No, but it seems you took me too seriously again. :) Which is fun because that is the beauty of internet chatting. You can't see what's on my face but I could type anything.
As for the cartoon, hmm. Yeh, so what? America did the right thing in Iraq.
Link. I don't even wanna comment on that. Not worth it. Heh.
Yep. A much better policy would have been to continue letting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die at the hands of Saddam.
So the US possibly made a mistake in supporting Iraq in the 1980's. (I say possibly because the alternative - Iran-style Islamic revolutions spreading throughout the Middle East, is not particularly palatable either. Which is the lesser of two evils?) So what? They got it right eventually.
Far worse were the French and Germans and Russians, who supplied Saddam with far, far more weapons than the tiny amount the US did, and kept trying to keep Saddam's regime intact to the very end. Despicable.
A much better policy would have been to continue letting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die at the hands of Saddam.
Back in '91, they had the moral right to get rid of Saddam. The north and south of Iraq rose up against Saddam. The US and UK stood idly by while the would-be revolutionaries there were killed. Neither of them really care about human life, as such, so long as their interests are not threatened. Look up the history of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia etc. Also, it's not like US bombing didn't kill anyone in Iraq. They bombed a busy market place at one point. Granted, many of these deaths were accidental, but deaths are deaths, and these could've been avoided altogether.
So the US possibly made a mistake in supporting Iraq in the 1980's. (I say possibly because the alternative - Iran-style Islamic revolutions spreading throughout the Middle East, is not particularly palatable either.
Iraq, the stronger power, invaded Iran, the weaker one. Without US help, I doubt he would've been able to do that.
Also, in the end, is it not what the people of a country want that counts? As an atheist, I'm not particularly fond of revolutionary Islam. But I don't see how it's worse than monarchical Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia, for instance.
So what? They got it right eventually.
But did they get it right? Is Iraq any better now than it was earlier? By all accounts, it seems to be in worse shape than before. The hospitals are still understocked, the infrastructure has been destroyed, and there is no security to speak of for Americans, leave alone Iraqis. Real smart move, getting rid of the control structures in the police and army without training replacements first.
America wanted to go in, come what may, before it became too hot to fight. It didn't even really plan the aftermath. If it'd waited a little while longer, it could've gone in after the weapons inspectors had finished, if there was trouble for said inspectors. Thing is, there were no such weapons. The reasons they gave for the invasion were eyewash. The invasion was called for years ago, 9/11 and its consequences basically just gave the neo-cons an excuse to go ahead.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not very fond of Saddam either. I would almost say he had this coming to him. I'm not so much miffed at him going as I am about how America went about the process. The latter could've done a far better job of getting along international support, including U.N. resolutions. Instead, it chose to more or less go it alone. Sure, it used the word 'coalition' a lot, but only the British really did any heavy lifting during the invasion. (Yes I'm aware of Australia's unique role, but no, it can't be compared to these 2)
Also, there is now a precedent whereby America can now intervene anywhere unilaterally. This would be all very well if it brought justice to the world. North Korea, for instance, is ripe for a good ass-whooping, if you'll pardon my saying so. But it is hypocritical to speak of this while not signing up for the International Criminal Court. Additionally, Henry Kissinger, (and possibly several other people in past US administrations) probably counts as a war criminal. There is almost no way he'd ever be tried, because of the victor's justice that basically prevails in such matters.
Far worse were the French and Germans and Russians, who supplied Saddam with far, far more weapons than the tiny amount the US did, and kept trying to keep Saddam's regime intact to the very end. Despicable.
International politics works on national interests, not morals. Sad, no? The French and German interests lay in peace, thanks to reconstruction contracts. Wrong motives, right goals. The U.S. works on interests too (read about reconstruction contracts anytime), so if they're despicable, so is Washington.
It's 3:30 AM right now, so pardon me if that sounded like a long rant that had no direction.
Precisely how was the US supposed to get greater international support when you yourself admit that members of the UNSC (with veto) had interests in maintaining the status quo?
They bombed a busy market place at one point. Granted, many of these deaths were accidental, but deaths are deaths, and these could've been avoided altogether. Yeah, but if the US-led co-alition hadn't killed anyone, Saddam would have killed more. So deaths were unavoidable. Any loss of innocent life is tragic, but inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths.
Is Iraq any better now than it was earlier? Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance. Grumble grumble, I know the trains used to run on time under Saddam but some things are more important than that. And anyway, electricity is back to pre-war levels.
There may not have been weapons, but there were weapons programmes, as shown by David Kay and his Iraqi Survey Group. See what Kay had to say recently in the Washington Post - something along the lines of, The weapons may not have existed yet, but he was more dangerous than we had thought. Iraq did not own up to these programmes as required by the seventeen UNSCR's concerning them. So that argument remains.
John Howard's argument for war against Iraq are actually more difficult to refute than those of Blair and Bush, because he couched it not in terms of an imminent threat, but rather a long-term threat of rogue states remaining in possession of WMD's.
North Korea, for instance, is ripe for a good ass-whooping... Much though the regime may deserve it, the possible nuclear deterrent will prevent this from happening. And in case anyone hadn't noticed (and, if you'll allow me to judge, not many people have), the US was after a multi-lateral solution to the North Korea problem in the lead-up to Iraq, where it was threatening to go it alone. US foreign policy is actually nuanced, believe it or not. Meantime, the rest of the world (including Australia) was telling the US to go into one-on-one talks with North Korea, and ignore the rest of the UNSC.
The whole "Now there's a precedent for unilateral action" is laughable. There have been many many unilaterals wars in the past half-century. And given the cost of this Iraq one, it's not likely that the US will be going after anyone else in the same way for at least a decade.
