One interesting sidenote from all this is the usefulness of the UN. If we assume that the goal of the US really is weapons-inspections, then this shows the benefits of going through the UN versus alone. 6 months of talk about a solo-invasion didn't move Iraq to change anything. Less than a week after going through the UN and building world support, Iraq caved. MadMax: Easy, man. Bush should set a tripwire. Instead of talking about not trusting Iraq... send inspectors tomorrow, and demand to go wherever they want. If Iraq bars their way, even once... the inspector should look the guy in the eye and ask, "do you want war?" If they're still barred... the bombs can start falling from the sky 5 minutes later, and Bush will look much better than if he'd attacked without the "trip wire." Exactly -- this is the next step. The UN has to be willing to accept a resolution like this now. The minute Iraq messes up, they're dead.
And you throw out history you've read somewhere with terrible application, IMO. We'll use your example. My point is exactly that your historical example is irrelevant in today's world. The world does not look like it did during Egypt of China's peak. The world moves much faster now than they did then. The world is more interconnected now than ever. Actions have effects that are more far reaching now than ever before. Whether Egypt could isolate itself two thousand years ago is irrelevant to pursuing isolationism in THIS time period. And while I have written long descriptions of how THIS time would look with an isolationist policy, you answer with 'well, two thousand years ago...' which is, IMO, begging the question. And as I stated previously, I clearly mark the differences between what is 'fact' and what is opinion. Although you still don't seem to be able to tell the difference. If you think you are lilly white and pure then its the ivory tower you're sitting it that you are concentrating on, not yourself. Which is precisely the charge I level at you consistently. You could not BE a policy maker, because policymakers are inevitably confronted with a choice between bad and worse. The world is not filled with white and black hats. But if you live in the academic world you CAN certainly only write papers kritik-ing everything. Precisely the conflict I drew you out on in the last discussion. You end up saying that anyone who controls a strip of land should have the right to develop nuclear weapons. NOONE, not even the most noted proponent of horizontal nuclear proliferation, Ken Waltz, would back up that viewpoint. Actually I am wary of answering questions like 'do you still beat your wife?' You'll have to excuse me if I would rather deal with the issues at hand than your contrived attempts to 'lead' the argument in one particular direction. And if I'm not mistaken I did actually ask for clarification, since you mixed 'current' and past transgressions (genocide of Native Americans) and then said use only an answer that is applicable today, which are two different things. You, of course, disappeared. As per your usual. No, I said he DID mis-label me as a neocon, even though, as I pointed out after that, I support many policies that are completely incompatible with being a 'neoconservative.' If the shoe fits. Your position that anyone has a RIGHT to nukes if they control land IS lunacy. Of course, that is opinion, not fact, unless you're writing from a sanitarium...hey, wait a minute... Come down from the Ivory Tower and join the rest of the hypocrites in the world, MacBeth. The only thing respectable about you is that you seem to have read a lot of history. Its tragic you can't apply history worth a damn to policy. But hey, MacBeth - tragic, it all fits. Well, you need to take another look at that thread, cause you're out of it. You'd base proliferation policy on some notation you read that Stalin wanted the bomb because he was afraid of the US. Then you generalize that to EVERY situation. Whereas I go over example by example EVERY state that has either had a significantly developed program or has actually proliferated, and point how they disprove your thesis. Facts vs extrapolated generalizations - it IS an easy decision.
So I wonder if the six months of solo talk precipitated the stance by the UN? Meaning if people were actually convinced Bush would do it alone, didn't that help kickstart the UN into a stronger stance?
i totally agree...as i said, the optimist in me thinks this can be taken care of without war...and the optimist is the bigger part of me...i was voted most optimistic by my graduating senior class in high school! keep smiling!
Just wanted to make a note on this... I think that what many people overlook is that in policy decisions most of the time, both sides have good arguments. It's very rare that in serious political discussion that one side is completely wrong. One can take the same facts, and construct sensible arguments that contradict each other. I think this is ignored far too often here. Probably why most of us are ill-suited to policy. I actually mostly agree with Waltz. While this statement is true at face value, Waltz never did draw a good brightline. Who should have nukes? The normal answers from different perspectives: 1. Just us. 2. Just us and our friends. 3. Those nations that have indicated a sophisticated understanding of geopolitics? (would have included the Soviet Union during the Cold War) 4. Any nation with a vested power interest in the status quo (means they're not likely to use them lightly). 5. Any state with the stability to preclude the acquisition of nuclear weapons by lunatics in/out of government. 6. Any state with the capability to construct/acquire them. I'd probably draw my own line around #3. Maybe #4. Even #5 is arguable. But I agree with Hayes that #6 is ludicrous, even if one assumes that nobody wants mass genocide. Where one places Saddam in that spectrum is a separate issue entirely... but deterrence theory only functions when a leader/state has an interest in the status quo, or at least, an aversion to mass death and destruction. Some (lunatics) place religion, etc, over security interests. Those people should never, ever have access to WMD.
