The Republicans now have full control...

Originally posted by Cork

But the lot of the average Iraqi has got be be improved. Over the last number of years we had a constant stream of "do gooders" going on about the effect sanctions was having on the average Iraqi.

Saddam has not imported medicine or food for the average Iraqi.

Sanctions are not working.

How should the global community get rid of him?

It's not really as simple as saying the " the lot of the Iraqui's has to be improved"
Surely, if it was just a matter of improving the "lot" of people, there are more effecient and higher priority places to start than Iraq.
It's about removing weapons of mass distruction, these are probably chemical and biological, but we will Know more towards the end of this month when the inspectors present their report.
the biggest weapon of mass distruction though also has to be removed, and thats the Despot, who owns all that Oil, and whose ownership of it gives him the power to massively distruct western economies at some future point if he wishes.
mm

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Man
the Despot, who owns all that Oil, and whose ownership of it gives him the power to massively distruct western economies at some future point if he wishes.
mm

so keeping fat, stupid americans driving 6 litre engined cars driving short distances to buy another tub of chick 'n' lard with extra bbq sauce is a just reason for war?

Sand

Supporting dictators is right if they play ball.
Killing dictators is right if they dont play ball.

Lets put it like this.....

Its okay for Dail Eireann to take responsibility for the IRA when they play ball, but if Dail Eireann decided the IRA was no longer playing ball, say during the troubles for example, then Dail Eireann would have no moral leg to stand on?

The decisions of previous regimes does not straitjacket the decisions of future regimes, otherwise there would be no point in voting for anything as every candidate would have his "no changes, keep the boat on even keel" policies ready.

sorry but bush was already tearing up ABM treaties, environmental treaties and generally pissing off the rest of the world well before 9/11. all we have had since then is a hardening of the policies in place long before 9/11(its actually 11/9).

None of which affects the Iraqis situation but I understand how Bushes decisions have made the entire lefty wing want to beat him on every other issue regardless of the issue. And its actually 11/9/01 but the americans refer to it as 9/11 and seeing as it happened to them its fair enough to go with their name for it.....

Nearly all agree with you, Saddem needs to be gone, but the reasons the US are doing it are not just ones.

Doesnt matter a bit imo. the US are the only ones doing anything - if there was an alternative, some bunch of heavily armed good guys desposing Saddam just because they damn well tooting feel its the right thing to do then they got my vote.

But there isnt.

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Sand
Lets put it like this.....

Its okay for Dail Eireann to take responsibility for the IRA when they play ball, but if Dail Eireann decided the IRA was no longer playing ball, say during the troubles for example, then Dail Eireann would have no moral leg to stand on?

its put it this, a slightly more acurate way since we are discussing soverign countries.

Would it be ok if the US decided to invade Ireland because they decided that natural resource available in abundance here was lacking it and then proceded to say "sorry your government might have supplied to paramilitaries but was found innocent but we dont see any validity in your claims of innocence".

Why do you belive that everything done by the US is in the best interests of the whole world?

Sand

its put it this, a slightly more acurate way since we are discussing soverign countries.

Hardly, were dealing with a matter of morality - youre just not too fond of the spin im putting on it.

Would it be ok if the US decided to invade Ireland because they decided that natural resource available in abundance here was lacking it and then proceded to say "sorry your government might have supplied to paramilitaries but was found innocent but we dont see any validity in your claims of innocence".

Or to be even more accurate lets say the Irish regime was a murderous, unelected regime which terrorised us into silence - then hell yeah, Id love to see the US topple them. Call me strange.

Why do you belive that everything done by the US is in the best interests of the whole world?

I dont - I just see this toppling as being a good thing. Why do you see the US toppling Saddam as a bad thing? Is it because you believe Saddam shouldnt be toppled, or is it because you dont agree with the US, on any issue, full stop?

Originally posted by DiscoStu
so keeping fat, stupid americans driving 6 litre engined cars driving short distances to buy another tub of chick 'n' lard with extra bbq sauce is a just reason for war?

you racist:D ( I don't really mean that )
Indeed we might also be driving 6 litre engined cars short distances to buy tubs of lard, if there wasn't so much tax on our fuel, and cars.
In the UK, as you know it's worse, putting the fuel in Sadam's mighty hands would increase the cost of it eventually , if unchecked he decided to use his vast resource as an economic weapon, leaving the west dependent on Russian oil-not something US+GB would want.
Think about it, rising energy costs,recession, job losses, 1970's style.
And the double whammy, in western europe anyhow , governments running huge defecits as a result of the downturn, and of course, less tax revenue on that fuel.
mm

Originally posted by DiscoStu
its put it this, a slightly more acurate way since we are discussing soverign countries.

Would it be ok if the US decided to invade Ireland because they decided that natural resource available in abundance here was lacking it and then proceded to say "sorry your government might have supplied to paramilitaries but was found innocent but we dont see any validity in your claims of innocence".

Why do you belive that everything done by the US is in the best interests of the whole world?

Ireland would gladly hand over it's natural resources for a modest profit, and in some cases for none at all, eg, gas fields.
Never any need to declare war on us for that to happen.
mm

Cork

There is no embargo on Iraq exporting oil. But they have to use the proceeds for medicince & food. This is fair. South Africia got more savere sanctions during Apartaid.

But in fairness - the US has bombed Iraqi pipelines & Oil refinerys. I really disagree with this.

But folks - Saddam is no good for his people. He will not got by the ballot box. He will probably only go by force.

Do the Iraqi people deserve to be liberated?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

The decisions of previous regimes does not straitjacket the decisions of future regimes, otherwise there would be no point in voting for anything as every candidate would have his "no changes, keep the boat on even keel" policies ready.

Not straitjacket- but that there is an impact from previous administrations is irrefutable. Several members of the NATO alliance arming Iraq to defeat what was perceived as a dangerous Islamic government in Iran has an impact- we wouldn't be contemplating war if it didn't would we? Consider then also, that the extremist backlash that lead to the creation of that "dangerous" regime was directly caused by the West's backing of the Shah of Iran and it's no wonder the region's in a mess.

I agree with you this much Sand- it's futile to only direct blame at previous administrations and lay their failings at the current government's door (as is happening in some political quarters in the US, the ACLU for example). What is even worse however, is to take the same unilateral approach to the region that they did. History is supposed to teach us lessons, yet it also shows how often mistakes are repeated. I'm not saying a regime change by military or covert means isn't possible in a peaceful lasting manner- but the fact that it really hasn't happened that way in the vast majority of cases should come into our thinking, surely. Forget Chile, Granada, Honduras and Argentina for a moment- just look at that very region.

Regime change in Yemen, Oman and Afghanistan were all accomplished by violent means, by western governments. Years later these countries are divided, poor, and no closer to the personal freedoms these supposedly beneficial regime changes were meant to bring about. In fact, the only governments that survived in the main, are the hawkish ones, or those that compromised their sovreignity. The hawks like Syria, Iraq, Israel and Libya- have only survived intact through the totality of their regimes. Even then, all four of these countries were at some stage supported heavily by the USA when it was deemed that they fought a "greater" threat. One of them is still so-supported, but that's for another discussion.

Those that have sacrificed their sovreignity have done so in a variety of ways. Several have done so by having foreign troops on their soil, some for decades. Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE all have British and/or American forces operating within their borders. Some nations have also made large trade concessions in exchange for aid and political backing of their administration. In Saudi Arabia and Jordan US companies operate tax-free, oil companies are even given government allowances and plots of land.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Everything- surrounding nations' ties with Iraq and the history of Western (particularly NATO and Soviet) involvement in the region has an indisputable effect on the current crisis. As I will explain later in this post.

None of which affects the Iraqis situation but I understand how Bushes decisions have made the entire lefty wing want to beat him on every other issue regardless of the issue.

I think it does affect the situation, not exclusively, but it has an effect. Tearing up ABM, refusing to sign up to Kyoto, Bush being the only mainstream western leader not even bothering to turn up for the Earth summit- it does send a blunt diplomatic message to governments and people. The message very simply is- Our way, or the highway. The two situations may not have anything to do with each other at ground zero, but in terms of a broad policy convergance they are inextricably linked. An administration that follows the course of the current US one gives the impression of being unwilling to negotiate on anything but its own terms.

Organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Al-Aqsa- thrive on direct horn-locking confrontation. Deprive them of a fight they know how to compete in, and they will be defeated. I'll come back to that later. The quick-fix solution (or the Sharon solution as I like to call it) is military action- the hardware, personnel and will exist, and is easier to exercise than creating a basis of trust. Negotiation takes years, an air-strike makes the news-runs in time for citizens to read progress on their breakfast tables the next morning. The long term approach cuts little ice in politics, unless there's no other way- pension plans for example.

Doesnt matter a bit imo. the US are the only ones doing anything - if there was an alternative, some bunch of heavily armed good guys desposing Saddam just because they damn well tooting feel its the right thing to do then they got my vote.

But there isnt.

I beg to differ- there is another way governments just don't want to take it for a variety of reasons. Firstly there's the short-sighted approach I mentioned- it's tempting and guarantees a greater return at the ballot-box. The vast majority of people in Western (and indeed any) society are grossly ignorant of the history, issues and the potential impact beyond a vague understanding. Thus, credible public opposition has little chance against the power of a government (particularly a unicameral presidential executive branch) to impose its black and white division of the issue. One that conveniently presents their position as occupying the moral high-ground I might add. If these positions were truly morally sound, then the thought of losing the next election shouldn't really matter should it? Who cares about that, just so long as the problem is solved over time peacefully. I'll just pause to let you all finish laughing now- because that is a laughable concept, that foreign policy in the Middle East stands anywhere close to a moral high-ground.

I also don't buy the assertion that it doesn't matter why our leaders want Iraq's regime replaced, as long as they do it with a democratic equivalent. That's tantamount to saying the ends justify the means, the language is just couched differently. Such an attitude lends fuel to the fires of hatred which light the way for violent extremist groups.

