News Probably better for Europe if Bush wins

[vanesch]

It will probably be better for Europe that Bush wins the election, because then he'll have to face all by himself the consequences of what's happening in Iraq and the related costs, and related feelings from Arab populations. The situation being quite hopeless, if Kerry wins, all the chances are he'll ask European nations to help him out of the mess, and we'll get sucked into it too. So although in general there is quite some more sympathy for Kerry than for Bush on this side of the Atlantic, it's probably much better that Bush gets another term.

 

[member 5645]

You guys don't have a combined force large enough to make a difference in Iraq (not a cheap shot, just the truth). An international force only brings an in the ability to kill off any ideas that this is just America trying to take your OIL!OMG NOES!
Bush's move to a lilypad military scheme (fantastic!) , including moving of troops in Europe and S korea, frees up more American troops than you can offer anyways.

In the most political way I can say it...We don't REALLY need your help. Although, I guess it would be nice to let other countries shoulder most of the cost, like in GW1 (sorry about that BTW)

 

[marlon]

You guys don't have a combined force large enough to make a difference in Iraq (not a cheap shot, just the truth). An international force only brings an in the ability to kill off any ideas that this is just America trying to take your OIL!OMG NOES!
Bush's move to a lilypad military scheme (fantastic!) , including moving of troops in Europe and S korea, frees up more American troops than you can offer anyways.

In the most political way I can say it...We don't REALLY need your help. Although, I guess it would be nice to let other countries shoulder most of the cost, like in GW1 (sorry about that BTW)

Hmmm, what a nice refreshing view. It is a fact that the US has the strongest army all around and you guys can invade anybody you want whithout needind any help. yet you CANNOT deny the fact that you situation in Iraq is messed up and you do not have it under control with your strongest army around. I would say you are the strongest but certainly not the smartest and the most diplomatic. The US has no credibilty left in the entire world. Just look at how the UK is turning against you guys...The Blair-administration is paying the bill.

You got away with it this time, but don't be surprised if a second 911 takes place in your superior nation of geniousses...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

I agree with vanesch's statement... hey that will be the first time...

marlon

 

[vanesch]

I agree with vanesch's statement... hey that will be the first time...

 

[member 5645]

Hmmm, what a nice refreshing view. It is a fact that the US has the strongest army all around and you guys can invade anybody you want whithout needind any help. yet you CANNOT deny the fact that you situation in Iraq is messed up and you do not have it under control with your strongest army around. I would say you are the strongest but certainly not the smartest and the most diplomatic. The US has no credibilty left in the entire world. Just look at how the UK is turning against you guys...The Blair-administration is paying the bill.

You got away with it this time, but don't be surprised if a second 911 takes place in your superior nation of geniousses...

regards
marlon

Preempting your statement with such blatant sarcasm as "what a nice refreshing view" does nothing for my respect of you or your statement. In short, you weaken your own point because you can't keep this mature.

I don't even know what I can respond to your post with. You launched a few straw man attacks in there...and that's about it.

And it's "geniuses".

 

[PerennialII]

It will probably be better for Europe that Bush wins the election, because then he'll have to face all by himself the consequences of what's happening in Iraq and the related costs, and related feelings from Arab populations. The situation being quite hopeless, if Kerry wins, all the chances are he'll ask European nations to help him out of the mess, and we'll get sucked into it too. So although in general there is quite some more sympathy for Kerry than for Bush on this side of the Atlantic, it's probably much better that Bush gets another term.

Not sure if I'd give him that much credit ... how many more cans of worms can he open up if he gets another term? Since the mess needs to be cleaned up, us hiding it out sure won't at least help.

 

[marlon]

Preempting your statement with such blatant sarcasm as "what a nice refreshing view" does nothing for my respect of you or your statement. In short, you weaken your own point because you can't keep this mature.

I don't even know what I can respond to your post with. You launched a few straw man attacks in there...and that's about it.

And it's "geniuses".

Thanks for the correction man,...

I agree with you : you cannot respond because you know i am right and there ain't much to say when the naked truth is said...

regards
marlon

 

[member 5645]

Thanks for the correction man,...

I agree with you : you cannot respond because you know i am right and there ain't much to say when the naked truth is said...

regards
marlon

I never stated anything that disagreed with your post. And your post doesn't directly disagree with mine.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

[marlon]

I never stated anything that disagreed with your post. And your post doesn't directly disagree with mine.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

hahaha, nice one . You know it is really credible that someone like you gives lessons in raethorica...