1) I stated, and will re-state , that I never advocated isolationist policy today, but was merely refuting your position that isolation doesn't work, for academic purposes. If you're going to argue semantics, it might be advisable to have actually listened to the other position before trying to 'kritic' it. 2) And, you are correct, I still cannot tell the difference between your version of fact and your version of opinion. WHere we differ is on the factuality of your interpretation of the distinction between the two and mine. 3) No, no, no. I have said, and will say, again, for one last time...IF the US pursues it's current policies based on a purely self-serving, pragmatic approach to the betterment of all things American, then I might even be able to understand that, or at least my arguments against those actions wouldn't have anything to do with hypocrasy. My biggest problem with the current practice is that we often Do act in a completely self-serving manner, with little or no regards to the affects this has on others, and yet we try to do so under the banner of Protector of Freedom, Guardian of Democracy...etc.or, better still, we point out flaws in other nations , according to our standards, as reason for our intervention in their affairs. The preceding makes two assumptions.1) That our standards are THE standards, and 2) that you can enforce self-determination on others, as long as it's our version of same. When we try to engage in moral arguments to support immoral actions, I will cry foul. And finally, when other nations make their displeasure of our actions known to us, we get up on our high horse and either proclaim them idiots because they have 'lesser' systems than ours, hence they are either uneducated or acting out of jealousy, or we point out the moral flaws in their systems, thereby somehow invalidating their complaints. Ex. How can we, being the only nation who has ever used nuclear arms against an enemy, get into our own ivory tower and think we are morally justified in being arbiters of who should and who shouldn't have them. i would much prefer we abandon any pretense at being about freedom and justice, and acknowledge that we have assumed the role of bully, dictating to others what they can and cannot do simply because it suits our interest, and we have the power to do so. That would, of course, not play well in Hollywood, nor would it be consistent with the ideals of our founding fathers, but at least it would be honest. We have become the latest example of might = right. Yes, we do it in a more subtle manner, usually, but as you say, the world is more complex, and when push comes to shove, we revert to the traditional exertion of power by military means. 3) My question was nothing like "Do you still beat your wife?" My question was, do you feel that the other nations would have had the moral rightto have interfered with the course of our development, based on our violations of human rights, in the same way that we propose to do to others, or do they have the right to work it out for themselves, irrespective of world opinion, just like we did? 4) No, you didn't complain about mis-labeling, your exact question was " Why are you lableling me?" 5) Another version of fact, I suppose, not to be confused with your opinion? Hmmm..smacks of labeling...mommy? 6) See point 5.... 7) Wrong, wrong, wrong...You had stated that we need to get rid of Sadaam because he is our enemy, and might have nuclear arms, and I stated that history doesn't back you up... The reasons being many, and already covered, but included in that discussion was a point I made about our own place as nuclear judge for the world; That others have feared our use of nuclear warfare as much as we fear Sadaams, and with at least as good cause, and that if such fear alone qualifies someone as an enemy, we have been the enemy of many by our own hand. No where did I state that EVERY nation sought nuclear arms as an anti-US deterent...Yet another example of your misinterpretations leading to wrong conclusions which are qucikly asserted to be supported by facts.
I just heard that if the weapons inspectors say they can be on the ground in Iraq On Weds. if the UN is ready to send them by then. I hope this works. It would avoid so much bloodshed and misery. Two things have to happen for this to work. 1. Saddam has to hold true to his word, and allow them unrestricted access with no conditions. 2. Bush has to hold true to his word. If it turns out that the breaking of UN resolutions was just a pretext he was using because he wanted to go to war, then it won't matter what the weapons inspectors find, or don't find. It's time to see if these two leaders each hold true to what they've stated. If so peace will be the outcome.
Hey, Haven...This is Jag. How you been keeping yourself? I pretty much agree with your breakdown, but feel that, as soon as we decide that we are the ones to make said decission, we are both apllying our own standards, and flexing our muscles at the expense of our avowed principles. The problem is, as I see it, let's say you choose 4...Okay, who qualifies..or more to the point, who decides who qualifies? Would the USSR of 1950 have qualified? China? India? Pakistan? Where do you draw the line, and who draws it?