The results are already starting to come through though, ie. Libya.
Precisely how was the US supposed to get greater international support when you yourself admit that members of the UNSC (with veto) had interests in maintaining the status quo?
Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths
Saddam was cruel, but he was no Pol Pot or Idi Amin; millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. While there is little doubt Saddam did kill people, I'm not sure at all the number of people dying for bad reasons has come down now. It might well be the case, but I'd like to see something backing it up before I believe it.
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance.
Whereas if you want to sell liquor, armed mobs will burn down your shop. Iraq is no longer really secular. Saddam hated everyone equally, regardless of his problems with the Shi'a. As for protests, much good that's going to do you if the Americans aren't listening. Sistani and Chalabi seem to be the only two people in Iraq who they're talking to at all. The largest positive change the Americans made in their first 3 months of rule seemed to be removing Saddam's image from everywhere. Much good that did to kids who couldn't go to school, or for those whose A/Cs couldn't work throughout the 50°C summer because the Americans had bombed the power plans (the restoration of which apparently was NOT a priority). Is the economy geniunely better off? I'd like to see some figures.
but some things are more important than that
Political and civil rights are good. But getting food in your stomach comes first, everything else is usless without that. First get the infrastructure ready (without more bribes to Halliburton, s'il vous plaît) and then talk about those. Although for that matter, am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
he was more dangerous than we had thought
I'll have to look into what Kay said at that time, but from what I recall, he resigned while basically saying the hunt was useless, that there wasn't really anything to be found. The impression I've gotten from numerous sources is the direct opposite of what you said- that Saddam was not really a threat to his neighbors at all.
It is easy to say, "they should have given the inspectors more time," etc. and if Iraq continued to refuse to co-operate for another year then we could go in and attack with UN approval.
The problem with this is that the only reason Iraq was complying to any degree was the large American military presence just off the coast. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both acknowledged this. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq. After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence? No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good. They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war. Am I frightened by this? No. And let's remember, even Chirac said that Iraq had WMD's before the war. The point of difference was how to get rid of them.
millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. No. No no no no no. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq to give up its WMD programmes. It didn't. Sanctions continued while Iraq kept on its WMD programs, and building palaces, and the like. Saddam was more than capable of keeping his people from starving, even with the sanctions. He chose not to. Those millions of deaths are on his hands.
am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)? How are you going to ask the Iraqis what sort of government they want? Some sort of representative democratic structures have to be put in place before anything else. Otherwise the well-organised Shi'a leaders will get more votes than the divided "rest of Iraq" and could make Iraq even less secular than now. All parts of Iraq need a voice at first. Once this is in place, they can argue between themselves on what form the final democracy will take.
As long as the executive doesn't get too much power, things should be OK.
and if Iraq continued to refuse to co-operate for another year then we could go in and attack with UN approval
I'm not sure it would've taken a year, at all. The US/UK went in because he ostensibly posed a threat to the security of the region and the world. If they knew he didn't, which I contend was the case, then they went in for other reasons. Meaning they lied to their people. This might have what Hari describes as 'beneficial externalities'. And few people are sorry to see the end of Saddam. But don't you believe that lying to the country about the reasons for war is highly immoral, perhaps even treasonable?
It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq.
I certainly don't begrudge you that the American military did have some effect on Saddam. But even before the troop build-up, he'd started cooperating again. To me, there would not have been a problem if they went in if Saddam was played games with the inspectors. Thing is, he went out of his way to comply. They could've made it very clear that they'd go in only if the inspectors reported something fishy.
After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
They're spending a lot more money right now on rebuilding infrastructure they've just bombed.
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good.
Ah, here we come to what I believe is the central reason for our disagreements. It is a variant- perhaps a less black and white one, but still a variant- of the old question: Which is worse, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right ones? While the outcome certainly does matter to everyone involved, I think it is very important that a state (or indeed person) acts with the right intentions. I can see the positives to have risen America's invasion of Iraq. However, I feel the duplicitous manner in which said invasion was carried out makes several of them hollow.
They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war.
In my books, you don't go to war without being pretty damn sure of what you're doing. Which brings us back to the did-they-lie-to-the-public question. Which in turns leads back to my previous point on intentions vs. outcomes. And while I still strongly defend my point of view, I also believe that good people can disagree on this matter.
Much though the regime may deserve it, the possible nuclear deterrent will prevent this from happening.
The Indian Army's Chief of Staff, when asked what lessons could be drawn from the first Gulf War, said more or less the same thing: "Never fight the Americans without nuclear weapons." India did indeed develop said weapons. Do I feel safer? Hell no.
Because of the way it has allowed itself to be cowed by the prospect of the use of these weapons, the US has in a way almost encouraged their development, at least by states that are large or powerful enough not to fear being swallowed up a la Iraq.
Unfortunately, much as I can make a moral case for going into North Korea, regardless of high casualties, I've researched the topic enough to realize that the consequences would simply be too costly. On the other hand, I find it stupefying that America would rather spend tens, nay, hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent North Korea from launching its one or two potential missiles than sign a non-agression pact with it, as the North has been asking for years now.
The Western media has also conveniently ignored that North Korea's pullout from the NPT was brought about by the US withdrawal from the 1993 accord that brought that country food aid and light-water reactors that could not be used to generate fissile material for nuclear weapons. North Korea merely brought things back to the status quo ante. This withdrawal was stupid and ideological. Doubly so given it was the US more than North Korea that was defaulting on its side of the agreement (those reactors were about 5 years behind where they should've been, in the construction stage). But at least they're talking now.
There have been many many unilaterals wars in the past half-century Precisely how was the US supposed to get greater international support when you yourself admit that members of the UNSC (with veto) had interests in maintaining the status quo?
Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence? The fig leaf for this one was the flimsiest that I can remember the US ever using, especially since the Cold War's end.
it's not likely that the US will be going after anyone else in the same way for at least a decade
Tell that to all the worried Syrians, Iranians, etc.
The results are already starting to come through though, ie. Libya.
Possibly the one success of Bush's foreign policy that I can see. Although even there, it's widely been said that Libya's program had stalled and failed. Also, the regime there had been mellowing well before Iraq, for instance, it was mediating between the Phillipine government and rebels in that country's troubled Mindanao area.
Sorry, something got mangled and pasted in the middle of that last post. When LJ told me my post was too long, I got rather confused for a few moments while splitting up the post.
"Never fight the Americans without nuclear weapons." India did indeed develop said weapons. Do I feel safer? Hell no. You were worried about American going to war with India beforehand?
Because of the way it has allowed itself to be cowed by the prospect of the use of these weapons, the US has in a way almost encouraged their development I see where you're coming from here. Unfortunately, MAD is a stable environment, at least in the sense that wars tend not to happen. So what are we to do about it? If the US attacks North Korea, Seoul gets nuked.
Realistically, you can only go after states trying to get nuclear weapons, before they actually build a bomb. You can still attack a country with biological and chemical weapons, though.
than sign a non-agression pact with it, as the North has been asking for years now. Signing the non-aggression pact also encourages rogue states to acquire WMD. Even moreso that the tacit situation we have at present.
The Western media has also conveniently ignored that North Korea's pullout from the NPT was brought about by the US withdrawal from the 1993 accord... No. North Korea signed that treaty in bad faith. They NEVER intended on stopping their nuclear weapons programmes.
it's not likely that the US will be going after anyone else in the same way for at least a decade
Tell that to all the worried Syrians, Iranians, etc. This is an argument?
You were worried about American going to war with India beforehand?
December 1971 aside, America has never really come to close to a military confrontation with India. However, my point was that nuclear weapons aren't always good deterrents. MAD worked relatively well during the Cold War. However, MAD presumes that: 1) All states are rational. I'm not sure this is true of North Korea. It probably is, but the chance that it's not is a chance that- if push comes to shove- would possibly mean the end of life as we know it. 2) Both states can actually destroy the other. North Korea is thought to have 1-2 nukes already. They could take Seoul out with artillery alone. Tokyo might be a target however. Indeed, in a few more years, so might Los Angeles. Of course, all of North Korea would be turned into a pile of simmering radioactive ash. But it is very hard to guard against an attack by anyone prepared to be destroyed in so-called asymmetrical warfare (9/11 comes to mind). And it is for this reason that it is not a good idea to push anyone in control of nuclear weapons to the brink. Which sadly makes it unfeasible to go into North Korea. In the case of India and Pakistan, the smaller number of weapons mean use-or-lose applies, not MAD. And that means nukes make things more dangerous.
You can still attack a country with biological and chemical weapons, though.
Uhhh, no. Biological weapons are what keeps Israel from attacking Syria (at least, to the point of provoking war).
Signing the non-aggression pact also encourages rogue states to acquire WMD.
Whereas spending tens, or hundreds of billions of dollars on a missile shield instead makes perfect sense?
I don't think there's a real chance that a new state can develop WMDs- Libya's given up the prospect, Iran's agreed to intrusive inspections. And America has made it clear now that it will bring down its full might on any state it catches trying. It would take decades for a state to develop its WMD program to the point where it could threaten America seriously.
North Korea signed that treaty in bad faith.
They signed it as a form of nuclear blackmail ('Give us money or we'll keep developing and exporting WMDs and missies'). But that aside, I'm not sure there was bad faith- I think they intended to stick to the provisions of the treaty. Certainly, from what I've read, America was far bigger an offender than they were with regard to breaking the provisions.
Tell that to all the worried Syrians, Iranians, etc. This is an argument?
I merely meant to say that a lot of people don't agree with your assessment of a decade or more before America next 'liberates' a country.
Biological weapons are what keeps Israel from attacking Syria (at least, to the point of provoking war)
No, America is what stops Israel from attacking anybody. At least the primary reason, not Syria having Biological weapons.
lot of people don't agree with your assessment of a decade or more before America next 'liberates' a country.
Not, financially viable for at least a decade mate. Besides, it is good if the Syrian and Iranian governments are placed in fear of an American invasion. They should be dealt with in a matter fitting of rogue nations. :)
America is what stops Israel from attacking anybody.
I beg to differ. An American veto keeps the world from using the UN Security Council to act against Israel. American military aid to the tune of billions of dollars makes sure that Israel's military is decades ahead of those of its neigbors. American is the power that allows Israel an offensive edge. The last time America sided against Israel in a conflict, that I'm aware of, was during the latter's invasion of Egypt. 1956.
Left in peace, however, I'm not sure Israel would really want to attack too many of its neigbors. It already occupies most of the so-called Biblical land of Israel. If Syria (in particular) could make a decent peace settlement with it, I think Israel wouldn't have to worry about going to war even if the Americans abandoned them. Not that their existence is seriously threatened even today, at least, from the outside.
weapons inspectors might've been allowed to find, is it not better that a ruthless, evil dictator like Saddam Hussein has been removed from power through American unilateralism?
I think there's a problem between following procedure and taking necessary action. For long I've believed Saddam didn't have WMD's but just because of that, doesn't mean no action should've been taken.
So every country has their motives and interests. I'd like to think that American Foreign Policy is not the same as that which took place before the end of the Cold War. Times have changed, and so has AFP. It's no more angelic than what it used to be, but it contains a lot more beneficial externalities for humankind as a whole than it ever has before. It's still a bitch though, but I'd rather that than the terrorists not feel the heat.