Yet i never said you need to agree with me nor did i imply that you DID or DID NOT agree with me. What i said are plain facts and there is not much to argue about. On the other hand we can THINK about the implication of these words rather then argue about them, but obviously you missed that point...


regards
marlon

 

[vanesch]

You guys don't have a combined force large enough to make a difference in Iraq (not a cheap shot, just the truth).

Nope, we don't have the MONEY to do so (and nor does the US )
The US army has about 1370.000 military (everything together) if I'm right.
I will take 3 European nations to compare with: Germany has 221000, the UK has 212000 and France has 294000 military in service.

The US spends $953 per capita on military, Germany $470, UK $527 and France $772.

The US has 370000 Air force personnel, Germany has 76200, the UK 52540 and France has 78000.

The troops the US has in Iraq are of the order of 150000. So compared to the above numbers, although the US is of course much stronger, your claim is wrong. It is just that it would RUIN Europe to send, say, 300000 soldiers in Iraq.

 

[member 5645]

hahaha, nice one . You know it is really credible that someone like you gives lessons in raethorica...

Yet i never said you need to agree with me nor did i imply that you DID or DID NOT agree with me. What i said are plain facts and there is not much to argue about. On the other hand we can THINK about the implication of these words rather then argue about them, but obviously you missed that point...


regards
marlon

Yes someone like me...

I'm not here to try to figure your implied nuances. You quoted my post and continued on with "YOU KNOW I'm RIGHT" stuff.
I'm moving on. If you care to get back on track, feel free.

 

[member 5645]

Nope, we don't have the MONEY to do so (and nor does the US )
The US army has about 1370.000 military (everything together) if I'm right.
I will take 3 European nations to compare with: Germany has 221000, the UK has 212000 and France has 294000 military in service.

The US spends $953 per capita on military, Germany $470, UK $527 and France $772.

The US has 370000 Air force personnel, Germany has 76200, the UK 52540 and France has 78000.

The troops the US has in Iraq are of the order of 150000. So compared to the above numbers, although the US is of course much stronger, your claim is wrong. It is just that it would RUIN Europe to send, say, 300000 soldiers in Iraq.

Mentioning numbers of troops that won't be sent to Iraq makes no difference when discussing a "force large enough to make a difference in Iraq ".
If that force can't get to the ground and implement military tactics there, then size isn't the only reason you can't make a difference,and I repeat my original assertion in that case.

In the end, don't worry. No one is calling for you to enter Iraq, and your government itself has continued to repeat that Kerry winning won't change there being no French troops.

P.S. England is already in Iraq, so their numbers are moot for this discussion (unless you want to discuss the fact that such a small number of their troops actually went to Iraq, and then there's another story on what percentage of actual standing military can be afforded.)


PPS. That 1.4 million number of yours is Active dute only. We have about double that number when including reserve

 

[vanesch]

In the end, don't worry. No one is calling for you to enter Iraq, and your government itself has continued to repeat that Kerry winning won't change there being no French troops.

It is the gouvernment of the country I live in. But it is not my gouvernment, although for the Iraq issue it has all my sympathy. I just say this in order for you not to think that I'm in some chauvinist mood. My own country has a military force of about 39000 and hence IS indeed insignificant.

P.S. England is already in Iraq, so their numbers are moot for this discussion (unless you want to discuss the fact that such a small number of their troops actually went to Iraq, and then there's another story on what percentage of actual standing military can be afforded.)

I only took 3 European nations as examples. There are 25 in total, so it should give you the idea that although the US is stronger, it is not, say, 5 times stronger than all European nations united, and that considering the number of troops in Iraq, this is a small part of what the US has, and can be delivered by Europe too. The point I was making was that even with such a small part of the total forces "at war" (meaning, sitting on trucks riding through the country until a carbomb blows their truck in the air), the bill is tremendeous for the US (if you recon that you'll have to stay there for 5 or 10 more years :-)
So it is not a matter of military force in stock. It is a matter of paying the bill. The money bill, but also the political bill and the terrorist exposure bill.
It is a very high one, and I think it is better that we won't get involved. Because you don't buy much for the money invested!