You ask for an alternative- here's one I made earlier :P

(cont'd in next post)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

For a start, stop the sanctions that are crippling the infrastructure and killing or crippling innocent civilian life in Iraq. In fact, stop the imposition of the no-fly zones too, and anything (within reason) that neighboring nations would find objectionable within their own borders. Once the perception of double standards lifts, a major political victory will have been won. Currently, it is very very very difficult for a hostile position towards Iraq to be accepted by Middle Eastern governments. The reason that the Arab coalition held during Bush Sr's administration was that Saddam Hussein was isolated from the day he invaded Kuwait- the Arab world was almost completely unified against him because of that isolation. While this is going on, drop aid to the people of Iraq, drop food to the Kurds and medicines to the Shiite tribes in the south, allow aid workers back into those regions and help the people who need it. Lift the ban on foreign medical specialists and sex education workers too, let the region see that we want to help the people that Saddam has targeted for destruction.

Saddam can fight a far more convincing political battle these days because of all the injustice being done to his people. He may not care two figs for that, but he can sure as hell exploit it. Deny him that, and peaceful change is no longer a distant possibility, but a reality. The liberal revolutions in Egypt and Jordan came about because the threat of *total* isolation was ultimately worse than the prospect of war. Abdel Gamer Nasser was easily able to defy the West in the late 50s during the Suez crisis because neighboring countries were quick to support what they saw as a politician defying double standards. Saddam similarly today, can draw support and sympathy from public opinion in the Arab world because, harshly as he treats minorities in Iraq, oppressive as he is in terms of personal and political liberties, his administration is all that stands between the Iraqi population and starvation. As long as trade and medical restrictions hurt the Iraqi people just as the government is seen to fight these restrictions, the Arab world will support him, and public opinion will stand behind him. The way to remove that opinion is to treat the Iraqi people fairly while being seen to correct Sadaam's injustices rather than creating them- that only serves to strengthen his power base via belligerent rhetoric slamming against more belligerent rhetoric.

In fact, this current climate of aggressive containment is what makes such an extreme option as very unpopular military action the only viable way to effect change. It's been moved from being a last resort to being the only resort- they've effectively been left no political way out short of capitulation. And as history tells us, capitulation is a damn good way to ferment discontent and extremism, not essentially religious in nature, but extremism nonetheless- just look at Versailles 1919 and then tell me that capitulation works as a closing solution. If, after these extreme double-standards are removed, and Saddam persists in defiance even after the Arab world are united against him- then it will be they who call for military action, as a last resort. Presently, we are being forced into the belief that it is the *only* resort, that the UN inspections are a sham that will ultimately not deter military action no matter their findings.

Are WMDs a threat to world peace? Undoubtedly- but their source will not be a politically isolated regime. An embattled regime yes, but not one isolated politically. Here's a thought- Iraq had WMD at the time of the last Gulf War- even when the wide perception was that the US would follow up Kuwait's liberation with an invasion, why weren't they used? The answer is deterrence- if they had done so, the reprisal would have been swift and merciless. The United States is the only nation in the history of nuclear armament to propitiate a first strike...twice. I find it highly unlikely that Iraq would do the same in this day and age, unless you put Saddam's back to the wall and literally give him nothing to lose. He's not a fanatic, far from it- he's the model of secular dictatorship, his aggression against Kuwait wasn't driven by empire-building or personal ambition, but by a genuine wish to unify Iraq, and right a colonial injustice, and one in the recent past at that. Osama bin Laden wouldn't think twice about using WMD- reprisal isn't something he's frightened of, 9/11 shows that in abundance- a first strike is something he would do without fear, Saddam certainly wouldn't do that.

Another thing- Iraq is currently under 24/7 surveillance from KH-11 and BMN-7 officially, and by goodness knows how many other satellites unofficially- the likelihood is a minimum of two satellites in almost geostationary orbit above Iraq. Aggressive combat patrols comb 2/3 of Iraqi airspace, even commercial flights are diverted from these areas. If he so much as opened a silo or moved a launch unit, assembled missile components or tried to mobilize them, they'd be scrap metal within the hour. Cast your mind back to the 80s, when the Iraqis simply tried to move fuel rods to a secret underground breeder reactor- with the surveillance tech of *that* time, the Israelis were able to mobilize fighters and destroy both the trucks and the reactor itself at Osirak. No, the threat of WMD is not why we're looking to remove Saddam, nor is it oil persay- the top two producers in the region are close allies of ours. The reason is that the administration has decided to remove what it sees as a potentially dangerous regime in the Middle East. The Bush administration, for whatever reason, has decided that if containment doesn't work, the action taken should be the severest possible. If you can't kill the fly with a rolled-up newspaper, might as well try with a hammer right? :P

The political way to a solution is cheaper, more peaceful, more acceptable to regional leaders and to stability as a whole. It would provide aid and medicine to the oppressed peoples of Iraq, and show the region that humanitarian assistance, not bully-boy militarism is the hallmark of western foreign policy. Once those bona fides are established, then military action will truly become a last resort. I know that if these circumstances arise that it probably won't be necessary- history shows this remarkably well.

Iraq currently enjoys very good relations with most of its neighbors, even Kuwait is looking to normalize relations in the present climate, because of the sympathy felt by Kuwaitis for Iraqi children effectively killed by sanctions and the lack of western assistance cut off to achieve a political end. If those relations are threatened, and Iraq is truly cut off completely from its neighbors, the loss of trade alone will force internal change. The current foreign policy serves only to hurt the Iraqi civilian population and externalize the regime's struggle and justify its stance towards the US and Britain. If after this approach is tried, military action then becomes necessary you may be sure that it will be the region that requests it, as a last resort, which is how it should be. I for one, wouldn't want it any other way.

Sand

Wooohoo, replying to a sizeable occy post- just what my addled mind needs:)

What does this have to do with Iraq? Everything- surrounding nations' ties with Iraq and the history of Western (particularly NATO and Soviet) involvement in the region has an indisputable effect on the current crisis. As I will explain later in this post.

Granted, Ive never argued that the US ( or indeed any government ) should ignore the lessons of history, but I do not follow the reasoning laid down by so many that because previous administrations made decisions under previous circumstances, it means when the administrations and circumstances change that they are unable to make different decisions to their predecessors.

The message very simply is- Our way, or the highway. The two situations may not have anything to do with each other at ground zero, but in terms of a broad policy convergance they are inextricably linked. An administration that follows the course of the current US one gives the impression of being unwilling to negotiate on anything but its own terms.

But this contrasts with their attitude towards the UN resolution regarding the weapons inspections when the US did work to getting a resolution out there - not to getting the french or russian resolution out there, which they didnt agree with - but Bush didnt walk up to the podium, give the finger to the UN security council and walk out either.

The vast majority of people in Western (and indeed any) society are grossly ignorant of the history, issues and the potential impact beyond a vague understanding.

I agree. More so, most are too lazy to be interested in learning about the subject, instead preferring to rely on a slogan or smilar....see the nice treaty referendum for example.

If these positions were truly morally sound, then the thought of losing the next election shouldn't really matter should it?

Ah, but if Politician A believes his position to be morally sound, and politician B disagrees with him then by default A would most likely view B as holding an imoral position ...socialists and utilitarians for example. In such a position A would be looking to keep B out of power. And as you noted above, he couldnt rely on peoples reasoning to agree with his position as the obviously correct one either.

I also don't buy the assertion that it doesn't matter why our leaders want Iraq's regime replaced, as long as they do it with a democratic equivalent. That's tantamount to saying the ends justify the means, the language is just couched differently. Such an attitude lends fuel to the fires of hatred which light the way for violent extremist groups.

At the end of the day, this is where I disagree with you. For whatever reason Bush has decided he dislike Sadam. Great, somebody is finally going to depose the tyrant after him being in power so long. Of course, Bush isnt doing this out of the goodness of his own heart - he may want to avenge daddy, he may view Saddam as a threat to US interests, he may want to get Iraqs oil wells pumping to help jump start his economy. All of this is what Bush gets out of it. The Iraqis get a democratically elected government, they get freedom from the regime theyre currently oppressed under - Orwells 1984 without the kid gloves - they get a chance to develop a properous economy.

In the long term a democratic, secular Iraq will "leak" such ideals across its borders into its neighbours. Its far harder for the dirty little regimes the West has supported so long as they get the oil out to justify their restrictions to their people when they see the Iraqis doing well.

All in all, if the price of all that is a bush glory hunt or a slightly cheaper barrel of oil then grand....

Bob regarding your option - its wonderful, but I dont believe it would work. Saddam will not be overthrown by his people without outside assistance as demonstrated in the post Gulf War rebellion, when the Iraqi regime was at its weakest and shakiest. Even if he is overthrown it will be most likely by a general, the same sort of general which have been involved in the oppression over the years. Ending sanctions and providing assistance to the Iraqis eases some of the symptoms but it does not remove the disease, in fact the disease is tolerated.

Whilst the west would become more popular with the average Iraqis than they are now, Saddam is not engaged in a popularity contest. It doesnt matter if you think hes the worst thing to happen to Iraq since sliced bread, when youre in Iraq and youve got a gun in your face and you hear the stories of what happened to others you sing the party song with a big smile on your face.

And simply put the Arab world isnt going to be too keen on setting a precedent of confronting despots when most of the Arab world is ruled by despots.

I guess it comes down to whether people believe such regimes are tolerable. I dont, I feel they should be confronted and toppled where ever possible.

If those relations are threatened, and Iraq is truly cut off completely from its neighbors, the loss of trade alone will force internal change.

I dont believe so. The sanctions have deeply hurt Iraq over the past decade but Saddam still lives in finery and his grip on power is still rock solid.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
, Ive never argued that the US ( or indeed any government ) should ignore the lessons of history, but I do not follow the reasoning laid down by so many that because previous administrations made decisions under previous circumstances, it means when the administrations and circumstances change that they are unable to make different decisions to their predecessors.

This is just the point- the current administration is acting exactly how several of its predecessors would have done- military or covert action to topple what they see as an unsavory regime. If they had learned the lessons of history, why would they do something as foolish as that? Look at the history of regime change- in small nations with covert influence great harm was done with little or no obvious benefit. In large-scale deployments there was huge loss of life- Vietnam, Afghanistan and more recently Angola and Mogadishu. In addition- such action inevitably involves the loss of civilian life, something I'll come back to.

But this contrasts with their attitude towards the UN resolution regarding the weapons inspections when the US did work to getting a resolution out there - not to getting the french or russian resolution out there, which they didnt agree with - but Bush didnt walk up to the podium, give the finger to the UN security council and walk out either.

