What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


Well if the US position were "We want Saddam to disarm, as a last resort we'll go to war", that would cause a lot less problems. But the Bush admin chickenhawks have been searching an excuse for attacking Iraq since they came to power, so the assurances from Bush and co carry zero credibility. Especially if their scenario for after the war is "We'll hold hands with jubilating Iraqis and will pump happily ever after".

Ya know, Roland, this whole cross-pond who bashes who more crapfest just won't work as well if we keep agreeing with each other.

[Garth Vader]

Bottom line is….if we see something that doesn’t sit right with us, our first inclination is to go do something about it.

In Europe (from this American’s perspective, anyway), the first inclination is to talk about it or pretend it’s not all that bad, in hopes that it’ll go away.


Do you want it done right or do you want it done fast?

You are saying you want it fast.

A Simpsons quote is in order

Homer: There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way.

Bart: Isn't that just the wrong way?

Homer: Yeah, but faster!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well the way I see it:

Reasons for war

1. Saddam has WOMD
2. Saddam is an evil dicator like Stalin isn't bothered to kill anyone who he does not like that makes him suitable to use WOMD first as he has done in the past against Kurds and Iran
3. Iraq should be made into a democracy, and stop the suffering of Iraqis as they have suffered too much in the last 10 years
4. More oil in the marketplace and better control of it

Reasons against the war (without UN backing)
1. Do WOMD's really exist, and we would need some proof that they do before we go to war, as that would be clear breach of the UN resolution - Iraq lied knowing the consequences. Let weapons inspectirs dig and find the proof as they did when they worked up to 1998 (give the intelligence if US/UK have any), so don't go before some prerequisite for war is fulfilled.
2. If war is started without UN approval that is a precedent for other major nations to just say bugger off to UN, further eroding of UN authority.

3.. The war and especially an unsuccesful one will promote terrorism more than OBL could ever do.
4. Possible thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, as they are starving already and will suffer even more in a war that will target the infrastructure again.
5. Possible ME catastrophe if the war doen't go to plan (like Saddam WOMD's Israel, Israel nukes Baghdad, and all hell breaks loose or similar).

So basically under reasons against 4 and 5 will have to be ignored as the country leader Saddam is responsible for that and that is the risk factor, he has to be removed if #1 is fulfilled. And reason 3 is a very real threat and to counter that US and Europe have a chance in Afghanistan showing the ME that we have good intentions however it seems that both are passing up that chance to proove that they mean well. So basically what I don't like US policy at the moment for is jumping the gun after so much waiting (10 years+) and pushing its agenda based purely on newlyfound US will to disarm Iraq without proof that Iraq has WOMD's. We all wait for that wonderful evidence and there is nothing conclusive yet.

This is just from the top of my head but that is what I can think of at the moment. What pisses me off is that political PR talk and blah blah blah we are the peacelovers a white knight going to kill and evil dictator bollocks, and some fun strategies like putting 300 mill USD to advertise the war etc...

And that is the short story... as for American Imperialism, well if you count all the people killed because of it, and just a point do not forget that Saddam is a child of it, so please it cannot be good, but we cannot escape it, basically as this is human nature. Still to say

In truth, "American imperialism" offers the Arab world a better future than anything available to them from their own leaders

is utter ignorance. For the beginning US could leave the region and let the Arabs fight it out among themselves one thing is for sure, if you have done this nor Saddam nor Mubarak, nor tha Saudi Royal family would be where they are today. However it is in US (and European too I would expect) interest to keep governments up that are cooperating, and there are many lesser people who suffer because of it and they see US as evil (as US is the main player) because they cannot get rid of their own dicators as the US and US troops in the countries effectivley stop them.

Pehaps if there was no US there, ME would be like Africa that noone cares about and they are slogging it out amongst themselves. But because US and the west in general have the interest in ME - oil - they are there to protect the interests becoming the enemies of many commoners in the process making them into fanatics, so here you have the imperialisim and 9-11 as the consequence (with more likely to come to all of us).

As for the war I am for it after the UN backing and some conclusive proof that it is neccessary, not before.

And for other reasons for anti-Americanism, well you are filling the history books for reasons for it. As we know all major powers were using their power for their own interests casusing pain and suffering in other parts of the world. US is no different in that respect, and the reasons for anti-american sentiments are valid. Just go over last 30 -40 years and count all the dictators US has propped and all the people that have been killed where US tipped the power in the hand of the dictators, and severe anti-americanism came after the dicators were disposed as in Iran and Greece, and there are others like Vietnam, Cambodgia, Iraq (and installation of Saddam), Congo (Mobutu), Chile(Pinochet), Panama, Grenada...

Britan was not well liked during their Imperialist phase either, (and check out Hollywood movies these days, after Nazis and Soviets are gone Brits are the main baddies for their past crimes ) and there were good reasons for it too, but what did post-colonial Britan do as a difference while getting out of colonies was making sure that every country had democrtic process in place when they got out. As a consequence there is no general bad feelings towards UK today in those places even though many are in civil wars or such... but they are fighting it out amongst themselves not having one powerful country sponsoring one side and making them win, which is what US did since WWII. So Brits seem to have learnt their lesson and that is what US needs to do, especially if it is true (what some here claim) that we can all get along without ME oil. But that directly opposes the US involment policies. On the other hand what I would propose is that US starts leaving democracies behind instead of propping leaders that suit their short term interests like Saddam was at the beginning.