PPS. That 1.4 million number of yours is Active dute only. We have about double that number when including reserve

Same for the others.

 

[marlon]

Yes someone like me...

I'm not here to try to figure your implied nuances. You quoted my post and continued on with "YOU KNOW I'm RIGHT" stuff.
I'm moving on. If you care to get back on track, feel free.

"YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT STUFF...", hhmmm, yes

since i am feeling very free i will mention the fact that you are not getting the point here. There is a difference between arguing and considering facts. The US has no real policy in Iraq nor does the US have any control what so ever in this region. Basically i am just wondering what it is , Americans are doing there. Just like you say that the US does not need Europe when it comes to military help, it needs to be said that Iraq does not need the US-military present in their nation. Why o Why did you guys went there in the first place ? What is your justification and what is your goal?

marlon

 

[vanesch]

Just like you say that the US does not need Europe when it comes to military help, it needs to be said that Iraq does not need the US-military present in their nation.

If I may reformulate your idea:
The US doesn't need Europe to do nothing in particular in Iraq, except messing around. It does it very well by itself.

(are we still agreeing ? I hope so...)

 

[marlon]

we sure are... :)

marlon

 

[vanesch]

Why o Why did you guys went there in the first place ? What is your justification and what is your goal?

In a dark past, I vaguely remember a certain M. Bush claiming that the justification was that they had pictures of Saddam H. himself (brother in law, or almost so, of his best friend O. Ben L.) screwing warheads containing Weapons of Mass Deception onto intercontinental missiles that were going to hit the center of Dallas (or something of the kind, it was so long ago that my memory is fading).

The goal was to make a safer world, and have the Iraqi children wave American flags and pictures of Bush when the glorious troops would deliver the country from their bad bad dictator. The surrounding nations, also with bad bad dictators would become so jealous of the luck the Iraqis had, that they would soon ask for a delivery all for themselves...

 

[kat]

The US has no real policy in Iraq nor does the US have any control what so ever in this region. Basically i am just wondering what it is , Americans are doing there. Just like you say that the US does not need Europe when it comes to military help, it needs to be said that Iraq does not need the US-military present in their nation. Why o Why did you guys went there in the first place ? What is your justification and what is your goal?

marlon

Voter registration began TODAY, in Iraq.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

Quick question, honestly. French government has been a very keen opponent of the War in Iraq.
1) Do the majority of the French agree with the French government ?
2) Is the war in Iraq make French people dislike Bush ?
3) Did the French people know that Saddam sold oil ilegally to France for dirt cheap oil, is this have anything to do with the French govenment opposing the war?

 

[kat]

My understanding is that Chirac is not facing a good chance of re-election. How much of this has to do with the Oil for Food scandal or how he has handled U.S.-France relations?

 

[marlon]

My understanding is that Chirac is not facing a good chance of re-election. How much of this has to do with the Oil for Food scandal or how he has handled U.S.-France relations?

excuse me but re-election of Chirac ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

Voter registration began TODAY, in Iraq.

Maybe but we all know that this Iraqi governement does not have any real influence and recognition of the common Iraqi-citizen...

marlon

 

[BobG]

It will probably be better for Europe that Bush wins the election, because then he'll have to face all by himself the consequences of what's happening in Iraq and the related costs, and related feelings from Arab populations. The situation being quite hopeless, if Kerry wins, all the chances are he'll ask European nations to help him out of the mess, and we'll get sucked into it too. So although in general there is quite some more sympathy for Kerry than for Bush on this side of the Atlantic, it's probably much better that Bush gets another term.

As much as the general public in Europe dislike Bush, I'm sure European leaders are hoping for a Bush win.

Bush has attempted (and succeeded to a large extent) to give the idea that his administration will stick it out in Iraq, regardless of the cost to the United States. Most European leaders will gladly let Bush dangle from his own rope.

Kerry has less personal stake in Iraq - it wasn't his mistake. His decisions on Iraq will be made more objectively. Objectively, Europe is impacted as severely by a total failure in Iraq as the US is.

 

[Gokul43201]

In a poll where only 27% of Brits had a favorable opinion of The US and its citizens (not GW or his administration) about 70% of the French voiced a favorable opinion.

Not sure of the source, but I heard this from Judy Woodruff (on CNN) just a few minutes ago.

