What did history teach us? part II

[Japher]

) Appeasement had to do with complying to Hitler's demands. The only "demands" Saddam has would be to stay in power. He basically agreed to conditionless inspections, except for very small points (which of course could be critical to hide some of his WMD)
The actor exerting "demands" in our current situation is the UN, and Saddam is complying to nearly all of them in the hope it will avoid the war by sapping all support for a US-led attack.
If anyone is complying to the demands of a threatening bully, it is Saddam.

Your other 2 points are good points, and I for one will refain from calling France and Germany cowardly for now on.

Yet, this one is really clashing with my opinion, becuase the demands that the UN is asserting upon Saddam are the demands the he agreed to nearly a decade ago, but hasn't bothered to adhere to. He did it once, what is to say he won't do it again? "Oh don't worry Poland we won't attack you," says Hitler once again. Yes Saddam is attempting to comply with threatening demands, even though he has to also fight his own ego as well as the US's, and the demands are rightfuly threatening.

Ppl keep bring up the fact that the US just does not have the experience, the understanding, or the right to threaten and/or wage war on Iraq. IMO, the one thing we should take from what we do know about history is the most blatantly obvious:

Do not take advice from those countries that have been in more wars than you about how to avoid a war for it seems that they know the least about it.

[Spiffor]

Japher :
I think we agree .

The UN is threatening, I didn't judge if it was right or wrong. Actually, if there was a peaceful disarmament of Iraq (I know it is naive wishful thinking, and it will never happen), I would really thank the US to have pressured Saddam enough.

The morality or lack thereof behind the UN threats do not make the UN any less threatening and demanding. And it doesn't make Saddam any less complying is the last hope to avoid war.

[Starchild]

The British hand is stained with blood that can never be cleaned. We should have never done what we did to India, Africa, or Asia. We raped those countries and told them it was for their own best interests. We set the Indian economy back by a century and only now are they taking their rightful place with the Big Boys.

The UK isn't one of those Big Boys. We should either accept our status as a middle power or work to turn Europe into something that we, and the other middle powers of Europe, can use to talk collectively. One shouting voice is slight. A thousand calm voices are a hurricane.

The criticisms in my rant remain however (and I fully realise it was a rant and accept that damage). I have seen no credible evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Bin Laden hated Saddam until very recently when the War Talk reached it's peak. Bin Laden's a monster but he's a politically astute monster, able to latch onto anything that engages the Arab street. The bases in Saudi Arabia were the start but he's spun Palestinian plight effectively and now he'll do the media mojo to the Iraqi War with diseasterous results for the West. Based on past experience in Afghanistan and other nations, I don't see a good outcome in the long term for this war. A long, drawn out war like the one with the Japanese inspires people to put in democracies. It's a long term solution to a long term problem. A brief, short war like I believe Iraq to be doesn't inspire the construction of lasting democratic political establishments. A bit of shine, some polish but nothing substantial. Why bother? If the next strongman gets uppity, you can just take him out in a short war too. The end of Iraq is going to be in dictatorship and chaos. I can't see any other way it would work out.

GePap has gone over my objections to this war much better than I in other threads. The USA never wanted to go down the UN route, it was persuaded to do that by allies like the UK. Tt didn't blink when it shrugged aside the allies' passions such as various international agreements. We give but I don't see what we're getting in return. This war was decided before any of the UN dealing took place. To have the Bush administration turn around and claim to be supporting the UN now is almost Orwellian.

As for the suffering of the Iraqi people, yes it's horrible. It's horrific. And it's repeated every day in dozens of other countries. There are sensible, safe ways to relieve this suffering and defeat terrorism. Remove trade barriers. Give Aid. Make sure the public has a strong oversight of multinational corporations activities in the Third World. Be part and parcel of the international community, not one a "when it suits us" basis. Relieve the debt burdening democratic governments if it was incured by dictators. Help the poor get access to drugs. Dozens of things to help make the world better and a better world sees fewer terrorists and dictators.

Iraq is going to be a long term headache for everyone now. Any regime change is going to introduce the type of anarchy and propaganada that terrorists live off of. Saddam is an old man and we're rich nations. The simple fact was that, before war talk started, we could simply outlive him. Now everyone is backed into their respective corners and no one has room to breath. We're all going to suffocate.

