An Unnecessary War? (Long)

[Sava]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


You apparently are willing to go to any length to justify Soviet policies. Well, its transparent and we don't buy it.

Not in the least. You, and many others, are simply not consistent. Whether or not you believe Soviet and US policies are justified or not, it's wrong to pick one or the other. That's my point. Soviet policies are only justified if US policies are. It's as simple as that. You need to learn a big lesson that JFK taught this country during the Cuban Missile Crisis. "We're all human, we all breathe the same air, we all want the best for our children." The Soviet policies were motivated by the desire to protect their population from the horrors of another war. The US policies, while equally misguided, are generally of the same motivation. While you may equate the Russian people with some kind of "Commie/Red/Evil" stereotype. More intelligent people tend to realize that everybody is human. It's all about looking at things from a different point of view. And many conservatives (and liberals alike) tend to have tunnel vision and an inherent self-righteousness that blinds their actions and views of the world.

Arrian: If you're refering to the hope that I'll become a mindless sheep believing in conservative American propaganda, or becoming a self-dilluded conservative seeking to justify an immoral and grossly hypocritical foreign policy... then you are correct.

Oerdin: Perhaps I misinterpreted your point. I thought you were refering to my statement rather than the aura of fear itself. You'll have to forgive me, I'm dumb, slow, and generally ignorant; and coupled with 4 hours of sleep, no coffee... I'm even slower than usual

[DinoDoc]

Ugh! My thread is in danger of being Sava-ed to death.

Why do people even bother responding to you (Sava) in serious threads?

[mindseye]

Great piece, thanks for posting!

A central figure in the effort to court Iraq was none other than current U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was then President Ronald Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East

(shiver)

[GePap]

Hey Dino: which Walt wrote this, the old man Walt of realpolitick, or the Walt currently in harvard?

I think this is a finely argued piece of IR theory, something none of the pro-war folks have ever ,matched, certainly not on this forum.

Several hawkish, realists like Mearshimer and Pape agree fully with this line of argument.

As fr some of the weak rebuttals here:

That Iraq is more like NK: NK has not ionvaded anyone in 50 years, NK does not sell WMD but Basllistic missiles, and it seels these to other states, not Non-states enteties. To say that Iraq acts like NK means nothing, if one can argue successfully that NK behaviopr falls within what would be reasonable in the realist line of IR theory. Since it does fall in line, to say Iraq is like NK mean nothing.

As for calling this "outdated thinking": plase give us an equally cleary laid out and argued piece of writting on this new-fangled thinking you guys seem to follow.

[Arrian]

Arrian: If you're refering to the hope that I'll become a mindless sheep believing in conservative American propaganda, or becoming a self-dilluded conservative seeking to justify an immoral and grossly hypocritical foreign policy... then you are correct/

No, actually, that's not what I meant. If you are trying to imply that I fit the above profile, you are incorrect, and I'm insulted. I was referring to your debating skills, actually. "The Left" does not gain by having you on their "team" any more than "The Right" benifitted from having Fez.

Sorry, Dino, I can't help it. I don't know why, but I just can't. Mea Culpa.

-Arrian

[Ned]

The article essentially advocates a cold war with Iraq. To any who experienced the long cold war with the USSR, this is not something one would wish on anyone if there is a viable alternative. Imran is right to point out that containment of the USSR against a direct attack against Europe did not prevent Soviet support of revolutions across the planet that cost America tens of thousands of lives. It cost others millions of lives.

Containment of the USSR was forced on the West because we would have had a very difficult time defeating her in war. We do not face that problem with Iraq.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Ugh! My thread is in danger of being Sava-ed to death.

Why do people even bother responding to you (Sava) in serious threads?

1. I have unique points of view.
2. I have strong opinions and don't mind sharing them
3. My opinions are my own and not based upon a party line
4. I'm generally more right than thread creators

I'm sure in your own little Ashcroft-like, conservative Uber-paradise; you'd probably restrict free-speech. I can see why you don't like me. But on the contrary, I cherish you and your political views DD. I mean, I wouldn't know what's right if I couldn't first see what's wrong.

