What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Velociryx]

On my way to take my girlfriend to the dentist, but I have time for one reply before heading out the door!

Ramo: I contend that if we had any balls, we would NOT declare Northern Iraq independent. That's not our place to do.

IF the Kurds want their independence, we should support it, not claim it's so on our own.

Would they? Probably, but that's not what you said.

It is up to the member nations of the UN to ensure that the organization has the strength to perform its mission. We can either look at the failures of the past and throw up our hands, saying there's just nothing to be done, or we can start right now, giving them the power to back up their mandates.

That is, IMO, the proper course, and it carries with it the implication of making sure the job gets done right.

The UN should not be in the business of replacing one dictator for another but for importing democratic principles to nations in trouble (thus, "let the Iraqui people decide") And, we should be committed to staying till it's done, and done right.

Is that what will happen here? Don't know. Doubt it, but since war is inching toward inevitibility, the only thing we can do is make the best of the current hand, and IMO, the plan above is the way to do that.

Willem: I know you can hold your own in a debate, just know that I'll be fighting on your side if it happens....

And again, I admire your efforts and initiative for actually doing something besides just griping about the current plan, and proposing an alternative! Kudos!

HO: Willem came up with the alternative you agreed to in principle within a few minutes. To say that it is not possible flies in the face of what occured.

Yes, there are some prickly issues associated with the situation in Iraq, and the larger situation in the ME. We've had ten years to talk about it all, and in that time, the more "enlightened" position has been to simply ignore it.

After a decade of that, perhaps it's time to try something new?

And yes, Americans get into loud, rowdy debates in....pretty much everything. Bars, politics, sometimes even in Church. It's what makes things run over here.

As to Europe's problems....I'm not taking the approach that I am an expert in Europe at all, but I am taking the approach that I know a thing or two about business, and looking at the business structure in Europe, taking into account the strength of the Welfare state in many EU nations, the inefficiency of its labor markets, and its contracting populations, I can tell you the eventual results of that with absolute certainty. Those results would remain the same if the conditions were in Europe, in the USA, or anyplace else in the world, and they are more subtle, sinister, pervasive, and harder to deal with than anything you guys have faced to date.

But, the problem is underscored by your reaction to my pointing it out.

Yawn.

That's exactly what Europe is doing.

Good luck using that as a remedy.

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

"To say that it is not possible flies in the face of what occured."

No, you would want to think a strategy through. Ever played chess?

"After a decade of that, perhaps it's time to try something new?"

For that one has to think about the quality of the alternatives. Or should we always just do something because it's new ?

"looking at the business structure in Europe, taking into account the strength of the Welfare state in many EU nations, the inefficiency of its labor markets, and its contracting populations, I can tell you the eventual results of that with absolute certainty."

I have no idea how you arrive at your (non-stated) conclusions, but you should check your facts first.

"they are more subtle, sinister, pervasive, and harder to deal with than anything you guys have faced to date."

A third of the population will die from desease and we'll have another 40 million killed in war and genocide?

[Ramo]

I contend that if we had any balls, we would NOT declare Northern Iraq independent. That's not our place to do.

Yes it is. Independence needs to be enforced. Saying "we're independent!" right before a Turkish invasion, with possible Iraqi and Iranian intervention isn't real independence. Independence is only a relevant idea among those with enough authority to enforce it. The Kurds can't enforce it given their enemies in the region and their relative power; they need our help.

IF the Kurds want their independence

It's not a question of if. It's obvious they want independence. The only reason it hasn't happened is that we've been selling them out over and over again.

Probably, but that's not what you said.

It was implied.

If you want to get into semantics, by ANY reasonable standard, they have already declared themselves independent (many times). But we don't recognize their independence, and probably won't for a long time.

That is, IMO, the proper course, and it carries with it the implication of making sure the job gets done right.

How does that make sure the job gets done right?

Is that what will happen here? Don't know. Doubt it,

So if you "doubt" the job will be done right, why do you support war?

but since war is inching toward inevitibility,

It's not inevitable if enough Americans oppose it.

the only thing we can do is make the best of the current hand, and IMO, the plan above is the way to do that.

We all have our plans, but honestly what do you think the odds are that yours will be implemented? I think I've already pointed out two good reasons why it won't be: Turkey and Iran.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Eurocoms in general are correct. Specifically, the Austricom.

Americans in general, and Shrub specifically, have failed to address what will happen after Iraq in terms of public discourse. We haven't made any specific committments on guaranteeing the liberties of the Kurds after Saddam is gone. There's a reason for that; we won't. Our relations with the Kurds for the past few decades demonstrates this fact very well. The Turkish alliance is more important to us than the liberties of the Kurds. The fate of the Shia isn't much better, due to possible Iranian sympathies. Our government won't take the chance of Iranian clients taking over the government. Iraq'll be a puppet dictatorship, not a free democracy.

Iraq isn't a danger, and containment can work. There aren't any connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq except in the minds of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Saddam has every reason to not wage war outside of international law. Saddam has every reason to not attack us (at least, until we invade).

