This fear is not unfounded either. The US and the Soviet Union signed an agreement to ban the development and manufacture of biological agents for use in warfare. The US complied, but the Soviet Union secretly continued the development and manufacture of germs.

[Arrian]

Krammerman,

I understand that is a problem with option #2. But the alternative, so far as I can see, is option #1.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, I said this in a post in the previous page. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the US position. It is a strawman argument and leads nowhere except to proliferation.

"Snowfire, if you were seriously supportive of the NPF, you would not justify proliferation based on the US, or for that matter, Russia, China, France or the UK having them. The goal is to halt proliferation while having the current nuclear powers reduce stockpiles to zero over time through negotiation.

Iraq and the NK are the first countries, IIRC, that have signed the NPF that have embarked on programs to acquire nukes.

To the extent the world will not enforce the NPF, or for that matter, UN resolution that are aimed at carrying out the NPF, the world will not get rid of these terror weapons ever.

So, let's not talk about hypocrisy."