Rebuffed president recklessly saddles up for war

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-09 07:02pm

War is either about economy or ideology. Always.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-09 07:13pm

. . .when is it about ideology?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-03-09 08:43pm

See "War, Cold".

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-09 08:54pm

Also See "Crusades"
"Jihads in General"

And
"The War of Indepdance, Insert name of Country Here"

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-10 05:17am

Uraniun235 wrote:See "War, Cold".

Actually the cold war was all about both economics and ideology. Though economics was more important as it ended the conflict when the US drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-10 05:54am

Rational War is a contest of State Interests. Irrational War is an ideological or religious contest. In neither case does it actually have to escalate to armed conflict between the main contesting powers to be a War.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-10 06:18am

kojikun wrote: snip
The UN has already been proven to be a piece of shit when it comes to settling international and intranational issues like WMD and ehtnic cleansing. Sanctions don't work thats been proven. Either the UN shapes up and gets some fucking balls or it shuts the fuck up and stops complaining about things it has tried to solve and failed.

I love this attitude, as it conveiniantly forgets that the UN is dependent on the agreement of its member nations, including the US. The UN is not a nation state.
And whats even more amusing is that if the UN does not do anything against saddam, it makes itself irrelivant, but if it goes along with the US POV, then it becomes equelly irellvant as it subornes the opinons and policy of the rest of the planet to US forign policy.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-10 06:20am

Darth Wong wrote:
Admiral Johnason wrote:Why don't we jsut ptu a 20 Billion dollar bounty on Saddam's head and be done with it?
It's not enough to kill him. They want to install a puppet government, control the territory, and ensure that it will be compliant to their demands in future.

Sounds like what they want to do with the rest of the planet, starting with the UN.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-10 06:22am

Wicked Pilot wrote:Just a thought, if all these countries are so opposed to war, then why don't they send their military into Iraq to help defend Bagdad? The U.S. and the British are serious enough to disarm Saddam, yet these hippie nations are obviously not serious enough to defend him.

Hippie nations? as opposed to redneck inbred nations?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-03-10 08:52am

Darth Wong wrote:In both cases, we're dealing with what some people call "realpolitik", and it doesn't smell as nice as the flowery justifications both sides give for their positions.

Actuallly, it smells like the thing that makes the flowers grow better.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-10 10:35am

Stuart, WTF, if those last statements are not flame bait I don't know what is.. You spray enough shit around this will get HOSed

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-10 10:39am

theski wrote:Stuart, WTF, if those last statements are not flame bait I don't know what is.. You spray enough shit around this will get HOSed

Well I certainly won't be the one doing it. All of Stuart's last posts were on topic, and were definitely NOT flamebait.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-10 10:47am

Vympel, I Just didn't want The Inbred rednecks comment to get personal..

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-10 10:50am

theski wrote:Vympel, I Just didn't want The Inbred rednecks comment to get personal..

And calling the rest of the world "hippie nations" for not wanting a war isn't personal?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-10 10:51am

Realpolitic aside, the attitude and intrangedenece of the obstructionists, particularly France has a very simple and blunt objective. Yes, short term, it's about the economic interests of France and Germany. Long term, France want to create a colation AGAINST US interests to balance the mega power sitting opposite them in the Security council. France believes that the US should not get its way in anything easily, that there must be a counterpoint or counterbalance to US might and influence.

In other words, France and Germany would like a bipolar world much like what existed during the Cold War. As usual, France is showing its backwardness and pathetic grasp of politics in the world....there is no bipolar world, that bipolar world died when the only other power that could threaten us died a wonderful death. They can create what coalitions they wish, Bush has shown that the US can go it alone if it has to and damn the consequences.

All France is doing at the moment is wasting what little political capital and prestige they had, and simultaneously risking the UN's position and making it irrelevant. France as usual, has missed the boat on this one, they want a bipolar world and ignore the lessons of history that killed the League of Nations. Once the Great Powers decided they could ignore the League of Nations, it no longer mattered. The UN like the League only has the power that the Great Powers decide to give it. France is exposing the fact that the US can ignore the UN and the fact that the UN can be manipulated to ignore its own resolutions.

TWELVE years of violating resolutions...Sadaam puts IN WRITING that he has no WMD yet they keep finding violations on a weekly basis, missiles, artillery shells, etc. The inspectors are not there to MAKE him comply, he must do so, they are there to VERIFY. They have VERIFIED he is not in compliance. Therefore the hammer must fall. But they won't because they either lack the will or it is inconvenient for them, so what does that say about the UN. A resolution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

So, go ahead, France and Germany, kill the UN, it will only get rid of the only body that MIGHT constrain US interests.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-10 10:52am

theski wrote:Vympel, I Just didn't want The Inbred rednecks comment to get personal..

What Durandal said. It was a fair comment. If it were to balloon into a flamewar (which I doubt), then Stuart wouldn't have been the one who started it.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-10 11:06am

OK

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-10 11:16pm

Stravo wrote:Realpolitic aside, the attitude and intrangedenece of the obstructionists, particularly France has a very simple and blunt objective. Yes, short term, it's about the economic interests of France and Germany. Long term, France want to create a colation AGAINST US interests to balance the mega power sitting opposite them in the Security council. France believes that the US should not get its way in anything easily, that there must be a counterpoint or counterbalance to US might and influence.

*snip*

So, go ahead, France and Germany, kill the UN, it will only get rid of the only body that MIGHT constrain US interests.

Not everything is about the security council.

Right now in the EU you have a major power-bloc in the France Germany alliance, they are effectively able to dominate voting using this.

England has been trying to get Spain onside (see them giving back Gibraltor etc) in order to form a counter bloc.

Now the US rocks up with its wannabe-warmongering. The EU is split on action.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND IT SURE AS HELL ISN'T ABOUT A WAR ON IRAQ. Its about who gets to keep control of the EU parliament!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-11 02:14am

theski wrote:Vympel, I Just didn't want The Inbred rednecks comment to get personal..

Well if you, or rather Wicked Pilot, want to call other nations 'Hippies' then what do you expect? the comparison was fair given the 'hippie' statement.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-11 03:27am

Gun toting Rednecks own easy to beat hippies.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-11 04:50am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Gun toting Rednecks own easy to beat hippies.

keh?

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-03-11 08:54am

theski wrote:Vympel, I Just didn't want The Inbred rednecks comment to get personal..

Most of my paternal side of the family is rednecks.
My mom was at a party when she and Dad were dating, and she commented on the gift one person had recieved. Mom asked the woman what she got, and the woman replied: "Mulch."
(It was Potpourii)
I doubt they're inbred, although according to my Dad they only recently learned to walk upright.