Terrorism will never be defeated, but this is as much a war to get as close as possible as destroy the motivation, the urge and need for those on the tipping point, or well-entrenched to resort to further atrocities.
Sure, go ahead and quote me the increase in suicide bombings here and airline cancellations there but those are short-term drawbacks. In the long term, with enough checks and balances, things should be a lot better than they've been for a while.
The international community can assist with the checks and balances by cooperating and creating an air for such a relationship with the USA rather than confronting it and being cast aside the way Germany and France were last March. That was probably the lowest point in Western History since 1939.
America is the most powerful country in the world and with such power comes great responsbility. On several occassions it hasn't lived upto those responsbilities and unfortunately its innocent civilians have paid the price for such acts of stupidity. It's been more than two years since 9/11. A lot of the initial confusion, anger and haste has died down a fair amount and now we're ready for what I will term the golden era of global affairs and world politics.
is it not better that a ruthless, evil dictator like Saddam Hussein has been removed from power through American unilateralism
I shall withhold judgment on that until I see his replacement. So far, the signs have not been encouraging, but admittedly, these are early days.
evil dictator like Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein was clearly not about to win the All Round Nice Guy award. But be careful about using a word like 'evil'. Regardless of what Bush and co. would have us believe, the world is far from being as black and white as a Star Wars movie.
a lot more beneficial externalities for humankind as a whole than it ever has before
Explain to me how Guantanamo, visa denials and steel quotas have been better for us than the Marshall Plan. Indeed, is something not wrong with the basic system upon which the world works when the best we can hope for is the odd 'beneficial externality'? Also, how is it beneficial for the world that America has pulled out of treaties relating to WMDs (multiple), an international criminal court, the environment, while weakening the U.N. to a body to the point where it is only called upon if America can't do things exactly its own way by brute force?
now we're ready for what I will term the golden era of global affairs and world politics
Funny, I vaguely remember reading about people living in unprecedented prosperity before WWI, although I could well be wrong. Either way, I look upon your last claim with extreme skepticism. Before Bush came to power, I genuinely believed things were getting better, everywhere. Now I feel that more things are getting worse than otherwise.
shall withhold judgment on that until I see his replacement. So far, the signs have not been encouraging, but admittedly, these are early days.
While it is true that we are still in the early day stage, I think any replacement by the Americans and IGC will be at least 4 times better than Saddam. To begin with, there is a good chance hundreds of thousands of ppl won't be gassed in a single attack. Or thousands of others treated like dirt in the prisons, others sent to them for no justifiable reason whatsoever and the son-in-laws being shot @ for fleeing the country upon return! :)
be careful about using a word like 'evil'. Regardless of what Bush and co. would have us believe, the world is far from being as black and white as a Star Wars movie.
Saddam was a maniac. A tyrant. A despot. A dictator. A mass-murderer. Khalas. I don't agree with everything that comes out of the President's Office but Saddam was not a good man in anyway. There might have been some things that worked in the favor of the Iraqi ppl courtesy Saddam, but overall, he was a terrrible man. I don't want to seem him receive anything less than capital punishment.
Before Bush came to power, I genuinely believed things were getting better, everywhere. Now I feel that more things are getting worse than otherwise.
Intereshting... I believe completely otherwise. I don't think America has done more right with their foreign policy now than ever before.
just checking out how u were doing. U were pretty pissed yesterday, so I hope u are fine today. Yes, India sucked yesterday, but as u said, the match had no value and no importance.
If it was for the guys who pissed u off, u need to chill a little bit and let it go. Some people are dumb, so ignore them. They are just words, they will pass away. And one more thing: I would rather watch a match of anything with 10 dumb friends than alone.
Yo. Yeh, i think i'm still in a pissed off mood. Those guys were just retards man. Flippin' heck. I'd rather watch the match alone than with them anymore.
Thanks man for checkin' up. What time is the Super Bowl @?
Yeah, I am glad u feeling better. I admit, the comment on the Indian captain was truly proof of how dumb that guy is. After the crowd wanted Laxman out when he was getting the century and actually saving India's ass against Oz, this new one made me realize that I might enjoy cricket more than a bunch of those retards.
Laxman was slowly piling up runs to get his century that would eventually lead to India's only victory against Oz in the VB series, but the crowd wanted him out. I was there with Arnav wondering why the hell they want him out since he was actually doing something good for the team? Retards.
But I gotta admit, yesterday night's comment on ganguly was even worse. If I'm not mistaking, it was the same guy who wanted Laxman out. The thing goes like this: "How the hell did Ganguly make the team since he is such a fucked up batsman?" I haven;t seen a lot of cricket in my life, but Ganguly is a god damn good player and the captain of India, one of the best teams in cricket (I call Oz and India the best in the world at the moment). How the hell did he make the team and become captain? Those guys must have known something appointing him captain. I respect Ganguly as a player, batsman, bowler, captain and everything else he might be. The comment yesterday affected me as a Romanian, I wonder why hari was the only one offended by this comment and not the rest? C'mon, if someone said anything about Hagi all Romanians would most probably kill him.
About the Indian bowlers, Pathan was bad but Balaji and Agarkar bowled really well. Also, getting 3 wickets in such a short time was amazing. But Gilly and Symonds were too much. Shit happens, but given what I've seen, I would not dare say that India bowled badly. I think the difference in this game was Oz bowling first, with the fastest bowler in the world playing on the fastest pitch in the world. A recipe for success/disaster (depends on which side u are).
I hope that the finals will be better and more tight than this. I want the best team to win. I enjoy a tight cricket match that keeps me breathless till the last over.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
You call *that* going down?