[Japher]

Spiffor:

Starchild: I think I understand your position a little better, and can respect that. I am grateful that are sometimes moronic president has great advisors both domestic and foreign. I to agree that beating the crap out of Iraq qon't solve any problems, but it will allow for the problems to be resolved with greater ease.

[Sirotnikov]

the whole appeasement thing was driven by fear Germany would kill millions of French and Brits.

Let me rephrase:

Brits and French appeased Germany because they feared that they will suffer dire consequences if they act.

now let's quote the post above yours:

The Invasion of Iraq is going to end horribly because...such American actions is going to be the best recruitment for al-Qaeda ever .... You're going to have a lot of pissed off and angry Muslim youths willing to serve al-Qaeda.

rephrase: If we act against arab countries, we will suffer dire consequences.

What's different about that?

France and Germany do simply not fear Iraq.

They fear the Arab world will raise oil prises, and they fear more arab terrorists.

In short, they aren't afraid of this small bully, who can't hit them, but rather of his many powerfull and threatening hooligan friends. Absolutely no difference.

Appeasement had to do with complying to Hitler's demands.

Saddam demands we let him stay in power and:
- opress his people and others
- develop weapons of mass destruction
- prove the world the UN is powerless to stop bullies
- potentially become a threat again in the future.

Saddam is complying to nearly all of them

He did not provide full and complete evidence of his programs.
His latest documents only prove that his previous evidence were lacking or false. These are potencially the same.
He refuses to comply with UN demand to destroy weapons exceeding allowed range.
He interrupts the work of the inspectors, by having "an army" escort them".
He did not provide any substantial proof of Iraq destroying the WMD, yet. This to remind you - was his only way out, without losing in power.

Conclusion: He has not fully completed, but rather mostly defied, a UN resolution which was supposed to be his last and complete chance to disarm - the final resolution in 12 years of attempts to disarm Iraq peacefully.

After 12 years that the UN can't disarm Iraq - if it doesn't do it by force - it becomes absolutely irrelevant and useless.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Japher



Starchild: Would you rather Great Britian handle this one? Oh, wait, they already had a shot and F'd it up, just like they did in India, America, and every other fricking territory they have tried to establish in the name of Imperialism... excpet for Canada of course.

Brainwashing goes both ways. You with your propaganda, and me with mine.

America of course handles it so much better... in Haiti, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Liberia, Vietnam, China, the Philippines, Panama, the Dominican Republic, the Congo, Iran, Lebanon... a long list of foreign policy debacles, and hardly countries that spring to mind when one thinks of havens of democratic rights and respect for human life and the rule of law.

I particularly treasure these two quotes:

"Our foreign policy will be more concerned with the safety and stability of our foreign investments than ever before. The proper respect for our capital abroad is just as important as respect for our political principles (!), and as much care and skill must be demonstrated in obtaining the one as the other."

Leo D. Welch, treasurer, Standard Oil Co. November 12th 1946

and:

"To have peace we should be willing, and declare our intention, to pay any price, even the price of instituting a war, to compel cooperation for peace... [..]..this peace-seeking policy... would earn for us a proud and popular title- we would become the first aggressors for peace."

Secretary of the Navy, Francis P. Matthews,

25th January 1950

[Spiffor]

Siro :
Sorry if I disagree with you, but your arguments seem purely rethorical to me. You can do better, and give contents in your answers.

[Sirotnikov]

I have seen no credible evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Bin Laden hated Saddam until very recently when the War Talk reached it's peak.

I'm sorry.

run it by me again.

You choose to ignore evidence of link between al-qaeda and iraq which were established by a world known intelligence agency, and call it uncredible.

A period later, you exclaim with absolute certainty, yet without any evidence what so ever, that Saddam and Bin Laden were until just recently in hate relations.

I'm sorry to doubt your omniscient powers, but why should I believe your statement based on 0 evidence and 0 proof, rather than a statement coming from a well established Intelligence agency?

This war was decided before any of the UN dealing took place.

That's because the UN, had no problem with seeing all of it's resolutions defied around the world.