I think that a lot of people misinterpret a lot of what I say. It's more tongue in cheek than what can be read in print, and it's simply based on my understanding of things at that time. My opinions are very dynamic and change as I learn new things because I recognize that I'm not always right and that others' have conflicting views and experiences that I can learn from. I'm an open minded liberal; not a close minded conservative

[GePap]

At its height, the USSR had a GDP of about 2 trillion, it had over 200 million people, a space program, a huge fleet, so forth and so on. The USSR was a Superpower. Iraq has never been and will never be anyting greater than a local power. Iraq does not have the ability to stir rebellion anywhere, and I would add that while the USSR may have given aid, it never started a single damn rebellion: the Stalinist leadership was actually rebellion adverse (hence killing the real revolutionaries like trotsky) and never started anything. Revolutions abroad were begun by local revolutionaries with local beefs: had the US understood that back in 1950 it's life would have been much easier: it is ironic that someone with a 1950;s view of the USSR and its relation to international revolution could try to argue against a theory of deterence calling it '1950's arguments'.

THe article makes a clear point: anyone who argues for a war on Iraq based on lines of arguments that call Iraq a clear and present danger to the US today do so without much evidence or theory to back them. If you guys wish to seel a moralistic argument for war, go ahead, but stop making arguments that are baseless.


SAVA:

Do you agree with the piece or not? If so, just say so, the piece is strong enough to stand by itself, without your 'help'.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Che, the factual part (US only nation to use nukes) is fine, but this is extreme hyberbole.

I thought that was obvious. Unfortunately, many of you seemed to have been unable to distinguish me being a smart-ass from me being serious.

[SlowwHand]

Because you're seriously a smartass.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Hey Dino: which Walt wrote this, the old man Walt of realpolitick, or the Walt currently in harvard?

You maybe thinking of Kenneth Waltz with the "old man Walt of realism" comment. However, Stephen Walt is the one at Harvard.

I think this is a finely argued piece of IR theory,

I know. It was the strength of this arguement that pushed toward the fence of this issue but leaning toward the anti-war side of the arguement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We actually decided to leave meaning we LIBERATED those countries and gave them back their countries. The USSR invaded and took countries.

In France, Germany, Italy, and Greece we interfered in the elections, consitutions, or militarily. We set up a secret plan, Operation Gladio which targetted left-wing organizations with harrassment and assassination and which carried out operations to destablize left-wing governments (the Bologna train bombing, the fall of the Labor government in the early 1970s, etc.) Don't act like we are somehow innocent of the same crap the USSR pulled.

And of course the USSR had no free reign.

Ahhhh, but you said it did, which is what this is all about.

They could basically do whatever they wished because of the power of nukes.

But they couldn't, could they. They couldn't put missiles in Cuba. They couldn't invade the Middle East during the various Arab-Israeli Wars. They couldn't send troops or MiGs to Nicaragua. The USSR was extremely constrained by the power of the US.

Oerdin, given that the West invaded the USSR twice during the last century and the USSR invaded the West zero times, the USSR had plenty more reason to be afraid of us than vice versa. We were afraid because our government told us to be afraid. So were they. We said we would destroy them. They said they would bury us (in consumer goods--but no one remembers that part). They decided the best way to ensure not having to fight a war on their soil again was to have an offensive doctrine, i.e., if war seemed iminent, they'd attack. But they were never looking to start a war. And as far as being agressive goes, the US has invaded or overthrown far more countries in the period between the end of WWII and the fall of the USSR than the USSR ever did.

[Sava]

I didn't even read the piece... I was just defending Che from an onslaught of obsurdity.... not that che needs my defending him... or wants it for that matter

[Arrian]

I didn't even read the piece...

'nuff said.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
I didn't even read the piece.

You should, it's quite good.

BTW, has anyone else considered that by invading Iraq, we do exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do, that is, start attacking Arab countries?