Date: 2004-02-01 01:37 am (UTC)Take a look at that. Also: Medical history does not record anyone dying from an overdose of marijuana... A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response. Free the weed!
Also, check out panels 6 and 7 of today's Doonesbury to see why I have issues with America's Iraq policy:
Re: You call *that* going down?
Date: 2004-02-01 01:49 am (UTC)As for the cartoon, hmm. Yeh, so what? America did the right thing in Iraq.
Link. I don't even wanna comment on that. Not worth it. Heh.
Peace.
Re: You call *that* going down?
Date: 2004-02-01 02:27 pm (UTC)So the US possibly made a mistake in supporting Iraq in the 1980's. (I say possibly because the alternative - Iran-style Islamic revolutions spreading throughout the Middle East, is not particularly palatable either. Which is the lesser of two evils?) So what? They got it right eventually.
Far worse were the French and Germans and Russians, who supplied Saddam with far, far more weapons than the tiny amount the US did, and kept trying to keep Saddam's regime intact to the very end. Despicable.
Re: You call *that* going down?
Date: 2004-02-01 03:32 pm (UTC)Back in '91, they had the moral right to get rid of Saddam. The north and south of Iraq rose up against Saddam. The US and UK stood idly by while the would-be revolutionaries there were killed. Neither of them really care about human life, as such, so long as their interests are not threatened. Look up the history of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia etc. Also, it's not like US bombing didn't kill anyone in Iraq. They bombed a busy market place at one point. Granted, many of these deaths were accidental, but deaths are deaths, and these could've been avoided altogether.
So the US possibly made a mistake in supporting Iraq in the 1980's. (I say possibly because the alternative - Iran-style Islamic revolutions spreading throughout the Middle East, is not particularly palatable either.
Iraq, the stronger power, invaded Iran, the weaker one. Without US help, I doubt he would've been able to do that.
Also, in the end, is it not what the people of a country want that counts? As an atheist, I'm not particularly fond of revolutionary Islam. But I don't see how it's worse than monarchical Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia, for instance.
So what? They got it right eventually.
But did they get it right? Is Iraq any better now than it was earlier? By all accounts, it seems to be in worse shape than before. The hospitals are still understocked, the infrastructure has been destroyed, and there is no security to speak of for Americans, leave alone Iraqis. Real smart move, getting rid of the control structures in the police and army without training replacements first.
America wanted to go in, come what may, before it became too hot to fight. It didn't even really plan the aftermath. If it'd waited a little while longer, it could've gone in after the weapons inspectors had finished, if there was trouble for said inspectors. Thing is, there were no such weapons. The reasons they gave for the invasion were eyewash. The invasion was called for years ago, 9/11 and its consequences basically just gave the neo-cons an excuse to go ahead.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not very fond of Saddam either. I would almost say he had this coming to him. I'm not so much miffed at him going as I am about how America went about the process. The latter could've done a far better job of getting along international support, including U.N. resolutions. Instead, it chose to more or less go it alone. Sure, it used the word 'coalition' a lot, but only the British really did any heavy lifting during the invasion. (Yes I'm aware of Australia's unique role, but no, it can't be compared to these 2)
Also, there is now a precedent whereby America can now intervene anywhere unilaterally. This would be all very well if it brought justice to the world. North Korea, for instance, is ripe for a good ass-whooping, if you'll pardon my saying so. But it is hypocritical to speak of this while not signing up for the International Criminal Court. Additionally, Henry Kissinger, (and possibly several other people in past US administrations) probably counts as a war criminal. There is almost no way he'd ever be tried, because of the victor's justice that basically prevails in such matters.
Far worse were the French and Germans and Russians, who supplied Saddam with far, far more weapons than the tiny amount the US did, and kept trying to keep Saddam's regime intact to the very end. Despicable.
International politics works on national interests, not morals. Sad, no? The French and German interests lay in peace, thanks to reconstruction contracts. Wrong motives, right goals. The U.S. works on interests too (read about reconstruction contracts anytime), so if they're despicable, so is Washington.
It's 3:30 AM right now, so pardon me if that sounded like a long rant that had no direction.
Re: You call *that* going down?
Date: 2004-02-01 04:29 pm (UTC)They bombed a busy market place at one point. Granted, many of these deaths were accidental, but deaths are deaths, and these could've been avoided altogether.
Yeah, but if the US-led co-alition hadn't killed anyone, Saddam would have killed more. So deaths were unavoidable. Any loss of innocent life is tragic, but inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths.
Is Iraq any better now than it was earlier?
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance. Grumble grumble, I know the trains used to run on time under Saddam but some things are more important than that. And anyway, electricity is back to pre-war levels.
There may not have been weapons, but there were weapons programmes, as shown by David Kay and his Iraqi Survey Group. See what Kay had to say recently in the Washington Post - something along the lines of, The weapons may not have existed yet, but he was more dangerous than we had thought. Iraq did not own up to these programmes as required by the seventeen UNSCR's concerning them. So that argument remains.
John Howard's argument for war against Iraq are actually more difficult to refute than those of Blair and Bush, because he couched it not in terms of an imminent threat, but rather a long-term threat of rogue states remaining in possession of WMD's.
North Korea, for instance, is ripe for a good ass-whooping...
Much though the regime may deserve it, the possible nuclear deterrent will prevent this from happening. And in case anyone hadn't noticed (and, if you'll allow me to judge, not many people have), the US was after a multi-lateral solution to the North Korea problem in the lead-up to Iraq, where it was threatening to go it alone. US foreign policy is actually nuanced, believe it or not. Meantime, the rest of the world (including Australia) was telling the US to go into one-on-one talks with North Korea, and ignore the rest of the UNSC.
