Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Shinova wrote:
I think if Iraq underwent reforms, Saddam's grip on his nation would weaken. I doubt Saddam would want this to happen.
Besides, if he was concerned only with his survival, he would've accepted when the other Arabs wanted to have him leave to Hague or something. But he didn't.
In other words water it down to the point where it's just a fancy peice of paper? That's what happened to the sanctions. Embargoed technology got through easily and oil smuggling was common. The problem is France and Russia have entrenched interests and won't be willing to accept effective measures.weemadando wrote:1. You get the UN to agree on something by actually making some compromises and showing that you are willing not to be a unilateral arsehole in the eyes of the world. The UN has agreed on many things before, all it takes is some diplomacy, not some bitching..
Any lessening of his grip and he would have fallen. That's the fact of his regime and he knows that.weemadando wrote:2. Reforms with the UN would doubtless hinge on him being able to retain power, albeit in a lessened form. Remember, a lot of people don't like him and if and when he does fall from power, he knows that a lynchmob will likely be waiting..
The problem is Saddam knew and knows that any lessening of his hold on Iraq would mean his demise. You can't negotiate with some one that won't negotiate.weemadando wrote:Think about it, you don't negotiate with someone by saying - right, you're going to give up everything you have and then step outside where you'll be shot by our SWAT team. You get them to make small concessions while maintaining their illusion of control.
A party that doesn't shoot you in the face when the vote doesn't go their way. They're only the wrong party if there is another party that will shoot you in the face if those conditions are met. Remove the ones that will do that and there won't be any more wrong parties.Enforcer Talen wrote:define wrong party, and what if one of the military men of the old regime takes control? its happened enough when there's a breaking of the old order.
Whoa whoa whoa... Projection for what? Is the US planning a global domination campaign anytime in the near future? What is the point of US troops being in any of those places at all?Axis Kast wrote:The problem is that by comparison with their neighbors, Iraqis are already educated. Hell, prior to the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein was instituting sweeping reforms the likes of which we’d be lucky to see in Iraq sometime within the next five years. Especially under a democratic government. Reconstruction will be extremely difficult. Not that I don’t think we’ve got to make a spirited attempt. But as for myself, I really don’t see how we can approach the situation from a very good angle. The best solution at this point seems to be a compromise. The lesser of several evils, if you will. A federal republic with a figurehead – hopefully an Iraqi Christian who can somehow appear to sidestep most of the major religious issues – will be established, most likely. We’ll try to give the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds as much autonomy as possible – going so far as their own militias (if only because disarmament would be impossible) – and then keep the UN on hand for about ten years while things cool down and we try to develop some kind of infrastructure. So long as we can get some wealth and resources back into their country – and circulating through their economy -, it’ll at least give them an incentive to stop the infighting and try to preserve what’s already there.
As for pulling out? We can’t move from South Korea until Kim shuts up or it will appear as if we’ve backed down in the face of his threats. To do that invites more belligerence on his part and could provoke new fits of anger that would still leave Japan in a shaky position. Perhaps a few years after we bring everyone to the table we can pull out. Not before.
Leave Japan? That’s iffy. Korea isn’t so vital as long as we have our bases in Japan. I wouldn’t pull out of there if only because it provides an excellent platform for power-projection. Germany? We might as well keep some troops there, although Italy’s the last place I’d pull out of altogether. If we’re going to abandon Europe altogether we might as well just keep some men in Iceland or Britain (just because our bases there are either large or strategically valuable) and Italy. Not that I like this approach.
The Middle East? I’d largely abandon Saudi Arabia for Iraq. Our troops will always be needed in the immediate vicinity however. It’s just fact. We have too many strategic interests to defend. I’m not of this new, isolationist opinion. More bases overseas leaves more room for projection. That’s not something I want to let go of so easily.
It's not that simple.weemadando wrote: Yes, but fundamentalist islam relies upon disgruntled recruits. What happens when those potential recruits are exposed to something other than the barrel of a tank paid for by the west? What happens when they are shown some respect? Do you see the pro-Palestinian protestors in the West bank being shot and killed or bombed intentionally by the fundamentalists? No you don't.