Their attitude since indicates that they have no wish to go down the diplomatic route- the fact that they are constantly calling the inspection progress into question, inhibiting access to intelligence that might well prove their point beyond any doubt and talking up a war at home, shows that this cooperation is no more than a gesture, a nod to the UN. Their agenda is to remove Saddam Hussein, WMD or no WMD. Now you may agree with that policy agenda, but I much prefer a government to be straight and honest with me policy-wise, I have no interest in being forced to listen to half-truths from the same people that gobble up disposable income and claim they're spending it wisely bombing innocents overseas.

Ah, but if Politician A believes his position to be morally sound, and politician B disagrees with him then by default A would most likely view B as holding an imoral position ...socialists and utilitarians for example. In such a position A would be looking to keep B out of power. And as you noted above, he couldnt rely on peoples reasoning to agree with his position as the obviously correct one either.

The problem you have here is that there are certain basic things that Politicians A and B would agree on- basic tenets of policy and international law. Both A and B would agree that the unnecessary loss of innocent life is unacceptable. Both A and B would agree that people dying for a political piece in a playing game is unreasonable, and they would also both agree that before committing young men and women to military conflict that the pros need to do more than merely mitigate the cons.

I'm sure you could find me politicians who had no compunction about seeing tens of thousands of civilians dying for a greater share of the oil market, or any other 'positive' externality resulting from removing Saddam. But for every one of those, I can find you ten who would be extremely reticent about committing to something as politically uncertain as a war without a plan for the aftermath. Something I'll also come back to later.

At the end of the day, this is where I disagree with you. For whatever reason Bush has decided he dislike Sadam. Great, somebody is finally going to depose the tyrant after him being in power so long. Of course, Bush isnt doing this out of the goodness of his own heart - he may want to avenge daddy, he may view Saddam as a threat to US interests, he may want to get Iraqs oil wells pumping to help jump start his economy. All of this is what Bush gets out of it.

That sounds awfully uncomfortable to me- you're saying there that it doesn't matter why Saddam is disliked, the benefits of his removal justify whatever ulterior motive is sought by the Bush government. What's being said essentially is that you don't care what these motives are or why we're going to war, and pointing out one or two possible practical benefits- which is basically saying the ends justify means or motive. I know your position on terrorism vs. military reprisal Sand- you argue that a terrorist targets civilians to achieve a political goal, whereas civilian casualties are an unfortunate by-product of military reprisals whose goal is to protect citizens. I agree with that position- the military forces are serving a noble objective.

IF however, the objective is of no consequence as long as a positive result is achieved, then what's wrong with the terrorist goal being killing as many civilians as possible if the end result is that their cause is highlighted, possibly even concessions gained? From their perspective it's as beneficial as Saddam being removed is to you, probably moreso. After all, the Bush administration may not target civilians deliberately, but they sure as hell know that several thousands will die prosecuting a war for oil. See what I mean about the objective mattering? To me, the possible positives coming out of a projected conflict isn't how the prospect should be weighed. It must be taken on its merits as well as its downside. Why a nation chooses to go to war is an incredibly fundamental question for me- and if governments are untruthful here, then they can't hope to command the respect of their civilians, or indeed their senior officers.

The Iraqis get a democratically elected government, they get freedom from the regime theyre currently oppressed under - Orwells 1984 without the kid gloves - they get a chance to develop a properous economy.

Why, that sounds awfully familiar. It's in fact the same case that was pitched in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and the numerous regime changes before that. Get rid of a tyrannical regime and then we'll help you rebuild- promise!. Well they've only got it half-right, and that is just the problem. Yugoslavia was promised massive public investment to rebuild the bridges and civic establishment so crippled by months of intensive bombing. They are still waiting for even a hint that it will be forthcoming. Afghanistan's Hamed Karzai has complained bitterly that the massive investment to rebuild Afghanistan isn't materializing, to the extent that Afghanistan's highest aid donors are NGOs followed by Islamic republics like Iran and Indonesia. It was political links like that which got Afghanistan into this hole...if investment was on the same scale as the Marshall plan then I might be convinced that it's worth the loss of life. Given the track record, I oppose such action.

In the long term a democratic, secular Iraq will "leak" such ideals across its borders into its neighbours. Its far harder for the dirty little regimes the West has supported so long as they get the oil out to justify their restrictions to their people when they see the Iraqis doing well.

Sorry, but that's blatantly untrue. Democratic governments in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc have done nothing of the kind. If anything, it's hardened attitudes towards the West, especially the manner in which 'friendly' governments are bullied. If a democratic government in Egypt for the best part of half a century hasn't done anything to soften its neighbors, or nearly a century of democracy in Turkey...then I seriously doubt we'll see it after Iraq's regime is toppled.

(cont'd next post)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

To continue...

All in all, if the price of all that is a bush glory hunt or a slightly cheaper barrel of oil then grand....

No, the price is thousands, possibly millions of civilians dead. Plus an unknown number of soldiers on both sides- I don't think that's a grand price to pay for it at all. Can you point me to a single nation of this size that's undergone a foreign regime change successfully? I count 10-15 which have suffered, some intolerably, but not one success. Not only that, but when regime change has occured, foreign aid and help with reconstruction has been non-existent. Plus, looking at large-scale operations of this nature, they almost always end in failure. The Vietnam war cost 2 million civilian Vietnamese lives and a quarter of a million American soldiers. Similar levels of losses were suffered by the Afghanis and Soviet forces in the 1980s.

Of course these are extreme examples. The important thing to remember here is that there is a great deal more similarity between these scenarios than the Gulf War or recent Afghanistan. The Gulf War was largely fought in Kuwait, far from cities or difficult combat arenas. The occupation this time will inevitably be bogged down in the cities, a potential and indeed likely result of invasion. You're not dealing with a small rag-tag bunch of Taliban, but a modern and trained army with ageing but perfectly serviceable Soviet hardware, and a lot of Franco-German as well (Rolands, aircraft parts, small assault weapons). Plus, there won't be any Northern Alliance or equivalent this time- although 60% of Iraqis hate and fear Saddam (mainly Shiites and Kurds)- the other 40% support him fairly fanatically, and have brutally and effectively put down guerilla groups that Turkey is still struggling with in many respects. If the campaign drags on any further than March, temperatures will rise to above 32 degrees celsius, dry desert heat that won't be conducive to a campaign, particularly if infantry is doing a slow advance in chemical/nuclear gear.

Bob regarding your option - its wonderful, but I dont believe it would work. Saddam will not be overthrown by his people without outside assistance as demonstrated in the post Gulf War rebellion, when the Iraqi regime was at its weakest and shakiest.

Perhaps so, I just don't think it has to be US support. De facto, it should be Middle Eastern governments uniting to cast Saddam down. Possibly with US aid, requested by them, but not without consensus of the international community. I have no doubt such support will come comfortably if necessary when sanctions are lifted and diplomatic efforts are made to better relations with neighboring countries.

Whilst the west would become more popular with the average Iraqis than they are now, Saddam is not engaged in a popularity contest. It doesnt matter if you think hes the worst thing to happen to Iraq since sliced bread, when youre in Iraq and youve got a gun in your face and you hear the stories of what happened to others you sing the party song with a big smile on your face.

The battle for popularity needs to be won with Arab opinion as a whole. Whether inside Iraq or without, opinion on the street about American and western interference is incredibly dismal. If this is changed, then I am confident that the situation will improve with time.

And simply put the Arab world isnt going to be too keen on setting a precedent of confronting despots when most of the Arab world is ruled by despots.

Wrong again- Jordan, Egypt, Turkey etc didn't need Western influence to remove their dictators. Or indeed neighboring nations' support. The main opposition to this was generated by western interference and colonialism, not regional values. History is on the side of slow change propagated by diplomacy. It certainly isn't on the side of regime change by violent or other means.

I guess it comes down to whether people believe such regimes are tolerable. I dont, I feel they should be confronted and toppled where ever possible.

At all costs? No, I disagree. They will fall in good time, antagonizing a population with sanctions, restrictions, capitulation and

I dont believe so. The sanctions have deeply hurt Iraq over the past decade but Saddam still lives in finery and his grip on power is still rock solid.

That's just the point- the majority of Iraqis have been hurt a lot more by sanctions than by Hussein's denial of political freedoms or oppression of minorities. Such moral concerns are of small import when your family is starving and your children are suffering with the threat of disease because vaccines are restricted to the point of absurdity by sanctions. Foreign interference is what is antagonizing opinion- remove that and build trust with the civilian population.

At best, change will come peacefully without a need for military action. At worst, any military action will have the overwhelming support of the locals, who will help troops whenever possible. You won't improve the situation in the Middle East with military action. You'll win it by giving Saddam Hussein a battle he can't fight- isolating him politically in the region will free the people of Iraq without a drop of blood shed. It requires patience and the willingness to look at the problem long-term. Bear in mind the possibility of military action is always there- but take it and there's no going back. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube there, whereas if the proper diplomatic approach is a failure, military action can easily be taken with no detriment to the final solution. What's wrong with that approach?

Occy

Sand

This is just the point- the current administration is acting exactly how several of its predecessors would have done- military or covert action to topple what they see as an unsavory regime.

Actually theyre reversing their position on Saddam - hence the squeels of indignation from the left.

And I cant think of anybody other than unsavoury regimes whod view Saddam as anything other than unsavoury.

Their attitude since indicates that they have no wish to go down the diplomatic route-

Diplomacy has been attempted since the end of the Gulf War, most tragically with the false promise to aid dissidents inside Iraq, the attempts to rally the regional leaders into enforcing the sanctions. the attempts to make the sanctions "smarter", the work of the weapons inspectors prior to their ejection - close to what, 12 years later Saddam is still in power, happily content.

Their agenda is to remove Saddam Hussein, WMD or no WMD.

A worthy agenda. I dont have many strongly held ideals tbh, but one of them is that dictatorships shouldnt be tolerated. Were human beings and it isnt enough anymore to say that freedom as we understand it is good enough for us, but not for them because they live across an arbitraliy decided border. We should act in every way we can, including milatary action if needed, to push back those medieval throwbacks ---do you honestly believe europeans wouldnt be willing to fight for their own freedom, or the freedom of their european neighbours? Yet the Iraqis who need someone to help them out can rot, under the cover of a highly pacifistic ideal - notwithstanding the huge deals French and Russian bussinesses are trying to wrangle out of the Iraqi regime. All they have to do is encourage people not to go after Saddam and try to ignore who theyre dealing with. Im sure theyll get some tips of the previous US administrations...

