To play devil's advocate, you have to admit the defense industry doesn't get its big slice of pie if you peacefully remove sanctions. I'm not saying that this is the case, but you can trace a big, big pile of campaign money to two big sources, and that puts them in bed together. Again, I hope this is not a significant consideration for the administration's decisions with so many lives at stake, but I can fully understand the cynicism expressed by some Americans.
"We have no illusions about the brutal nature of Saddam Hussein's regime, therefore we all demand that Baghdad implement the relevant U.N. resolutions in full. However, in addition to disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability, we also fear possible negative repercussions for the joint fight against terrorism. These are fundamental reasons for our rejection of military action." Fischer at U.N. 1/20/03 Basically: "Pretty please Mr. Hussein, will you disarm for us? No? Well, then we will be forced to say "Pretty please with a cherry on top." Her rationale against military action is quite a bit more dubious than the U.S./British justification of it.
Go here. Listen to what Fischer has to say (November 1, 2002 interview). He speaks at great lengths about Germany's anti-war bias.
Let us know what you think of the interview I found it refreshing to hear what he had to about Germany, especially the straight forwardness.
Originally posted by Achebe Cohen, I've written that there are only a few reasons to fight a war with Iraq. Advantages include: a) Iraq is a threat to us. b) Iraq is a placeholder in a tense region. A democracy in that place would facilitate, or maybe... destabilize, a chance at peace longterm... an interesting experiment, nonetheless. c) Iraq has oil *yummy*. d) Iraq violates human rights. We are not going to war for 'd'. There are reasons to be dubious about the blatancy of 'c'; though we haven't seen the plans for Iraq reconstruction . That, unless the coffee hasn't kicked in (it doesn't until ~4) leaves 'a' and 'b'. I haven't seen anyone convincingly argue that Iraq is a threat to us. They weren't culpable in the event that set us down this path. They were completely dismantled by us in a matter of weeks 11 years ago.... Now the discussion starts! I understand you're not convinced; I never said I was 100% (and my 80% earlier was only for compare to the likelihood of me hitting you accidentally with my car...even if 10%, it still magnitudes off). I don't think anyone will be able to convince, and that's your prerogative. But it's not 'silly' to hold that belief that Iraq is a threat, and it is silly to portray Iraq as toothless. Are you aware that the UN was aware in 1995 that Iraq had 29,000 liters of cheimcal weapons and 300 biological warheads, yet NONE were accounted for in their volumnious submission. Why is that? Why does Iraq train terrorists? And re. Iraq not attacking us unless as a last hurrah, I don't believe he would attack us ... openly. The other point, my 'ME' point... was simply that, imo... that's the only salient reason to fight a war with Iraq. I'm not sure that all Americans would support it... or if it'd garner any support in the UN (b/c then it really would be perceived as a war between Islam/Judaism... when it's partly a war between colonialist-Zionism vs human rights and for us, long term stability via a democratic vehicle with which to sell our goods (putatively; unfortunately there aren't infinite material goods to appease the masses)). For that you insinuate that I'm anti-semitic. Who exactly is silly? Re-read my posts. The question of 'having a problem with my name' was to discern whether you are assigning opinions to me because you think I belong to a group that thinks alike (i.e. stereotyping). If true, it's the second time that I feel that you did that. Stereotyping can be offensive, but it does not imply anti-semitism. Other than regional instability and the threat to the world, I am not preoccupied with Israel's situation. (I think their situation would have improved greatly if the dismantled the d*mn settlements for starters and shown some type of positive response to the Arab overtures made last year. I think the approach to 'negotiate everything' is asinine...you do what's right, then negotiate the gray areas. From a prgmatic view, there are benefits to goodwill.) Finally, regarding human rights in Iraq: I know that this administration is not going in for that alone. Maybe not at all; I don't care. I think the salient issue is whether it's the morally right thing to do, regardless of intent. I still find it amazing that so many empathetic people use our failings with helping other countries as some type of argument to ignore the benefites to these people. Help me, what type of fallacy is that? Not quite 'two wrongs', is there some type of 'bad precendent' fallacy, because it is certainly a fallacious argument.
...I hate no edits....my apologies, Achebe, for the bolding (wouldn't want people to think you said those things! )
Didn't the ol' 'Military-Industrial Complex' argument take a big hit when defense went into a tailspin as US defense spending was essentially the same in 1995 as in 1986, dropping as a percent of GDP from 6.5% to 3.9%? Bases closed all over during the cost-cutting, early retirements, plants closing and mergers for defense contractors.
I wonder what it would be like after any war if: 1) There are no civilian casualties; 2) Iraq becomes democratic; 3) The US leaves the country quickly, taking no oil with it, and leaving no forces/undue influence. What would that do for the way the US/West is viewed by Arabs/Mulsims?
