PDA

View Full Version : Iraq and US-security



SCO
27th January 04, 02:10 PM
Now, while I know the main goal of US-politics in Iraq is bringing freedom and democracy, I still have a question.

How does the overthrow of Saddam Hussein`s regime increase US security?
I think some posters have said it does.

Thanks.

The Wastrel
30th January 04, 10:53 AM
I don't know that it does. I think part of the argument is that removing Saddam might create the atmosphere the US needs to confront Israel over Palestine. Iraq was a significant supporter of Palestinian terrorist groups, and provided asylum. Successful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem definitely would enhance American security. But that's a tough job. One that is increasingly unlikely to work.

The other possibility is that Iraq represented an opportunity to demonstrate willingness to use military force on such a scale to accomplish forced disarmament.

One of the problems of non-proliferation has always been how to eliminate the incentive to acquire weapons. Threats have typically only accelerated development/acquisition, and negotiations lead to the use of the spectre of proliferation again and again and again, as in the DPRK.

I'm extremely ambivalent about both of these arguments.

Other ones include that Iraq represented a major nation that was willing and capable of providing materiel to terrorist groups. That ability is now in question.

Just thought this could use a bump.

Southpaw
31st January 04, 12:37 AM
Creating an illusion of increased security also serves many purposes.

The Wastrel
31st January 04, 12:40 AM
Yup. Of course, I wasn't stating my opinion, just trying to bump a thread with some of the typical answers given by advcoates.

Deadpan Scientist
31st January 04, 12:50 AM
Israel and Palestine. Once again Wastrel is correct.

SCO
31st January 04, 11:01 AM
"Just thought this could use a bump."
Thanks Wastrel.

"I'm extremely ambivalent about both of these arguments."
Tokenistic nonsense, I`d say, but thanks for spelling them out, I didn`t know of the bizarre Palestine-"argument".

"One of the problems of non-proliferation has always been how to eliminate the incentive to acquire weapons. "
The incentive has never been bigger.

The Wastrel
31st January 04, 01:51 PM
Agreed. I believe that the "Project for the New American Century" is a good source for understanding the Israel-Palestine argument.

patfromlogan
31st January 04, 09:06 PM
sorry if this is kinda off topic. this is from Project for the New American Century. It is not just the ranting of the war mongers.

No George McGovern
Robert Kagan
Washington Post
November 17, 2003

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently did his best to justify the war in Iraq, and he expounded a bit on the role of American power in the world. Here are some excerpts of what he said: "The war against Saddam Hussein was right. . . . He is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He . . . invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. And he . . . tried to build a nuclear bomb. . . . I think we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. I'm convinced that these weapons were there and that they could have found their way into the hands of terrorists and found their way to the United States, and that's what we had to stop. . . . A nation always preserves the right to take preemptive action in defense of our security and our freedom. . . . We have a chance to show the world that we were in fact in Iraq for the right reasons, that we were there for the purpose of liberating the Iraqi people, that this was not about the expansion of American power, that this was not about oil. . . . I think the commander in chief has to be tough. I appreciate the fact that we have a strong military in this country. . . . I think the world has proven, and we have proven, that there is a rationale for our containing the most powerful military on the face of the planet. To win the war on terror, we must be prepared to use the iron fist of our superb military."

Okay, I lied. Rumsfeld didn't say any of that. The above quotation is a composite of statements made over recent months by John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Joseph Lieberman, John Edwards and Howard Dean. (The lines about Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are Dean's, as are the "strong military" and "iron fist" lines.)

It has been said that the United States is polarized these days. Maybe so. But on foreign policy questions, where the country is presumably most polarized, the poles are a little hard to define. The fact remains that a majority of the Democratic Party's most plausible candidates supported the war in Iraq and have not, with the exception of Wes Clark, tried to claim otherwise. Howard Dean is the preeminent antiwar candidate, but aside from his dissent on Iraq, does he really offer a fundamentally different vision of American foreign policy? Will the 2004 election, in other words, be a national referendum on the fundamental principles of American foreign policy in the post-Cold War, post-Sept. 11, 2001, world? At this moment, it seems unlikely, even if the matchup is Bush vs. Dean.

SCO
2nd February 04, 11:47 AM
Unquestioning patriotism appears to be a prerequisite for being electable.
It has been shown that viewpoints in general are a disadvantage in elections.

Deadpan Scientist
2nd February 04, 11:50 AM
Just look at arnold's platform.

He won on "No Comment"

Jolly_Roger
2nd February 04, 12:06 PM
Hey, but he's a cybernetic killing machine from the future, with Danny DeVito for brother, who entered a game of running for his life, taught in Kindergarten, traveled to mars, destroyed an island commando-style, and he's from Cimmeria!