Bushes idea of a democratic Iraq is cool, but can he deliver, and what happens if an pro-Iran and anti-US party wins? And that is very likely.

[Velociryx]

Garth:
Well....it's not as though we simply have knee-jerk reactions to things going on around us (if that were the case, then the planes would have been flying the hour after the WTC attack), but yes...at some point, you gotta quit talking and start doing....and if you don't, then it should come as no great shock when nothing changes....true?

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

True, but many long term festering geo-political debacles have been caused by jumping in too fast and not thinking about the long term ramifications.

There has to be a middle ground between sitting on your thumbs, and jumping in without thinking.

I'd just like to Mtg's post.

War shouldn't be the first club out of the bag, but you shouldn't leave it in your trunk either.

[Velociryx]

I agree....knee-jerk response is, in many cases, worse than no response at all....what gets under my skin tho, are the folks who talk a *really* good game when it comes to pointing out the flaws in somebody else's plan, and yet....don't have the guts to put their own (supposedly superior) ideas into action.

The best plan is the one that accomplishes the goal....not the one that gets talked to death.

Want a real life example?

Done! From my own personal experience....smaller scale of course, but the principles are the same.

I was disenchanted with Civ3 when it came out. Such good potential, left hollow by what I thought were bad design decisions.

And...I was not alone, either. There were a chorus of voices outlining all the things wrong with Civ3. Good, smart people in that mix.

The *difference* was....I got so fed up with it, and so disenchanted, that I decided to make my own d@mned game.

A lot of people thought that was a pretty groovy idea, and volunteered to help out. People from all over the world, actually (several countries in Europe, Australia, and in many cities in the US).

A lot of other people scoffed at the idea, and told us it was a fool's errand.

Yeah...maybe....but we were determined to try, and set about doing that verey thing.

We're getting close to releasing our public beta, and when we do, I have no doubt that some of the people who scoffed at us along the way will look at what we put together and have something negative to say about it. "Well....I could have done it soooooo much better, cos I would have done this, and this and this."

And you know....maybe he'll be right....but the fact remains that he didn't, cos after all, it's easier to bust up someone else's plan than it is to enact your own.

It'll happen. I'd bet my last dollar on it.

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Chris!

I still think Willem said it best. It's YOUR world. You can choose to live in it, or talk about living in it.

You know what gets us jazzed up more than anything on this side of the pond?

Results.

Not talking about results, not mightabeens....just results.

It's not hard to get results, you just gotta go DO something.

:: shrug:: Or...not.

You mean like the rousing string of well thought out and executed American foreign policy actions such as the US response to the Cuban revolution, to the Bay of Pigs, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Vietnam, US support for dictatorships in Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Allende assassination and coup in Chile, support for the Shah of Iran, "constructive engagement" in South Africa, support of unpopular represssive monarchies throughout the middle east, kissing Israel's ass over the USS Liberty incident, protecting the Marines in Beirut Airport, Somalia, US building up and supporting Saddam Hussein when we thought he was our boy and when he was convenient for dealing with the Iranians, Ollie North's "arms for hostages" deals with the Iranians while we were helping the Iraqis, all nice and publicized so that both sides knew we were double dealing, etc. etc. etc.? Yeah, yay for the results of American action. Foreign policy competence R US.

If all you wanna do is talk and wring your hands when the boogy man comes to town...hey! If that's your bag....enjoy.

That may not be so much worse than creating or supporting the boogey men, then getting pissed out of proportion when they decide to bite massa's hand and no longer be our boys. Like Noriega and Hussein. Or getting our asses handed to us when our lackeys get overthrown by obvious popular movements (whether misguided commies or otherwise) who are magically hostile to us for no apparanent reason, just because our lackeys, are not competent enough to retain power and popular support) like Thieu, Somoza and the Shah of Iran.

If you'd rather go the appeasement route...great! It worked so well in WWII, I can certainly see the attraction of trying it again with every other nutball that comes along. We could just cave into the demands of every two-bit dictator with some bombs and see where that gets the world....give 'em money like it's candy. Give 'em sweet business contracts. That'll make the poor, misunderstood dictator come around...surely! (just don't hold your breath waiting for it).

There's generally a range of policy option between outright appeasement and half-assed invasion with no thought out policy for nation building or regime imposition on the occupied populace. And the US has no problems supporting murdering dictators when the US thinks that they're our boys, like Hussein, Noriega, Batista and the Shah. We gave 'em money, sweet business deals, military aid, and look what we ended up with in the long run?

If you'd rather adopt the "not our business, not our problem" then I think it's fair to say that you're not really living "in" the world cos if you were, you'd see it as everybody's problem, but again...that's your gig. Stay home if you wanna. Bury your head in the sand if it suits your fancy.