And about 65% of the French have an unfavourable opinion of GW. There was no mention of how many 'favorables' and how many 'no opinions' there were.

 

[Smurf]

When I was living in Bordeaux (Left april 2002) there were protests in the street every day with up to 200 people at one time (One of my friends was american - we made fun of him a lot =p).
I would say that most people in France either don't know or don't care about the Dirt cheap oil, except of course the corporations that were getting major profits from it, Cleaner fuel is a big issue in France (and other european nations) so I think if they knew about the food for oil thing I think a lot of them opposed it (see, the french don't like their government either, we're all human here).

I also don't want europe and Canada to start spending lots of money in Iraq, especially if its just going to be thrown away like the americans are doing.

 

[vanesch]

Quick question, honestly. French government has been a very keen opponent of the War in Iraq.
1) Do the majority of the French agree with the French government ?

As far as I see it, right now the french government is not very popular in France, because it made some unpopular changes, essentially reducing state spending (with reduced aids to the unemployed ...) less spending on education and public health, diminishing pensions, augmenting retirement age etc... combined with tax cuts which favor the rich (about half of the population in france doesn't pay income tax).
However, on the Iraq question, everybody agrees with the french government.

2) Is the war in Iraq make French people dislike Bush ?

Definitely. However, contrary to the american attitude, it is Bush and its environment only, and not "the US" or "the americans" which are disliked.

3) Did the French people know that Saddam sold oil ilegally to France for dirt cheap oil, is this have anything to do with the French govenment opposing the war?

The french are used to such kind of tricks and scandals. I don't think that this has ANYTHING to do with the French government opposing war. If I can think of a few reasons why they opposed the war, here are a few:
- it was (and still is) the wish of 95% of the population
- the french often see themselves as the intellectual defenders of humanism, and especially if they can oppose the US in doing so they won't miss the occasion (but in this case it was such an evident bet !)
- they were just voicing out loud what most of Europe thought. Let us not forget that the European governments supporting the war were doing that to please the US (and hope they would win some international influence with that - Asnar in Spain - or by loyalty - the UK) and not because they had any significant support amongst their population. The people of Europe never had been so united (too bad that their governments didn't). I think it must have appealed also to the French government to play this note very hard, knowing that they had universal popular european support, hence strengthening their position in Europe (which has indeed been the case: it is the French proposal that has more or less been adopted as the european constitution, and it were again the french who lead the discussion with Turkey).
- you don't have to be a world class politician to see that you would get strong opposition from Arab countries. France has a high level of Arab immigrants, which would render any approval of a war in Iraq extremely dangerous.

Finally, I think that the French government saw itself defending the European position (and not only the french one) in the security councel of the UN. I really think that the idea was to stop Bush doing something silly. I don't think Chirac thought that Bush would go ahead without the UN.

 

[vanesch]

Bush has attempted (and succeeded to a large extent) to give the idea that his administration will stick it out in Iraq, regardless of the cost to the United States. Most European leaders will gladly let Bush dangle from his own rope.

Kerry has less personal stake in Iraq - it wasn't his mistake. His decisions on Iraq will be made more objectively. Objectively, Europe is impacted as severely by a total failure in Iraq as the US is.

Yes, that was exactly my point in the beginning of this thread. With Kerry, Europe would be one way or another, sucked into this adventure, without honors, but with the bill to pay. It would also give rise to a new divide in Europe (as it was the case at the start of the war) while with Bush, he'll have to handle it on its own ; I think most of European nations agree with that now.
We could even hope that this "military success" will cure the Bush guys from starting another war, one can always hope Not sure Ossama will not manage another master tour to trick George into yet another foolishness, but there is hope that he learned his lesson now.
The main problem ahead is probably the rather lousy relations that will remain for 4 more years with the US and also the probably bad economic situation in the US that will be caused by it (though the high petrol prices amongst other things) which will also have its bad influence on Europe. However, it isn't sure that that would have been better with Kerry (concerning the economy). The main advantage I see is that the US will remain rather isolated, and that this is a new chance for Europe to become stronger on the diplomatic level, especially in the Arab world. After all, it wasn't possible for Europe to become strong politically on an international level as long as they had the choice of just agreeing with the US, or just quibbling amongst themselves. But I'm not sure that European leaders will have the wiseness to take up this opportunity, but I hope so.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

"The french are used to such kind of tricks and scandals"

I wasn't sure if you are aware of the violation of the oil for food program; if you are, discard this. Here are a few links you can read if you have time and interested:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-29-04/discussion.cgi.22.html
http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/001461.html#more


"the french often see themselves as the intellectual defenders of humanism"

maybe you don't know about colonization, not too long ago. When The US and the Brits gave independence back to Philippines and India, what did the French government do to Indochina ?...

