The War arguments

[GePap]

Azazel: first, go to the NYtimes: they had a nice piece in their op ed about the cot of the war and aftermath: Maybe it won; show online (i get the paper version) so let me tell you two numbers: 127 billion, which according to the methodology of the study, was the lowest case scenerio cost of the Iraq war and occupation. Then 640 billion, the high end estimate of the cost. I guess that doesn't count as bucketfulls, in your neighborhood, right?

Second: read up on the modern hisotires of places like Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Equatoria guinea, Angola, and even Iran's and Suaid Arabiabs, so you can get a fine picture of the wonders large amaounts of oil do to politics. its a wonderful, cheery picture.

[Joseph]

Re: The War arguments

Originally posted by GePap
I know there already are various Iraq threads up, but I honestly do not think such a long statement fits as a post (to Ming). I also hope it leads to, if for a few posts, a good arguments about Iraq, instead of the tired tirades. Finally, I can use this a s reference next time someone asks me about Iraq. So lets go:

A good post. But you forgot number 5.

That Ba$**** tried to kill my DAD, and now I'm the President. Guess what Sadam? I'm coming for your a$$.

[Az]

Azazel: first, go to the NYtimes: they had a nice piece in their op ed about the cot of the war and aftermath: Maybe it won; show online (i get the paper version) so let me tell you two numbers: 127 billion, which according to the methodology of the study, was the lowest case scenerio cost of the Iraq war and occupation. Then 640 billion, the high end estimate of the cost. I guess that doesn't count as bucketfulls, in your neighborhood, right?

Show me the study, and if I am convinced I'll change my opinion.

[Velociryx]

Been thinking about this some more, and at the core of it, in my head at least, is this:

Saddam is a player. He's done the brinkmanship game before, and he knows how the game works.

He *also* knows that if he can "foot-drag" enough....make the inspections go on long enough, it'll cost America a pretty penny (troops mobilized for war and in the field are more expensive than troops left at home).

Further, he knows that if he can "foot drag" long enough, then public sentiment will begin to shift against this war. ("oh look! The Iraqis ARE cooperating....we should give them more time....")

It's working.

I say Saddam is playing us....again.

Same song and dance as 12 years ago, and we're falling for it....again.

I know GePap doesn't believe in, or put much stock in the patterns of history, but....does this line of "wait till the last minute and then make some concessions to drag the process out a bit longer" look a bit....familiar?

One need only look at the divisions we face now, the anti-war rallies and such, to see that Saddam is, in fact, winning. Every day that goes by, every day he continues to play his game successfully, offering up "just enough" additional cooperation to keep the troops from landing, it becomes harder to effect that, which means that, in the end, it becomes harder to ultimately enforce the resolution when Saddam refuses to give further and fully cooperate.

I think that's his game.

Drag it out so long that, when he finally stops giving a little more....when he finally starts thumbing his nose at the UN, kicks out the inspectors again, world sentiment will be so dead-set against the war that it'd be political suicide in western countries to go ahead with it.

Saddam wins.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Further, per the latest Blix report, we *know* that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because there are 50,000 litres of Anthrax and a variety of other items *named* in the Blix report as being unaccounted for.

Now....this says one of two things:

Either Iraq has destroyed them already, in which case, it would be in his best interest to provide the documentation of that to resolve the question and diffuse one of the major reasons constantly claimed to go to war against him, OR, he has not, in which case, one might expect....rather what we're seeing now...."foot dragging" on the issue to buy time.

Time for what?

Time to either hide them away so well that they'll NEVER be discovered, or time to farm them to areas outside Iraqi borders till the boogey men go away.

And we're giving him that time....KNOWING that these items were in Iraqi possession, and knowing that he has not come forward with any documentation that proves he is no longer in posession of them.

Why are we doing that, exactly? How long should it take to provide this proof? The original document he provided (with the missing information) was given in ....November 2002, IIRC.

Four months, and he still can't scare up the paperwork for where the Anthrax went?

I find that.....difficult to believe.

At best.

-=Vel=-

[skye820]

Hans Blix and Co. were shown empty rooms! Therefore, what else could his report reveal? He was hired to report on what he was shown, not question what he was shown.

I am not surprised by his report to the UN Security Council.

The western world is being played....yet again

[PLATO]

I have been loathe to weigh in on this debate as I have been reading the OT threads. GePap seems to have summarized the available arguments. These arguments got us to resolution 1441. Since then the power struggle has shifted and so has the prize. Here is why the USA MUST AND WILL go to war with Iraq:

1.) Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has set the agenda in the Security Council. The other four "veto members" role was to modify that agenda to best suit their National Interest. (Please do not believe that they are slow and deliberative for a third world countries sake...their sole purpose is to protect their countries positions.) This has allowed the US to push its agenda. Weather this is a good or bad thing is for you to decide...it is not relevant to the argument. The US will do whatever is in its power to protect this position.