Provide people with a choice other than fundamentalism and militarism and doubtless many will take it
The problem with fundamentalist Islam is it belongs in the Dark Ages. Why are we supposed to show respect for a bunch of barbarians? Their resentment has as much to do with the fact they're living in 10th century shithole and they are utterly convinced that they should be living in Paradise.weemadando wrote:Yes, but fundamentalist islam relies upon disgruntled recruits. What happens when those potential recruits are exposed to something other than the barrel of a tank paid for by the west? What happens when they are shown some respect? Do you see the pro-Palestinian protestors in the West bank being shot and killed or bombed intentionally by the fundamentalists? No you don't.
Possibly. But in most cases it's been so deeply ingrained that they would rather slaughter Westerners than live in peace.weemadando wrote:Provide people with a choice other than fundamentalism and militarism and doubtless many will take it
I thought you meant physical survival, and if Hague is somehow a place where former dictators are assassinated, that I didn't know.weemadando wrote:Shinova wrote:
I think if Iraq underwent reforms, Saddam's grip on his nation would weaken. I doubt Saddam would want this to happen.
Besides, if he was concerned only with his survival, he would've accepted when the other Arabs wanted to have him leave to Hague or something. But he didn't.
Again, going to the Hague isn't part of his political survival.
I suppose you'd prefer to speak Russian? We are a superpower as an almost direct result of World War I.Queeb Salaron wrote:I would argue that this kind of power shouldn't exist in the first place, especially not when it chooses to act in a way that is not supported by most of the globe.
So, in other words, the fact that the President of the US actually has a spine scares you? He's taking initiative, and removing a serious threat to the Middle East. And Saddam has been linked to terrorism. He might not be linked to Al-Qaeda, but he's linked to terrorism none the less.I would agree that having some kind of power or political sway (even if I think it shouldn't exist) does carry with it a certain amount of responsibility. But no one ever asked for the US to do this for them. The UN didn't stand up and say, "Hey, Bush, we got this problem down in Iraq..." No. Bush did it on his own. Granted, it could have been as a result of all that 9-11 bullshit, or maybe he used that as an excuse to finish up what daddy couldn't do. Either way, no one told him to go do it. He's become Judge, Jury and Executioner. He's not acting on the will of the many, but on his own whims and fancies. He was on an anti-terror binge, however justified that was or was not, and bent over backwards to tie Sadaam into terrorism. This is not what an unbiased policeman does. It's what a facist neo-colonialist does.
Global domination? No. Effective deterrence? More or less.Whoa whoa whoa... Projection for what? Is the US planning a global domination campaign anytime in the near future? What is the point of US troops being in any of those places at all.
Well at least it fits with the topic.Spyder wrote:Buy quoting that horrible movie you are hereby sentanced to a severe beating.Shinova wrote:One way of looking at it is Kirk's line from ST5:
"I want my pain! It's what makes us human!" or something like that.
Massive fucking oversimplification.Shinova wrote: It's not that simple.
A look into the mind of a recruit:
The all-mighty United States of America comes to you, waving money and food in front of your eyes.
USA: Hey look! We've got food and opportunity for you! Why don't you turn away from Islamist radicalism and be sensible instead?
The recruit would feel as if the big, giant USA is dangling food in front of its face, egging him on to the American side. It's an issue of dignity in some ways. Like how you're asked to trade your faith for food and wealth. One way of looking at it is Kirk's line from ST5:
"I want my pain! It's what makes us human!" or something like that.
There's my take on why it's not as simple as you say it is.
Too bad it hasn't evolved since then.Also, don't forget that this fundamentalist Islam was the centre of the worlds learning, knowledge, art and culture for 500 years until the Crusades began. They have something to be rightly pissed about, the destruction of all that. Yes there are fundamentalist clerics out there that will preach war no matter what. But there are also groups out there that will always say that blacks and jews are inferior. Its all about gaining the support of the moderates and giving those who currently have no choice an option.
If I could go back in time to about 1000CE and grab a whole bunch of Imams from around the Mediterranean rim, and show them the state of Islam today I'm sure that they would all break down in tears to see what has become of their once proud culture.Durran Korr wrote:Too bad it hasn't evolved since then.Also, don't forget that this fundamentalist Islam was the centre of the worlds learning, knowledge, art and culture for 500 years until the Crusades began. They have something to be rightly pissed about, the destruction of all that. Yes there are fundamentalist clerics out there that will preach war no matter what. But there are also groups out there that will always say that blacks and jews are inferior. Its all about gaining the support of the moderates and giving those who currently have no choice an option.