The whole "Now there's a precedent for unilateral action" is laughable. There have been many many unilaterals wars in the past half-century. And given the cost of this Iraq one, it's not likely that the US will be going after anyone else in the same way for at least a decade.
The results are already starting to come through though, ie. Libya.
Iraq
Date: 2004-02-02 04:03 am (UTC)Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths
Saddam was cruel, but he was no Pol Pot or Idi Amin; millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. While there is little doubt Saddam did kill people, I'm not sure at all the number of people dying for bad reasons has come down now. It might well be the case, but I'd like to see something backing it up before I believe it.
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance.
Whereas if you want to sell liquor, armed mobs will burn down your shop. Iraq is no longer really secular. Saddam hated everyone equally, regardless of his problems with the Shi'a. As for protests, much good that's going to do you if the Americans aren't listening. Sistani and Chalabi seem to be the only two people in Iraq who they're talking to at all. The largest positive change the Americans made in their first 3 months of rule seemed to be removing Saddam's image from everywhere. Much good that did to kids who couldn't go to school, or for those whose A/Cs couldn't work throughout the 50°C summer because the Americans had bombed the power plans (the restoration of which apparently was NOT a priority). Is the economy geniunely better off? I'd like to see some figures.
but some things are more important than that
Political and civil rights are good. But getting food in your stomach comes first, everything else is usless without that. First get the infrastructure ready (without more bribes to Halliburton, s'il vous plaît) and then talk about those. Although for that matter, am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
he was more dangerous than we had thought
I'll have to look into what Kay said at that time, but from what I recall, he resigned while basically saying the hunt was useless, that there wasn't really anything to be found. The impression I've gotten from numerous sources is the direct opposite of what you said- that Saddam was not really a threat to his neighbors at all.
Re: Iraq
Date: 2004-02-02 04:29 pm (UTC)The problem with this is that the only reason Iraq was complying to any degree was the large American military presence just off the coast. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both acknowledged this. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq. After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good. They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war. Am I frightened by this? No. And let's remember, even Chirac said that Iraq had WMD's before the war. The point of difference was how to get rid of them.
millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government.
No. No no no no no. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq to give up its WMD programmes. It didn't. Sanctions continued while Iraq kept on its WMD programs, and building palaces, and the like. Saddam was more than capable of keeping his people from starving, even with the sanctions. He chose not to. Those millions of deaths are on his hands.
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm is a reminder from me to you and everyone else to have some patience.
am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
How are you going to ask the Iraqis what sort of government they want? Some sort of representative democratic structures have to be put in place before anything else. Otherwise the well-organised Shi'a leaders will get more votes than the divided "rest of Iraq" and could make Iraq even less secular than now. All parts of Iraq need a voice at first. Once this is in place, they can argue between themselves on what form the final democracy will take.
As long as the executive doesn't get too much power, things should be OK.
Re: Iraq
Date: 2004-02-04 01:15 am (UTC)I'm not sure it would've taken a year, at all. The US/UK went in because he ostensibly posed a threat to the security of the region and the world. If they knew he didn't, which I contend was the case, then they went in for other reasons. Meaning they lied to their people. This might have what Hari describes as 'beneficial externalities'. And few people are sorry to see the end of Saddam. But don't you believe that lying to the country about the reasons for war is highly immoral, perhaps even treasonable?
It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq.
I certainly don't begrudge you that the American military did have some effect on Saddam. But even before the troop build-up, he'd started cooperating again. To me, there would not have been a problem if they went in if Saddam was played games with the inspectors. Thing is, he went out of his way to comply. They could've made it very clear that they'd go in only if the inspectors reported something fishy.
After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
They're spending a lot more money right now on rebuilding infrastructure they've just bombed.
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good.
Ah, here we come to what I believe is the central reason for our disagreements. It is a variant- perhaps a less black and white one, but still a variant- of the old question: Which is worse, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right ones? While the outcome certainly does matter to everyone involved, I think it is very important that a state (or indeed person) acts with the right intentions. I can see the positives to have risen America's invasion of Iraq. However, I feel the duplicitous manner in which said invasion was carried out makes several of them hollow.
They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war.
In my books, you don't go to war without being pretty damn sure of what you're doing. Which brings us back to the did-they-lie-to-the-public question. Which in turns leads back to my previous point on intentions vs. outcomes. And while I still strongly defend my point of view, I also believe that good people can disagree on this matter.
Other places
Date: 2004-02-02 04:04 am (UTC)The Indian Army's Chief of Staff, when asked what lessons could be drawn from the first Gulf War, said more or less the same thing: "Never fight the Americans without nuclear weapons." India did indeed develop said weapons. Do I feel safer? Hell no.
Because of the way it has allowed itself to be cowed by the prospect of the use of these weapons, the US has in a way almost encouraged their development, at least by states that are large or powerful enough not to fear being swallowed up a la Iraq.
Unfortunately, much as I can make a moral case for going into North Korea, regardless of high casualties, I've researched the topic enough to realize that the consequences would simply be too costly. On the other hand, I find it stupefying that America would rather spend tens, nay, hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent North Korea from launching its one or two potential missiles than sign a non-agression pact with it, as the North has been asking for years now.
The Western media has also conveniently ignored that North Korea's pullout from the NPT was brought about by the US withdrawal from the 1993 accord that brought that country food aid and light-water reactors that could not be used to generate fissile material for nuclear weapons. North Korea merely brought things back to the status quo ante. This withdrawal was stupid and ideological. Doubly so given it was the US more than North Korea that was defaulting on its side of the agreement (those reactors were about 5 years behind where they should've been, in the construction stage). But at least they're talking now.
