Rick Has A Word or two for sceptics.

[chrismb]

You could have replaced Arab with Islam and been factually correct, though whether Saddam was islamic is a debatable matter. If you wanted to ridicule the logic you could have said "You like chocolate, you are american, thus americans want to nuke Tehran" which would have been at least funny...

OK. A fair point well made. I do not suggest I am being factually and academically precise with this kind of touch-typing debate and I concede your 'improvement' to my quip.

[bcglorf]

Someone could've tried talking to him. Many did, and had useful outcomes.


No, they didn't. It'd been nearly a decade since the first gulf war and talk had accomplished nothing at all. Talking didn't work out that well for Iran, Kuwait or the Kurds either. Talking and inspections prior to the first Gulf war had also failed outright in detecting the WMD programs he really did have and that were ONLY revealed as a result of the war to liberate Kuwait. Iraq is a perfect example of where inspections and negotiation had failed entirely.

if you think it was done for the betterment of the Iraqi people
I never said that. I said it was better for the Iraqi people(and at a minimum 7 million Kurds unanimously share that opinion), note the difference. For all it matters to my point the war could have been done for the love of chocolate. A war to remove Saddam still made the lives of the Iraqi people better and you've been intent on dodging every last piece of evidence I've offered as proof.

I hadn't realized when discussing the Iraq war that Saddam's history of genocide and gross human rights abuses was a non sequitur.

(D'you know what that means? How can such events be, in themselves, 'non-sequitur??)

Are you deliberately misreading everything? I've repeatedly pointed out that Saddam's removal was good because of his history of genocide and grotesque human rights abuses. I've pointed out that those abuses were so grave that they are in fact worse than the war to remove Saddam. Then you just make a quip about that all being a non sequitur argument. Then I press you and ask how that line of argument can be considered a non sequitur and you again misread my statement. If all your interested in is arguing semantics at least come right out with it.

How would that at all be different if the USSR had said that they wanted regime change in the West because of the oppression of the working man by the upper classes?

I've pointed out multiple differences, but I think genocide is enough difference all by itself. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you liken the removal of Saddam to the removal of the democratically elected leader of a free nation?

If so, I think it's beyond reprehensible to argue that Saddam's prior genocides and war crimes are irrelevant in judging the war to remove him.

Really!? How on earth is it irrelevant when the US didn't have the balls to say out right that the war was to remove Saddam?

Are you honestly just going to go with sarcasm on this one? I don't care what the American leaders or public thought made a good rallying cry to get them to go to war. I'm asking you if you think Saddam's history of genocide is relevant when talking about the Iraq war. I'd like a yes or no over sarcastic avoidance.

Let's just focus on one [that kicked this off]; how does an embargo on birthing aids help avoid the development of WMD?

I already stated several times that embargoes in general(because nobody singularly and only embargoed birthing aids) are a means of providing economic pressure towards change. With Saddam it was to allow inspections, since he had been previously successful in hiding covert WMD programs from inspectors. I would ague that embargoes are often ineffective, but short of war, trade measures are about all there is to international pressure.

[chrismb]

Are you honestly just going to go with sarcasm on this one? I don't care what the American leaders or public thought made a good rallying cry to get them to go to war. I'm asking you if you think Saddam's history of genocide is relevant when talking about the Iraq war. I'd like a yes or no over sarcastic avoidance.

Me! Avoid answering questions directly? I answer all questions directly, perhaps too directly.

Is Saddam's history of genocide relevant to the Gulf War? No. Because it wasn't a stated objective of the gulf war to deal with genocide.

Politicians are good at stating initial objectives, then changing them dependent on the outcome. Military men don't do that. Dealing with Saddam's history of genocide wasn't a stated reason and is therefore irrelevant.

Now, on to direct questions, for the third and final time; why is it necessary to put an embargo on midwifery materials to avoid WMD development?

[bcglorf]

Is Saddam's history of genocide relevant to the Gulf War? No. Because it wasn't a stated objective of the gulf war to deal with genocide.

Well then that's were our opinions diverge. You do realize that you are then so busy dwelling on Republican talking points that you are willfully ignoring the real world consequences of nations actions and inaction. And for the record, Saddam's past crimes against humanity WERE included in the list of many reasons America gave for removing Saddam, WMD's just got pushed more because, collectively, civilians are always moved by self-interest over the humanitarian needs of foreigners.

Now, on to direct questions, for the third and final time; why is it necessary to put an embargo on midwifery materials to avoid WMD development?

I already answered that, if you liked my answer is up to you.

