What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Ramo]

Should a nuke land *anywhere* it is both a threat and a problem for all of us, and it is irresponsible in the extreme to assume that Saddam, who has stated openly that he's in the market for nukes, won't use them to bully his neighbors, and if the bullying doesn't work, won't let one of them fly to get his way.

Why?

I can think of quite a few countries that I trust less than Saddam with nukes. F'r instance North Korea and Pakistan. If the Hindu ultra-nationalists gain much more power, India also.

Saddam has showed that he's relatively politically astute and not suicidal (why didn't he attack us with chemical weapons during the Gulf War?).

Should the UN fail to enforce its own mandates, then perhaps it's time they got out of the business of writing them. If they're only good for toilet paper, then I am sure less expensive alternatives for toilet paper can be found.

Like how when the UN World Court told us to pay compensation for the terror we funded in Nicaragua, we blew them off. Maybe we should start enforcing UN mandates a little closer to home.

[Velociryx]

Why? Ummm....there's that little thing called fallout?

Fallout don't much care for national borders....it spreads where the wind blows, and therefore, it's a problem for everybody, should it happen.

Iraq does not currently have nukes. The other examples you cited already do. We have an opportunity to make sure he doesn't get them.

That's not an opportunity to pass on lightly.

Unless you like glow-in-the-dark sandcastles.

And yes. Read my post over in the "Should the US leave the UN"

There, I stated that we absolutely should not.

Rather, we should work from within to give the UN teeth, and the first, best thing we can do to that end is to play by the rules, and not pack up our toys and go home when they rule against us.

We lead by example, or not at all.

We can do nothing to change the past, but we can forge a new direction in the future, and that's what I recommend.

We made Saddam. Now is the time to unmake him, reversing an earlier mistake, and begin living up to the ideals we were founded on.

-=Vel=-

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Ramo

Saddam has showed that he's relatively politically astute and not suicidal (why didn't he attack us with chemical weapons during the Gulf War?).

Like how when the UN World Court told us to pay compensation for the terror we funded in Nicaragua, we blew them off. Maybe we should start enforcing UN mandates a little closer to home.

Chemical weapons used against US forces (which constituted the large bulf of the offensive force) would only have slowed them down some. Major casualties would have been suffered by some of the unprotected nations but this would not have appreciably changed the outcome in Saddams favour.
Nato/WP have been prepared for Chem/bio warfare for a long while and can compensate for such environments.
The only way to compensate for a nuclear warhead, short of disabling it before detonation, is to be somewhere else when it goes off. ie: Large-scale dispersal.
NBC gear only protects one from the aftermath when it comes to a nuclear explosion.


Your point about Nicaragua might have more relevance if any of the other countries ever ordered to pay compensation had ever done so. I'm guessing here but I doubt its too far off.

"Hey, Mr. President. When even the Germans don't want to fight, take the f*cking hint."

Just tell the Germans they'll be fighting France and you might see just how much they "don't want to fight".

[Ramo]

Why? Ummm....there's that little thing called fallout?
Fallout don't much care for national borders....it spreads where the wind blows, and therefore, it's a problem for everybody, should it happen.

Actually I was referring to your assertion that there was no reason to expect that Saddam wouldn't drop a nuke. Why is that?

Iraq does not currently have nukes. The other examples you cited already do.

Yes... That was the entire point of using those examples... A few current nuclear powers are much more of a threat to peace than Saddam potentially is.

And yes. Read my post over in the "Should the US leave the UN"

But we won't pay compensation for Nicaragua. Ever. Ain't gonna happen. So invading Iraq so that the UN has power isn't an issue.

We made Saddam. Now is the time to unmake him, reversing an earlier mistake, and begin living up to the ideals we were founded on.

I wasn't aware our country was founded on the ideal of insuring the massacre of Kurds.

[Kramerman]

I can think of quite a few countries that I trust less than Saddam with nukes. F'r instance North Korea and Pakistan.

well, as far as NK, all i can say is one at a time...
and for pakistan? they are somewhat helpful at the moment towards our most immediate threat, terrorism... but again, one at a time... ( )


Vel, your on a roll

[Velociryx]

Yep....and there was no way that Saddam would ever have rolled into Kuwait, either.

But we saw how that went.

