US - Iraq: what do you think?

[speedracer]

Gabrielvox,

Your course of action can result in the deaths of innocent people as well.

And quite possibly over a far longer period of time.

 

[Dreadsox]

Gabrielvox,

Your course of action can result in the deaths of innocent people as well.

Two thumbs up from the "BRAINWASHED" supporter.

Gabrielvox, you make it personal. You attack posters and not ideas. From calling STING an iBot to me being brainwashed. That's ok we can take it, see through it, and still argue the points.

Peace

 

[gvox]

If anyone in today's age sincerely believes that war will ever be a means to lasting peace, they are a robot brainwashed by a very sick society.

If you find that insults you, perhaps the shoe fits too well.

 

[melon]

If anyone in today's age sincerely believes that war will ever be a means to lasting peace, they are a robot brainwashed by a very sick society.

If you find that insults you, perhaps the shoe fits too well.

In a historical sense, independent of ideology, war is the only thing that actually *does* bring change. Erase World War II and the Cold War, and you likely erase much of the technological and cultural advances of the past 50 years--despite of the fact that the war itself is such a terrible event. In fact, dare I say, World War II ended nearly an eternity of Europe fighting amongst itself.

Alas, I wish I could say that diplomacy was as powerful as war. India's independence from Britain through activism was a rare event indeed. The fact of the matter, though, is that, globally, we aren't sophisticated enough to make it to full diplomatic resolutions to all conflicts. We still have too many people who only understand one thing: death. If it wasn't for the threat of annihilation, Iraq wouldn't have even accepted even the charade of UN weapons inspections. If it wasn't for the threat of nuclear war, the U.S. wouldn't even give North Korea the time of day.

Not that I necessarily applaud the way this world is, nor everything that Bush has done, but we have to be realistic.

Melon

 

[gvox]

And I agree with you Melon. I think this has got to be one of the sickest things about the human condition, that we so far have only been able to effect change through violence.

The real question is: has mankind REALLY tried any other way?

I think it is time we gave peace a chance.

 

[deep]

Here at interference we believe in peace.

 

[Klaus]

In a historical sense, independent of ideology, war is the only thing that actually *does* bring change. Erase World War II and the Cold War, and you likely erase much of the technological and cultural advances of the past 50 years--despite of the fact that the war itself is such a terrible event. In fact, dare I say, World War II ended nearly an eternity of Europe fighting amongst itself.

If people would invest just 1/10 of their inteligence, energy and money they need for the war to save the peace instead, most wars would be useless (oh sorry, today we call it "active defense").

Europe is a interesting example. The Romans, the French and the Germans failed to unite Europe in war - after Worldwar II politicans like C. de Gaulle and K. Adenauer tried somethin new, starting with the Elys?e contract.

Just a little more friendship and trust instead of knowing it all better and force the others to do as we think it has to be .. that seems to work out well, as we can see now in Europe.

Alas, I wish I could say that diplomacy was as powerful as war. India's independence from Britain through activism was a rare event indeed. The fact of the matter, though, is that, globally, we aren't sophisticated enough to make it to full diplomatic resolutions to all conflicts. We still have too many people who only understand one thing: death.

For me it proves only that the world has much more countries with powerfull armies than countries with leaders who are intelligent enough to solve problems without killing innocent people.

War never prooved who was right - just who had the better combination of power and luck.

If it wasn't for the threat of annihilation, Iraq wouldn't have even accepted even the charade of UN weapons inspections. If it wasn't for the threat of nuclear war, the U.S. wouldn't even give North Korea the time of day.

Well i guess the decision pro iraq war was done a few months ago, what we do now is trying to legetimate that war morally, we try to make sadam biger than he is so that we have to "defend".

And i'm curious which are the next countries. North Korea pretty sure, Iran? maybe, it's one of he countries which improved a lot since we (the western world) stopped to "help" them. It could become a interesting model of a Islam democracy.. well we will see.

In Europe our history shows that we can trust the United States (ok, maybe we were a little lucky because the USSR forced the US and Europe to become alies).
In the arabic world the US helped lots of dictators to remove legal regimes, so don't be surprised if they don't trust us... and don't be surpised that they will really hate us if we fail to turn Iraq into a democratic country and just installed a pro western regime which will supply the US with military bases and cheap oil.

Klaus (who still believes in love )

 

[Dreadsox]

Just want to say excellent posts Klaus and Melon!

Klaus we have missed your point of view around here! Welcome back.

