by WhyNow2000 193 Replies latest social current
If history has shown us anything its that the policy of containment is a failure.
It was working rather well in Iraq.
I think that what we are doing over there may be painful and hard in the short term, but will be good in the long term. Good not only for the US, but for the people of the Middle East and the International scene in general.
Really? How do you see us/them getting from here to there? No pipe dreams allowed in your answer, btw.
:It was working rather well in Iraq.
Was it? We certainly didn't have any way of confirming it for the last decade and it still has not been confirmed, though I doubt we will ever find the missing 'marmalade'. Remember the years of broken resolutions, playing games with inspectors, incomplete documentationo, etc.? Containment you can not verify is not containment - that's what happened in N. Korea. I also do not consider having US fighter jets fired upon as containment.
From what I've read it seems that Saddam thought he had more going on than he really did. He was deceived by his scientists into thinking his programs were further along than they really were. That's not the type of containment that makes me comfortable. It shows that he never intended to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreements. Any containment was accidental - Saddam didn't even know he was contained, if that's the way things really happened.
:Really? How do you see us/them getting from here to there? No pipe dreams allowed in your answer, btw.
I see the policy of no action, status quo, as the alternative. That policy was not working - kinda like a household going spending like crazy going into bankruptcy. By not taking action you are making a choice. Sure, cutting spending is gonna hurt, but it's the right choice for the long-run. You're gonna be eating rice and beans for a couple years, but financial freedom is in your future if you take action.
That's how I see the Middle East. I think it's time to bring the Islamic states into the 21st century even if it they come along kicking and screaming. Maybe I'm not so cynical to think that it's not possible for the disparate tribes to figure out how to live in a democracy.
Perhaps it is a pipe dream, but why not try? Does anyone really think things can get any worse over there. If it fails, it fails. Can they really hate the US any more than they already do? I don't know (I doubt it). Let's just say I'm not afraid of taking a chance to make something better over there - not afraid of failure.
Of course I say this in the relative safety of my own home in the crackhouse neighborhood of San Francisco. :)
So no, I don't have an answer to how this is going to play out, but I think stirring things up like this can be a positive thing in the future (no guarantees). I mean we do have success stories, e.g. Germany and Japan.
rem
:It was working rather well in Iraq.
Was it? We certainly didn't have any way of confirming it for the last decade and it still has not been confirmed, though I doubt we will ever find the missing 'marmalade'. Remember the years of broken resolutions, playing games with inspectors, incomplete documentationo, etc.? Containment you can not verify is not containment -
huh? Yeah, I remember. I never said Saddam was a good guy. If you remember, I was very much for the war. I was very much wrong too. The "confirmation" is pretty much accomplished. Nothing to speak of found. Even if there had been some something, it still wouldn't mean the war was the right thing to do. And besides, the "containment" was verified; the UN inspectors, for all the games etc, had a pretty good handle on what the reality of the situation was. Saddam Hussein was not an eminant threat to America, the world, or his neighbors.
Anthony Zinni didn't see a need for this war. Wes Clark didn't see a need for this war. Their precience in their testimony to congress is amazing. They are two of the best and the brightest, intellectually, patriotically, and diplomatically. George Buch, Dick Cheney et al look like inbred skinhead con-men who target old people, compared to those two, and I mean that discription to cover intellect, patriotism, diplomacy, and general decency.
From what I've read it seems that Saddam thought he had more going on than he really did. He was deceived by his scientists into thinking his programs were further along than they really were. That's not the type of containment that makes me comfortable. It shows that he never intended to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreements. Any containment was accidental - Saddam didn't even know he was contained, if that's the way things really happened.
Possibly. Tell me, would you send your sister to her death on your belief in this theory? If not, why would you send other peoples loved ones to their death because you are not "comfortable"? If you would make that call, would your sister or others be deserving of the truth from you about why you were sending them to war? 480 American families of killed servicemen deserve the truth, imo.
I see the policy of no action, status quo, as the alternative.
I don't even know how to respond to this. It's an insult to intelligence to infer that the only alternative to this war is "no action". As if there are only two ways to handle any situation?
That's how I see the Middle East. I think it's time to bring the Islamic states into the 21st century even if it they come along kicking and screaming. Maybe I'm not so cynical to think that it's not possible for the disparate tribes to figure out how to live in a democracy.