As for the suffering of the Iraqi people, yes it's horrible. It's horrific. And it's repeated every day in dozens of other countries. There are sensible, safe ways to relieve this suffering and defeat terrorism.

How can we relieve regime-terrorism, without changing the regime?

You know - everytime I hear this, I am reminded of an interview I saw with afghani folk.

One person said "The americans bombed us, and destroyed our house. They killed half of my family. But I am willing to forgive them. They gave us freedom. We shall see what has come of that".


This "let's solve Iraq's treatment of it's citizens by not-going to war" is silly. The northern Iraqis suffer the exact same trade barriers and sanctions - yet they somehow manage to scrape enough money to feed cloth and heal their children.

This is about as silly as if in 1944, the allies would say "but if we bomb Generalgubermant (sp?) we shall kill the millions of jews locked in concentration camps, and the millions of occupied citizens".

It is absolutely and completely silly. The Iraqis are occupied by their own regime and are pawns in it's hands. The only way to rescue the lot, is by going to war and risking some of their , and some of our - lives.

[Sirotnikov]

Siro :
Sorry if I disagree with you, but your arguments seem purely rethorical to me. You can do better, and give contents in your answers.

Tell me what lacks 'content'. I though you could relate automatically.

I'm pretty sure at least half of my 'rants' have some content to them.

[molly bloom]

So Siro, will you be agitating for the United States to go to war against Iran and Syria, given that those two countries have proven links to Hezbollah and fund terrorism, both in the Middle East and the the global arena?

I mean, I think we should have consistency of foreign policy, don't you?

http://terroristwatch.tripod.com/iranianties.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27097

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/2/191921.shtml

http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news/lateststories/?disp_feature=mc4IQM.var

[Spiffor]

Fine, I'll bite :

- rewording my quotes and Starchild's quotes to prove a point, rather than discussing my post as a whole : rhetorical.

- adding Saddam's "demands" which are either an expansion of the one I wrote about (i.e "opress his people" is the very same as "keeping his throne"), or things Saddam never demanded (develop weapons of mass destruction - prove the world the UN is powerless to stop bullies - potentially become a threat again in the future) : rhetorical.
Demands are quite something you know. Hitler demanded Austria, then the Sudetes, then the rest of Checoslovakia (sp ?), then Poland... None of the fantasy demands you are talking about, even though he wished to have them.

"He refuses to comply with UN demand to destroy weapons exceeding allowed range.".
Link ? I've sure seen no answer, but no definitive "no" either. Don't forget the UN demand dates from 4 days ago.

"12 years of attempts to disarm Iraq peacefully.". Wrong. The 12 years brought nothing, because nobody cared of the issue.

[Sirotnikov]

So Siro, will you be agitating for the United States to go to war against Iran and Syria, given that those two countries have proven links to Hezbollah and fund terrorism, both in the Middle East and the the global arena?

I mean, I think we should have consistency of foreign policy, don't you?

Yes I support that.

However I don't for one second assume that they should do it right now or this instant. You don't open war on all fronts at once.

Iraq is easiest to change and sends out a signal - it has psychological value.

After that Syria. Just like Iraq. Force it to leave Lebanon. Then force it to clear chemical and biological weapons.

Iran, should be left alone or dealt with in non-military manners.

- rewording my quotes and Starchild's quotes to prove a point, rather than discussing my post as a whole : rhetorical.

How is that rhethorical?

You established that appeasement would be when nation A is afraid to act against nation B, when it's afraid of the outcome.
You then claimed that this is not the case among the european left wing (or at least france).

I've shown you that it IS the case among the european left wing, and is a part of the strategic reasons why france and germany resist the war. They fear retribution by al-qaeda and arab states. Thus, they are afraid of the outcome.

If you claim that applying logic to cast a light on a situation is rhethorics...

I haven't changed the meaning of what you or starchild said. I merely made the connection of it to appeasement clearer, by sharpening the message.

- adding Saddam's "demands" which are either an expansion of the one I wrote about (i.e "opress his people" is the very same as "keeping his throne"), or things Saddam never demanded (develop weapons of mass destruction - prove the world the UN is powerless to stop bullies - potentially become a threat again in the future) : rhetorical.