As to the Kurds....you're vastly oversimplifying my position and what I am advocating, which is to unmake a monster of our own creation (we made him, he's our responsibility), and by living up to our ideals, *when* we unmake him, we make sure the Kurds don't get caught in any sort of crossfire.

A balancing act? Truly. But if we are to make amends here by undoing our mistake of creating Saddam, then it is the path we have to walk.

Heading to bed now, more in the morning.

-=Vel=-
(and thanks again Kman! )

[Ramo]

Chemical weapons used against US forces (which constituted the large bulf of the offensive force) would only have slowed them down some. Major casualties would have been suffered by some of the unprotected nations but this would not have appreciably changed the outcome in Saddams favour.

Umm.. yes. That was the point. Using chemical weapons was not rational. Using nuclear weapons isn't rational . Given the fact that he didn't use chemical weapons, it's likely he won't use nuclear weapons.

BTW, nukes are no different. Nukes aren't good tactical weapons. The most effective tactical uses for a nuke is to wipe out a fleet or disrupt electronics.

Your point about Nicaragua might have more relevance if any of the other countries ever ordered to pay compensation had ever done so. I'm guessing here but I doubt its too far off.

Nope. I just searched in google, and this is the first link that came up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/2721167.stm

[Ramo]

Yep....and there was no way that Saddam would ever have rolled into Kuwait, either.

I don't think anyone had ever said this. Iraq and Kuwait had an oil dispute. Iraq invaded. Which might've been prevented if it were not for Bush Sr.'s incompetent diplomacy.

Saddam using nukes is a whole nother ball game.

As to the Kurds....you're vastly oversimplifying my position and what I am advocating, which is to unmake a monster of our own creation (we made him, he's our responsibility), and by living up to our ideals, *when* we unmake him, we make sure the Kurds don't get caught in any sort of crossfire.

It doesn't matter what your position is or what you're advocating. The simple facts of life are that Turkey doesn't want an independent Kurdistan, Shrub needs the Turkish alliance, so Kurdistan will be invaded by Turkey, Iraq, or both.

A balancing act? Truly. But if we are to make amends here by undoing our mistake of creating Saddam, then it is the path we have to walk.

I don't trust the government. It has given no one any guarantee that it will act responsibly after Saddam is gone. At all. And its actions for the past few decades regarding the region reinforces this.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Ramo

Umm.. yes. That was the point. Using chemical weapons was not rational. Using nuclear weapons isn't rational . Given the fact that he didn't use chemical weapons, it's likely he won't use nuclear weapons.

BTW, nukes are no different. Nukes aren't good tactical weapons. The most effective tactical uses for a nuke is to wipe out a fleet or disrupt electronics.

I don't dispute that using chemical weapons against US forces was irrational - therefore Saddam didn't do it.
Nuclear weapons though would put him on a much more even keel - he'd still take much more damage than he dished out but at least (from his POV) he would be able to throw a few punches before going down.
And your point about the fleets and the electronics?
Some people actually believe the US has both of these and that they might be in some way impaired if nuclear weapons were used against either of them.

Tactical weapons are indeed not as effective against military formations as against soft targets (cities, power generators, and the like) but their very presence necessitates precautions, such as dispersion of force concentrations, etc. This still renders those forces far more susceptible to conventional casualties than they would be under a chemical attack - hence is rather undesirable to say the least.

Nope. I just searched in google, and this is the first link that came up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/2721167.stm

Heh. I didn't mean to dispute that nobody else had ever been billed for it. Just that I doubt too many countries have paid up. Want to place a wager that this won't happen here either?

[Ramo]

I'd like to add that in principle, I have no problems with an invasion of Iraq. He's a bloodthirsty dictator who is undermining the freedom of Iraqis. I just don't think that it's aftermath will make the situation any better. Most likely it will be worse. Maybe if the government had a little more moral fiber, I would support an invasion.

[Ramo]

I don't dispute that using chemical weapons against US forces was irrational - therefore Saddam didn't do it.
Nuclear weapons though would put him on a much more even keel - he'd still take much more damage than he dished out but at least (from his POV) he would be able to throw a few punches before going down.

Huh? Why would he want to go down? Again, Gulf War I proved he was not suicidal.

And your point about the fleets and the electronics?

