Question to you Pro War People.

[Joe]

Angrier then, It stops people from getting angrier gives less ammo to the the recruiter's of these suicide bombers. If we hadn't acted without UN backing it would have made the UK and the US look more resonable. Like we play by the rules, and thats worth more than all the bombs, as it would have cooled angers a little. As for not being angry anymore, well maybe not right now, but the embers will reignite, and we'll have to face more and more threats.

If the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis, you would have a stronger case here. But they weren't, they were mostly Saudi and Egyptian brats who had for all intents and purposes never been done any harm by the U.S. government (fuck, we AID Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

[Darth Wong]

Listen, if George Dubya fell to his knees, proclaimed his loyalty to Allah, and then slapped the shit out of his wife and put her in a burqa, the Arab world would still hate us.

True. On the other hand, cutting off the $3 billion/yr flow of weapons to Israel would probably have a much bigger effect. It's hard to paint yourself as a peacemaker or impartial third party when you're supplying $3 billion/yr in weapons to one of the combatants (well, hard in the eyes of anyone with a brain; there are vast numbers of Israeli apologist neo-cons who inexplicably seem to think it's perfectly consistent to feed a vast stream of weapons to one side of a war and then claim neutrality).

U.S. foreign policy should not be guided what the Arab world thinks of us.

Of course not. Instead, it should be guided strictly by economic and military self-interest, with no other factors to interfere with the purity of this motivation. Just ask any neo-con.

[Joe]

True. On the other hand, cutting off the $3 billion/yr flow of weapons to Israel would probably have a much bigger effect. It's hard to paint yourself as a peacemaker or impartial third party when you're supplying $3 billion/yr in weapons to one of the combatants (well, hard in the eyes of anyone with a brain; there are vast numbers of Israeli apologist neo-cons who inexplicably seem to think it's perfectly consistent to feed a vast stream of weapons to one side of a war and then claim neutrality).

Agreed.

Of course not. Instead, it should be guided strictly by economic and military self-interest, with no other factors to interfere with the purity of this motivation. Just ask any neo-con.

Actually, I think a "neocon" (which is Buchananite rhetoric, you ought to stay away from it) would throw some bullshit about "benevolent global hegemony" at you.

[Queeb Salaron]

[quote="Yogi]1) No nasty conflicts within the Security Council of the UN. Our allies generally stay allies.[/quote]
That's all well and good for us, but how does that help the world in general, particularly the Iraqis? Sadaam kills his own people. Give yourself a moment and let that sink in. If Bush started killing his own people, you could bet your ass that you'd want someone to come in and liberate you. At that point, who gives a flying fuck about the Security Council? When the Security Council refuses to help those in need (and they WERE in need: did you see the video footage of when US soldiers brought down the statue of Sadaam? Talk about a cry for help) it fails in its most basic and fundamental of tasks.

2) USA sheds a bit of it's Cowboy image. Namely, it accepts the mandates of the UN even if they go against what they want. This puts it in a better position when it needs to ask the UN to do what it wants. If you're going to be part of a team, not everything can go your way.

True. But there has to be a LEADER of the team. When the team sits around and refuses to come together over something that they all generally agree upon, the team ceases to be a team any longer. And so Bush created the Coalition of the Willing, a NEW team that set out to get things accomplished. At least, that's the reasoning that Bush gives. And the shedding of the US's "cowboy image" has nothing to do with the fact that Iraqis are still dying at the hands of a fascist dictator. Cowboy or not, these people are still dying. You still haven't answered my question. I would rather be labeled a cowboy than sit idly by while a corrupt dictator slaughters his own people. I'd take that trade ANY day.

3) The Arab world doesn't get angry. They don't like Saddam, but they like Western nations invading a fellow Muslim country even less.