There have been many many unilaterals wars in the past half-century
Precisely how was the US supposed to get greater international support when you yourself admit that members of the UNSC (with veto) had interests in maintaining the status quo?
Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
The fig leaf for this one was the flimsiest that I can remember the US ever using, especially since the Cold War's end.
it's not likely that the US will be going after anyone else in the same way for at least a decade
Tell that to all the worried Syrians, Iranians, etc.
The results are already starting to come through though, ie. Libya.
Possibly the one success of Bush's foreign policy that I can see. Although even there, it's widely been said that Libya's program had stalled and failed. Also, the regime there had been mellowing well before Iraq, for instance, it was mediating between the Phillipine government and rebels in that country's troubled Mindanao area.
Re: Other places
Date: 2004-02-02 04:07 am (UTC)Re: Other places
Date: 2004-02-02 04:40 pm (UTC)You were worried about American going to war with India beforehand?
Because of the way it has allowed itself to be cowed by the prospect of the use of these weapons, the US has in a way almost encouraged their development
I see where you're coming from here. Unfortunately, MAD is a stable environment, at least in the sense that wars tend not to happen. So what are we to do about it? If the US attacks North Korea, Seoul gets nuked.
Realistically, you can only go after states trying to get nuclear weapons, before they actually build a bomb. You can still attack a country with biological and chemical weapons, though.
than sign a non-agression pact with it, as the North has been asking for years now.
Signing the non-aggression pact also encourages rogue states to acquire WMD. Even moreso that the tacit situation we have at present.
The Western media has also conveniently ignored that North Korea's pullout from the NPT was brought about by the US withdrawal from the 1993 accord...
No. North Korea signed that treaty in bad faith. They NEVER intended on stopping their nuclear weapons programmes.
it's not likely that the US will be going after anyone else in the same way for at least a decade
Tell that to all the worried Syrians, Iranians, etc.
This is an argument?
Re: Other places
Date: 2004-02-04 12:58 am (UTC)December 1971 aside, America has never really come to close to a military confrontation with India. However, my point was that nuclear weapons aren't always good deterrents. MAD worked relatively well during the Cold War. However, MAD presumes that:
1) All states are rational. I'm not sure this is true of North Korea. It probably is, but the chance that it's not is a chance that- if push comes to shove- would possibly mean the end of life as we know it.
2) Both states can actually destroy the other. North Korea is thought to have 1-2 nukes already. They could take Seoul out with artillery alone. Tokyo might be a target however. Indeed, in a few more years, so might Los Angeles. Of course, all of North Korea would be turned into a pile of simmering radioactive ash. But it is very hard to guard against an attack by anyone prepared to be destroyed in so-called asymmetrical warfare (9/11 comes to mind). And it is for this reason that it is not a good idea to push anyone in control of nuclear weapons to the brink. Which sadly makes it unfeasible to go into North Korea. In the case of India and Pakistan, the smaller number of weapons mean use-or-lose applies, not MAD. And that means nukes make things more dangerous.
You can still attack a country with biological and chemical weapons, though.
Uhhh, no. Biological weapons are what keeps Israel from attacking Syria (at least, to the point of provoking war).
Signing the non-aggression pact also encourages rogue states to acquire WMD.
Whereas spending tens, or hundreds of billions of dollars on a missile shield instead makes perfect sense?
I don't think there's a real chance that a new state can develop WMDs- Libya's given up the prospect, Iran's agreed to intrusive inspections. And America has made it clear now that it will bring down its full might on any state it catches trying. It would take decades for a state to develop its WMD program to the point where it could threaten America seriously.
North Korea signed that treaty in bad faith.
They signed it as a form of nuclear blackmail ('Give us money or we'll keep developing and exporting WMDs and missies'). But that aside, I'm not sure there was bad faith- I think they intended to stick to the provisions of the treaty. Certainly, from what I've read, America was far bigger an offender than they were with regard to breaking the provisions.
Tell that to all the worried Syrians, Iranians, etc.
This is an argument?
I merely meant to say that a lot of people don't agree with your assessment of a decade or more before America next 'liberates' a country.
Re: Other places
Date: 2004-02-05 12:12 am (UTC)No, America is what stops Israel from attacking anybody. At least the primary reason, not Syria having Biological weapons.
lot of people don't agree with your assessment of a decade or more before America next 'liberates' a country.
Not, financially viable for at least a decade mate. Besides, it is good if the Syrian and Iranian governments are placed in fear of an American invasion. They should be dealt with in a matter fitting of rogue nations. :)
Re: Other places
Date: 2004-02-09 11:47 am (UTC)I beg to differ. An American veto keeps the world from using the UN Security Council to act against Israel. American military aid to the tune of billions of dollars makes sure that Israel's military is decades ahead of those of its neigbors. American is the power that allows Israel an offensive edge. The last time America sided against Israel in a conflict, that I'm aware of, was during the latter's invasion of Egypt. 1956.
Left in peace, however, I'm not sure Israel would really want to attack too many of its neigbors. It already occupies most of the so-called Biblical land of Israel. If Syria (in particular) could make a decent peace settlement with it, I think Israel wouldn't have to worry about going to war even if the Americans abandoned them. Not that their existence is seriously threatened even today, at least, from the outside.
Regardless of what the
Date: 2004-02-01 05:45 pm (UTC)I think there's a problem between following procedure and taking necessary action. For long I've believed Saddam didn't have WMD's but just because of that, doesn't mean no action should've been taken.
So every country has their motives and interests. I'd like to think that American Foreign Policy is not the same as that which took place before the end of the Cold War. Times have changed, and so has AFP. It's no more angelic than what it used to be, but it contains a lot more beneficial externalities for humankind as a whole than it ever has before. It's still a bitch though, but I'd rather that than the terrorists not feel the heat.