 

[selfAdjoint]

"The french are used to such kind of tricks and scandals"

I wasn't sure if you are aware of the violation of the oil for food program; if you are, discard this. Here are a few links you can read if you have time and interested:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-29-04/discussion.cgi.22.html
http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/001461.html#more


"the french often see themselves as the intellectual defenders of humanism"

maybe you don't know about colonization, not too long ago. When The US and the Brits gave independence back to Philippines and India, what did the French government do to Indochina ?...

Or North Africa?

 

[vanesch]

"The french are used to such kind of tricks and scandals"

I wasn't sure if you are aware of the violation of the oil for food program; if you are, discard this. Here are a few links you can read if you have time and interested:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-29-04/discussion.cgi.22.html
http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/001461.html#more

As I said, this is a scandal amongst the zillions. So what ? This hasn't anything to do with opposing the war. It is a bit like, if some guy would propose to kill all children under the age of 2 years, and Bush would oppose it, that you would come up with an argument that American companies have a strong market place in diaphers, so this must be the reason why he opposes killing of all less than 2 years old.

Apart from being obvious, the main reasons for opposing the war were extremely rational, and evident to anyone who wasn't blinded by a naive neocon viewpoint. Let me just give a few reasons why Chirac didn't want this war. But he wasn't a big genius in saying so. Don't go and tell me that they were wrong:
- there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, theatening the US, so the argument of preemtive self defense wasn't valid.
- Saddam wasn't in any way involved in 9/11
- the US wouldn't be seen as a "liberating force" and even if winning the war was obvious, the US wouldn't win the peace
- the war would be a hard guerrilla fight (*)
- this invasion would be seen by most of the Arab populations as an aggression of the West into muslim countries, and would only put oil on the fire of fundamentalist terrorism.
- by axiom, you cannot impose democracy with guns and bombs from the outside.
- the so-called domino effect is a naive dream and you'd just create hathred against the west in the neighbourhood.

Now tell me, he was wrong on (*) thanks to a betrail of an Iraqi general, but overall, this is better than your average weather forecast, no ?

As I tried to line out, there were additional political reasons for opposing the war from Chirac's viewpoint. The main reasons being that it gave him an opportunity in a million to oppose the US on international politics (the french like to do so), but mostly, that it gave him more weight within Europe. Because it was _clear_ that the US was wrong, just as it is clear that killing off all less-than-2-years-old is wrong.

"the french often see themselves as the intellectual defenders of humanism"

maybe you don't know about colonization, not too long ago. When The US and the Brits gave independence back to Philippines and India, what did the French government do to Indochina ?...

First of all, note that I said "see themselves", and not "are" !
And it is true that the french have bad souvenirs of Algeria ; that's in fact where they learned what to do and what not to do with Arab populations. Don't worry: in 30 years from now, the US will know it too

PS: and remember, I'm not french!

 

[member 5645]

- there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, theatening the US, so the argument of preemtive self defense wasn't valid.

- by axiom, you cannot impose democracy with guns and bombs from the outside.

I don't want to go too deep into this, as I have argued this ad nauseum, but you KNEW there were no WMD before the war?

Since when? It was done in Japan and Korea. I'd dare mention several other examples, but fear for getting off tangent and arguing semantics.

 

[vanesch]

I don't want to go too deep into this, as I have argued this ad nauseum, but you KNEW there were no WMD before the war?

Ok, there was NO PROOF of WMD in Iraq. And what was presented as such was made up by the Bush administration. They said they had absolute certainty, but couldn't reveal it. NOW we know that there weren't any MWD, so their absolute certainty couldn't be anything else than a lie.

But ok. At least, there are more indications that there are WMD in North Korea than in Iraq. Their dictator is worse than Saddam. Iraq was a success.
Now give me ANY argument that is valid for the war in Iraq and isn't for a war in North Korea. So make my day and liberate North Korea. You'll find a way to link this to 9/11 too

Since when? It was done in Japan and Korea. I'd dare mention several other examples, but fear for getting off tangent and arguing semantics.

