What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
HO - And as we have seen (using WWI as a guide) the victorious powers in Western Europe would have surely jumped right in and helped rebuild Germany, right?

The rebuilding could have been funded out of domestic savings. Forced savings maybe, but the gap caused by the lack of a Marshall plan could have been made up. It was, as I said, quite small.

"Doesn't matter what the GDP is if the money never gets where it's needed."

What is that supposed to mean?

[Velociryx]

Willem - no, I'm not.

I am saying that using *history* as a guide, we see a pattern. A trend.

Side A goes to war with Side B

Side A wins.

Side B (the losers) are forced to pay steep reparations and hemmed in by restrictive treaties.

That might have worked reasonably well in the middle ages, but in the modern world, with tanks and planes and machine guns, the model no longer flies, cos it's easier than ever to kill LOTS of people with minimal effort.

The basic pattern above can be seen through the whole of human history (sorry, the Eruos hardly have a monopoly on it....resourceful or not) , and in the case of WWI-WWII, it happened to collide with a growing technological base that redefined warfare.

The results....very bad, and something that the USA really didn't want to see happening again in a generation or two, and, given that the whole history of post-war behavior in Europe had been along those very lines, clearly *something* needed doing to change it.

Something was.

It worked.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Bah! Never mind then. Debate is one thing, but this one is spinning its wheels and going nowhere.

You guys are right, and we Americans are Neanderthals.

Go ahead and sweet talk Saddam. Kiss up to him. "Contain" him, coddle him, write some more useless resolutations and let him flaunt them. Let him do his thing over there in the desert while we show him time and time again how impotent the UN is, and how unwilling to act we really are.

And when things get to the breaking point....after he's got his arsenal of destruction built up, and it's verging on being too late, when you *finally* realize that you have to actually DO something to the guy....give us a call...'k?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Bah! Never mind then. Debate is one thing, but this one is spinning its wheels and going nowhere.

You guys are right, and we Americans are Neanderthals.

Go ahead and sweet talk Saddam. Kiss up to him. "Contain" him, coddle him, write some more useless resolutations and let him flaunt them. Let him do his thing over there in the desert while we show him time and time again how impotent the UN is, and how unwilling to act we really are.

And when things get to the breaking point....after he's got his arsenal of destruction built up, and it's verging on being too late, when you *finally* realize that you have to actually DO something to the guy....give us a call...'k?

-=Vel=-

Why is it always an either/or situation with you Americans, sit on our hands and do nothing or go in with guns blazing, cowboy style?

All I'm saying is that we take the time to understand the ramifications of war, and make sure that there's a coherent plan in place first. I'm not convinced that there is. The whole attitude by Bush has been one of shoot first, ask questions later. Sorry, but that doesn't sit well with me, nor to most of the people of the world. 52% of Americans also feel that way in fact. Why is that such a problem with you?

[Arrian]

But anti-Americanism is just such an old part of my personality, and had such a structurating role, that I cannot simply abandon it

Well, at least you're honest. You admit that no matter what we do, YOU (not Euros in general, or the rest of the world) will continue to dislike us. Thus, debating US policy with you is rather pointless, IMO. Thanks for letting me know to save my breath (or rather my keystrokes).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Willem,

What gets irritating is that along with the criticism, I don't see alternative plans of action offered up.

You keep talking about "containment." Fine, what do you propose to do about the sanctions (which, IMO, never work) regime? Specifically, how to you structure it such that we can deny Saddam the means by which to build WMDs without restricting things the Iraqis genuinely need for other purposes... and thereby get labelled as Iraqi baby-killers?

We've tried containment for the past decade, and the result of that policy has been being blamed for "500,000 Iraqi deaths" due, allegedly, to sanctions (but not, of course, to anything Saddam has done). If you say containment can still work, it's just that it was implemented poorly, fine: provide a viable alternative plan (not necessarily you personally, I'm thinking more about the governments of France and Germany here).

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Willem: Having read your other posts, that's not "all" you're saying at all.

And it's not an "either/or" proposition. To demonstrate that it's not, I point you to the following items:

* Economic sanctions have been in place against Iraq for....what? Ten...fifteen years now? How long should we wait before coming to the conclusion that that particular track isn't working?

* The UN has drafted resolution after resolution to keep Iraq "contained." Deadlines come and go without so much as a lifted finger from the UN. A resolution without an enforced punishment is.....pretty worthless, yes? So....how many more should we write? We've been letting him get away with it for a decade....how much longer shall we give the man?

Your plan is to sit on our collective hands, ask him politely "please mister ruthless dictator, don't misbehave." and expect that it will have tangible results! Hate to break it to you, but history isn't on your side. Not likely to happen.

Oh! We could try taking him out from the inside out! Well....we tried that too, and sadly, it didn't work either.

IMO, we're....running out of options at this point. We either act, or we take our toys, go home, and let him build the nukes he's openly SAID he wants to build.

So....what shall we do?

-=Vel=-
(who still strongly disagrees with, but is certainly beginning to understand Bush's unilaterilist mindset).

[Kropotkin]

Hmmm, I was listening a bit to the Powell-proofs and came and think about a solution that I've got on my mind for quite some time. Apparantly US intelligence can find out about the WoMD, they can take area/satellite photos and also earsdrop on telephones. So why invade the ****ing country? Lets give a selected group of countries the Judge Dredd-card and let them bomb things at sight. It might not be a perfect plan but it would lead to fewer loses than a all out war.

Just two cents, it's not a perfect plan.