How is that rethorical?

saddam according to all resolutions had WMD and there is no evidence he has rid himself of them. he has never demanded this publically, because that would be a grave error for him.
but the UN is aware that he strives to get such weapons. thus if he stays in power , his efforts will continue.

saddam's expansionism, has been proven in 1991 , when he had no other reason for taking over quwait.

Hitler demanded Austria, then the Sudetes, then the rest of Checoslovakia (sp ?), then Poland...

In the 1930s , Hitler demanded to develop a strong army. He demanded for sanctions to be lifted.

England saw Hitler beginning to develop weapons which he was not allowed to have and chose to look the other way. France is attempting to do the same thing.

This is where demands begin. This is where appeasement begins.

"He refuses to comply with UN demand to destroy weapons exceeding allowed range.".
Link ? I've sure seen no answer, but no definitive "no" either. Don't forget the UN demand dates from 4 days ago.

he stated his state of mind via a double in the CBS interview quite clearly.

"12 years of attempts to disarm Iraq peacefully.". Wrong. The 12 years brought nothing, because nobody cared of the issue.

I'm sorry.

I somehow thought that years of sanctions, inspections and diplomatical and economical pressure by the UN and various UN states, were all non-violent ways of actions, for the UN to enforce it's decisions of disarming Iraq.

Apparently, sanctions and inspections and similar pressures are either not peaceful or not pressuring enough, to be considered "measures" that could have effect Iraq.


Somehow, all i got back was rhethorics.

all i'm doing is taking a fact: saddam wants to stay in power. and listing it's consequences, based on known facts about saddam. you call it rhethoric. I call it analytical thinking.

i appologize if i come off insulting. but i really fail to see how can you call this rhethoric.

is saddam not recognized by the UN as someone who actively sought to develop wmd's? do we have reason to think he stopped?

has saddam not proven his expansionism?

All I'm doing is arranging facts in a logical order, and trying to make a conclusion - thus making a point.

You call it rhethorics. Fine.

[Sirotnikov]

Ok, wait, maybe we have a semantics problem.


Iraq is not making any overt demands.

However, Iraq's leader has a policy, which is harmful to peace. we know it, and we wish to change it.

We tried to change it using political and economical pressure and it failed.

We know that if we won't change the leadership, or it's policy - the effects of it's policy will endanger peace in the future.

We don't however - because of many reasons- parts of which are fears of the consequences - al-qaeda and arab world reacting.

thus, we do not deal with the threats we know iraq poses for the future, partially, because we are afraid of his "friends" - taking revenge on us.

I consider this appeasement. Why? Because I think that "looking the other way" or "ignoring obvious threats" out of fear of retribution constitutes appeasement.

It doesn't matter if we appease active agression (germany taking over austria and czechoslovakia) or passive agression (germany building up it's military, contrary to agreements / iraq failing to disarm) - we steal ignore something , because we hope that we will manage to avoid arab revenge.


the whole case is built upon the scenario that - if we attack - we will suffer terrorism . if we don't attack - we can avoid terrorism.

fearing taking an action because of possible retribution is appeasement.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
all i'm doing is taking a fact: saddam wants to stay in power. and listing it's consequences, based on known facts about saddam. you call it rhethoric. I call it analytical thinking.

i appologize if i come off insulting. but i really fail to see how can you call this rhethoric.

is saddam not recognized by the UN as someone who actively sought to develop wmd's? do we have reason to think he stopped?

has saddam not proven his expansionism?

All I'm doing is arranging facts in a logical order, and trying to make a conclusion - thus making a point.

You call it rhethorics. Fine.

You get back rhetorics, because your opponents don´t cut to the core. When I say the things that are serious, they call it trolling.

Saddam wants to stay in power. So, what?

Saddam wants Wommdies. So, what?

He doesn´t *have* them, he just *wants* them, but even if he *had* them: So, what?

All his neighbours say they don´t feel threatened.

So it is *you* who is failing to answer the *one* question that matters: Why is the security of Israel our business?

[Sandman]

Appeasement was a response to the fear of war generally, not fear of the Nazis.