Both A and B would agree that the unnecessary loss of innocent life is unacceptable.

Sure they would. But theyd have entirely different views of what is reasonable/necessary and what isnt--- thats the whole nature of politics isnt it? Wars after all have been fought (well started anyway ) by those who considered them entirely necessary.

What's being said essentially is that you don't care what these motives are or why we're going to war, and pointing out one or two possible practical benefits- which is basically saying the ends justify means or motive.

Youre right- I dont honestly care the exscuse Bush gives for toppling Saddam, that doesnt mean the ends justifies the means though - The end is getting rid of Saddam, the exscuse for doing so is unimportant imo ---- The means is independant of the exscuse used.

IF however, the objective is of no consequence as long as a positive result is achieved, then what's wrong with the terrorist goal being killing as many civilians as possible if the end result is that their cause is highlighted, possibly even concessions gained?

That is the justification/rationalisation used by terrorists and their apologists but I dont agree with that. There is no exscuse for deliberately targeting civillians. If youre doing so youre committing terrorism, which is not tolerable imo- regardless of the rightness of your objective.

Thats pretty tough for many to accept re the palestinians - they cant accept the Palestinians have a just cause , BUT they cant use terrorism to achieve it. As a perfect example of their abandonment of any principle in a desire to bash american policy however theyll take up a hilarious moral high ground that the end doesnt justify the means re: an american invasion of Iraq - except for Palestine of course when, if not justifiable it makes it .... not the palestinians fault.

The end does not justify the means imo - but the means does not justify the end either....so lets take a look at the means .....

1) End sanctions in humanitarian interests.

2) Co-Operate with Saddams regime in so far as to help the average Iraqi as much as possible

3) Try and encourage the average Iraqi to think nice stuff about the west.

4) Cosy up to arab despots, in an attempt to encourage to deal with one particular despot

The means here can be viewed as fairly moral, especially when compared to a biblical struggle, civillian casualties unknown since the second world war, carpet bombing, and every Iraqi hamlet becoming Stalingrad part two ....along with the inevitable Nam mutilations, murders, rapes, torching of villages and guerilla wars against fanatical Saddam followers.

The end is Saddam ruling on for an *unknown* period of time, probably passing power onto his son, turning a blind eye to the regimes brutalities for fear of worse, sacrificing anyone who gets too friendly with the western aid workers to Saddams secret police who will no doubt be kidnapping and torturing anyone who shows any sign of disloyalty, oh and doing deals with Saddam and his Arab counterparts to help the average Iraqi - thereby supporting the retention of arab despotism across the entire region.

The means were well meant though.

Afghanistan's Hamed Karzai has complained bitterly that the massive investment to rebuild Afghanistan isn't materializing, to the extent that Afghanistan's highest aid donors are NGOs followed by Islamic republics like Iran and Indonesia. It was political links like that which got Afghanistan into this hole...

And its vital, not only to uphold promises made but also in strategic interests, to ensure that funding isnt allowed to dominate Afghanistans future for the very reason you mention - The west just needs to be reminded of this. And whatever else Afghanistan is, it was always poor, now at least its enjoying a freedom they probably havent experienced since before the first soviet incursions. That doesnt make the lack of followup right, but its not right to argue theyre not better off without an oppressive bunch of fundamentalists who executed people in football stadiums for offending their morals.

Wrong again- Jordan, Egypt, Turkey etc didn't need Western influence to remove their dictators. Or indeed neighboring nations' support.

LOL- think you replied before you read the quote as I was saying that despots gain nothing from assisting the downfall of other despots - how the fact that neighbouring states didnt assist the semi-democratic states you mention supports your claim that Im wrong to say despots wont work for democracy is a tad beyond me:)

No, the price is thousands, possibly millions of civilians dead. Plus an unknown number of soldiers on both sides- I don't think that's a grand price to pay for it at all.

As opposed to millions who have died, and will die under Saddams benevolent rule - which saves lives in the long run? Fighting a war to depose Saddam or tolerating him?

Whilst the amount of civillians which will die cannot be even guessed at at this stage, I cant imagine battlefield caualties will be all that high - The US lost roughly 400 personnel total in the Gulf war, when fighting an Iraqi army of close to a million men - its now facing a force a third that size, with considerably less quality equipment, and which has a proven desire to surrender as soon as western ground forces cross the border. Saddam is talking about the mother of all battles again --- he did a lot of talking about it in the first gulf war as well.

I count 10-15 which have suffered, some intolerably, but not one success. Not only that, but when regime change has occured, foreign aid and help with reconstruction has been non-existent.

Germany. Japan. Italy. Japan was the most interesting because it went from a society where people willingly flew planes packed with exsplosives into American carriers ( suicide bombers eh? ) in the service of their divine emperor to the society we all know and love today, even to the point where theyre the only country other than the US that has a professional baseball elague - afaik. Hell of a regime change dont you think?

Mind you there are always pessimists in anything. Nazi Germany was considered uncurable - allied planners immediately after the war decided the best they could hope for was a weak, defenceless Germany so they set about economically crippling the country by dismantling factories, a policy which was massively reversed by the onset of the cold war, luckily for germany.

The occupation this time will inevitably be bogged down in the cities, a potential and indeed likely result of invasion.

See above re:Iraqis army, youre dealing with a force which was thrashed before, is now far weaker than it was then, which has a proven unwillingess to fight to the last man ( The major problem for the allies in the first gulf war was what the hell to do with all the Iraqis pows - it took a lot of manpower to deal with them ). Urban combat is certainly a strong possibility but only in rare cases imo, and youre not going to have anything like stalingrad.

If the campaign drags on any further than March, temperatures will rise to above 32 degrees celsius, dry desert heat that won't be conducive to a campaign, particularly if infantry is doing a slow advance in chemical/nuclear gear.

The heat will merely hamper operations, not make them impossible - thats an opinion of an american officer I read somewhere ( dont ask for link, cant even begin to remember where i read it - believe me or dont ). And no matter how difficult it is for the west it will be even harder for the Iraqis who will have far less effective equipment. Given the way the last war played out Id imagine the allies advance will be anything but slow.

Sand

Contd....

The battle for popularity needs to be won with Arab opinion as a whole. Whether inside Iraq or without, opinion on the street about American and western interference is incredibly dismal. If this is changed, then I am confident that the situation will improve with time.

Actually to stop giving the arabs exscuses to hate the west Youd have to withdraw all milatary forces from Saudi Arabia, preferably from the entire region, entirely cease any support for Israel, end sanctions altogether, and stop intefering in any manner in the middle easts - including any "modernising" influences which would threaten the fundamentalist vision of a untied fundamentalist Islamic world throughout the middle east. Which would pretty much remove any need for the despots you hope will become a force for democracy in the ME doing anything more than going "Yeah yeah - thanks for the cash, well hold a tribunal on whether democracy is needed"

. What's wrong with that approach?

See the last 12 years, except this time you wind up with a milatarily powerful saddam instead of a milatarily weak one.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Diplomacy has been attempted since the end of the Gulf War, most tragically with the false promise to aid dissidents inside Iraq, the attempts to rally the regional leaders into enforcing the sanctions. the attempts to make the sanctions "smarter", the work of the weapons inspectors prior to their ejection - close to what, 12 years later Saddam is still in power, happily content.

Most, if not all, of the direct diplomacy (i.e. dealing with the Iraqi government) has been of the form of the West telling Iraq that it must do X, Y, Z, and whatever else comes to mind.

Encouraging dissidents is, at best, peaceful intervention to encourage internal diplomacy or democracy.

Sanctions could be considered a diplomatic approach, except that every expert coming out of the woodwork to comment on North Korea is saying that sanctions on their own do not work. They need to be coupled with incentives and other diplomatic approaches. Interesting that this doesnt apply to Iraq.

What I find also interesting is that when talking about North Korea yesterday, Ari Fleischer stated that such diplomacy as was needed with North Korea could not be time-framed, and could easily run into years if not tens of years.

I also notice that after a decade, diplomacy hasnt been declared as a failed approach in the Palestinian conflict. Nor, indeed, the previous US administrations refuse to encourage dialog and a diplomatic solution to the Irish, despite that avenue having comprehensively failed for decades.

It would appear, therefore that the conclusion of failure of diplomacy is a failrly questionable argument, as it is not used consistently across situations. In some, every avenue has to be taken, but not in others. In some, a decade is too long, whereas others can run into generations.

To me, it would seem evident that there was never really an intent to try and give diplomacy a chance. There was an attempt to impose a peaceful solution (telling Saddam what he had to do), but compare that to the "touchy-feely" diplomacy offered to other regimes ruled with equally iron fists.

I'm not going to try and argue that diplomacy would work if other avenues were tried, but I dont think it is fair to conclude that it has already failed without addressing why such a softer stance is taken with the other half of the Axis of Eeevil, or indeed with any other area.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Actually to stop giving the arabs exscuses to hate the west Youd have to withdraw all milatary forces from Saudi Arabia, preferably from the entire region, entirely cease any support for Israel, end sanctions altogether, and stop intefering in any manner in the middle easts - including any "modernising" influences which would threaten the fundamentalist vision of a untied fundamentalist Islamic world throughout the middle east.

More a question than anything....

I thought that Saudi had already told the US that it would have to leave within a certain timeframe. Did I imagine that, or can anyone corroborate it?

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
Actually theyre reversing their position on Saddam - hence the squeels of indignation from the left.

How in the hell are they reversing their position on Saddam? They've wanted him gone since the last Bush administration- the only reversal I can assume you refer to is from the Reagan position which supported Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war. And it's not just the 'left' which thinks it preposterous that an administration backs a dictator to the hilt and then throws billions of dollars of resources into funding a military task-force to remove him. All this at a time when the American economy is in a perilous position, consumer spending is at its lowest since the 84 recession and insurance companies are defaulting on health care payments. I have no objection spending my tax dollars to make our airports more secure, fight the war on terror, pump much-needed funds into starved intel resources, tighten the dragnet. But I fail to see how fighting this war in Iraq either solves that problem, or keeps us safe. If you read my previous posts, you'd know that the threat posed by Saddam's WMD is neither confirmed nor even a pressing threat. We *know* North Korea has nuclear capability yet we try diplomacy- we're *unsure* at best about Saddam's WMD potential and we wage an expensive war? Doesn't make sense.