Peace

 

[Blacksword]

One of my main concerns is the regime change as well. Though my information is far from extensive, it seems fairly clear to me that any post-Saddam Iraq will be a disaster. Most of the opposition is in exile, totally out of touch with the people and they all despise each other only slightly less than they do Saddam. Any attempt at a democratic government with that lot will collapse into ararchy the minute US forces leave. Plus I don't imagine any new regime will solve the persecution of the Kurds. If the US doesn't want civil war they'll have to stay in Iraq for quite a long time and be prepared to dump tonnes of money into the country to rebuild the oil infrastucture alone. The longer the US stays in Iraq the stronger anti-US sentiment in the region will grow. With the US next door I have no doubt the reactionaries in Iran will have all the excuse they need to turn the clock back a notch or two. Iraq will force the US into a hands on imperialism rahter than the cleaner economic and covert (aka local strongman approach) imperialism it has practiced pretty much since the 1920's. US troops will inflame the region and that more than the invasion itself will lead to terrorist attacks.

 

[STING2]

The idea that USA troops in Iraq will inflame the region goes against the facts of what happened in the 1991 Gulf War. It goes against whats been happening in Afghanistan for over a year now. US troops have been stationed in Kuwait since 1991. Iraqi Oil wealth, properly distributed among the Iraqi people, will help to build the most proseperous and democratic society the Arab world has ever seen. Iran is about to undergo a massive population boom which will sweep the conservatives from that country. Regime change by the USA is often the best thing that can happen to a country as Germany, Japan and Italy show. Clearly, the people of Iraq will be far better off with Saddam gone.

 

[Blacksword]

In theory yes but its the practice I'm not so sure atleast in the short term. All the cases you bring up took a long time to come to fruition (and Italy is still a mess ). Also keep in mind that Germany and Japan were very different cases from Iraq. Both were at the end of WW2 and were mandated by the war and were not done by the US alone - well Japan was mostly US since the US was the closest country and Britian had its own worries with rebuilding and all. But also keep in mind how long Us troops were in Japan for. Also Us troops in Kuwait is a much different thing from US troops in Iraq. Iraq is a) a much lager country b) is a much more important counrty in the mind of the region, historically and in terms of it's resources c) not everyone in Iraq is going to be overjoyed to see US troops, Saddam's personal army among them. You could be right Sting2 but I wouldn't bet on the Arab world liking the US in one of its great nations for several years. I know I wouldn't want them there.

 

[STING2]

I forgot to mention Bosnia and Kosovo. Bosnia was a hell hole in the early 1990s and many people made the same remarks about sending US soldiers into Bosnia and later into Kosovo. "The factions there would never stop fighting and it would be a mess" they said if we sent in troops. 7 years later Not a single US soldier has been killed in combat in either Bosnia or Kosovo. Rather making the region there more unstable, US soldiers have brought peace,security, and stability compared to what was experienced in the 1990s.

By the way I have friends in Italy who might challenge your idea that Italy is still a mess. Well, at least Northern Italy.

 

[Dreadsox]

Careful Sting, Ramsay Clarke has a War Crimes Tribunal in the area as well........

 

[melon]

Italy has been a mess all along, particularly emanating from the mess involved with unification in 1870 (where do you think the mafia originated from?). It has little to do with the U.S.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Careful Sting, Ramsay Clarke has a War Crimes Tribunal in the area as well........

This was a feeble attempt at humor sorry. It carried over from the BOY thread. I won't let it happen again.

 

[STING2]

"Italy has been a mess all along, particularly emanating from the mess involved with unification in 1870 (where do you think the mafia originated from?). It has little to do with the U.S."

Italy certainly has problems, but it does enjoy one of the top 20 standards of living in the world according to the UN Human Development Report. There are probably more U2 fans per capita in Italy than in any other country in the world except maybe Ireland. Their not living in the dark ages.

The USA has strong ties to Italy with several large military bases in Italy and a heavy amount of trade between the two countries.

My special friend in Italy has told me that there are two Italy's, the North and the South. In the North, the economic situation is basically what you would find in the USA and Canada, while in the South, the situation in some places is like some places in Eastern Europe. Unemployment in the North has often averaged less than 7%(low by European standards) while in the south Unemployment has been as high as 17%. The Mafia works primarily in the South. Overall, Italy's unemployment rate has been about the average of the European Union rate.

 

[melon]

I agree with you. I guess "mess" was just a reference to the previous debate, and, mostly, I wanted to emphasize that it wasn't the U.S.' fault.