[Velociryx]

Well, that'd certainly get rid of the Weapons themselves, but what about the pr*ck in charge of the country?

As long as he's there, the weapons will keep coming back like Kudzu grows here in my native south.

We (the USA) made this particular boogey-man....I think it's time we unmade him.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Willem,

What gets irritating is that along with the criticism, I don't see alternative plans of action offered up.

You keep talking about "containment." Fine, what do you propose to do about the sanctions (which, IMO, never work) regime? Specifically, how to you structure it such that we can deny Saddam the means by which to build WMDs without restricting things the Iraqis genuinely need for other purposes... and thereby get labelled as Iraqi baby-killers?

We've tried containment for the past decade, and the result of that policy has been being blamed for "500,000 Iraqi deaths" due, allegedly, to sanctions (but not, of course, to anything Saddam has done). If you say containment can still work, it's just that it was implemented poorly, fine: provide a viable alternative plan (not necessarily you personally, I'm thinking more about the governments of France and Germany here).

-Arrian

Well I wish I could provide you with a viable option, but I'm not a diplomat nor do I posses much knowledge as to what would be required. Quite possibly there may be no alternative to war, but I would like to be sure that all options have been explored first.

One thing I agree with Chirac on, war is the ultimate failure, and in this situation, the repurcussions could be severe. We might just find that the medicine is more harmful than the disease we were trying to cure in the first place. An invasion is going to send huge ripples throughout the Middle East and Asia, and possibily destabilise the entire region, and the world. Let's make sure we're all aware of the consequences first. And I'm not convinced that Bush is frankly, at least he certainly hasn't given me any indications to that effect.

It occured to me that one option that has never been discussed by anyone would be a UN resolution to order Saddam to step down and go into exile, or be removed forcibly. His choice. Voila, both sides to the debate will be happy.

[Velociryx]

I would like to be sure that all options have been explored first.

I repeat:

* Economic sanctions have been in place against Iraq for....what? Ten...fifteen years now? How long should we wait before coming to the conclusion that that particular track isn't working?

* The UN has drafted resolution after resolution to keep Iraq "contained." Deadlines come and go without so much as a lifted finger from the UN. A resolution without an enforced punishment is.....pretty worthless, yes? So....how many more should we write? We've been letting him get away with it for a decade....how much longer shall we give the man?

Your plan is to sit on our collective hands, ask him politely "please mister ruthless dictator, don't misbehave." and expect that it will have tangible results! Hate to break it to you, but history isn't on your side. Not likely to happen.

Oh! We could try taking him out from the inside out! Well....we tried that too, and sadly, it didn't work either.

IMO, we're....running out of options at this point. We either act, or we take our toys, go home, and let him build the nukes he's openly SAID he wants to build.

So....what shall we do?

I'm not a professional game-designer, but that didn't stop me from getting in there and doing it anyway, so....give us your thoughts. As Arrian said, instead of just criticising the current plan, how 'bout an alternative?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Oh! We could try taking him out from the inside out! Well....we tried that too, and sadly, it didn't work either.

Possibly because your government left the opposition high and dry when push came to shove?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As Arrian said, instead of just criticising the current plan, how 'bout an alternative?

In case you missed it:

It occured to me that one option that has never been discussed by anyone would be a UN resolution to order Saddam to step down and go into exile, or be removed forcibly. His choice. Voila, both sides to the debate will be happy.

[Velociryx]

Not gonna argue that point at all, Willem ('bout leaving them high and dry)....we did. A big mistake, too.

But...*even that* level of support (or, non-support in the critical moment) was a d@mned site more than say, the Canadian government has done to try to remove him from the inside, yes?) - again, it's real easy to criticize when you're not risking anything yourself. I understand that very well.

And, I saw the new UN resolution idea....not good enough. You wanna know why it's not good enough?

1) "Forcibly Removed" is not defined. ("Dire Consequences" was not defined either, and you see how dire the consequences have been for Saddam's non-cooperation) - if you mean "we will attack you if you do not step down" then say that. Spell it out point blank. The words won't bite.

2) Timeframe? A week? A month? Not much longer than that, surely....even with 13 Palaces, it won't take him that long to pack his $hit and go.

3) Seriousness? Why should Saddam have ANY reason to believe that this latest UN "resolution" would have any more weight or bearing than the last several?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Not gonna argue that point at all, Willem ('bout leaving them high and dry)....we did. A big mistake, too.

But...*even that* level of support (or, non-support in the critical moment) was a d@mned site more than say, the Canadian government has done to try to remove him from the inside, yes?) - again, it's real easy to criticize when you're not risking anything yourself. I understand that very well.

And, I saw the new UN resolution idea....not good enough. You wanna know why it's not good enough?

1) "Forcibly Removed" is not defined. ("Dire Consequences" was not defined either, and you see how dire the consequences have been for Saddam's non-cooperation) - if you mean "we will attack you if you do not step down" then say that. Spell it out point blank. The words won't bite.

2) Timeframe? A week? A month? Not much longer than that, surely....even with 13 Palaces, it won't take him that long to pack his $hit and go.

3) Seriousness? Why should Saddam have ANY reason to believe that this latest UN "resolution" would have any more weight or bearing than the last several?

-=Vel=-

You asked for an option, I gave you one. But obviously you've closed your mind to anything but a modern day version of the shoot out at the OK corral. Just like your government!

And that's why the "Eurotwits", and much of the rest of the world I might add, are getting so fed up with your country. It's your way or the highway.

Discussion over, there's point trying to get through a closed mind!