Anti-War Signs

[Drake Tungsten]

For instance, the whole lack of dialogue on this issue in the public discourse.

Most of the important decision-making on complex issues like this takes place outside of the public discourse. There has been a discussion of this issue going on in foreign policy circles, which I'm sure has continued in the administration. Just because we don't know much about the plans doesn't mean they don't exist or are horrible. As a curious individual, I'd certainly like to see the plans laid out in detail, but I'm also smart enough to know why that hasn't happened yet.

[Ramo]

Because the plans aren't morally accpetable. I find it very unlikely that we're suddenly going to abandon the Turkish alliance or the strongly anti-Iranian policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because the plans aren't morally accpetable. I find it very unlikely that we're suddenly going to abandon the Turkish alliance or the strongly anti-Iranian policy.

You need to explain this a little more. Taking Turkish interests into account and opposing Iran doesn't automatically make a plan immoral...

[Bosh]

Iraq is the Arab nation most likely to be receptive to democratic government, due to its secular nature and educated populace. It's the best place to introduce democracy to the Middle East to serve as an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism.

There's no possible way that the US will establish a democratic regime in Iraq, that would mean handing Iraq over to the Shi'ite majority which would mean a complete (and very messy overhaul) of the Iraqi state and mechanism and the disestablishment of the vast majority of the Iraqi elite. It would also enrage the Saudis.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Containment isn't a solution;

Why not? It's worked before.

That's not very high on my list of priorities when it comes to sends troops into action.

If you want to win the war on terror, it should be your number one priority.

Serving braod strategic aims should be the only concern of a country sending troops abroad, not silly idealistic notions like spreading liberty to the ME.

[Ramo]

In a nutshell:

1. Kurds will lose their autonomy, either by being annexed by Turkey or reannexed by Iraq. It'll also be very bloody when this happens.
2. It's unlikely that we'll let overwhelmingly Shia Iraq vote for whomever they like given the possibility of an Iran-friendly government taking power at the expense of currently entrenched Sunni powers.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no possible way that the US will establish a democratic regime in Iraq

Why are you so sure about that? It certainly won't be easy, but it's not impossible either.

It would also enrage the Saudis.

Who cares? The Saudis aren't friends of the US and the sooner we're rid of them, the better.

Why not? It's worked before.

How? Saddam still has WMD and America has enraged a generation of Arab youth by placing troops in Saudi Arabia and "murdering" Iraqi citizens with sanctions.

Serving braod strategic aims should be the only concern of a country sending troops abroad, not silly idealistic notions like spreading liberty to the ME.

There are broad strategic aims in regards to Iraq; the "silly" idealistic notions are just a bonus.

BTW, it's a little disturbing to see an American calling the active encouragement of democracy "silly".

1. Kurds will lose their autonomy, either by being annexed by Turkey or reannexed by Iraq. It'll also be very bloody when this happens.

Kurdish leaders have already said that they support being part of a democratic Iraq. They would prefer to be independent, but they understand that the realities of the situation prevent that.

2. It's unlikely that we'll let overwhelmingly Shia Iraq vote for whomever they like given the possibility of an Iran-friendly government taking power at the expense of currently entrenched Sunni powers.

Why would the US be totally opposed to a democratic Iraq that is friendly to Iran? The point of democratizing Iraq is to encourage democracy in other states in the region and Iran in particular. A Shiite-led democracy in Iraq would provide a great example for Iranian democracy proponents, possibly hastening the removal of the Ayatollahs. Sounds like a great thing from a US perspective, as long as the Iraqi government is friendly to us as well as Iran.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
There are broad strategic aims in regards to Iraq; the "silly" idealistic notions are just a bonus.

Name them

[Drake Tungsten]

Your link doesn't work, DD.

Preventing Saddam from acquiring nukes is a broad strategic aim, as it helps maintain the balance of power in the Middle East.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Your link doesn't work, DD.

Try this one then

[Kramerman]

[antiwar view on those who support war]

*chants* WAR WAR WAR WAR

*beats drums and sacrafices a virgin, all the while shaking a bone rattle and dancing around a large fire*

[\antiwar view on those who support war]

[Ramo]

Kurdish leaders have already said that they support being part of a democratic Iraq. They would prefer to be independent, but they understand that the realities of the situation prevent that.

You really think that the Kurds would meekly go back to submission to Baghdad after Rumsfeld gives them lots of weapons and liberate the Iraqis to the South, given the penchant for ethnic cleansing among the states in the region? Who's going to take away their guns?

Why would the US be totally opposed to a democratic Iraq that is friendly to Iran? The point of democratizing Iraq is to encourage democracy in other states in the region and Iran in particular. A Shiite-led democracy in Iraq would provide a great example for Iranian democracy proponents, possibly hastening the removal of the Ayatollahs. Sounds like a great thing from a US perspective, as long as the Iraqi government is friendly to us as well as Iran.

We've already given up on the reformists. Hence, the reason for dumping Khatami, "Axis of Evil," etc. Shrub is taking a hard-line stance towards Iran, there's no indication that this policy will change. Furthermore, we're not about to alienate the Sunni interests already in power. Not only would that royally piss off the Saudis, it would turn Iraq into a bloody Civil War. We aren't about to committ are resources into that fight or let Iran play a part.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kramerman
*beats drums and sacrafices a virgin, all the while shaking a bone rattle and dancing around a large fire*

Sounds like a party!

[Drake Tungsten]

The third strike against a policy of containment, according to those who have called for war, is that such a policy is unlikely to stop Saddam from getting nuclear weapons. Once he gets them, so the argument runs, a host of really bad things will happen. For example, President Bush has warned that Saddam intends to “blackmail the world”; likewise, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice believes he would use nuclear weapons to “blackmail the entire international community.” Others fear a nuclear arsenal would enable Iraq to invade its neighbors and then deter the United States from ousting the Iraqi army as it did in 1991. Even worse, Saddam might surreptitiously slip a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda or some like-minded terrorist organization, thereby making it possible for these groups to attack the United States directly.

The article brings up these reasons and never really disproves them. He uses the Soviet Union as an example of how deterrence would prevent this, ignoring the large differences between Iraq and the USSR. North Korea is a better example of what a nuclear Iraq might be like and they've certainly managed to blackmail the world and are a significant threat of selling weapons to Islamic fundies.

All in all, there are few good reasons to continue a costly containment policy when Saddam can be removed so easily.

Of course, what would one expect from Foreign Policy? Foreign Affairs is sooo much better...

[Bosh]

Why would the US be totally opposed to a democratic Iraq that is friendly to Iran?