Melon

 

[Scarletwine]

I forgot to mention Bosnia and Kosovo. Bosnia was a hell hole in the early 1990s and many people made the same remarks about sending US soldiers into Bosnia and later into Kosovo. "The factions there would never stop fighting and it would be a mess" they said if we sent in troops. 7 years later Not a single US soldier has been killed in combat in either Bosnia or Kosovo. Rather making the region there more unstable, US soldiers have brought peace,security, and stability compared to what was experienced in the 1990s.

The difference is that a mulitlateral, UN peacekeeping force was left to maintain order and rebuild. If the USA goes it alone in Iraq we may not be so successful.

 

[Blacksword]

I just threw in the Italy remark as a joke. I know perfectly well that Italy's messy political history since unification has nothing to do with the US. I just happen to find the immensely short shelf life of Italian governments some what amusing.

As to the regime changes in Bosnia, and Serbia, I had up until recently supported those (though I can't say I'm happy to see another American puppet). But a friend of mine who knows the region pretty well recently told me that Milosovic was quite popular, and given the lack of evidence of genocide, I'll say that the US's motivation looks more suspect. Now I haven't had time to research these claims but lets say I submit these suppositions for discussion.

 

[STING2]

Actually, it was NATO and not the United Nations that secured peace in both Bosnia and Kosovo. It was primarily, 90%, US military force that ended those conflicts, and the USA has provided the most troops of any country to such peace keeping activities in the aftermath there. In Iraq if military force is used and once the Iraqi military is defeated, the USA does have enough resources to handle with the rebuilding, considering that Iraq sits on top of the largest oil reserves on the planet after Saudi Arabia. A condition not found in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

Milosovic is popular among some Serbs, but lets not forget that it was the Serb people who forced him out of office. Clearly Bosnian Muslims, Kosovo Muslims and Croations do not like Milosovic. They make up the vast majority of people that live in Bosnia and Kosovo.

 

[Klaus]

Imho the Kosovo wasn't a "success story" at all.
The (in these days conservative) German was part of the reason of the breakdown of Yougoslavia and Western countries did everything they can to *** the situation up.
(They transported weapons in red cross cars for example).

Yes, it was easy to win the war - but did you take a look how "reconstructed" this region is?
We helped some warlords, smuglers and terrorists to get their teritory. I just hope it dosn't get worse there.

The best thing from my point of view was that Milosevic had to go to the international court (I'm still still dissapointat that the US tries to sabotage this court - but that's another story)

The US army is great - the most powerfull of the world, and it's easy for them to gain military victories - but the more often the US Politics uses this "weapon" the more friends you will loose.
I guess there are not many left (and no - it's not a friend if he just says what you like because he's afraid of you)

Klaus

 

[STING2]

How many friend did the USA lose by acting in Bosnia and Kosovo? The USA wanted to do something as early as 1993, but the Europeans said no. Then in late 1995, the USA stepped up and did most of the military work to end the conflict in Bosnia while the majority of European militaries sat on the sideline. US forces stopped a slaughter that had killed over 250,000 people. How you could minimize the significance of that I'll never know. Things are not perfect in that region, but they are a far cry of what they were in their early 1990s. Economic and Political Development is a slow process. To expect better results than what has currently happened there would border on fantasy, in my opinion. In terms of the fighting that was stopped, it clearly was a "Success Story", and not a single loss of a US soldier in combat. Economic and Political Development takes decades, especially in a region with this type of history and ethnic hatred.

 

[Klaus]

Hi Sting,

i guess ex. Yougoslavia / Kosovo is a verry interesting thing.
It clearly was a "Success Story" from the military point of view. I have my problems with the legal background, because it wasn't an UN thing - and Europe made lots of mistakes there..
..but interesting, people down there became much more anti-american than anti european and lots of europeans think that it was another "US imperialsim thing"

so.. America lost sympathy even if it wasn't their fault.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

"people down there became much more anti-american than anti european and lots of europeans think that it was another "US imperialsim thing"

Definitely in Serbia and the small few who might have benefited from the on going war(that the USA stopped) in some way. There has been an anti-American movement in Europe for a very long time, so its not a surprise to see some of them lable US intervention in the Balkans as imperialism.

 

[anitram]

Milosovic is popular among some Serbs, but lets not forget that it was the Serb people who forced him out of office. Clearly Bosnian Muslims, Kosovo Muslims and Croations do not like Milosovic. They make up the vast majority of people that live in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The Serbs forced Milosevic out of office when it suited them, and when they got tired of the bread lines.

Do you remember them wearing targets while their compatriots slaughtered people in Vukovar, Sarajevo and Srebrenica? Neither do I. That's because at that time, they were busy decorating their tanks with flowers, all aglow about the wonderful Adriatic coast that would finally be theirs. There was no meaningful talks of regime change until they lost every war they started.