I already stated several times that embargoes in general(because nobody singularly and only embargoed birthing aids) are a means of providing economic pressure towards change. With Saddam it was to allow inspections, since he had been previously successful in hiding covert WMD programs from inspectors. I would ague that embargoes are often ineffective, but short of war, trade measures are about all there is to international pressure.

[ZenDraken]

Now, on to direct questions, for the third and final time; why is it necessary to put an embargo on midwifery materials to avoid WMD development?

If I may jump in here: It isn't necessary.

But embargoes, like war, are blunt instruments. There are always destructive side effects and unintended consequences.

Perhaps with sufficiently detailed rules and administrative oversight, these unintended consequences could be avoided. But my experience with even moderately sized organizations, with thoroughly planned and vetted rules and regulations, with everyone intelligent, educated, and sincerely working towards a common goal, indicates that human beings are too stupid to anticipate all the possibilities.

It should be no surprise that the embargo of Iraq resulted in stupid things like this. I'm sure there were a hundred others behind this one. None of this makes the embargo right or wrong, but it is inevitable that there will be stupid screw-ups, in embargoes and in war.

[pfrit]

Now, on to direct questions, for the third and final time; why is it necessary to put an embargo on midwifery materials to avoid WMD development?

As an aside, mid-wifery materials can be used for WMD development. Incubators jump out, for one. As to whether this is justified, I lean towards yes. A nation does not have an inherent obligation to trade with another nation. It does not really matter what is being traded. To say differently suggests that any argument you use could be applied to something riduclous like Nuclear weapons. We all agree that a country does not have the right to buy nuclear weapons from who ever they want regardless of what the originating nation desires. If Iraq wanted to have these midwifery materials, they were more than capable of making them themselves. Should we have free trade? Generally, yes. In the specific, however, I have no interest in sending ANYTHING to North Korea or other despotic regimes without a very compelling argument that such trade does not support the regime at all. Personal opinion there.

[chrismb]

If I may jump in here:

feel free..

It isn't necessary.

exactly.

But embargoes, like war, are blunt instruments. There are always destructive side effects and unintended consequences.

Absolutely. I fully agree, and with your other comments. That reply would've got pfrit and I down the route to an agreeing conclusion, I'm sure, but I was getting the impression that America was faultless here...

To be blunt, it is the kind of "we may not be perfect, but we're always absolutely right and don't want to make ourselves better or change the way we upset people. What we do is the American way and if people get upset or think it could be done better, then that's just tough on them" that makes the rest of the western world look on the US as immature and unsophisticated, and that the rest of the world just doesn't like much. I love you guys, I really do. The 'let's do it, let's just get on with it' attitude works really really well in engineering - but it sucks in diplomacy!!

It seems sad sometimes that you feel you don't know the answers to questions like "why don't other countries like us? why can't they just love us?". And [for Chr*st's sake!!!] don't read that as me saying they're justified in any hate actions, they aren't, there's much to love about America. The point is, it's as if there isn't really any dialogue permitted to chew over how [to be perceived] to be wanting to do things better for the interests of others, as well as just for America. As I read it, this dialogue here merely reflects this.

[bcglorf]

It seems sad sometimes that you feel you don't know the answers to questions like "why don't other countries like us? why can't they just love us?". And [for Chr*st's sake!!!] don't read that as me saying they're justified in any hate actions, they aren't

I would readily agree that America has done an enormous number of things that people really should hate them for. Kissinger deserves to be up in front of the ICC more than pretty much anyone that's been there so far. America's bombing of Cambodia and policy of support for the Khmer Rouge after is unconscionable. American intervention all over has constantly been as much bad as good. In Afghanistan it may have been good to help chase the Soviets out, but it was bad to simply abandon the place right after. It was wrong of Clinton to ignore the genocide in Rwanda. It was wrong of America to ignore the crimes Saddam committed for so many years while they deemed his Iraq the lesser evil to Iran.

I would go further than you and say that in many cases these actions would justify people's hatred against America, and in some cases violent responses from that hatred. That doesn't mean the world should be that simple though. The Kurds in Iraq should hate America more than anyone, America vetoed attempts to pursue Saddam for gassing them. The Kurds though have found reason to support America instead, both because they hated Saddam more, and because America changed it's policy from supporting Saddam to instead fighting by their side for their liberation.

My argument has nothing to do with whitewashing America the wonderful. At best I see America as grey, though perhaps appearing white by comparison to those they often confront. When it comes to Iraq, what ever America's intentions may have been, removing Saddam was better than leaving him in place, even at the cost of war.