We do that all the time. Somalia wasn't our business (despite the fact we armed half the "technicals" there when Ethiopia tilted commie and we were playing SLOC control games with the USSR), then it was our business, then it wasn't. Gee, make up your minds already. Same thing with the balkans, Lebanon, Afghanistan for the last 24 years, etc.

But don't be overly surprised when somebody else steps in and starts acting like they mean business....starts *doing* something, rather than just talking about it. And odds are good that their plan will differ markedly from the one that you "would have" put into action. Hey....you snooze, you lose. If you wanted to do such-and-so....maybe you shoulda???

Just because one power is inclined to randomly run amok like a kid whose mommy forgot to give him his daily Ritalin dose, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. Maybe instead of running amok with half-assed "we've gotta do something" policies, or "appeasement," it would be real interesting to see if the relevant parties in any given trouble spot could come up with a consistent and rational approach for dealing with the problems. Or not contributing to them in the first place.

Of course, it's easier to sit back and watch the show, criticizing the players from a safe distance....that way, you don't risk anything, and you don't have to really DO anything, and you can keep that smug sense of arrogance that your plan would have been vastly more successful (if you had ever gotten around to actually implementing it).

Or it's better to parade your balls around in a wheelbarrow, and telling the world "well, we didn't have any coherent strategy, and we didn't have any clear cut goal beyond immediate regime change, but at least we did something."

But there's nothing stopping anybody from "playing the game" as it were.....the will to act is all it takes.

The will to act is one thing. The brains to act (in whatever manner) in a coherent, consistent way that reflects some strategic vision and maturity is another.

[Nubclear]

Instead of debating this....How about you ponder and give me an answer about the following situation.

Side A is right.
Side B is right.

Both sides cannot be right. But both are right. Therefore, which side is wrong?


If you still haven't guessed, its side AB.

[Velociryx]

Hey MtG! And I will be the first in line to admit and agree that we've made more than our share of mistakes in areas that pretty well span the globe.

Absolutely Noooooo denying that!

And yep....some of our mistakes have *included* making boogey men who come back to haunt us later on (and in fairness, we inhereted a couple from Europe too).

All true.

But because it *is* true, that doesn't mean that we should simply throw our hands up and give up trying.

(Nor does it mean we should do the "no Ridilan thing" and run around helter-skelter without a coherent plan, but that has never been a thing I advocated anyway! )

What gets my goat is that when nobody else is willing to touch a given problem with a ten foot pole, if somebody jumps in to do the deed, and you're not willing to help....that's cool....but stay the heck out of his way and let him do what he can.

Kinna like a member of the bomb squad trying to disarm a bomb in some office building. Either help him, or stand the hell back....don't look over his shoulder and scold him "no no no! Don't do it like that! God, you're such an idiot!"

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Tass...as I see the issue, it's not about "right" or "wrong"....it's about a willingness to DO something. To act.

I contend that if you're not willing to roll up your sleeves and act on your convictions, then you have zero room to complain when someone else does.

Appeasement is not "acting on your convictions."

Ripping apart someone else's action-plan without getting in there and trying to prove that yours is superior by acting on it is not acting on your convictions.

If you make a wrong choice, you make a wrong choice. That's a risk of taking action.

The risk of not acting, however, is almost always worse than a possible mistake.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

....don't look over his shoulder and scold him "no no no! Don't do it like that! God, you're such an idiot!"

"Back-seat bombsquadding!" I love it. Good image, Vel.

MtG, , as usual.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Thanks man!

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Want a real life example?

Done! From my own personal experience....smaller scale of course, but the principles are the same.

-=Vel=-

I admire that kind of initiave, since I am lazy beyond my desire to describe

However, I think you will agree the decision to create a computer game, where failure is measured in time and money, and the one to engage in war, where both failure and success is measured in lives, are quite different.

Just noticed this

Kinna like a member of the bomb squad trying to disarm a bomb in some office building. Either help him, or stand the hell back....don't look over his shoulder and scold him "no no no! Don't do it like that! God, you're such an idiot!"

What if it's one of your fellow office workers who decided something had to be done and was going to disarm that bomb himself. "Damn bomb squad is taking too long to get here"

[Velociryx]

Very different, Master Vader....quite true. However, I have no military examples from my own life, and so I had to make use of what was available....

And in the case of an office-mate trying to disarm the bomb vs. a member of the bomb squad, I can tell you that in NEITHER case would I be standing over his shoulder b*tching at him.

In the former, I'd be as far from the building as possible (EDIT: after trying to convince him that the better course of action would be to leave it alone till the pros arrived, and join me at the evac point), and in the latter, I may be a bit closer, but still well outside...

-=Vel=-

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Velociryx

And in the case of an office-mate trying to disarm the bomb vs. a member of the bomb squad, I can tell you that in NEITHER case would I be standing over his shoulder b*tching at him.

In the former, I'd be as far from the building as possible (EDIT: after trying to convince him that the better course of action would be to leave it alone till the pros arrived, and join me at the evac point), and in the latter, I may be a bit closer, but still well outside...

-=Vel=-

Neither would I. Unfortunately our real world situation does not have a bomb squad, nor an option to leave the building.

So we are left trying to convince the impetuous bomb disarmer to listen, hoping that many heads are better than one