Master of Ossus (much as I hate to admit it ) answered this best before I got a chance to. Governmental officials in Iraq are slowly coming to realize the errors of their ways. It's been all over the papers. The Iraqi people are donating soundbytes by the bucketfull about how happy they are that Sadaam is gone. The Middle East can do nothing but be happy and grateful that we removed an immediate threat from their vacinity. And, as much speculation as it might be, we will probably see this kind of reaction in the coming weeks. And if Sadaam was left in power, there would still be the same elevated level of conflict that there has always been. And Iraqis would still continue to die. You fail to realize that we have SOLVED more problems here than we have CREATED.

And you STILL haven't adequately answered the question.

[Skelron]

If the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis, you would have a stronger case here. But they weren't, they were mostly Saudi and Egyptian brats who had for all intents and purposes never been done any harm by the U.S. government (fuck, we AID Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

This isn't neccersary about border's or nationalities, the Anger is more about relgion and culture. The Arab world, wars amongst itself quite often yet look how it responded when an outside party interferred, old enemies voiced support for Iraq, the only exception being Kuiwait, now imagine you've got people tottering on the edge of joining one of these groups that hate the west and this fresh wave of anger hits the streets...

[Master of Ossus]

Angrier then, It stops people from getting angrier gives less ammo to the the recruiter's of these suicide bombers.

Actually, I don't think it does. I think that the recruiters of the suicide bombers already have all of the ammunition they can use. If anything, I think that the American's astonishingly quick victory will drive many of them into hiding, as it clearly demonstrated the ineffectiveness of suicide bombings.

Moreover, it REMOVES the ammunition they used to have courtesy of the Iraqi government. Namely, the families of suicide bombers will no longer be provided for using Iraqi money.

If we hadn't acted without UN backing it would have made the UK and the US look more resonable. Like we play by the rules, and thats worth more than all the bombs, as it would have cooled angers a little.

Actually, I'm not sure that this is correct, either. In my experience, people on all sides use the UN to grant them legitimacy when it agrees with them, but disregard it completely when it disagrees with them. This is also true in the Arab world. When the UN has ruled against them, they have largely ignored it. I'm not sure that the backing of the United Nations would have helped much within the Arab community, though it probably would have helped within the Western and Media arenas of the war.

As for not being angry anymore, well maybe not right now, but the embers will reignite, and we'll have to face more and more threats.

I'm not so sure, though admittedly I can't make a particularly strong argument. I kind of get the feeling that this is different from before, and is an almost unprecedented event within the Arab world. As I have mentioned before (I believe), it will be interesting to see how they respond.

[Joe]

If the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis, you would have a stronger case here. But they weren't, they were mostly Saudi and Egyptian brats who had for all intents and purposes never been done any harm by the U.S. government (fuck, we AID Saudi Arabia and Egypt).

This isn't neccersary about border's or nationalities, the Anger is more about relgion and culture. The Arab world, wars amongst itself quite often yet look how it responded when an outside party interferred, old enemies voiced support for Iraq, the only exception being Kuiwait, now imagine you've got people tottering on the edge of joining one of these groups that hate the west and this fresh wave of anger hits the streets...

al-Qaeda recruitment went down after the successful Afghanistan campaign. It may do the same on account of this war.

[Joe]

True. On the other hand, cutting off the $3 billion/yr flow of weapons to Israel would probably have a much bigger effect. It's hard to paint yourself as a peacemaker or impartial third party when you're supplying $3 billion/yr in weapons to one of the combatants (well, hard in the eyes of anyone with a brain; there are vast numbers of Israeli apologist neo-cons who inexplicably seem to think it's perfectly consistent to feed a vast stream of weapons to one side of a war and then claim neutrality).

I just wanted to add something here, that I forgot in my first response; I do not think our position on Israel is as enormously important as people have made it out to be. It is clear that the Arab countries do not care about the Palestinians who've been given such a raw deal by Israel; if this were the case, the Palestinians would have been peacefully re-settled in one of the Arab nations of the Middle East years ago. The only way I can imagine them being happy is if we abandoned Israel to them. It's just an issue that can be easily exploited to justify anti-American hatred.