Ramo, it seems you are against war because American has not annouced in advance independence for the Kurds and Shi'ites.

So, your alternative is to leave them under control of Saddam?

[Velociryx]

HO: So....a decade of talking about it isn't enough time to decide on a course of action? How long do you need? That's a mighty long chess game.... (or perhaps the enlightened European approach would be to simply wait until the man dies of old age?)

As to checking my facts....global growth rates are a well-documented matter of public record.

As is the fact that most of western europe seems fascinated with the notion of a welfare state. 40% of Immigrants to EU countries wind up on the government dole, and when you add to that the aging native population you get....trouble. No matter how you slice it.

But that's okay....keep yawning and telling yourself it'll be okay, and when the "fit hits the shan" call a cowboy....

Ramo: Since none of us here at 'poly are in positions of power, all we can do is talk about possibilities. As far as I know, none of us here hold any cabinet level positions, and while writing to your congressman might have been an option six months ago, it's a little late to be starting that in the eleventh hour.

My reasons for supporting the war effort are simple, and two-fold. One, it is our opportunity to unmake a boogey man of our own devising...reversing a bad decision made years ago.

Second, we have the opportunity to remove from power a known regional bully with a stated desire to get his hands on nukes. Easier to deal with him before the fact, than after, and your "assurances" about Saddam's political astuteness ring hollow in my ears. Yes...he is politically astute, and that is why he would wash his hands of the actual USE of a bomb....but, given that he has friends in low places, it'd be very easy for him to do that....truck the bomb to some extremist group whose aims are in alignment with his own, and he can simply say "well gee guys, it wasn't me that done it." But that won't change the fact that it went off, nor will waiting until he has the capability to do something along those lines make it one whit easier to deal with him.

As to the landscape of Iraq post-Saddam....it is American arrogance of the highest order to say that we should dictate what occurs there, and yet, you claim it to be our duty and right. I disagree strongly. In a post-Saddam Iraq, if the Kurds want their independence, it will be theirs for the taking, and at that time, we should support it. I believe they will (as you have pointed out yourself).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: As Ned accurately pointed out, a "do nothing" approach would leave them under the oppressive control of Saddam Hussein. Is THIS a better, more enlightened alternative, to your mind?

[Ramo]

1. There's absolutely no guarantee that they will. Doing so is counterintuitive to US strategy in the region.
2. Yes, Saddam is likely better than our alternative. At least his power is restricted by US no-fly-zones, etc.

[Velociryx]

So....the superior plan then is to leave him alone, let him get his hands on a nuke and hold the rest of the ME hostage....gotcha! Glad you're not in charge, but gotcha!

And rather than coddle and contain, why not do something that will make a difference for the Iraqi people? Something tells me that no-fly zones aren't exactly improving their lot in life. Maybe, but I'm doubting it.

Sanctions haven't worked. Containment only gives him time. We have an opportunity to hurl a yoke off the backs of the Iraqis, but we should not, in your opinion, because you think the alternative would be worse. How much worse could it get? For the Iraquis as a whole? For the Kurds? They're already bein' slaughtered, so what's worse?

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

"So....a decade of talking about it isn't enough time to decide on a course of action? How long do you need?"

How long do you need? The issue has been pretty much ignored for most of that time, also by the Clinton admin. Also, circumstances have changed a bit with the breakdown of the Oslo accords and 9/11.

"As to checking my facts....global growth rates are a well-documented matter of public record."

And they do not support your claim, unless you limit them to 1996-2000.

"As is the fact that most of western europe seems fascinated with the notion of a welfare state."

Which is relevant how? Really, explain it.

"40% of Immigrants to EU countries wind up on the government dole"

Where did you pull that number? FOX news?

"keep yawning and telling yourself it'll be okay"

We are and will be dealing with it. What happened to that everlasting american optimism? Why the need to draw doosmday scenarios for Europe?

[Ramo]

Since none of us here at 'poly are in positions of power, all we can do is talk about possibilities.

But you keep ignoring the impact of Turkey and Iran in these probabilities.

As to the landscape of Iraq post-Saddam....it is American arrogance of the highest order to say that we should dictate what occurs there, and yet, you claim it to be our duty and right. I disagree strongly.

I didn't advocate that. It's clear that they want independence. Right now. These are the wishes of the Kurds. That's why there's an autonomous government in Northern Iraq. That's why there's a military struggle against Iraq and Turkey. But we aren't supporting them.

In a post-Saddam Iraq, if the Kurds want their independence, it will be theirs for the taking, and at that time, we should support it. I believe they will (as you have pointed out yourself).

But I believe we won't. If we do that, we lose Turkey as an ally and our government for the past few decades has made every indication that it does NOT want to do that.

My reasons for supporting the war effort are simple, and two-fold. One, it is our opportunity to unmake a boogey man of our own devising...reversing a bad decision made years ago.

But what's the point if the alternative won't be any better?