Is this the reason for war...not by itself. read on,

2.) For the 1st time in ages new economies are coming on the scene in Europe. Eastern Europe. For 50 years these countries were focused totally toward the eastern block to develop and sustain their economies. Not only do they provide new markets for developed economies, they also provide a vast source of new production and ideas. These countries will end up with a major western partner in critical industries. France wants it to be them, the US wants it to be them. Both countries are economically positioned well to take advantage of this opportunity. These emerging economies will go with the country that can exert the most political clout in order to serve their own best interest. No war= France wins, Successful war = USA wins, Unsuccessful war= France wins. Conclusion USA will win successful war.

Is this then the reason for war?...We are getting closer. read on.

3.) For decades the US has been doing whatever it could to help support stable regimes in the middle east. Since the early 1970's the progress that the US has made in relations with middle eastern countries is astounding. Certainly their are some failures as well as the successes. As the ties get closer and closer, the US is able to exert more pressure to help achieve its goals in the middle east. For example, if anyone is old enough to remember, it would have been totally impossible for Syria or The Palestinians to even consider peace talks with the Israeli's. US pressure at least got the people to the table. Continued pressure in Iran is beginning to show some small signs of sucess. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi are all examples of US political success (absolutely there are major problems with these relationships...the victory is in having even got them to the point they are today compared to just a few decades ago.).

The bottom line is this...We have made commitments to some regimes in the middle east to get rid of Saddam. He is bad for their own power base. He indirectly provides many opportunities for fundamentalist movements to gain strength in their countries. They want him gone and have no ability to accomplish this. We have told them we would do it and they have opened their countries to tens of thousands of our troops and millions of pounds of equipment. If we do not follow through with these commitments then decades of work will be undone. A power vacuum will form (which, BTW France is eager to attempt to fill) and the regions best chance for stability in the foreseeable future will be lost. Arab/Israeli peace talks will collapse and the situation will be far worse than any post war scenario other than a US defeat on the battlefield.

This is the reason that the US MUST AND WILL go to war. Thanks for reading through it all.

[Velociryx]

Well spoken and insightful, Plato. I can't help but agree.

-=Vel=-

[skye820]

And here I though France was opposing a war with Iraq due to the embarassment of the discovery that the VX gas canisters are stamped with a Made in France label.

[PLATO]

Well spoken and insightful, Plato. I can't help but agree

Thanks Vel !

I also believe that you have nailed Sadams strategy. It is actually the sucess of this strategy that has given the French strategy its chance for sucess (although I do not think that it will be successful. It will incrementally increase their stature in many parts of the world however)

[Ramo]

Gepap, regarding argument 3, which is really the only legitimate argument for agressive war, I have to say that the premises behind it are totally wrong. It isn't in the US' best interests to implement a free, democracy, given primarily the interest of Turkey, Iran, and the elements of authority, besides Saddam, within Iraq.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by skye820
Hans Blix and Co. were shown empty rooms! Therefore, what else could his report reveal? He was hired to report on what he was shown, not question what he was shown.

I am not surprised by his report to the UN Security Council.

The western world is being played....yet again

DL!

[Kramerman]

good posts Vel, plato, and skye

[GePap]

First:
Vel:

"Saddam is playing us" you say: I don't disagree. Of course he has not disarmed and inspectors won't disarm him. That is not the point. Yes, for 12 years he has done nothing: that emans not only that he ahs not disarmed, but that he has not threatened his neighbors either. This campaign against Iraq was not initiated by Iran and Kuwait (two states actually invaded by Saddam) or SA and Israel (the two hit by SCUDS) or by Jordan, Syria, or Turkey. This was brought up by the US, and given your first post, in which you say your support of this war is not based on the first case, you don't see Iraq as a physical threat to the US. So the most basic an important question is: even is Saddam is paying us, WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD WE CARE. This sutiation is 12 years old, and for all I care, it could sucessfully go on another 12, without the US ever coming into danger, the US or Iraq's neighbors.
The game Saddam is playing is "keep the Sarin", we are playing "Keep Saddam in his room". Even if Saddam wins his game, if we win ours, then we are ahead, as we have been for 12 years.
The basic problem I have understanding your logic is that you make several basic assumptions, assumptions you never seem to question, assumptions which i find highly debatable.