[Master of Ossus]

al-Qaeda recruitment went down after the successful Afghanistan campaign. It may do the same on account of this war.

To be fair, the two campaigns are not really analogous to each other in terms of how the affect Al Qaeda. Afghanistan was the Al Qaeda base of operations, and its loss did severely uproot the Al Qaeda network, necessitating at least a temporary moratorium on recruitment within the area while they moved bases and supplies back and forth. Moreover, Iraq is not really linked to Al Qaeda, and so there may actually be little or no connection between this war and Al Qaeda recruitment.

[Yogi]

@Durran Korr
Don't flatter yourself. People like you are a dime a dozen. You just conviniently had a thread that showcases your stupidity.

@"The Arabs are Already Angry"
You didn't notice the massive amounts of Anti-war protests going on when the US began its attack, did you? I suppose "Angrier" would be a better term.

@"Who cares what the Arabs think?"
Evidently not George W. However, it WOULD increase stability in the reason, which was the response to the original question.

@"If America was like Iraq, then others will invade."
So long as they invade every other country as well. This is assuming the rest of the world lasts more than 10 seconds.
Besides, I was adressing your question of STABILITY, Queeb Salaron

@"A team needs a leader, and America is it."
First, the leader is Kofi Annan. Second, why does the US have to be the leader? Third, taking all your friends and forming your own team because you didn't like the old one is as mature as elementary school kids arguing over who is going to be the pitcher.
Besides, I was adressing your question of STABILITY, Queeb Salaron

[Joe]

Don't flatter yourself. People like you are a dime a dozen. You just conviniently had a thread that showcases your stupidity.

And you conveniently chose to ignore what I said in it.

[LordShaithis]

So the Iraqis* are dancing in the streets, and claiming to object to this war on their behalf is looking like a rather silly endeavor, so the anti-war person adopts the tactic of "Well, why don't you smash ALL evil dictators? By what standard do you choose?"

To that I say: Strategic and political considerations. Hey, that's the real world. Does that make it bad? Eh, as long as there's one less megalomaniac cutting out tongues and throwing children in jail, good enough for me. ::

* The arabs over here in Dearborn were dancing in the streets too. Except for one guy who ran out with a big vanity picture of Saddam, only to get his ass kicked by everyone else. Too funny.

[Skelron]

So the Iraqis* are dancing in the streets, and claiming to object to this war on their behalf is looking like a rather silly endeavor, so the anti-war person adopts the tactic of "Well, why don't you smash ALL evil dictators? By what standard do you choose?"

To that I say: Strategic and political considerations. Hey, that's the real world. Does that make it bad? Eh, as long as there's one less megalomaniac cutting out tongues and throwing children in jail, good enough for me. ::

So then if a person decides that Politically speaking it is unwise to move on Iraq due to the destabilising effect on the area, then thats okay. Well it is having a destabalising effect on the area, look how close we came to a Turkey invasion of the Kurdish areas, and we may still see it. The area is a powder keg, already Journalists speak of their fears that we may see now a few decades of civil war in Iraq and Ethnic clensing. If America dosn't quickly set up a true interim government in Iraq then it will be seen as an occupying force, hurting Middle east western relations for years to come.

And anyway this is not exactly a brave new world is it, 'We fight the good fight... erm when we can win.'

[Joe]

And anyway this is not exactly a brave new world is it, 'We fight the good fight... erm when we can win.'

No one ever said it was. C'est la vie.

[Skelron]

And anyway this is not exactly a brave new world is it, 'We fight the good fight... erm when we can win.'

No one ever said it was. C'est la vie.

True true.... Shame really.

[LordShaithis]

already Journalists speak of their fears that we may see now a few decades of civil war in Iraq and Ethnic clensing.

Are these the same journalists who were yammering on three weeks ago about months of war and thousands of casualties? *yawn*

It's gotten downright amusing watching some "peacenik" types sit around and wish dearly for things to go horribly wrong, just so they can be right.