What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Velociryx]

If you will read my latest post, the questions asked are geared toward *talking about* the idea YOU proposed.

The conversation has therefore shifted TO the alternate proposal.

To most folks, this would indicate a sense that the door was open to a dialogue ABOUT alternatives (since, you know....that's where the conversation shifted and all).

Instead, the reaction is to remark how close-minded the discussion participant is, and walk away pouting.

If we can take 'poly as something of a microcosm of the rest of the world, I contend that it is no wonder Bush and Co. have taken a hard line, unilateralist attitude.

When the other side doesn't want to put their option and alternative under the microscope for a closer look, one must reach one of two conclusions:

A) Either the plan is flawed in some way, and close scrutiny will reveal the fault of it (thereby exposing the "other side" to criticsm of THEIR--supposedly vastly superior) plan

or

B) The other side really isn't all that interested in talking about options anyway, and would rather get back to the vastly more fun business (and less risky, by the way) of bashing the current plan and those who front it.

Which is it?

-=Vel=-
(going to lunch, but looking forward to the reply)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
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.

IIRC, that escape hatch has been offered to him by both the US government and his neighbors.

[Arrian]

FYI:

France, in response to Powell's dog & pony show, has suggested "doubling or tripling" the inspectors.

I pass no judgement, as I did not see the presentation. All I've seen is the written reports about it, which just say that he showed satellite photos and played some audio tapes.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If you will read my latest post, the questions asked are geared toward *talking about* the idea YOU proposed.

No, you automatically took the stand that it wouldn't work. There was no discussion, just refutation.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

IIRC, that escape hatch has been offered to him by both the US government and his neighbors.

Yes, but as an alternative, not an ultimatum.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
- 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.

Yes that is exactly what I meant. Or are you incapable of reading between the lines? Sorry that I'm not a diplomat and didn't draft the entire resolution for you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
Yes, but as an alternative, not an ultimatum.

The difference between the two at this point being what exactly?

[Velociryx]

Just back from lunch, so yes....let us continue to talk about the alternative proposed.

Despite your claims to the contrary, here we are, talking about the pros and cons of YOUR plan.

Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that unless you are willing to submit your plan to close examination (and yes, that means discussing its possible weaknesses), I fear that little meaningful discussion will result.

Since I am still here, expressing a willingness to talk about the play *you* proposed, I find it strange in the extreme that I am being accused of being unwilling to talk about alternatives.

Although, I confess that I am one of those ignorant Americans who knows precious little about anything beyond my own back yard, so it is possible that this criticism is perfectly valid, and I simply lack the intelligence to "get it." Time will tell.

Clearly "forcibly removed" is open to interpretation. After all, you obviously interpreted "dire consequences" (UN 1441) to mean something other than armed invasion, while I read between the lines.

So...for clarification, I asked you to spell that out, so I, as a misguided Neanderthalic American, would not make so foolish a mistake a second time. thank you for clearing that point up.

DinoDoc brings up a good point. IF we were to draft another, new resolution telling Saddam to either get out or be "forcibly removed" is that not.....an ultimatum?

If not....why not?

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Vel, Dino started a thread here, last week I think, which had a very good article about containment as a policy. You should read it.

[Ned]

Garth, I think containment discussed in the think piece called on the US to guarantee the safety of the countries of the region by assuring Saddam that if he were to nuke, for example, Teheran, that we would nuke Baghdad, which may lead to Saddam nuking NY in response. This was the containment policy that worked so well for generation with the USSR - MAD, but with an attack on Europe leading to US retaliation.

I think the plan is flawed because the US will not nuke Baghdad simply because Saddam nukes Teheran. I doubt that we would even nuke Baghdad if he nuked NY. We no longer kill innocent women and children to fight wars. What we would do, however, is take him out using a conventional war.

Which brings us full circle if conventional war is containment. Why wait - he already is in defiance of the world.

[Velociryx]

Isn't it interesting that when the discussion turns to talking about possible weaknesses in an alternate plan proposed by those who disagree with the current plan fronted, that the Euros (and Canadians) fall strangely silent.

Nahhhh, that's unfair to Willem. So far, of everybody who's been critical of the current course of action, he has been the ONLY one who's had the nads to put an alternate idea on the table, and that says something. I like that, and I hope he comes back soon, cos I really am interested in talking more about it (the good AND the bad).

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

I wasn't trying to recreate the whole debate we had there, just wanted to bring it up because people from both sides of the debate thought it was a good article and Vel may not have seen it.

As for why wait? Sure, he is defiant now, but he hasn't started anything since his last beat down. He may not. Why kill tens of thousands of people for something that might happen?

[Velociryx]

Will check it out, Garth, and thanks for the head's up.

I gotta agree with Ned's positiion.

And at this point, it's not about what he may or may not do, it's about demonstrating to the world that UN resolutions are slightly more useful than toilet paper.

1441 promised dire consequences for non-compliance.

Blix has said Iraq is not complying.

Where are the dire consequences?

If we don't dole them out, what message are we sending about the strength of the UN? What message are we sending to other sabre-rattlers around the globe? And most importantly, does the message sent increase global security?

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Isn't it interesting that when the discussion turns to talking about possible weaknesses in an alternate plan proposed by those who disagree with the current plan fronted, that the Euros (and Canadians) fall strangely silent.

Nahhhh, that's unfair to Willem. So far, of everybody who's been critical of the current course of action, he has been the ONLY one who's had the nads to put an alternate idea on the table, and that says something. I like that, and I hope he comes back soon, cos I really am interested in talking more about it (the good AND the bad).

-=Vel=-

Well it's not fault there's been some problems with the server.

So here's my position, now that I've had more time to think about it:

Saddam is given a choice between stepping down and going into exile or war will be declared in order to remove him. Give him no more than a week? to decide.

If he decides to step down, the UN assumes stewardship of Iraq until such time that a transitional government can be put into place. The "Eurotwits" (and the rest of us) provide ground troops to ensure security within Iraq. US and British forces remain parked on the borders as insurance.

At the very least, the responsibility of war will rest entirely on his shoulders, which should go along way to reducing the inevitable protest of the Muslims fundamentalist in the Middle East and Pakistan.

[Arrian]

Willem,

I'd have nothing against such a proposal.

And the server really has been godawful today...

-Arrian