Making a caveat. The point is that using nukes in battle is very limited as far as a military tactic. Just like using chemical weapons in battle. Of course, that's not to say that using either one wouldn't be bad.

Heh. I didn't mean to dispute that anybody else had ever been billed for it. Just that I doubt too many countries have paid up. Want to place a wager that this won't happen here either

Why should it matter if no countries pay up (which I seriously doubt, but I don't feel like looking for evidence)? Doesn't that demonstrate that UN is not very powerful anyways, hence reinforcing my point that not enforcing UN mandates isn't the end of the world?

[Velociryx]

'k....one more, and then I am really going to bed....

Ramo....I agree that there are other, bigger fish to fry than Iraq, but our assets are in position to deal with them. I propose we play the current hand to completion before worrying about what cards are delt in the next. (unless you are sugessting that we simply lack the resources, and must therefore make it an "either/or" proposition....if so, I think you sadly underestimate our resources).

If I was in charge, the FIRST thing I'd do would be to write the check to the UN, to disburse to Nicaragua, so that a US-led enforcement of 1441's violation (dishing out some of those "dire consequences") would contain some measure of moral fiber, but I am not in charge, and the world's attention is not currently on Nicaragua, so I agree, that is not gonna happen, but just because it doesn't happen does not mean that we can't start here and now, with Iraq, playing by UN rules.

We can, and we should.

And once our hand here is played, we should work through the UN to install an interim government and keep peace in the region until the Iraqi people have a chance to sort themselves out and decide what they want.

Not the US....the UN. If what they want winds up being a government not kindly disposed to us, so be it. Our mission of unmaking our own little Frankenstein in this corner of the world has been accomplished, and the people of Iraq should have the freedom to choose what they want, not have it dictated to them by a heavy-handed US. That would only lead to further resentment, and in case you hadn't noticed, we have enough of that already, thank you.

Once the current hand is played, and the UN has moved in, in force with its peace keeping force, the US-led coalition (which, let us face it, will be largely made up of US troops), should withdraw and leave well enough alone, turning our attention (but not necessarily our guns!) to other trouble spots.

We ought not make ourselves out to be the world's policeman, but there *are* problems that require action. If the action turns out to be military in its nature, it is not something we should shy away from, but we should also not simply attack because we have a large, well-trained attack dog at our disposal.

After Iraq, we should look to the other little Frankensteins we made, and actively work toward unmaking them, all while playing within the bounds and rules of the UN, all with multinational support, and all the while, seeking to use our considerable influence IN the UN to effect change there, in order to make the UN more effective than it currently is.

But again....I ain't in charge.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

If I was in charge, the FIRST thing I'd do would be to write the check to the UN, to disburse to Nicaragua, so that a US-led enforcement of 1441's violation (dishing out some of those "dire consequences") would contain some measure of moral fiber

Nicaragua was a tangeant. It was related to UN authority (or the lack thereof).

My hint at moral fibre was referring to our spineless policy with respect to the Kurds in general, but in Iraq in particular. If we had any balls we would declare Northern Iraq independent Kurdistan recognized by the US (i.e. Turkey can't bomb the region every once and a while to "hunt down terrorsts"). Saddam has no authority in the region, so it doesn't even require an invasion.

But despite all this, we haven't done the right thing for the past decade. We haven't made any promises or guarantees. We've acted as cynically as possible with respect to their suffering. After Gulf War II, their autonomy will end; you can rest assured of that.

But again....I ain't in charge.

Yep, that's the crux of the matter. I'm not in charge either. I would support the war if we can be insured that your scenario ends up occuring (democracy in Iraq), but it won't happen for the reasons I've enumerated earlier (in my post right below your really big one).

For Iraqis, I have no doubt in my mind the situation will be far worse after the war than it currently is.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Willem, it doesn't matter that your country can't contribute much in terms of material or manpower....only that the desire to do so, and the will to make the effort is there. For that, I thank you and your countrymen! (along with thanking every other person from every other nation who lends their support IF things come to blows in the ME)!

Canadians have never been afraid of putting their neck on the line, if we feel the cause is just. And although we don't necessarily like Bush's concept of diplomacy, or lack thereof, we do agree that Saddam must be dealt with, and not just simply ignored. However we expect any actions taken to be done so through the UN, not unilaterally.

