News Probably better for Europe if Bush wins

[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.