With a tenth of the funding for this task-force you could not only provide health-care for these recently deprived people, but you could extend coverage to two thirds of America's poor. To me, personally and professionally speaking, if a fraction of that money can go towards saving lives at home, then we shouldn't be spending it by putting young men and women in harm's way- not to mention innocent Iraqi civilians. With a single percent of that money food could be dropped to feed every starving villager in the south. Another percent and you could supply food and medicine to the Kurds in the North (which Turkey, a *democratic* regime, view as much as a threat as do the Iraqis). For a fraction of the financial cost and zero casualties you could win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. What you have failed to note is that because Iraq has been completely and utterly cut off from the West since the late 1960s, 2-3 generations of Iraqis have grown up experiencing nothing but distrust and betrayal from the US. In fact, for all your talk of this 'horrible regime'- the majority of Iraqi civilians enjoyed a far more prosperous existence than they do currently. Any food that they receive is from Saddam Hussein, likewise any medicines. They might hate him for the lack of political rights- but those considerations will be almost completely sidelined if their families are starving. The average Iraqi is treated pretty damn well by the regime, despotic as it is.

Now don't get me wrong- there have been terrible and unspeakable crimes committed against minorities in the north and south of the country. But I maintain these are no worse than what the Russians have done in Chechnya and Dagestan, or what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, Manchuria, Shenyang or Guangdong. Hell, the North Koreans impose tighter restrictions on personal freedom. Yet soft diplomacy is being used with these regimes- my question to you is why.

For all your talk of diplomacy having been tried, what has this diplomacy achieved for the people of Iraq but starvation, poverty and even more hatred for the West? Basic essential needs of the Iraqi people which could have been met by a fraction of the aid Israel receives annually from US coffers have been callously ignored. I'm arguing for proper humanitarian assistance- covertly if necessary, to get the Iraqi people on our side. Achieve that political victory, and I guarantee you the regime change will follow. Nasser prevailed in Egypt as long as the West bullied his government. As soon as reconciliation was tried, proper reconciliation...his support crumbled. Eventually, the nationalists were forced to relax their iron grip on the country- not because of the threat of force, but the threat of political exile within their own country. You can unite your population against an external threat, but not an internal one- humanitarian aid will prompt internal resistance to the point at which, like Nasser, Saddam Hussein will have to concede control or face revolt from his own armed forces.

And I cant think of anybody other than unsavoury regimes whod view Saddam as anything other than unsavoury.

Poor choice of words there- to me a majority of mainstream politics is unsavoury, particularly areas which advocate military action in a region far from home with no solution planned. And there's the problem of consistency, which fits better rebutting another part of your position- I'll expound upon it there.

Diplomacy has been attempted since the end of the Gulf War

Hard diplomacy has been attempted, but not soft diplomacy. Hard diplomacy is literally a step down from military action- aggressive combat patrols over 2/3 of Iraqi airspace, weekly airstrikes into the heart of a sovreign nation, crippling sanctions- if that's diplomacy then Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Bahrain would still be despotically ruled. Soft diplomacy worked in these countries by first and foremost winning the hearts and minds of its people. Once that was achieved, the regimes changed of their own free will- the carrots of trade and aid are just too big to pass up when the vast majority of your people are having basic needs being better served by an agent of change than they are by said regime. Your people would turn against you and even the 'loyal' military would have second thoughts about how useful you are to them.

Look at how Libya and Myanmar are massively softening their stances on foreign policy and personal freedoms. Same with China- it wasn't the threat of military action that brought about these changes, but constructive engagement. Libya's cooperation over the Lockerbie case, Myanmar's release of Aung Sang Su Kyi, China's relaxation of control in its internal party bureaucracy- these have all been brought about by constructive engagement. In fact, China's first free national elections to the Assembly in its history were held after the retirement of Jiang Zemin. This is how Iraq will also change- removing the regime has never been successful before, but earnest diplomacy and constructive engagement have been, in the Middle East and all over the world.

A worthy agenda. I dont have many strongly held ideals tbh, but one of them is that dictatorships shouldnt be tolerated.

A shame the Bush administration doesn't agree with you. Their inconsistency smacks of a hypocrisy that's bold enough for all to see. In the same press conference as they were talking up a war on Iraq, you know how they reacted to North Korea's expulsion of UN monitors and the restarting of nuclear facilities? They rushed to say that it could be resolved peacefully, and there was no need for sanctions- that last part added when North Korea said that sanctions would amount to an act of war. If that isn't black duplicity of policy then I've never seen it. They're not just willing to tolerate dictatorship, but are willing to do so on a grand scale as long as it serves their interests. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman and Yemen are all US allies...and totalitarian regimes. So is Iran, until recently a hated enemy of the US for its dictatorial Islamist rule. Your moral stance on dictatorship looks rather weak when set against such a backdrop- "nice" dictators are given carrots and support, "nasty" dictators will be opposed at all costs. Some policy.

---do you honestly believe europeans wouldnt be willing to fight for their own freedom, or the freedom of their european neighbours?

Yes I do- unspeakable acts of cruelty, mass exections, ethnic cleansing and saturation bombing have been conducted against Chechen civilians and Europeans have sat on their hands. Jorg Haider was elected to a coalition government, and no action, not even hard diplomatic action was taken. Milosevic was tolerated for a generation of violence, it took US involvement for the Dayton accord to be signed. In fact, it's taken frequent and active US commitment of troops, manpower, equipment and diplomatic effort to keep even a semblance of stability in the Balkans. So no, I don't think the Europeans can look after their own back yard, history is decidedly against you guys in this.

Yet the Iraqis who need someone to help them out can rot, under the cover of a highly pacifistic ideal - notwithstanding the huge deals French and Russian bussinesses are trying to wrangle out of the Iraqi regime.

Right back at you- you don't seem to care why Bush wants to use force- well suppose I said for the sake of argument I don't give a flying monkey's about why France or Russia want to do business with Saddam? Besides, I think engaging through trade is a fine way to bring about change within a country- it's Iraq's total isolation from the world that helps keep Saddam in power and his regiments loyal. If you're going to turn around and tell me that doing business with this regime is wrong- then take a good look at Ireland and indeed most of Western Europe. Trade with Russia is increasing at an unprecedented rate, in spite of Chechnya. The same is true of China, and indeed even Zimbabwe. The Brits don't want to play cricket with Mugabe but they're perfectly happy to keep trade flowing through his coffers to allow him to use food as even more effective leverage to starve those opposing him. Consistency Sand- it's sadly lacking.

(Cont'd)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Sure they would. But theyd have entirely different views of what is reasonable/necessary and what isnt--- thats the whole nature of politics isnt it? Wars after all have been fought (well started anyway ) by those who considered them entirely necessary.

To continue on the theme of consistency- why aren't these same politicians who argue for a war in Iraq concerned with North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Libya? I could carry on naming regimes, but those are the most obvious ones. Those polticians backing a war in Iraq would also have to support military action against these other regimes. Why? Because if you think a war in Iraq necessary, you sure as hell should believe it's necessary in North Korea or China. After all, these countries pose far more significant risks to US security and commit far worse human rights abuses. If Iraq's ok, why aren't any of these other governments being targeted? Iraq has never initiated activity against the US- Al'Qaeda yes, but Iraq...no. It's very important we ask why- I for one would want to know why my country was going to war...wouldn't you?

The end is getting rid of Saddam, the exscuse for doing so is unimportant imo ---- The means is independant of the exscuse used.

The excuse is important- crucial in fact- you saying we should commit forces to a conflict without knowing why we're doing it? Sounds awfully familiar- Lyndon Johnson lost that argument, and then so did Nixon- and American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese civilians paid for it in blood. It's very important we ask why- I for one would want to know why my country was going to war...wouldn't you?

As for the means being independent of the excuse- wrong again- they're closely linked. If the excuse used dictates that the means must result in the loss of human life then in fact they are logically dependent on one another. The administration knows that civilians will die, possibly in great numbers, especially when the cities need to be taken. They know that WMD is not currently a threat Iraq poses and in fact will never pose unless Saddam's back is pushed to the wall, and they intend to do it anyway. The means dictating that reasoning can never be justified, not as collateral damage, not as an unfortunate accident, not as a necessity to achieve a noble goal. Soldiers get a choice, they choose their risks- the Bush administration will never have a right to choose the risks taken by Iraqi civilians, nor should they. The means will 100% be violent and stained with the blood of civilians and you support them? That's saying the ends justify the means.

The end is Saddam ruling on for an *unknown* period of time, probably passing power onto his son

Nope. In fact, the PIAG, ISS and several other leading strategic think-tanks have mainly agreed that if Saddam can be isolated within his own country politically via humanitarian assistance and goodwill towards the Iraqi people- his support will desert him. For all your talk of Saddam not needing to win a popularity contest- he does. He needs the support of the military, which are drawn from public life. Win the support of his people away from him, and you win the support of his army, then he will have no choice but to change. Myanmar, Libya, China and the latter Soviet Union- change was and is being achieved peaceably through engagement. No reason why it won't work here too.

That doesnt make the lack of followup right, but its not right to argue theyre not better off without an oppressive bunch of fundamentalists who executed people in football stadiums for offending their morals.

Here's your problem- yes Aghanistan was always poor- ONLY in a poor deprived nation where people have no hope do they turn to an extremist government. Lift people out of poverty, and violence will become almost a non-issue in this regard. Abuses against women have in fact increased under Hamed Karzai. Next to nothing has changed except the regime- Afghanistan is no longer a security threat- but it will be in the future, have no doubt about that. Refusing to regenerate these regime-changes is why they fail, to the ruin and suffering of the nation's people.

As opposed to millions who have died, and will die under Saddams benevolent rule - which saves lives in the long run? Fighting a war to depose Saddam or tolerating him?

Millions? Lol, check your facts. The last time millions died in Iraq was the Iran/Iraq war, which the US and Europe convinced Saddam to fight. In fact, they supplied him with weapons, sarin, tabun, mustard gas, equipment, aircraft and intelligence. The same WMD they now claim is a threat to them, however unproven.