You know how people want to do things by themselves and not have help from others cause that way they'd know that the work or nation they created was by their hands alone, without anyone else's help?weemadando wrote:
Massive fucking oversimplification.
How about this:
The US and the West stops blindly supporting Israel and stops its own highly public anti-Islamic campaigns, starts giving much needed support to the Arab, African and Asian world, allows them a chance to get an education in a school that hasn't been closed due to the threat of civil war.
I seem to recall most of them not wanting equality, but complete extermination of America. To them, America is the great Satan. It must be destroyed. It's a holy war. Jihad.By giving them some dignity you aren't buying their loyalty, you're just letting them live as equals.
Again, they would want to help themselves out, not have the US do or help things for them.Also, don't forget that this fundamentalist Islam was the centre of the worlds learning, knowledge, art and culture for 500 years until the Crusades began. They have something to be rightly pissed about, the destruction of all that. Yes there are fundamentalist clerics out there that will preach war no matter what. But there are also groups out there that will always say that blacks and jews are inferior. Its all about gaining the support of the moderates and giving those who currently have no choice an option.
Our “blind support” for Israel is hardly the sole factor behind terrorism. We’d be facing similar attacks even if we backed out of the region completely. I’d go so far as to say that they’d target America even if Israel didn’t exist. Oil, my friend. Oil. And at this point in time, Israel is a valuable ally. They provide mounds of important intelligence data we can’t always provide and have the added benefit of being in position to test new combat equipment on a frequent basis – free of charge. A whole slew of items we’re using now to oust Saddam were first pioneered or produced in Israel.The US and the West stops blindly supporting Israel and stops its own highly public anti-Islamic campaigns, starts giving much needed support to the Arab, African and Asian world, allows them a chance to get an education in a school that hasn't been closed due to the threat of civil war.
Our being there at all upsets the moderates. But their position is incompatible with ours because of oil. The Middle East will always be a whipping boy no matter whether or not we come bearing gifts. Why? It’s a case of geopolitical rape, flat out.Also, don't forget that this fundamentalist Islam was the centre of the worlds learning, knowledge, art and culture for 500 years until the Crusades began. They have something to be rightly pissed about, the destruction of all that. Yes there are fundamentalist clerics out there that will preach war no matter what. But there are also groups out there that will always say that blacks and jews are inferior. Its all about gaining the support of the moderates and giving those who currently have no choice an option.
Maybe, maybe not. They were the founders and established the doctrines most of the fundamentalists follow.weemadando wrote:If I could go back in time to about 1000CE and grab a whole bunch of Imams from around the Mediterranean rim, and show them the state of Islam today I'm sure that they would all break down in tears to see what has become of their once proud culture.
Which makes the fact that they're behaving no better than the christians of the times all the more pitiable.weemadando wrote:Hell, a single library in a smallish Spanish city controlled by the Muslims contained more books, manuscripts, parchments and other records of learning than the whole of fucking Christian Europe.
That is saying something. And no it wasn't all fundamentalist stuff, it was the collated knowledge of Contemperary Europe, Classical Greece and Rome, China, the middle east and North Africa. Not to mention all the works of art and literature as well.
I agree that we need to reign in Israel. And there is no anti-Islamic campaigns. And what do you want us to do nanny the whole world? That'd never happen for the simple reason that it'd be economic suiced to try and nursemaid along every failed third world country.The US and the West stops blindly supporting Israel and stops its own highly public anti-Islamic campaigns, starts giving much needed support to the Arab, African and Asian world, allows them a chance to get an education in a school that hasn't been closed due to the threat of civil war.
By giving them some dignity you aren't buying their loyalty, you're just letting them live as equals.
They don't have a right to be pissed at every Westerner and Christian the world over for some thing was over with the better part of a millenia ago. At most they should be pissed at the Catholic Church Hierarchy and not at the entirey of western civilization.Also, don't forget that this fundamentalist Islam was the centre of the worlds learning, knowledge, art and culture for 500 years until the Crusades began. They have something to be rightly pissed about, the destruction of all that. Yes there are fundamentalist clerics out there that will preach war no matter what. But there are also groups out there that will always say that blacks and jews are inferior. Its all about gaining the support of the moderates and giving those who currently have no choice an option.