Deadpan Scientist
2nd February 04, 01:14 PM
Don't talk about DRD like that.

sin_dios
4th February 04, 12:20 AM
wastrel,
what do u mean by ambivalent?
those arguments are insane!

The_Ghost
4th February 04, 12:46 AM
It doesn't increase security, it increases economy. That's the point of the the whole take-over. But hey, that's just my opinion.

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 01:21 AM
sin_dios,
Why don't you explain how they're insane?

Some people might argue that Libya's about face was caused by the invasion of Iraq. If North Korea eventually capitulates that argument would appear to be even stronger. Negotiations and agreements with the DPRK have already apparently failed.

Additionally, some people believe that Pakistan is moving to arrest one of the scientists who worked on their nuke weapons program for providing technology to...Iran, I think...That's off the top of my head. I will try and come up with a reference.

The arguments aren't as weak as you might like them to be.

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 01:31 AM
Ghost,
Here's a question for you:

Why shouldn't a country fight wars for economic interest?

Deadpan Scientist
4th February 04, 01:39 AM
It's just not very nice!!

patfromlogan
4th February 04, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Ghost,
Here's a question for you:

Why shouldn't a country fight wars for economic interest?

Another question, does might make right?

SCO
4th February 04, 02:11 PM
A completely different question:
Was it wrong of Saddam Hussein to torture his enemies and to supress and exploit large parts of the Iraqi people?

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 02:29 PM
Pat,
Your question is the one that he has to answer while answering my own.

patfromlogan
4th February 04, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by SCO
A completely different question:
Was it wrong of Saddam Hussein to torture his enemies and to supress and exploit large parts of the Iraqi people?

Yes

And it was wrong for the US to give torture implements to the Nationalist Chinese and it was wrong for 21,000 deaths by torture in Pol Pot's S-21 prison (7 survivors) and it was wrong for the US to encourage the Shias and then have Saddam and the Baath run army kill 100,000 (and people ask why don't the Shias get on 'our' side?) and it was wrong to mine Nicaragua's harbors, and Operation Phoenix was wrong and NAFTA is wrong and it was wrong for the Soviets to murder all the German prisoners of war after WW2 and so what?

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 03:55 PM
So what? Hey Pat, did you know that one of your personal heroes, Noam Chomsky, once claimed that the Khmer Rouge massacre was a fantasy of a biased western press?

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 03:59 PM
The response to the three books under review nicely illustrates this selection process. Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. Published last year, and well received by the journal of the Asia Society (Asia, March-April 1977), it has not been reviewed in the Times, New York Review or any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment, with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys' (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia."(9)

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 04:02 PM
While all of the countries of Indochina have been subjected to endless denunciations in the West for their 'loathsome' qualities and unaccountable failure to find humane solutions to their problems, Cambodia was a particular target of abuse. In fact, it became virtually a matter of dogma in the West that the regime was the very incarnation of evil with no redeeming qualities, and that the handful of demonic creatures who had somehow taken over the country were systematically massacring and starving the population.

From "After the Cataclysm".

SCO
4th February 04, 04:37 PM
So what do you think Wastrel, was it wrong?

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 04:40 PM
No way SCO, I've decided to be just like these guys. I'm just going to make oblique references, and attack arguments and mistakes made by other people whenever I'm asked questions.

But just for you, I'd say that I'm almost an ethical emotivist. When it's convenient.

SCO
4th February 04, 04:46 PM
I bet it is convenient.

SamHarber
4th February 04, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by The Wastrel
Some people might argue that Libya's about face was caused by the invasion of Iraq. If North Korea eventually capitulates that argument would appear to be even stronger. Negotiations and agreements with the DPRK have already apparently failed.

Aww crap... I can't remember my source for this information (probably BBC so its obviously just all lies) but 12 years ago or so, there was a sustained diplomatic effort by Libya to come in from the cold, but it was constantly rejected by GB Senior and/or his establishment. I'll try and find the source of this storey when I've got more free time (like when I'm at work).

The Wastrel
4th February 04, 06:48 PM
Yes, I think so. And Libya started making conciliatory gestures immediately after 9/11. The second is the basis for my arguments AGAINST using Libya as an example of the success of the policy in that regard.

Remember, I was only trying to describe these arguments.

SCO
4th February 04, 07:33 PM
Way before. Sanctions suck for Lybia. Lockerbie guys were handed over in 1999, after long negotiations.

The_Ghost
4th February 04, 07:39 PM
Ghost,
Here's a question for you:

Why shouldn't a country fight wars for economic interest?

Of course not, and I would never fight about that one. But to behind the flag of democracy and relieving a country of tyranny is a shitty excuse, when you could just be open and honest.