Maybe it's kind of like p*rnography...difficult to define but you know it when you see it. In this case, it is difficult to define who should be barred from having nukes...but the UN knew it when they saw it. They barred Iraq from having such weapons. I also hope that Iraq allowing inspectors will end this issue...I just have doubts that it will.
Oh, I see. I say isolationism would be bad. You say, no it works. I say not in today's world. You say 'I never advocated it.' Are you chasing your tail or what. If you post it you are its advocate unless you're saying that you post what you don't believe, merely to be an ass. This is exactly what I've called you out on before, which was specifically misusing your historical knowledge to distort discussions. Usually I right FACT in bold letters. Precisely so readers I'm not in conflict with can make note that I post that point as irrefutable. The rest is my opinion. I don't know what else I can do for you. If we do indeed believe our system is better than our perspective would not be that we are 'entirely self-serving.' It would be that our actions are better for everyone. Precisely our disagreement on Iraq. I say its better for us (the US), better for Europe, better for Japan, better for the world's economy, better for Iran, better for Saudis and Kuwaitis, and (drumroll) better for Iraqis if we take Saddam out. So to me that is not 'entirely self-serving,' although it ALSO serves our immediate interests. Agreed on 1. Except I would say it assumes our standards SHOULD BE THE standards. Your 2 I disagree with. I can't imagine how you think Iraqis are enjoying self-determination. If we remove an impediment to self-determination then we are not opposing our own moral basis (re: freedom democracy etc). Add to that the implicit assumption in our own founding, which was the universality of rights, and some of us think that places a moral obligation to act consistently with those principles. A dictator or totalitarian system by definition is diametrically opposed to self-determination. An act to remove that dictator is not. ALL of this has limits, just like every other right. No one's right to self-determination trumps all other rights, which is why even then the nuclear aspect may trump other impacts. Interesting. That is exactly what you castigate me for when I point out that we all do things at certain points that are not consistent with some 'moral virtue' that I say exists only in an academic vacuum, and that you seem to believe is possible in the actual world we live in. Maybe I just was confusing. And then you put some funky conditions on it, which is why it was both confusing and made me wary. And I answered THAT question by saying, yes, if we were committing genocide or if our government was totalitarian, I would prefer the Danish or the Swiss come in with their ray gun and free us. If they believed human sacrifice was the solution, then NO I wouldn't. You want to make inviolate rules for action without any consideration for the context. I think that is only possible in an academic critique, and is not possible in public policy. Why are you labelling me (as a neocon)? That is not consistent with my beliefs. Are you brain dead? I even say 'that is opinion.' This is exactly the way it happened.... And I replied, appropriately IMO (that's opinion not fact)... You're, in the local lingo, a nutter. Then you said... So in reponse to my calling you nuts for saying anyone should be able to acquire nukes, you say 'the USSR acquired the bomb because they were afraid of us. They were not alone in this.' Which I guess was either non-responsive or was a generalization to other countries that moved for the bomb.
We're getting the world's reactions. Predictably the US. Israel and Britain dismissed the importance of inspectors. Israel is already trying to move the goal posts by saying removing weapons of mass destrucion is not enough to avoid war. I second Nelson Mandela. reaction to the US dismissal. .
the next time you side with US foreign policy on any issue, please let us know...otherwise, we'll just assume you're against it.
I think it's too early to say Hussein's offer isn't genuine. There is plenty of reason to be suspicious. The only way to tell if Saddam is for real or not, this time, is to go in and see if he sticks to his word. If not then the whole world will see it, and will most likely support invasion of Iraq. If he is, and Bush holds true to what he said, then war is averted and we can all be happy. There is nothing to lose by trying.
I agree with haven on this, and I don’t think it would cost much time. I don’t think preparations for war would stop. I think you send inspectors into all the places you were going to bomb, and send them in again next week, or even tomorrow. If anything at all is found, the US will have ample grounds to move in, or if the weapons can be destroyed, continue to pressure for the removal of Saddam, because he has shown that he is building these things, and that he is a continuing threat. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has either destroyed his own WMD, or has buried them deep so that nothing will be found. Then he can claim innocence and that he has been unfairly picked on. This may have some capital in the ME (but not much I think, because they all hate him too), but it won’t have much in the west. I think the argument in the west is really about how to deal with Saddam, not whether or not he poses a long-term threat. Backing away from war at this time gives the west more of a chance to deal with some of the other festering problems in the ME, Palestine and Saudi Arabia, while continuing to plan for the post Saddam Iraq. BINGO! And hopefully he can use this lesson to get the world involved in addressing the underlying problems in the ME.