If speaking Russian meant not having to worry which country is gonna get pissed next and fly a plane into an apartment complex down the street from me, then yes.Beowulf wrote:I suppose you'd prefer to speak Russian? We are a superpower as an almost direct result of World War I.
First of all, I have never seen any published material that has ever linked Iraq to terrorism. Maybe such material exists, and if it does I'm sure you'll provide some kind of proof to back your statement. Second, do not disillusion yourself into thinking that Bush is some kind of benevolent soul out to solve the problems of people worldwide. This was the man that couldn't give the names of any five world leaders before entering his presidency. This is the man that called for sanctions on Iraq that banned importing bloodbags, ambulances, medicines, and other things that Iraqis desperately need. This is the man that has done nothing but flex his military muscle since day 1. This is no kind soul, my friend. This is a tyrant and a fascist.So, in other words, the fact that the President of the US actually has a spine scares you? He's taking initiative, and removing a serious threat to the Middle East. And Saddam has been linked to terrorism. He might not be linked to Al-Qaeda, but he's linked to terrorism none the less.
Nah, it'd just mean that you'd have to be careful what you said, lest you end up in Siberia...Queeb Salaron wrote: If speaking Russian meant not having to worry which country is gonna get pissed next and fly a plane into an apartment complex down the street from me, then yes.
First refuge of a radical liberal, call anyone on the right a fascist. To address the Terrorism point, Saddam's regime gave out cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bomber. Also, coalition forces have apparently wiped out a terrorist training camp in Iraq.First of all, I have never seen any published material that has ever linked Iraq to terrorism. Maybe such material exists, and if it does I'm sure you'll provide some kind of proof to back your statement. Second, do not disillusion yourself into thinking that Bush is some kind of benevolent soul out to solve the problems of people worldwide. This was the man that couldn't give the names of any five world leaders before entering his presidency. This is the man that called for sanctions on Iraq that banned importing bloodbags, ambulances, medicines, and other things that Iraqis desperately need. This is the man that has done nothing but flex his military muscle since day 1. This is no kind soul, my friend. This is a tyrant and a fascist.
He was giving money to the Al-Aqsah Martyrs Brigade and several other groups during the last intafada and money to the families of suicide bombers. Several of those organizations have ties to Al-Queda. Not to mention they're terrorists in their own right.First of all, I have never seen any published material that has ever linked Iraq to terrorism. Maybe such material exists, and if it does I'm sure you'll provide some kind of proof to back your statement.
Take you mouth of Michael Moore's dick for a second and back any bit of that up and I might listen. Bush handled the diplomatic efforts badly but he's not a tyrant or facist. And that embargo claim would require a little thing called proof.Second, do not disillusion yourself into thinking that Bush is some kind of benevolent soul out to solve the problems of people worldwide. This was the man that couldn't give the names of any five world leaders before entering his presidency. This is the man that called for sanctions on Iraq that banned importing bloodbags, ambulances, medicines, and other things that Iraqis desperately need. This is the man that has done nothing but flex his military muscle since day 1. This is no kind soul, my friend. This is a tyrant and a fascist.
Link me to that document.Shaidar Haran wrote:He was giving money to the Al-Aqsah Martyrs Brigade and several other groups during the last intafada and money to the families of suicide bombers. Several of those organizations have ties to Al-Queda. Not to mention they're terrorists in their own right.First of all, I have never seen any published material that has ever linked Iraq to terrorism. Maybe such material exists, and if it does I'm sure you'll provide some kind of proof to back your statement.
I got your proof right here. http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htmTake you mouth of Michael Moore's dick for a second and back any bit of that up and I might listen. Bush handled the diplomatic efforts badly but he's not a tyrant or facist. And that embargo claim would require a little thing called proof.Second, do not disillusion yourself into thinking that Bush is some kind of benevolent soul out to solve the problems of people worldwide. This was the man that couldn't give the names of any five world leaders before entering his presidency. This is the man that called for sanctions on Iraq that banned importing bloodbags, ambulances, medicines, and other things that Iraqis desperately need. This is the man that has done nothing but flex his military muscle since day 1. This is no kind soul, my friend. This is a tyrant and a fascist.