As to your second sentence there- why do you feel the choice is either to invade or tolerate the regime? The whole *point* of diplomacy is that there's a hell of a lot of middle ground between the two. Saddam isn't in a position to bargain if you put a gun to his head, but the regime will change if engaged. Look at all the positive examples where this has happened and is happening now.

Germany. Japan. Italy.

Laughable examples, just laughable. Germany, Japan and Italy were occupied for a decade after the war ended. In those 10 years, more aid flowed to these countries than has ever been provided in the history of human civilization. It has never been done since, certainly not in the Middle East. If you can convince me that the US will occupy Iraq for 10 years, ensure all the organs of government are in place and oversee the transition as closely as that, then I wouldn't oppose military action. In fact, it might almost be worthwhile. They didn't do that in Afghanistan though, and they won't in Iraq. The current solution is to cobble an opposition, plonk them down and keep them loyal with the threat of force and the promise of aid that never comes. The whole of Europe worked to try and make Germany stand on its own two feet- regime changes since then have focused on keeping the nation in question on its knees, subservient.

And in spite of that, did it go smoothly in 1945? Germany's regime change caused the country to be divided, the spoils of the victors, consequences of that reverberate in German society to this day. Japan's new government has shackled itself with a despotic constitution, personal liberties are neither valued nor respected in Japenese culture. The US administration in Japan created a police state- in many ways that hasn't changed either. So in spite of the reconstruction effort, the countries have been irrevocably changed. I'm not saying the war shouldn't have been fought- that one was inevitable though, and needed to be fought. This one is not, and shouldn't.

See above re:Iraqis army, youre dealing with a force which was thrashed before, is now far weaker than it was then, which has a proven unwillingess to fight to the last man

That was when they were fighting to keep Kuwait. If you want to make sure they fight to the last man, one way to do it is invade their country. That will unite the population against the invading army so fast it'd make your head spin. The battles this time won't be focused in the desert, they'll be in the cities. You want to be a green platoon leader taking men through the winding streets of Basra? It'll have to be done- these aren't the remote and isolated mountain strongholds of Afghanistan surrounded by sweeping terrain. Fighting in a city is a bloody and dangerous business, just as dangerous as the primary jungle battlefields of Southeast Asia. Read my previous posts again- I said comparing this war to the Gulf war is futile and farcical, the conflicts won't even come close to resembling one another.

Urban combat is certainly a strong possibility but only in rare cases imo, and youre not going to have anything like stalingrad.

Funnily enough, that's what the germans said. Look- urban combat isn't going to be a rare case- the power centers of Iraq are in the cities. That wasn't the case in Afghanistan, they were remote mountain strongholds that could be carpet-bombed. Unless you propose that as a way to take the city (bomb it to the stone age) you're going to have to do it street by street. Even the Israelis won't attempt that- they just bulldoze all the houses. Human rights abuses in the region? Look no further than Israel Sand :P If bulldozing 50 civilian homes on the off-chance that one of them harboring a terrorist is fighting terrorism...then count me out. Taking the cities will be both bloody and necessary, read any strategic report on the region.

Actually to stop giving the arabs exscuses to hate the west Youd have to withdraw all milatary forces from Saudi Arabia

No you wouldn't. You'd have to stop punishing the people of Iraq for the crimes of their leader. You'd have to stop saying war is necessary in Iraq but not in North Korea. Sanctions would have to be stopped, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolved. I'm talking about real compromise between the parties, not golf-clapping whenever the Israelis shell another suburb. Seeing as how these are all noble humanitarian goals and have been PROVEN to be effective in changing regimes elsewhere, why not try it?

See the last 12 years, except this time you wind up with a milatarily powerful saddam instead of a milatarily weak one.

With the kind of military presence and electronic surveillance on Iraq? Dream on. Stop the airstrikes and the sanctions but keep the surveillance. If you see WMD being built- negotiate. It's what's being done in North Korea. A little more consistency, a little less military action please :P

Occy

Sand

I thought that Saudi had already told the US that it would have to leave within a certain timeframe. Did I imagine that, or can anyone corroborate it?

I heard a few months ago that the Saudis stated the US forces would have to leave if they attacked Iraq - not sure if thats still theire position.

it preposterous that an administration backs a dictator to the hilt and then throws billions of dollars of resources into funding a military task-force to remove him.

Technically a different administration, Reagan vs Bush, despite a lot of personnel sharing. And in the time span between the two administrations its far from incredible they may revise their position.

For a fraction of the financial cost and zero casualties you could win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

And saddam is not engaged in a popularity contest with the west. Hes never shown any sign of backing down just because he might lose a few percentage points in the polls.

Now don't get me wrong- there have been terrible and unspeakable crimes committed against minorities in the north and south of the country. But I maintain these are no worse than what the Russians have done in Chechnya and Dagestan, or what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, Manchuria, Shenyang or Guangdong. Hell, the North Koreans impose tighter restrictions on personal freedom. Yet soft diplomacy is being used with these regimes- my question to you is why.

Well, you come back to this again and again throughout the post so well clear it up quickly.

IMO its simply practicality. Deposing the Iraqi regime is far easier and more realisable than taking on a nuclear armed north korea, russia or china - that simple. Its one of the reasons Saddam should be got now, before he gets access to WMD which he has shown he would love to have.

For all your talk of diplomacy having been tried, what has this diplomacy achieved for the people of Iraq but starvation, poverty and even more hatred for the West?

My point exactly. But once the west has defeated Saddams regime, they control the country and can then fight a hearts and minds war without any confusions ( One thing that bothers me about your "soft" option is the aid distribution - How could Saddam be stupid enough to allow western workers to be on the ground distributing any aid when hed could take over the distribution himself and write the western aid part out of the story? Whatever else he is he isnt stupid ) over whose giving the aid.

Your moral stance on dictatorship looks rather weak when set against such a backdrop- "nice" dictators are given carrots and support, "nasty" dictators will be opposed at all costs. Some policy.

But im not setting US policy and theyre not setting mine. In this particular case theyre doing what I consider to be a good thing. Id have no problem with the NKs going the same way but if you wear going to use a "one -size-fits-all" approach which seems to be your position youd have to ignore that the nks have nukes, which wouldnt be wise.

So no, I don't think the Europeans can look after their own back yard, history is decidedly against you guys in this.

Point taken regarding what scenarios you mentioned. I think though that for example the French opinion on whether milatary action was a good idea might shift a bit if they were the ones getting the pleasure of Saddam rule. Theyd have one rule for themselves and another for anyone outside their borders - wheres the consitency in that position?

Right back at you- you don't seem to care why Bush wants to use force- well suppose I said for the sake of argument I don't give a flying monkey's about why France or Russia want to do business with Saddam? Besides, I think engaging through trade is a fine way to bring about change within a country

Yes, but then youd be contradicting your own opinion that the exscuses matter. In reality youd have to not give a flying monkey why France and Russia want to support Saddams regime. And id imagine any trade would be done with Saddam more than any iraqi bussinessmen, his family seem to have a real knack for con tricks.

They know that WMD is not currently a threat Iraq poses and in fact will never pose unless Saddam's back is pushed to the wall, and they intend to do it anyway.

And he will *never* pose that threat if he taken out of power. NK is an example of a regime able to pose such a threat. You want Saddam to have that capability? Or more accurately you favour a hands off approach to the potential threat?

the Bush administration will never have a right to choose the risks taken by Iraqi civilians, nor should they. The means will 100% be violent and stained with the blood of civilians and you support them? That's saying the ends justify the means.

IMO, the Iraqi rising after the gulf war amidst promises of aid for any such rising shows the average Iraqi is looking to get rid of Saddam, and is willing to take risks ( in that case they were facing pretty much certain defeat when the wests aid did not materialise in anything more than a cheerleader chorus - soft diplomacy, winning hearts and minds etc etc? ). You then criticse those rebels because the means they chose were 100% violent? Perhaps they should have tried a hands across Iraq peaceful protest instead.

Millions? Lol, check your facts. The last time millions died in Iraq was the Iran/Iraq war, which the US and Europe convinced Saddam to fight. In fact, they supplied him with weapons, sarin, tabun, mustard gas, equipment, aircraft and intelligence. The same WMD they now claim is a threat to them, however unproven.

Im sorry, I was misinformed it seems regarding the millions of Iraqi children i hear about dying since the gulf war for lack of food or medicine whilst their leader lives the high life.

As to your second sentence there- why do you feel the choice is either to invade or tolerate the regime? The whole *point* of diplomacy is that there's a hell of a lot of middle ground between the two.

Ah but youre diplomacy would be basically saying- it doesnt matter what regimes in power, well just try to work with them for the greater good and see what happens. Thats tolerating them after a fashion? I can understand that position where for example milatary action isnt required or is impractical, Id agree with it tbh - but in a postion where such a regime can be very easily taken down very quickly and when diplomacy over a long period of time has failed to yield anything but as you yourself admit more pain and suffering for the Iraqis then Im afraid I begin to wonder why regimes are tolerated.

Laughable examples, just laughable. Germany, Japan and Italy were occupied for a decade after the war ended. In those 10 years, more aid flowed to these countries than has ever been provided in the history of human civilization.

You asked for examples of successful regime changes and they were provided? Did you think their success was some random factor and that nothing different was done from the failed regime changes? Such measures were considered neccessary because it was important to get those countries onside - someone just needs to inform Bush and co that the stakes are just as high this time around. I agree entirely with you that Afghanistan for example cannot be allowed to drift aimlessly - the idea that a regime like Iran is one of the largest aid donors such be terrifying anyone with an ounce of sense in the White House and elsewhere - strategic spending is a lot harder to justify though to a populace who are more concerned about insurance companies defaulting on health care payments.

The battles this time won't be focused in the desert, they'll be in the cities.

Kuwait doesnt have cities?:) If anything Saddam would have been far more willing to tear up Kuwaiti towns than he would be able to in Iraqi towns - and yet the war was fought primairly in the desert. I cant see him allowing the West the full run of the countryside and retreating into the cities as then he has already admitted defeat, and more importantly his soldiers will know it too- and as stated they wont be too keen to fight to the death for their less than popular tyrant whilst the Americans are promising a better life for them and their families when Saddam is gone.

Fighting in a city is a bloody and dangerous business, just as dangerous as the primary jungle battlefields of Southeast Asia.