You mean, Nagasaki and Hiroshima ?

 

[member 5645]

1>Now give me ANY argument that is valid for the war in Iraq and isn't for a war in North Korea.


2>You mean, Nagasaki and Hiroshima ?

1>Among other things, the lack of resources currently able to be allocated and the fact that we have China to assist in keeping pressure on them right now. Will Europe install a draft to assist in a UN war over N Korea? I don't think so. This whole idea that somehow if we don't clean up ALL the world's problems at once, then we are wrong to clean up any of them is complete fallacy.


2>No, I mean Japan and S korea, both of which were leveled and had democracies, that are still in place today, installed. Quit trying to change the subject. You said "by axiom, you cannot impose democracy with guns and bombs from the outside" - I disagree, and so does history.

 

[member 5645]

Ok, there was NO PROOF of WMD in Iraq. And what was presented as such was made up by the Bush administration. They said they had absolute certainty, but couldn't reveal it. NOW we know that there weren't any MWD, so their absolute certainty couldn't be anything else than a lie.

I'll address this in an edit later. I'm off to work.

 

[vanesch]

2>No, I mean Japan and S korea, both of which were leveled and had democracies, that are still in place today, installed.

Ok, you have a point

 

[russ_watters]

North Korea is as much in need of liberation as Iraq was, if not more - but there is a big complication with liberating North Korea and I sure hope you know what it is. Anyway, the point is we should help people: that we are capable of helping. I don't think we are capable of helping North Korea.

2. ...not to mention most of Western Europe and now Eastern Europe.

 

[vanesch]

North Korea is as much in need of liberation as Iraq was, if not more - but there is a big complication with liberating North Korea and I sure hope you know what it is.

Serious question: is it China ?

Concerning Japan, western Europe at the end of WWII, Afghanistan and so on, there is nevertheless a big difference in principle. In all those cases, the US was OR acting in true legimite defense or came to help out a friend that asked for it. This gives a not-to-be underestimated moral superiority. Also in most of these cases, you had a large part of the world opinion backing you up. In these circumstances, I'd say that one can probably agree that with a little help from the bombs, you can establish a democracy ; especially if the country at hand is for 3/4 destroyed, isolated, and there's nothing else to do but notice that stopping with fighting now, and considering that proposal is maybe not a bad idea, given that the enemy is the rest of the world, has a moral right, and has military superiority.

But going in, on your own, AGAINST the world opinion, for reasons which turn out not to be true, is not going to work, I think. How would you be yourself ? Imagine an enlightened islamic superpower, a democracy, who is of the opinion that they need to free the Americans from an a-moral christian behaviour: they're eating too much pork and that's bad for their health. They have satelite pictures of Americans eating big sausages. So they bomb New York, Washington, Dallas and so on, and invade your country. How would you react, even if they "won" ?

Do you really think you're helping in Iraq, though ?

Don't you see that Iraq is part of a puzzle called the Arab world, which doesn't tolerate any external interference without its approval. Honestly, I think you'd be much better received in North Korea, where you'd stand a real chance of being hailed as liberators, than in Iraq! I really think it is over for the US in the Arab world for a very long time to come, and the problem is, they make the amalgam between the US and the west.

 

[member 5645]

1>Serious question: is it China ?


2>Do you really think you're helping in Iraq, though ?

3>Don't you see that Iraq is part of a puzzle called the Arab world, which doesn't tolerate any external interference without its approval. Honestly, I think you'd be much better received in North Korea, where you'd stand a real chance of being hailed as liberators, than in Iraq! I really think it is over for the US in the Arab world for a very long time to come, and the problem is, they make the amalgam between the US and the west.

1>Even without China as interference, N Korea would take all of our focus, or atleast a UN force to be large enough to take on the country and institute regime change.
2>Altruism is only part of the reason I support the Iraq war.
As I've started before:
Morality is relative.

If the number of during due to sanctions+saddam is greater than the number of deaths due to the war, for the same period of time, then the the war was right.

Perhaps we should reinstall the sanctions and saddam and start killing off thousands a month because of no medical care and lack of food?