Terrorism will never be defeated, but this is as much a war to get as close as possible as destroy the motivation, the urge and need for those on the tipping point, or well-entrenched to resort to further atrocities.
Sure, go ahead and quote me the increase in suicide bombings here and airline cancellations there but those are short-term drawbacks. In the long term, with enough checks and balances, things should be a lot better than they've been for a while.
The international community can assist with the checks and balances by cooperating and creating an air for such a relationship with the USA rather than confronting it and being cast aside the way Germany and France were last March. That was probably the lowest point in Western History since 1939.
America is the most powerful country in the world and with such power comes great responsbility. On several occassions it hasn't lived upto those responsbilities and unfortunately its innocent civilians have paid the price for such acts of stupidity. It's been more than two years since 9/11. A lot of the initial confusion, anger and haste has died down a fair amount and now we're ready for what I will term the golden era of global affairs and world politics.
Mark my words. :)
Re: Regardless of what the
Date: 2004-02-02 06:29 am (UTC)I shall withhold judgment on that until I see his replacement. So far, the signs have not been encouraging, but admittedly, these are early days.
evil dictator like Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein was clearly not about to win the All Round Nice Guy award. But be careful about using a word like 'evil'. Regardless of what Bush and co. would have us believe, the world is far from being as black and white as a Star Wars movie.
a lot more beneficial externalities for humankind as a whole than it ever has before
Explain to me how Guantanamo, visa denials and steel quotas have been better for us than the Marshall Plan. Indeed, is something not wrong with the basic system upon which the world works when the best we can hope for is the odd 'beneficial externality'? Also, how is it beneficial for the world that America has pulled out of treaties relating to WMDs (multiple), an international criminal court, the environment, while weakening the U.N. to a body to the point where it is only called upon if America can't do things exactly its own way by brute force?
now we're ready for what I will term the golden era of global affairs and world politics
Funny, I vaguely remember reading about people living in unprecedented prosperity before WWI, although I could well be wrong. Either way, I look upon your last claim with extreme skepticism. Before Bush came to power, I genuinely believed things were getting better, everywhere. Now I feel that more things are getting worse than otherwise.
A Response...
Date: 2004-02-05 12:27 am (UTC)While it is true that we are still in the early day stage, I think any replacement by the Americans and IGC will be at least 4 times better than Saddam. To begin with, there is a good chance hundreds of thousands of ppl won't be gassed in a single attack. Or thousands of others treated like dirt in the prisons, others sent to them for no justifiable reason whatsoever and the son-in-laws being shot @ for fleeing the country upon return! :)
be careful about using a word like 'evil'. Regardless of what Bush and co. would have us believe, the world is far from being as black and white as a Star Wars movie.
Saddam was a maniac. A tyrant. A despot. A dictator. A mass-murderer. Khalas. I don't agree with everything that comes out of the President's Office but Saddam was not a good man in anyway. There might have been some things that worked in the favor of the Iraqi ppl courtesy Saddam, but overall, he was a terrrible man. I don't want to seem him receive anything less than capital punishment.
Before Bush came to power, I genuinely believed things were getting better, everywhere. Now I feel that more things are getting worse than otherwise.
Intereshting...
I believe completely otherwise. I don't think America has done more right with their foreign policy now than ever before.
Just checking
Date: 2004-02-01 09:31 am (UTC)just checking out how u were doing. U were pretty pissed yesterday, so I hope u are fine today. Yes, India sucked yesterday, but as u said, the match had no value and no importance.
If it was for the guys who pissed u off, u need to chill a little bit and let it go. Some people are dumb, so ignore them. They are just words, they will pass away. And one more thing: I would rather watch a match of anything with 10 dumb friends than alone.
Take care mate,
Cris
Re: Just checking
Date: 2004-02-01 10:16 am (UTC)Yeh, i think i'm still in a pissed off mood. Those guys were just retards man. Flippin' heck. I'd rather watch the match alone than with them anymore.
Thanks man for checkin' up. What time is the Super Bowl @?
Re: Just checking
Date: 2004-02-01 12:37 pm (UTC)Laxman was slowly piling up runs to get his century that would eventually lead to India's only victory against Oz in the VB series, but the crowd wanted him out. I was there with Arnav wondering why the hell they want him out since he was actually doing something good for the team? Retards.
But I gotta admit, yesterday night's comment on ganguly was even worse. If I'm not mistaking, it was the same guy who wanted Laxman out. The thing goes like this: "How the hell did Ganguly make the team since he is such a fucked up batsman?" I haven;t seen a lot of cricket in my life, but Ganguly is a god damn good player and the captain of India, one of the best teams in cricket (I call Oz and India the best in the world at the moment). How the hell did he make the team and become captain? Those guys must have known something appointing him captain. I respect Ganguly as a player, batsman, bowler, captain and everything else he might be. The comment yesterday affected me as a Romanian, I wonder why hari was the only one offended by this comment and not the rest? C'mon, if someone said anything about Hagi all Romanians would most probably kill him.
About the Indian bowlers, Pathan was bad but Balaji and Agarkar bowled really well. Also, getting 3 wickets in such a short time was amazing. But Gilly and Symonds were too much. Shit happens, but given what I've seen, I would not dare say that India bowled badly. I think the difference in this game was Oz bowling first, with the fastest bowler in the world playing on the fastest pitch in the world. A recipe for success/disaster (depends on which side u are).
I hope that the finals will be better and more tight than this. I want the best team to win. I enjoy a tight cricket match that keeps me breathless till the last over.
Take care,
Cris
Re: Just checking
Date: 2004-02-01 12:39 pm (UTC)Take care,
Cris