Agreed, fighting a *determined* enemy in a city is a nightmarish proposition - I remember reading about a US wargame between roughly 500 marines and about 170 reservists playing the role of guerillas defending a town - suffice to say whilst the marines took the town it was judged to be a massacre and a mess with total confusion reigning at times. One can only hope that in the time since the US milatary has improved things. But remeber thats a determined enemy who can conceivably hope for victory. If the Iraqi forces fight outside of the cities theyll be destroyed. If they retreat into the cities theyll have surrendered the countryside and the iniative and have accepted defeat- it would be fairly hard to raise morale for the troops when there are no reinforcements coming and no real chance of victory. The defenders of Stalingrad had both.

Sand

No you wouldn't. You'd have to stop punishing the people of Iraq for the crimes of their leader.

Yes you would. The reason Bin Laden hates the west primarily is the stationing of infidel troops in the holiest country of Islam - he apparently begged the Saudis to let his Afghanistan forces take on Saddam in Kuwait - not because he hated Saddam but because he would have done anything to stop american forces deploying. If you want to remove a large reason for his hate of the west then pull out of the middle east. And dont intefere.

With the kind of military presence and electronic surveillance on Iraq? Dream on. Stop the airstrikes and the sanctions but keep the surveillance. If you see WMD being built- negotiate. It's what's being done in North Korea. A little more consistency, a little less military action please :P

LOL - not an example of a good way to prevent nuclear proliferation amongst shady regimes Bob:)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
I heard a few months ago that the Saudis stated the US forces would have to leave if they attacked Iraq - not sure if thats still theire position.

That's still their official position- I think we all know how fast that is likely to change if military action is necessary. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel are little more than client states if it comes to military action.

Technically a different administration, Reagan vs Bush, despite a lot of personnel sharing. And in the time span between the two administrations its far from incredible they may revise their position.

Revise, read reverse. It's not incredible they did a perfect about-face on Iraq- such reversals happened frequently during the Cold War. But if you're arguing that a violent regime change will stabilize the region and give the Iraqi people hope then you're more naive than I thought. What's to stop the next administration reversing the position yet again when it suits them? A consistent financial committment to Iraq is necessary- if one administration invests heavily and realistically in the humanitarian route then it more or less guarantees consistency in the next few administrations. The US has invested so heavily in Egypt, Jordan and Israel that future administrations are extremely unlikely to recant these positions- they've become traditional US foreign policy, much the way Bush has continued the constructive engagement with China started by the Clinton administration; that in spite of the way in which he chooses to view other totalitarian states.

And saddam is not engaged in a popularity contest with the west. Hes never shown any sign of backing down just because he might lose a few percentage points in the polls.

Who ever said Saddam needs to be popular in the West? I'm arguing that you chip away at his public support. And he has that in abundance- the shortages of food and medicine are seen as the fault of the UN and the US by the Iraqi people. His treatment of minorities is deplorable, but he enjoys a huge level of popular support. A number of undercover documentaries reveal that Saddam enjoys unreal popularity within the military, civil service and the general public as a whole.

Violently removing him isn't going to change the public view of the Ba'ath party. In fact, elections would likely return them to power, with or without Saddam Hussein. You'd in effect change nothing except the man in power- there simply isn't a credible opposition in place waiting to step in. Look at the Loya Jirga in Afghanistan- warlords like Rashid Dostum, himself the perpetrator of hundreds of high-profile massacres of Pashtuns holds a high position in the executive council. If that's the kind of opposition you're happy to see take the reins in Iraq- rebel leaders and warlords, then be prepared for it to come back and bite you in the ass later.

A peaceful transition with massive investment (covert preferably) in humanitiarian assistance will convince the public that Saddam is in fact to blame- and his once loyal army will turn its guns upon him- and he'll have no choice but to act as an agent of political change, or be removed by his own people.

IMO its simply practicality. Deposing the Iraqi regime is far easier and more realisable than taking on a nuclear armed north korea, russia or china - that simple. Its one of the reasons Saddam should be got now, before he gets access to WMD which he has shown he would love to have.

That's not what you said- you said that dictatorships around the world cannot and should not be tolerated. But never mind that for the moment- even leaving aside these nuclear powers- there are any number of countries that are not nuclear-capable that perpetrate human rights abuses. Let's start with Saudi Arabia- women aren't allowed to vote, drive or take public office. Shariya law is applied very strictly in parts of the country, public stonings are common in several villages- this stance of wahabism is openly encouraged by the Saudi government. Or Syria, where dictator's son follows dictator, political freedoms are next to nil, sedition is punishable by a bullet in the back of the head. What about Zimbabwe- Mugabe's use of food as a weapon as well as his rule, is nothing short of dictatorial- hundreds of thousands are starving and millions more are seriously at risk. This isn't the only African dictatorship in which this happens. Myanmar is ruled by a council of generals- why is the US trying peaceful means there? Afraid Myanmar's gonna nuke 'em? :P

There's no getting away from it- a violent external regime change in Myanmar, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia would be a hundred times easier than such a change in Iraq. And the benefits would arguably be greater- a friendly government in Syria allows for better relations with Israel and a standing down of forces from the Golan heights. Myanmar's people would be saved from brutal land regulations that literally forces them to live or die at the whim of their military council. Saddam Hussein's regime is in fact, a paragon of virtue compared to a lot of what takes place in Syria, Myanmar or Zimbabwe. Saddam, for all his horrors committed against Kurds in the north (which Turkey helps him with) or Shiites in the south (which Saudi-based guerillas help him with)- doesn't use starvation as a weapon- or whip women in public for slightly exposing their ankle joints.

Saudi Arabia is the largest arms importer in the world- and most of these arms go to militant groups in Afghanistan, Pakistani Kashmir, Iraq, and Fatah/Hamas/Al-Aqsa etc. You can argue about the 'risks' of nuclear proliferation until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is that brinkmanship works- and no one is willing to take that risk. Conventional arms proliferation has accounted for a thousand times more suffering in the region than any WMD threat. So why not Saudi or Syria?

My point exactly. But once the west has defeated Saddams regime, they control the country and can then fight a hearts and minds war without any confusions

Heh, that's funny. You invade the country, destroy its infrastructure and architectural heritage, kill thousands of civilians/soldiers and then try to win hearts and minds? Diplomacy isn't your strong point :P

( One thing that bothers me about your "soft" option is the aid distribution - How could Saddam be stupid enough to allow western workers to be on the ground distributing any aid when hed could take over the distribution himself and write the western aid part out of the story? Whatever else he is he isnt stupid ) over whose giving the aid.

Hence my repeated use of the word 'covert'. When the US supplied aid to Afghanis, they had a covert system on the ground for distribution. If you read the Armed Services Subcommittee report on special forces deployment in Afghanistan's southern provinces- you'll find that they weren't only involved in sabotage and general mayhem. Their primary brief was to ensure food was allocated to villages that needed it. In a matter of weeks, the Taliban's rural support in the south melted away. When the grain entered the cities on Northern Alliance trucks, Kandahar too fell to the public relations onslaught. Bullets and bombs can be fought- but how do you fight against your people being supplied with food 100 times better than you can achieve yourself? As in Vietnam, China in 1948, Afghanistan 88/2002 or Granada- the side that can win the local populace over will win, and with a minimum of bloodshed.

But im not setting US policy and theyre not setting mine. In this particular case theyre doing what I consider to be a good thing. Id have no problem with the NKs going the same way but if you wear going to use a "one -size-fits-all" approach which seems to be your position youd have to ignore that the nks have nukes, which wouldnt be wise.

One size fits all? Haaang on there, you're the one who said dictatorial regimes cannot and should not be tolerated in any way. Are you now saying you should only be intolerant of the ones that can be easily deposed? Even that's a borked position, see above.

Theyd have one rule for themselves and another for anyone outside their borders - wheres the consitency in that position?

Given that this is what every single permanent member of the Security council in effect has due to veto power, I fail to see your point. Any resolution there is at risk of double-standards and conflict of interest as soon as it concerns a security council nation.

In reality youd have to not give a flying monkey why France and Russia want to support Saddams regime. And id imagine any trade would be done with Saddam more than any iraqi bussinessmen, his family seem to have a real knack for con tricks.

In reality, I do know why they're trading with Iraq- it's because trade has shown itself to be the best way to bring down barriers between two countries. It's how Egypt and Jordan are currently wooing Lebanon- and it's working. Lebanon now for the first time in a long time, has recognized Israel as a government and trades with them openly. The EU was thought of as a way to soften regimes and bring countries closer together- given the peaceful state of affairs within the EU since WWII it's a difficult position to argue against.



(cont'd next post)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

And he will *never* pose that threat if he taken out of power. NK is an example of a regime able to pose such a threat. You want Saddam to have that capability? Or more accurately you favour a hands off approach to the potential threat?

He has WMD- I freely acknowledge that's almost a certainty. Mainly because France, Germany, the UK and the US supplied all the ingredients and some of the specialized equipment. He gassed the Kurds in the north etc- so he does have that capability. And you know what? In spite of that, even when at war with superior numbers in Kuwait he didn't use them. He wants WMD for use against minorities in Iraq, not to threaten the West with. You said later in your post that if military action isn't *necessary* you could see a way to peace. Well, if he doesn't pose a threat to us, is military action really necessary?

IMO, the Iraqi rising after the gulf war amidst promises of aid for any such rising shows the average Iraqi is looking to get rid of Saddam, and is willing to take risks

The 'average Iraqi'? Wrong. A tiny minority of Shiite rebels tried to rise up against Saddam, and failed miserably of course. The vast majority of Hussein's own forces are very loyal to him. The average Iraqi in fact, was probably trying to rebuild his/her home and life after the war and buckling down to face what they thought were 2-3 years of sanctions before relations were normalized.

You then criticse those rebels because the means they chose were 100% violent? Perhaps they should have tried a hands across Iraq peaceful protest instead.

Very cute. I never criticized the rebels because they chose their own risks and knew the consequences. I *do* however criticize the US administration for bombing Iraqis and choosing the risks they take *for* them. That is unacceptable. If a minority of Iraqi rebels wants to rise up, you'd effectively end up with an apartheid administration- with a minority of rebel warlords dictating nation-wide policy. You telling me that isn't going to be worse for Iraq? Certainly isn't going to be better.

Im sorry, I was misinformed it seems regarding the millions of Iraqi children i hear about dying since the gulf war for lack of food or medicine whilst their leader lives the high life.