Perhaps it is a pipe dream, but why not try? Does anyone really think things can get any worse over there. If it fails, it fails. Can they really hate the US any more than they already do? I don't know (I doubt it). Let's just say I'm not afraid of taking a chance to make something better over there - not afraid of failure.
First of all, if you would be willing to present your case as you make it above honestly to the people you would have die for your pipe dream, I'd certainly respect that more than I respect lies and disinformation. But beyond that, I'll tell you why not try: because it isn't a plan, this idea of knocking off Saddam. Saddam was easy; a foregone conclusion. Now what? That's where it would have been nice to have a plan, that's where it would have been nice to have international support, and that's where it would have been intelligent to "contain" until such time as you do have a plan.
Can they hate the US any more than they do? I'd say alot of Iraqis that didn't hate us before, hate us now, killing peoples loved ones tend to cause ill will, it just does. Just where you get the notion that "they" will come along, even kicking and screaming, is beyond me. Have you seen anything during your time on the planet that leads you to believe that whole nations of muslims can dragged into doing anything?
I mean we do have success stories, e.g. Germany and Japan.You can see the differences, and those difference are too great to make this comparison. Here is just one factoid (and you'll need to check this for accuracy, because I can't guarantee it): I recently heard that after combat operations stopped against Germany, not one more American soldier was killed. How many have died in Iraq since Bush pranced around the aircraft carrier in a flight suit declaring "mission accomplished"? Perhaps the better comparison is with Vietnam, on many levels, not the least of which is the pipe dream/ideology level.
Six,
Sorry, I'm not posting in Windows so my formatting might be jacked.
::huh? Yeah, I remember. I never said Saddam was a good guy. If you remember, I was very much for the war. I was very much wrong too. The "confirmation" is pretty much accomplished.
I agree that it's pretty much accomplished *now*, but it wasn't before the war. I mean, yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but it wasn't just the US and the other Hawkish countries that thought Saddam was being dishonest.
::Nothing to speak of found.
I don't see the lack of WMD as a failure on the part of the US enforcing UN resolutions. The war was about Saddam's non-compliance with the resolutions, which means we had no way of knowing what he was up to. It simply doesn't matter to me that nothing was found because that's not what the war was about to *me*.
::Even if there had been some something, it still wouldn't mean the war was the right thing to do.
Saddam was warned of "Serious Consequences" if he did not comply. To not follow through only encourages other 'rogue states' (I know Chomsky uses this term to describe the US) to continue with their status quo. The fact that other countries such as Libya are now taking notice that weapons proliferation is not a viable policy is good news to me. Would it have happened so soon without the war in Iraq? I doubt it. I think the war sent a clear message to the rest of the world - the west will no longer tollerate the policies in the Middle East that we've been living with. We mean business - no more turning a blind eye while the hostile states continue to grow as a threat (with banned weapons programs).
::And besides, the "containment" was verified; the UN inspectors, for all the games etc, had a pretty good handle on what the reality of the situation was. Saddam Hussein was not an eminant threat to America, the world, or his neighbors.
Like I said before, to me the war was more about noncompliance and a message being sent to certain countries. We took on Iraq because we knew we could and that others would take notice. I don't believe the UN had a good handle on what was going on. There was a lot of arms sales going on under the table and the food for oil program was a travesty.
::Anthony Zinni didn't see a need for this war. Wes Clark didn't see a need for this war. Their precience in their testimony to congress is amazing. They are two of the best and the brightest, intellectually, patriotically, and diplomatically.
Smart people have differing opinions on politics and foreign policy. I respect their opinion - they might be right, but we haven't seen enough to know for sure yet. I'm not sure what their alternative plan was... to indefinitely 'contain' Saddam while he breaks resolution after resolution effectively making the UN impotent?
::George Buch, Dick Cheney et al look like inbred skinhead con-men who target old people, compared to those two, and I mean that discription to cover intellect, patriotism, diplomacy, and general decency.
I'm actually not a fan of Bush, but I don't think he's a retard either. He may not be a good public speaker, but I don't know enough about him to say he's stupid. I mean, to hear some people talk he must be one exceptionally intelligent man to maneuver world events to profit his oil interests.
::Possibly. Tell me, would you send your sister to her death on your belief in this theory? If not, why would you send other peoples loved ones to their death because you are not "comfortable"? If you would make that call, would your sister or others be deserving of the truth from you about why you were sending them to war? 480 American families of killed servicemen deserve the truth, imo.