Mortality in the Iraqi Population

before and after the imposition of the embargo



Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

Mortality in under 5 age- per month

No. of Deaths per Month
July 1990 (1 month before the ambargo) 539
July 1998 6,452

Mortality in under 5 age- per year

Year No. of Deaths
1989 7,110
1990 8,903
1991 27,473
1992 46,933
1993 49,762
1994 52,905
1995 55,823
1996 56,997


http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

3>I couldn't care less what the Arab world thinks of interference in their puzzle. The leadership is corrupt across the board, the people are oppressed, and one problem after another comes FROM them (even without our interference). Pulling out isn't going to remove nukes from Iran. Pulling out isn't going to stop the want for destruction of Israel. It is not over for the US in the middleeast...for a long time. Do you believe things were rosey when we weren't in Iraq? Osama Bin Laden used our bases in Saudi Arabia as part of a rallying justification for the 9/11. Our bases in Iraq were used to implement UN sponsored actions. Our planes enforcing the UN no-fly zone were regularly shot at by SAM sites. Now we should cut, run, and go convert to Islam because of this?

I am aware of the cultural problems our actions cause. I am aware there are better ways to do things. But inaction is NOT the way. How's France doing with their operations in Syria (passive westernization)? In 20 years I assure you that Iraq will be playing on the world stage far more than they will.
The North Koreans are taught that we American pig dogs are the reason that they live in such conditions - they will fight until pummelled to nothing. All military experts I have read estimate up to 5-8 million dead on the N Korean side alone, for a conventional war.


EDIT- Your ludicrous analogy of pork, etc. is wrong, not just because it's silly, but because we aren't in Iraq to liberate people from oppression from Islam.

 

[vanesch]

Your ludicrous analogy of pork, etc. is wrong, not just because it's silly, but because we aren't in Iraq to liberate people from oppression from Islam.

I think there is one thing to be avoided in the Arab world, and that is religious radicalisation, and I prefer by far a secular dictator over an Islamic republic. The dangerous enemy of the west is radical islam. It is not a few dicators oppressing their people locally. Democracy is a cultural thing of the West, it is not very compatible with Islam. Angry arabs often turn into radical islamists. So you should avoid making them angry.
My analogy was of course to be made fun of, but it was meant to show you that "installing democracy" which "can only be good" from a western point of view, is, from an Arab viewpoint "installing islam, which can only be good". Democracy is a western ideal ; islam rule is an arab ideal. Once you look through those looking glasses, and you can set aside any western preconceived value system, you'll see that what you guys are doing in Iraq is bound to failure.

 

[member 5645]

I think there is one thing to be avoided in the Arab world, and that is religious radicalisation, and I prefer by far a secular dictator over an Islamic republic.

Luckily a majority of Iraqis reject a theocracy.

I disagree with your assertion that the Arab world isn't fit for democracy. If nothing else, the overwhelming Iraqi positiveness on the future of their country says they want it. This isn't about us failing, it's about us failing the Iraqis.

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch and Phatmonkey, what do you think the odds are of Iraq electing an extremist (i.e. Facist/Communist) party once the US gets out (obviously the US won't let it happen when they're there) and what do you think the US will do if it happens?

 

[BobG]

You wouldn't have a Communist government. At least one of Iraqi nations could be expected to have an extremist leader, however.

The odds of an extremist religous leader gaining power in the Shiite section would be quite high. Iran would even help.

The Kurds in the North might elect a democratic leader if the US left now. They would have a tough struggle to defend themselves against the rest of Iraq and would get no help from any surrounding countries. The Kurds extend into several different countries and Turkey, Iran, etc would be very upset by the idea of an independent Kurdish state. Turkey can't afford to have their Kurds move across the border to Northern Iraq (they're too big a part of the economy) and they definitely aren't going to cede part of their territory to the Kurds.

It wouldn't matter who the Sunnis had in power, but he would, by necessity, be a very aggressive leader who would cause problems for the Kurds or the Shiites. The Sunnis are the group that would be left with nothing (the oil is in the Kurd and Shiite sections) and would definitely look to restoring the good old days of a Sunni leader re-uniting Iraq.

The real problem is that Iraq would turn into another Yugoslavia. The divvying up of which part of Iraq belongs to which new country would be much more painful than anything Hussein did while in power.

You might be able to install a democratic government in one united country. Trying to install a democratic government that rules what may as well be at least three separate nations with little in common with each other is a much bigger challenge.