[ZenDraken]

To be blunt, it is the kind of "we may not be perfect, but we're always absolutely right and don't want to make ourselves better or change the way we upset people. What we do is the American way and if people get upset or think it could be done better, then that's just tough on them" that makes the rest of the western world look on the US as immature and unsophisticated, and that the rest of the world just doesn't like much. I love you guys, I really do. The 'let's do it, let's just get on with it' attitude works really really well in engineering - but it sucks in diplomacy!!

I wouldn't interpret our actions in Gulf War 1.0 and 2.0 as "we're always absolutely right". America *tends* to prefer the consequences of choosing a course of action over the consequences of endlessly maintaining a status-quo. And there are definitely negative consequences either way. I think we, or strictly speaking the Bush administration, chose diplomacy up to a certain point, and when that point was reached proceed to military action. We can endlessly debate where that point should have been set, but the eventual sequence of events was no surprise.

As for me, given Saddam's history of deception I'd wager diplomacy would have dragged on for years with no significant progress. Saddam's primary purpose was to maintain power, and WMDs, real or not, were critical to that purpose. He had every motivation to either have them or make everyone think he had them.

Since I can't run the whole experiment again, I can't prove that diplomacy was useless, or that invading Iraq was the best course of action. But you can be sure there are millions of Iraqis, Saudi Arabians, Iranians, and others that are far better off now with Saddam gone.

As for the US, it was enormously expensive in terms of lives and money, and in return for that we got I'm-not-sure-what. Perhaps we're safer now, perhaps not. We certainly didn't get oceans of cheap oil.

Good thing I'm not President, because I'd have abandoned the UN resolutions, completely divorced ourselves from the Middle East, built a thousand nuclear reactors, and starved the entire region of our oil money. The Middle East would have been worse off, but the US would be in better shape now.

[rcain]

I'm still sceptical.

[alexjrgreen]

I'm still sceptical.

See thread title...

[chrismb]

I'm still sceptical.

See thread title...

Did you notice a slight thread drift? Sorry.

[MSimon]

If I may jump in here:

feel free..

It isn't necessary.

exactly.

But embargoes, like war, are blunt instruments. There are always destructive side effects and unintended consequences.

Absolutely. I fully agree, and with your other comments. That reply would've got pfrit and I down the route to an agreeing conclusion, I'm sure, but I was getting the impression that America was faultless here...

To be blunt, it is the kind of "we may not be perfect, but we're always absolutely right and don't want to make ourselves better or change the way we upset people. What we do is the American way and if people get upset or think it could be done better, then that's just tough on them" that makes the rest of the western world look on the US as immature and unsophisticated, and that the rest of the world just doesn't like much. I love you guys, I really do. The 'let's do it, let's just get on with it' attitude works really really well in engineering - but it sucks in diplomacy!!

It seems sad sometimes that you feel you don't know the answers to questions like "why don't other countries like us? why can't they just love us?". And [for Chr*st's sake!!!] don't read that as me saying they're justified in any hate actions, they aren't, there's much to love about America. The point is, it's as if there isn't really any dialogue permitted to chew over how [to be perceived] to be wanting to do things better for the interests of others, as well as just for America. As I read it, this dialogue here merely reflects this.

Well. Yes. And wasn't it Oxford or Cambridge who voted not to go to war for the king or country. They had their fill of it from '14 to '19.

Had they gone to war in 1938 the plans of the Austrian Corporal would have been derailed.

Peacemongers may be as dangerous or even more so than the warmongers. They give the beasts of the world encouragement.

In America we are entering a period when the people are just sick of war. Sick and tired of it. And we are cutting back on military spending. Very dangerous.

[MirariNefas]

Since I can't run the whole experiment again, I can't prove that diplomacy was useless, or that invading Iraq was the best course of action. But you can be sure there are millions of Iraqis, Saudi Arabians, Iranians, and others that are far better off now with Saddam gone.

We'll never know for sure, and using other cases as comparisons has limitations. But for what it's worth, let's look at what diplomacy has accomplished.

Iran: is too busy enriching uranium to do much talking.

North Korea: has nukes.

Iran is giving some signs that they might let Russia do some of their uranium enrichment, yet they are still building their second enrichment site in an underground bunker.

North Korea says diplomacy may yet yield results. They sound a lot like they did years ago. No progress.

On the other hand, let us examine the effects of Gulf War II.

Iraq: has lost capacity for WMD programs. Stored materials intended for a WMD program have been removed.

Libya: has voluntarily dismantled their WMD program.

I guess you could stick Libya in the diplomacy camp, but personally I think the war was a big motivator for them.

[bcglorf]

I guess you could stick Libya in the diplomacy camp, but personally I think the war was a big motivator for them.

And that Libya went to Blair and Bush seems a significant indicator that the pure diplomacy crowd weren't the ones that Libya was persuaded by.