3.) For decades the US has been doing whatever it could to help support stable regimes in the middle east. Since the early 1970's the progress that the US has made in relations with middle eastern countries is astounding. Certainly their are some failures as well as the successes. As the ties get closer and closer, the US is able to exert more pressure to help achieve its goals in the middle east. For example, if anyone is old enough to remember, it would have been totally impossible for Syria or The Palestinians to even consider peace talks with the Israeli's. US pressure at least got the people to the table. Continued pressure in Iran is beginning to show some small signs of sucess. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi are all examples of US political success (absolutely there are major problems with these relationships...the victory is in having even got them to the point they are today compared to just a few decades ago.).

The bottom line is this...We have made commitments to some regimes in the middle east to get rid of Saddam. He is bad for their own power base. He indirectly provides many opportunities for fundamentalist movements to gain strength in their countries. They want him gone and have no ability to accomplish this. We have told them we would do it and they have opened their countries to tens of thousands of our troops and millions of pounds of equipment. If we do not follow through with these commitments then decades of work will be undone. A power vacuum will form (which, BTW France is eager to attempt to fill) and the regions best chance for stability in the foreseeable future will be lost. Arab/Israeli peace talks will collapse and the situation will be far worse than any post war scenario other than a US defeat on the battlefield.

This is the reason that the US MUST AND WILL go to war. Thanks for reading through it all.

This is a finely made arguement PLATO, but I find it deeply unsatisfying for many reasons:

The first problem is your notion that Saddam somehow encourages moveemnts versus his neighbors. This is highly incorrect. For SA and the Gulf states, thier greatest worry lies in thier Shia minorities: this is why they so geenrously funded Saddam in the 1980's against the threat of Shia fundamentalism coming from Iran. Iraq is, as you know, majority Shia, and Saddam has never done anything to stir Shias up since that would be as dangerous to his regime as to that of his neighbors. A similar relation but with the Kurds tie Iraq and turkey. If the US, as it prepared for this coming campaign, puts heavy pressure on Shia and Kurdish opposition forces within Iraq to stay out of any conflict and not cause trouble is because SA and the turks are anxious to keep the ethnic situation in Iraq as is. Iraq's issues with Syria lie within a split of the Baathist paryt that rules both regimes, and Iraq and Jordan still have somewhat close ties. The only state in the region against Which Saddam aides fundies/ is Israel, with his money to Plaestinian groups.

The fact that talks between Palestinaisn and Israelis, or Israelis and Syrians currently, speak to the inability of this current admin. to spend the political capitol to egt them going. The there is your pciture of what is happening in Iran and saudi Arabia: i both cases, I think you grosely overestimate the effects the US has had in the process. US pressure since the coming to power of Bush in 2001 is one of the reasons the reformist campaign in Iran, while always mpore popular, ahs met with increasingly sucessful hard-liner pressure. Irabn's reformist moveemnt grew out of internal presure aaginst the failures of the revolutionary movement, disagreements which begun before the first gulf war, and could be seen by the internal struggles in Iran's high clergy levels( I also guess one could say Iran was the greatest failure of the US in keeping stable regimes)
As for SA: the large precense of US troops has, as we know now, only strenghtened the hands of fundamentalists there, and that, along with the failure of the Saud's to maintain a worthwhile economy (with the PCI of the kingdom having gone down 75% since the mid-80's) is the main reason the Saud's are thinking of political reform. In fact, some reports have been coming outt hat the Sauds may, after the war on Iraq, ask the US to leave, in order to make vital internal reforms that they don't wnat to be seen as just "caving" to the US.

There is a reason most regimes in the gulf, before they saw war as inevitable, did not want a war with Iraq. For 12 years Saddam was contained, no longer a threat. We had our forces in the region as our gurantee not that we would topple Saddam, but that we would protect them: toppling Saddam is the last thing they wanted: why do you think in 1991 we didn't go to Baghdad? One reason was the the gulf rulers did not want us to go there, because going to Baghdad and chaning regimes might lead to unknowable consequences. The situation in Iraq suited them, and what they fear most is not Saddam, but instability, and nothing creates more instability than the fall of a decades old regime.

So, I agree with you PLATO that the US has, for decades sought stability in the ME: but that stability is not the aim today. RTead what the thinkthanks and ideologues behind this war want. Their aim is not to remove a source of instability, but in fact, to create instability, because they see the stogy current situation as the great evil that fosters fundamentalism. They want democracy to battle the fundies: none of the gulf states are democracies, and their ules don;t wan to tobeocme that either. Today they are bracing for an inevitable storm, doing all they can to keep steady. NO, they did not call for this war: right now, they will try to make the best of it they can.