Thus Saddam or an unstable unpredictable Iraq regime is a threat to #1, #4, #10 (obviously) and probably another handful of other, geographically small, but relatively high oil producing per capita ME states (in the #11-#20 range). But besides this point, again I am not saying instability in the worlds richest oil region is the ONLY factor, but you couple that with the fact war makes good politics (especially in the time of a recession), well between oil and politics that could make the difference in leading to a military attack a step or two before other channels are fully explored. This to me is why UN support, or at least W Europe's support, is so critical, to mitigate the oil factor (though maybe only a little because they need oil too even if their appetite is a little lower) and to mitigate the war is good politics factor (this is maybe the more important point). In addition to being good checks on our governments wisdom based on similarly good information, UN/W Europe support would have many other benefits even if more symbollic (hand full of British soldiers and French Mirages involved would help show there is some consensus in what we are doing) than of actual help to the war effort. First, while many Saudi citizens are not, the Saudi governement is an allie. We will have no problem regularly getting Saudi oil as long as they are in place and they are secure. Threats to Saudi oil come from within, or outside (like Saddam), you can be sure we are trying to limit either from happening. Again, not saying the whole War on Terrorism is a facade, no one is claiming the planes hitting the world trade centers was Hollywood. How about Osama Bin Laden. How about an Osama Bin Laden clone with Saddam's resources (yes there are some such clones, and may even be some that are just hoping to have their chance to be the next Iraq regime). There are worse scenarios than what we have in Iraq.
I can agree with this a lot more than "Bush used to work for oil companies. Bush wants oil. Bush is an imperialist." Too bad the loonies are the ones who make the most noise.
Cohen, Again you make the charges. It should be noted that you started this series of anti-semitic charges in response to an ordinary thread on the Middle East. Please try to understand that in this forum you have probably a hundred posts detailing your positions on Israel and the Middle East. It is simply incorrect to think that the reason why someone would ascribe an opinon to you on these issues is your name or or unfair sterotyping.
Originally posted by glynch Cohen, Again you make the charges. It should be noted that you started this series of anti-semitic charges in response to an ordinary thread on the Middle East. Note it all you want. When search is back up, we can chronicle all of the opinions that you credited me with than I never made. You know damn well you've done it on numerous occasions. Achebe also shocked me on one occasion by doing something similar, and here he was the first to mention Israel, and questioned whether I was being 'disingenuous', thus raising my question. Maybe he was innocent, but I wouldn't have even asked if there wasn't a prior question about his intent. Please try to understand that in this forum you have probably a hundred posts detailing your positions on Israel and the Middle East. It is simply incorrect to think that the reason why someone would ascribe an opinon to you on these issues is your name or or unfair sterotyping. Oh, I still question whether Achebe is guilty of what you clearly do.
MadMax, I think that we agree, no? Cohen, I'm not sure of all of your opinions on the matter re: Israel. I think that we conflicted earlier (actually only a few weeks ago) when I read glynch and your exchange to mean that you were partisan on the matter. Come to think of it... you guys weren't arguing the point at the time, glynch had summarized (if memory serves) your view(s) on some point. I suspected that he was implying that you were just pro-Israel... as plenty of people in this country happen to be. I think the conversation was in your history channel thread. It seems to me that we may have talked about it early winter/late fall also (in a big thread perhaps). Regarding your name, it didn't stand out to me that your name was 'Cohen' if that's what your hinting (I don't do 'names' and their ethnicities, btw... for all I know you're an aunt helping out her sister). Refman has championed the pov of the Palestinians in the past and I never deconstructed Ref-man into anything coherent. I am under the impression that MadMax is a postapocalyptic southern hemispherean, however, w/ a bit of non-melanoma skin cancer. It would suck if charges of ethnic insensitivies killed the thread... but I do stand by any and all claims that the only win re: Iraq right now is stabilizing a region that is in trouble b/c of our historical support of the colonialists in Israel. Since we very well cannot move Israel to S. Africa, it is arguable that 'worse things could happen than regime change in Iraq'. ps, the charge of you being disingenuous is b/c I thought that you may have seen my side of the argument but merely belabored the point and followed the rhetoric of the republicans just to 'win' or some such nonsense. You've otherwise thought a bit too much about this. Otherwise I'm a homophobic, misogynist, xenophobe, but you won't be able to prove it.
Achebe, Thank you for the clarification. I accept you at your word, and apologize for implying that you might be stereotyping. Back to the horrid game...
Cohen, don't think twice about it. If I say something that seems strange, just call me on it. I am a dork, but I don't want to be a hateful dork. Well, I'm off to see a Sundance movie (the missing gun). Hopefully its better than this game *yech*.