It appears so, yes. Thousands of children have died, but Saddam didn't impose those sanctions. Helping these people is easily within the West's reach, but they instead choose to punish them for the actions of their dictator. Logical huh?

Ah but youre diplomacy would be basically saying- it doesnt matter what regimes in power, well just try to work with them for the greater good and see what happens. Thats tolerating them after a fashion?

No it's not- it's fighting them in a way they can't fight back. Oh it may look like tolerance- I mean, the US may seem like it's tolerated China after Tiannemen Square, but can you see something like that EVER happening again? Of course not, the US has been fighting hard with trade, aid and constructive engagement. And guess what, the Chinese administration's face has completely altered in 12 years. That's soft diplomacy paying off.

I can understand that position where for example milatary action isnt required or is impractical, Id agree with it tbh - but in a postion where such a regime can be very easily taken down very quickly and when diplomacy over a long period of time has failed to yield anything but as you yourself admit more pain and suffering for the Iraqis then Im afraid I begin to wonder why regimes are tolerated.

You obviously haven't read the distinction between hard and soft diplomacy. China's administration is just as totalitarian as Iraq- WMD, human rights abuses, the lot- but diplomacy worked with them because it wasn't belligerent diplomacy. Sanctions are belligerent, restrictions on exports is incredibly belligerent and flying combat patrols over sovreign airspace without UN approval is completely so. Did you see that stance with China after Tiannemen? Of course not- but engagement has worked in the same 12 years, and with another 12, we might well have the world's *two* largest democracies in Asia. That's the way to change a regime- not by tolerating them, but fighting their ideals on the ground at the grassroots.

Such measures were considered neccessary because it was important to get those countries onside - someone just needs to inform Bush and co that the stakes are just as high this time around.

No, they were considered necessary to prevent Soviet influence...christ, where'd you read that whole onside thing? :P Sounds like something Rumsfeld'd write. It wasn't an unqualified success either, Germany being divided and decades of tension on the border, fingers on nuclear triggers...no, I think the regime change in Germany was at best a mediocre achievement. Helluva lot more successful than Cold War dictator-swapping, but still not a success. And that's with 10 years of occupation, rewriting the constitution- and with massive local opposition support. I could point you to the DSP in Germany, or the NPP in Japan as worthy opposition- show me that in Iraq. Or is it just warlord_003? Yeah, that worked reaaal well in Afghanistan when the Soviets did it.

strategic spending is a lot harder to justify though to a populace who are more concerned about insurance companies defaulting on health care payments.

Ha- but they *can* justify spending billions, nay trillions preparing for a military conflict? Even the most right-wing republican in the Senate wouldn't swallow that dogmatic tripe. Aid costs a fraction of what a large scale military operation would. A hundred thousandth of that money would be more than enough for the first five years of a regenerative policy.

and as stated they wont be too keen to fight to the death for their less than popular tyrant whilst the Americans are promising a better life for them and their families when Saddam is gone.

Who said they're fighting for Saddam? They're fighting for their country, and their families being bombed in Baghdad, Basra and Tarkhal. If they retreat into the cities and fortify themselves then they will take heart from the US's abysmal record of fighting in guerilla conditions against a prepared foe.

If they retreat into the cities theyll have surrendered the countryside and the iniative and have accepted defeat- it would be fairly hard to raise morale for the troops when there are no reinforcements coming and no real chance of victory. The defenders of Stalingrad had both.

Somali warlords retreated from the suburbs into the cities. Untrained, unschooled in tactics they then proceeded to give one of the crack special forces units of the US army a proper thrashing. Antiquated equipment, little more than pop-guns in many cases, yet a knowledge of the streets and how to fight in them is worth a lot. As for no chance of victory- they don't need victory, all they need is a prolonged stalemate and a certain degree of american casualties. The US public don't have the stomach for them, just look at Vietnam. The Tet offensive was hardly the nail in the coffin for either side- the NVLA and Vietcong were just willing to accept casualties in a stalemate, the US was not.

Engage and fight a military battle and you screw up the country. There is no credible opposition, or an intent to occupy for 10 years and set up organs of fucntional government. In fact, military action might well guarantee another client state in the region for the US, but at what cost? Instability, heightened tensions, and still no closer to the Israeli-Palestinian resolution, and still no closer to combatting global terror. Engagement can have positive impacts in other, more important areas of foreign policy, and ones we'd better start focusing on damn quick.

Occy

Sand

Right Bob, Im afraid Ive not got the patience to trawl through this much more so im going to try and bring this down to its bare bones - in the interests of my sanity if nothing else:)

Youre opposed to a violent regime change, for a number of reasons-

1) You dont believe Saddam is a direct threat at this stage
2) Youre worried a worse warlord may follow him in the aftermath
3) You reckon a long term diplomatic policy could be just as effective in the long term , if not more so without any blood on the hands of the west.
4) You believe the west can effectively covertly smuggle medical and food supplies using special forces or some such in Iraq, to make sure the Iraqis know whose helping them out while at the same time making sure Saddam doesnt find out about it - you use the example of the Northern Alliance bringing food into areas they controlled as an example.
5) You reckon over time, trade with the west can help bring down Saddam.
6) You believe Saddam isnt equipped to fight a hearts and minds struggle with the west succesfully despite mentioning his almost fanatical support amongst non-kurds and shiites.
7)You believe the transformation of Nazi Germany into democratic West Germany wasnt all that big a deal, certainly in terms of success. The same for Imperialist Japans transformation into a democratic nation, very bloody rare in its close neighbours.
8) Milatary operations cost more, regardless of how immediate or clear cut they can be in terms of success or failure compared to long term options.
9) You reckon a milatary operation would not be easy as this time despite being a third their former size and not as well equipped and their proven track record for mass surrender because this time Baghdad would be getting bombed and theyd be fighting on home ground. You point to mogadishu as an example of what can go wrong when a lightly supported, *heavily* outnumbered, surrounded and strategically pinned down (by casualties they cannot easily extract) infantry unit engages in an extraction rather than an actual invasion of an urban area.
10) You reckon theres no credible opposition to set up in the aftermath of a iraqi invasion and you imply you dont think the west has any intention of hanging around for the long haul required.

( And thats the fricking summary:) )

Feel free to correct me on any of that - that just based on the impression im getting from your comments.

1 - I agree Saddam isnt a direct threat, Yet.
2 - Possible, Far more likely if natural selction is left to decide who rules Iraq after Saddam.
3 - Well come to this.
4 - Whilst the west can no doubt win over some of the population it defies belief imo they can effectively supply even a significant minority of the Iraqis under Saddam nose without him knowing about it ( they would be after all advertising that its the generous west helping out or how would they gain popularity), and they cannot protect such aid without using milatary force - the NA example you used was a conquerer fighting the hearts and minds operations without any confusion over who was supplying the food, no doubt in areas controlled by the NA - Yet you ridicule the idea that you can win the hearts and minds of a population after defeating their overlords.
5 - I agree that in time trade can soften regimes, the chinese are as you say have softened their stance since the 80s. But they still persecute falun gong members, they still oppress the nepalese, they still engage in a lot of sabre rattling with the Taiwanese (not the only guilty party but theyre ambition to control Taiwan is the cause - regardless of the rights and wrongs of it ). Sure theyve imroved a good deal - but imo its still the same attitude underneath the PR exercises for the benefit of the WTO. Trade can encourage regimes to act a bit better but theyre still the same regime. Its an improvment, no doubt- but its not a miracle cure.

On a side note the idea of Russia- engaged in a brutal little dirty war in Chechnya - being concerned with using trade to soften the regime in Iraq is a good one:)
6) I dunno, I think youve kinda contradicted yourself there - Saddam cant possibly win the hearts and minds of his people when fighting the *distant*, *unpopular* west but somehow gets fanatical support out of his people?
7) Youre a very very hard man to please Bob:D . I think they were far far more successful than regime changes elsewhere for one particular reason - they were conquered and completely controlled by the allies who could set policy without kowtowing to warlords - The regime was actually *changed* instead of being asked/bribed to change. This is why I have faith its possible to win over a population to a democratic regime in the aftermath of a conflict.
8) Cant argue with that- milatary operations cost a hell of a lot, but then the milatary even in peacetime costs a hell of a lot. NATOs spending on its armed forces could easily feed the entire world so i hear. The fact theyre still spending it on their war machines doesnt make it obvious theyre not going to spend just as much because theyre not invading Iraq.
9) I guess we can only make predictions at this stage Bob and Im not a strategic mastermind and Im not briefed daily on the latest intelligence, and I assume youre not either so we can only make basically uninformed predictions. You can talk about the horrors of urban conflict and I can talk about how easily the Iraqis surrendered and how much weaker they are this time - but in the end we dont know and theres nothing we can say were right or wrong on.
10)You believe theres no credible opposition to set up after the conflict and thats theres no long term committment likely - yet you argue for support, covert and otherwise, for this non existent credible opposition which would require massive long term committment and vision. You say theres nothing stopping bush and co reversing their decisions on which regimes to depose or to raise but thats always been true whatever method youre using - see the failing/failed "sunshine" policy with North Korea.

Now youre right, I may be naive - but you seem to be contradicting yourself, claiming theres not long term vision there yet that they should go the long term approach - you cant have it both ways you know?:)

P.S - You seem to getting confused re: my idelaistic view:

US policy != Sands policy

Theres no point using US policy to criticise my own views because tbh I dont set US policy and Id make a hell of a lot of changes if I did ( not going to happen btw )

Also Im a practical git - I may believe Ive got a right to walk wherever I want to but you still wont catch me exercising that right in certain neighberhoods after dark. I dont believe dictatorships should be tolerated - we should always be working to A) Remove them, by milatary means if neccessary and/or easily done. If its not necessary - i.e the regime is not democratic but relatively benign, or impossible - i.e the regime has nukes, or a relatively hard to beat army, then yes, trade, diplomacy, containment and support of democratic opposition is the proper course of action - the soviet bloc fell without a single ( well not many anyway ) bullet being fired due to the above - Im not blind to that.

I dont view Saddam as benign, and I dont view milatary action as being anything other than relatively easy ( yes i know you disagree but im spelling out my position ) so I support milatary action to remove Saddam and bring about a democratic government in his place. Im using Germany and Japan as examples so Im not blind to the fact it will take a long term committment.