I've been thinking about it over dinner though, and I fear your amended position (much as I admire it) has put you in the same boat with us Neandericans.

The way I see it, we can go around and around in circles on this issue until we're all blue in the face. But as long as Saddam remains in power this debate will go on, and he will continue to divide the nations of the world, and the UN. So maybe it's time we got that particular thorn out of our side.

Regardless of whether he has WOMD, regardless of whether he has ties to Al Qaeda, he is a divisive force in the international community. I think all the heated arguments around here lately clearly indicate that. And leaving him in power will only manage to further fracture ties that all of our nations have made great sacrifices in order to develop.

And I think we can all agree that he's a tyrant. We were willing to deal with Milosevic on that basis, so why shouldn't we extend that treatment to him as well? Granted we'll have to play a larger role in policing the country afterwards, but the situation is not really that different. So we already have an international precedent.

Earlier you said you wanted to make sure war was a measure of last resort....that all options had been tried, and failed.

Yes, and it's becoming apparent to me that either war is inevitable, or Saddam will leave. The US will go it alone soon after Blix makes his next report, if the Security Council doesn't make a decision to join at that time. So all options will have been tried at that point. I won't be pleased if that happens, but I also won't shed any tears for Saddam.

I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you and argue against them, but just as a heads up, don't be surprised if it comes.

I can hold my own in a debate thanks.

Was that because Iraq is seen as largely unimportant, and therefore not worthy of a few minutes contemplation to come up with an alternative, or was it something else? I don't know.

Maybe because there are so few options available at this point. And they're afraid of the consequences. Not to mention that Bush's "bull in a china shop" approach to diplomacy doesn't leave much room for middle ground on the issue.

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

"Nobody else could be arsed to do it. Much easier to b*tch and whine but not offer anything constructive. Nobody else could be bothered with it.

Was that because Iraq is seen as largely unimportant, and therefore not worthy of a few minutes contemplation to come up with an alternative, or was it something else?"

A few minutes is not enough time to think this through. There are some unhappy consequences of the Iraqi war.

1. Is it worth it to do away with the rule that war is only legitimate in self defense.

2. Is it a good idea not to have a coherent policy on nuclear proliferation. Is selective preemption by invasion in contrast to poopooing NK and Pakistan not giving a strong incentive to countries to develop nukes. How can the US justify its nuclear arsenal vs denying it to others without accepting limitations and responsibilities.

3. In a preemptive doctrine, how preemptive will you be and who decides? Is it a good idea to leave that wide a margin of appreciation to a political process that is ripe with corruption and ideological lunacy?

4. What happens to post-saddam Iraq?

5. What happens to the ME. Is it a good idea to have another war that can and will be used by fundamentalists for anti-western propaganda. Is it a good idea to show rampant hypocrisy by condemning Iraq for violating SC resolutions, while supporting Israel and Turkey in their violation of SC resolutions.

6. Is it a good idea to ***** about Saddam's cruelty and get into bed with other dictators, especially when those rule with an apparatus that is infested by terrorism sponsors (Pakistan, of course).

7. What happens to alliances if Washington choses to play Athens?

Now, I could make up some alternative, but it wouldn't address all problems either. The "comply or lose your head" strategy is fine with me in principle. The current US approach is, however, "You're all idiots, I need to invade Iraq now no matter what".

"We get off on rowdy, lively debate."

Where? In politics?

"From this side of the Atlantic, it seems (to me, at least) like the same old story, replayed endlessly."

No. We have been looking at the root problems, nationalism and nation state, and started to deal with it. US pundits simply do not understand this. And their claim that we want to export this model is silly, too. We know it can't be applied everywhere, but it offers some valuable lessons. Like that common rules are better than anarchy or tyranny in international relations.

"our attempts to head off problems before they grow to monsterous proportions"

We have learned the law of unintended consequences the hard way. You still have to, it seems.

"There are deep-rooted, fundamental problems eating away at the strength of Europe...."

Yawn. Laughable problems compared to what this continent has been through.

"the Euros who read this will write it off quickly as more ranting from an uneducated, unworldly, uninformed Neanderican...."

I'd only say "uninformed" about europe. I have no problem with that, I just don't understand (and this goes for many americans) why you act at the same time as an expert for europe's "underlying problems".