Actually, it's more than just a theory... it's what his scientists have reported to the US. Don't know if I can find a link. In any case, that theory was not the impetus to war. Noncompliance was. There is no theory there. It's a binary decision - when you say there will be serious consequences if condition A isn't met, you can either let the other side call your bluff, or you can stand by your word.
::I don't even know how to respond to this. It's an insult to intelligence to infer that the only alternative to this war is "no action". As if there are only two ways to handle any situation?
You are right... I should have said "an alternative". But in practical terms, what were the other alternatives? The way things were going we were set for another 12 years of noncompliance and 20 more broken UN resolutions. Was there another plan I didn't hear about? When you hear about France and Russia selling weapons to Iraq until the last minute, it doesn't give one much confidence in their resolve to bring Saddam into compliance.
::First of all, if you would be willing to present your case as you make it above honestly to the people you would have die for your pipe dream, I'd certainly respect that more than I respect lies and disinformation. But beyond that, I'll tell you why not try: because it isn't a plan, this idea of knocking off Saddam. Saddam was easy; a foregone conclusion. Now what? That's where it would have been nice to have a plan, that's where it would have been nice to have international support, and that's where it would have been intelligent to "contain" until such time as you do have a plan.
Well as far as I know there is a plan... have the Iraqi's write up their own constitution and have elections as soon as practicable. Until then keep the peace - all the while knowing it's not going to be a cake walk. We're dealing with extremists here. Bush said it was going to be a long, difficult task. But I don't think it's impossible. The majority of Iraqi's are not extremists. In fact, they are a very modern society and wanted Saddam out. If this experiment is successful, there is a good chance that other countries will change their hostile stance toward the US allies, work harder to squash terrorist cells and stop their banned weapons programs.
It's more of an outline, anyway. But nothing is foolproof. It may all fail dismally... but I have hope.
::Can they hate the US any more than they do? I'd say alot of Iraqis that didn't hate us before, hate us now, killing peoples loved ones tend to cause ill will, it just does.
I realize that. And many Iraqi's thank the US for liberating them. Many Iraqi's were angry that we didn't go in sooner. Once Iraq is given back to the Iraqi's we will no longer be seen as occupiers. I really believe that there is a good chance that in 30 years (or sooner) Iraqi children will be studying history books that proudly explain that they were the first true democracy in the Middle East and that the US did a great deal to liberate them. Of course by then the story will be idealized and only half true, but the Iraqi's will be proud of *their* country. But maybe I'm not jaded by years of experience yet.
::Just where you get the notion that "they" will come along, even kicking and screaming, is beyond me. Have you seen anything during your time on the planet that leads you to believe that whole nations of muslims can dragged into doing anything?
Like I said before, Iraqi's are a modern culture. There is just a fringe that is opposing the rebuilding of the country. It is *their* country and they are proud of it. Many are looking forward to a democracy. No one can force anyone to do anything, but the Iraqi's may be a good model for other Middle Eastern Islamic countries to follow when the time comes for them. I really think you are not giving the Iraqi's enough credit.
There will always be holdouts - and that's fine. But they will be marginalized as time goes on and a secular democratic government (not necessarily a secular society) becomes normal to them. Hell, it's even happening with the progressive movement in Iran! Things may be turning around in the region and I think that a new Iraq may be a positive force for change.
::You can see the differences, and those difference are too great to make this comparison.
Every situation and country is different. The Japanese worshipped their emperor. The Iraqi's had a secular (though oppressive) government. I don't think it's a stretch for their society to move to democracy or a republic of some sort. It doesn't have to be perfect, just better than it was.
::Here is just one factoid (and you'll need to check this for accuracy, because I can't guarantee it): I recently heard that after combat operations stopped against Germany, not one more American soldier was killed. How many have died in Iraq since Bush pranced around the aircraft carrier in a flight suit declaring "mission accomplished"? Perhaps the better comparison is with Vietnam, on many levels, not the least of which is the pipe dream/ideology level.
In Vietnam body bags were coming back by the hundreds per day. I don't see a comparison. It was no surprise to me that there would be this type of guerrilla warfare and lives lost. The fact is, though, that the attacks are decreasing - despite what you see reported in the news. The Iraqi's want peace. It is a small minority that are working against it. As soon as we get out of there the rest will come around to support their country. The US is in a thankless position right now. Don't get me wrong, there will probably be assasination attempts after the government is established, but eventually things will stabilize.