Second, we have the opportunity to remove from power a known regional bully with a stated desire to get his hands on nukes. Easier to deal with him before the fact, than after, and your "assurances" about Saddam's political astuteness ring hollow in my ears. Yes...he is politically astute, and that is why he would wash his hands of the actual USE of a bomb....but, given that he has friends in low places, it'd be very easy for him to do that....truck the bomb to some extremist group whose aims are in alignment with his own, and he can simply say "well gee guys, it wasn't me that done it." But that won't change the fact that it went off, nor will waiting until he has the capability to do something along those lines make it one whit easier to deal with him.

But that's suicidal. Saddam is not suicidal. Besides the possibility of the US finding out he did this, etc., the US will assume a priori that Saddam is responsible. Look at the frantic search for an al-Qaeda/Saddam link. Furthermore, it isn't in his interests. He can get by just fine without redoing 9/11. It's a supremely unnecessary risk. And giving nukes to wild-eyed Islamist fanatics isn't in his interests either. Too big of a risk considering the possibility of it detonating in Baghdad.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
1. There's absolutely no guarantee that they will. Doing so is counterintuitive to US strategy in the region.
2. Yes, Saddam is likely better than our alternative. At least his power is restricted by US no-fly-zones, etc.

Ramo, the current situation places us permanently into a semi-cold war with Saddam. We need to pull out of the region entirely. It is our presence there that is causing the OBL's and the hatred.

[Velociryx]

HO: No need to attempt to explain it....I'm just an American...you guys are of the more enlightened mindset, are aware of it and working on it, I'm sure you'll be just fine.

As to American optomism, it's alive and well. One of the reasons it's alive and well is because we're generally pretty careful about p*ssing our liberties away to centralized state control (as I am certain our next election here will bear out, which will undo some of the more colorful shenanigans the current administration has attempted). The EU is a Socialist, Beurocratic machine that is not controlled by the voters. Much of what they do, they do behind closed doors. Their officials are appointed, not elected, and they've already begun redrawing the map of the EU. The power is slowly being siphoned away from the people and into the hands of Europe's "elites" Well-intentioned or not, that smacks of the same old, same old, and just as it got Europe in trouble in the past, it will do so again.

I hope you're right. I hope Europe wakes up from its lethargy, shakes it off, and begins commanding a larger portion of the world stage.

That would be a good thing to see.

But until the will to take considered action is there, I'll not be holding my breath.

-=Vel=-

(Edit: as opposed to endlessly talking about what mightabeen, and lamenting about Europe's lack of centerstage role without the will to change it)

[Ramo]

So....the superior plan then is to leave him alone, let him get his hands on a nuke and hold the rest of the ME hostage....gotcha! Glad you're not in charge, but gotcha!

If I were in charge, I would support an invasion. But the aftermath of the invasion would be handled competently (i.e. in the interests of liberty, not US authority). I simply don't trust the government to handle the situation correctly.

And rather than coddle and contain, why not do something that will make a difference for the Iraqi people? Something tells me that no-fly zones aren't exactly improving their lot in life. Maybe, but I'm doubting it.

Look at Northern Iraq, and compare it wtih Southern Iraq.

Sanctions haven't worked. Containment only gives him time. We have an opportunity to hurl a yoke off the backs of the Iraqis, but we should not, in your opinion, because you think the alternative would be worse.

Saddam hasn't been holding states hostage with chemical or biological weapons. Why do you think he'll be holding states hostage with nuclear weapons?

How much worse could it get? For the Iraquis as a whole? For the Kurds? They're already bein' slaughtered, so what's worse?

The Kurds are currently largely autonomous. That'll end with the dismantling of the no-fly zones. Lots of infrastructure will be destroyed, and I'm sure there will be thousands of civilians casualties in Iraq proper. Because of the aforementioned Iranian situation, another dictatorship would replace Saddam. Hence, everyone would likely be worse off than in the status quo.

[Ramo]

Ramo, the current situation places us permanently into a semi-cold war with Saddam. We need to pull out of the region entirely. It is our presence there that is causing the OBL's and the hatred.

OBL is primarily motivated by US presence in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Isolationism is not the answer; rather, we need to start acting responsibly in the world stage.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx

As is the fact that most of western europe seems fascinated with the notion of a welfare state. 40% of Immigrants to EU countries wind up on the government dole, and when you add to that the aging native population you get....trouble. No matter how you slice it.

That's a rather unfair argument frankly. If the immigrants here in Canada are any indication, they are some of the hardest working and self-sufficient members of our society. Certainly they get help when they first arrive, but it's usually not very long until they're standing on their two feet. You're implying that immigrants end up on the public dole for the rest of their lives. That simply isn't true.

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

Where do you get your "information" ?

I'm quite puzzled how an intelligent person can spout such stereotypical nonsense with such amazing conviction.

And the "No need to attempt to explain it....I'm just an American...you guys are of the more enlightened mindset, are aware of it and working on it, I'm sure you'll be just fine." is a nice to insulate yourself from the facts.