Or there could be a civil war and we are back where we started sans Saddam. Either way, regime change is accomplished, which is the only positive spin I can put on that scenario.
Perhaps my inexperience and youth makes me overly optimistic, but I think that we need to give the Iraqi people more credit than they are getting.
rem
rem,
Holy Sheep Dip Batman, we agree on something...wooohooo
Six,
CONTAINTMENT has NEVER worked...we sat with a containment policy for N. Korea for 50 years...and look where we're at.
While we played the "containment" game with Iraq 10 of thousands of Iraqis were being murdered by Saddam and Company...is that really containment?
The Inspectors had NO idea what was going on in Iraq...really.
:Really? How do you see us/them getting from here to there? No pipe dreams allowed in your answer, btw.Well, let's see SINCE the war began...Libya is denouncing all WMD programs...SYRIA is making overtures about negotiating with Israel....Iran has sworn off developing weapons grade nuke material...and N. Korea is using much less bellicose language and getting a little more realistic about it's demands. How's that for getting from here to there without pipedreams.
just a few points; 1. rumslfed's diplomatic amnesia (lying) of "ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government."Amesia? Lying? You know for sure that Rumsfeld was at the board meeting in which this topic was supposedly anounced? Also, what was he suppose to do? You make it seem that he himself went in back, built a couple of reactors and sold them to the North Koreans. What EXACTLY was Rumsfeld's job at ABB? I'm asking, I really want to know. What would you have expected him to do? Resign? Picket the company?2. reading this quote sugests rumsfeld didnt share you point of view at that particular time: "Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington."
3. "One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories"."
and 4. one small point about hypocrisy.
oh you think that any of that is meant to excuse clinton?????? WTF???? you think i want to excuse that asswipe? honestly. everything's 'black and white", "left and right".
OH PLEASE
Yeru :
we sat with a containment policy for N. Korea for 50 years...and look where we're at.
Where we?re at ? So tell me what did they do hum ? ? for real tell me ? ? they spited on you or what ? I have to disagree here (what?s the problem ?) : 50 years without war with N.KOREA is not something to you ? When was 50 years ago for me Ooops I wasn?t born yet !!!
That is what Defense is all about ? getting people scared ? not screwing the world for your own benefit (again we forgot the purpose here) This war was illegal period ! OH you TWISTERS !
Everybody told you it was illegal you did it ANYWAY, you are in fraud (PERIOD) is that so hard to admit without giving us weird or twisted arguments.
So what is it all about ? ? Your way or WAR ? or WHAT ? hum ?
First of why your way ? Why do you think people want things your way ?
Second of why should you have the right the have WoMD and others not ? (Geez ! because you are scared, well you are not the only one !!! simple)
That is why any KIND of specific WEAPONS have been created to scare people, not to be used (remember ? that?s is what cold war means : TAKE CARE !) ! It is a way to say leave my people alone or you?ll regret it ? not : you don?t want it my way so I?m gonna bomb your country ? WHO ARE YOU ? You know which kind of people who are reacting like that DICTATORS !!! So who are you ?
Was SADDAM involved in 9/11 (don?t even try to give me any argument here)
Again back to the bases ? all the details are just arguments of greedy people who are not even able to communicate to solve their own messes !!!
Who sold what to who ? !!! PFFFFFFFFFFFF ? Who cares WHO (as known everybody?s involved) !!! WE JUST DON?T WANT WAR and if we have to go into war we want to do it for the world benefit and not for the benefit of greedy dictators of the United States or from Elswhere (DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? Is that so hard to understand that greedy people don?t need more when they already got enough ? hum ? no still Your way or you?ll able to KILL in fact (countries, cultures, kids, parents ?) WTF is THAT ?
And
Yeru :
If everyone things this war was illegal, why isn't anyone in court trying to prosecute?
Well you are in fraud so WHAT ? how do I prosecute ? ? And if I win what ? (as we know we are right, this war was illegal ?) so then you?re gonna blow me ? ? ? Oh no wait you don?t care about any prosecution ? SIMPLE !!! WHAT?S NEXT mister DICTATOR ! ? Finally when we will got more than enough and want to prosecute you we will have to use your own strategy (when enough is enough ?)
Talking about SADDAM ? Check your own side men, and dictatorship strategy and wars. (Can?t you just find something else to make money, to stand economically, do you need to live on other peoples and countries backs, on claiming whatever greedy and weak reason ? this is SO SO SO WEAK !!! Are you proud of THAT ???) ... Oh wait .: yeah now it?s like our parents did, we are not responsible, but now we have to protect ourselfve ? PROTECTING doesn?t mean steeling poor countries ? IMHO
LOL ? actually you went to war when you realised that there were nothing there to be scared about ! guess why he didn?t want you to get a look ??? ...
rem, thanks for the comments. I guess it seems to me that you think people will do *this time*, what people never do.
One point, if pushing the envelope (you can't say noncompliance, he did comply to a very large extent, just not fully. It's not a binary decision, because "A" is not a one or a zero, it's a whole host of things, the vast majority of which were in compliance) on the UN resolutions is the real reason for the war, then the administration should have informed America and congress of that, should they not? Also, if it is a UN problem, then it should have been a UN solution, should it not?
btw, I'm aware of the story about the Iraqi scientist. It's fascinating and even humorous, but it's also a matter of degrees, ie: it's not a story about a huge conspiracy that left Saddam Insane believing he had some world threatening wmd to unleash. "come here bigglesworth, you would never lie to daddy would you?".
I mean, to hear some people talk he must be one exceptionally intelligent man to maneuver world events to profit his oil interests.
He chose his family very well, I'll grant you that.
And I still can't believe you really mean this:
But in practical terms, what were the other alternatives?
Yeru,
While we played the "containment" game with Iraq 10 of thousands of Iraqis were being murdered by Saddam and Company...is that really containment?
I don't really see the relevance. I think there were many times that the west should have stepped in and checked Saddams hand, and if unable to do that effectively, should have punished him mightily. But we didn't, and frankly, I don't think many people would argue that Bush would have stepped in for humanitarian reasons either. But yeah, I think "containment should have been more forceful, and I think more force was a great option on the table before the war. But there is a world of difference between "more force" and "full scale occupation".
The Inspectors had NO idea what was going on in Iraq...really.
That's simply not true. As it turns out the inspection team's picture of Iraq's capabilities erred on the side of caution. IOW, they had a damn good idea what was going on in Iraq. Which leads me to my biggest gripe with war supporters, it's a reckless theory, with no real description of the endgame even included. Almost like cavalierly saying "to make an omlette, ya gotta break a few eggs", 'cept there you at least know that you want to accomplish "breakfast" when you start out.
Six,
I'll respond more thoughtfully in a bit. Till then, this is an interesting tidbit I picked up from one of my science news sites. It may be true or it may be made up... I just thought it was kinda funny and relevant to this thread:
What's New by Bob Park
http://www.aps.org/WN/
Yesterday, Secretary of State Powell conceded that at the time of his UN speech last year, he had no concrete evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Queda. Where had the administration gotten its information? I decided to call my colleague, Ali Mentari, a nuclear physicist at Bagdad U. "How did you fool a smart guy like Powell," I asked. Ali paused long enough to finish chewing, "We not try to fool Americans. You got no idea of what we must do to survive under homicidal maniac. Saddam say ?build atomic bomb,? but we got no stuff to make bomb. So we drink tea and send reports to Saddam about great progress. We are truly sorry your CIA intercept them." The eating resumed; the interview was over.
rem
rem, I'm linking to an article that has data I meant to include above, but hadn't found verification yet. With 500 American dead, we now have more Americans killed than in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war.
http://www.lies.com/blog/archives/001316.html
And that reminded me of something I'd been meaning to do for a while. Whenever I bring up a Vietnam/Iraq comparison, fans of the current war point out that casualty rates in Vietnam were way beyond anything we've seen so far in Iraq. Which is true, if you're talking about the Vietnam war at its peak. But there was a long run-up during which Vietnam simmered along at much lower casualty rates. I keep meaning to put together some charts to compare the two wars in terms of the US death toll, and now I've done that.
You can spin the data depicted in these charts however you like. For myself, I view them with concern. When politicians are allowed to launch wars for ill-defined reasons, with vague exit strategies and ever-shifting criteria for success, you have a formula for tragedy. That's what happened back in the 1960s, and I can't see any reason to believe it isn't happening again today.
