A Hangman's Day - Page 4

Steeler · 11-08-2006, 10:31 AM

It is amazing to me in foreign affairs how quickly we move from moral absolutes to realpolitik. Could one not argue in 2002 that the threat of a destabilized and violent Iraq was greater than a crippled Saddam clinging hopelessly to power?

**leejo** · 11-08-2006, 10:35 AM

Sure. That would have been the best time to make that argument, instead of waiting for the situation to develop then carping.

**DudeMan** · 11-08-2006, 10:41 AM

ok,

i dont think the question has changed much, please know that we know the USA funded, supported and ensured saddam's success as a dictator in Iraq. however, use your hindsight i little further, a rogue dictator who was a western sympathisor in a region that was being supplied by soviets is an area you over look. the cold war and its implications plays a very important part. the decision to support iraq was more about that than anything else, the fact is the financial and intelligence support came for the Iran Iraq war, not specifically so saddam can kill his people and repress them. its only through hindsight and the fact that the coldwar so conveniently ended that the USA is left with the fall out.

but the question of why sit there and harp on over this still exists, is the actions of this administration some how incorrect, should they have recognised that they were indirectly a cause of some of the atrocities in that they funded and supplied saddam, and just left him alone. or are you complaining out of some misguided campaign to have president bush sentenced to death over something which IMO is extremly questionably a US made. it seemsto me you are just making the point over and over that the USA could have contributed to saddam's regieme of terror. but that does not solve anything.

what most people here are happy about, is the fact this man has been stopped from putting people of different political beliefs in a lions cage. or allowing his sons to rape 8yr old girls, or torturing nameless thousands...etc etc.

Steeler · 11-08-2006, 10:42 AM

Leejo, the CIA made the argument in 1999.

Quote:

# “A change in regimes does not guarantee stability,” the 1999 seminar briefings said. “A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability.”

# “Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.”

# “Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,” the briefings read. “The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad.”

# “The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development.”

# “Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government.”

# “A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.”

**leejo** · 11-08-2006, 10:44 AM

Look. I don't think moral absolutes and realpolitik are mutually exclusive, but diplomacy and war are a continuum. It's precisely when a relationship is teetering between diplomatic relations and some form of conflict/confrontation that you're going to have the most opportunity to get photo ops like the Rumsfeld SH one posted here. That's when it's critical to send envoys and diplomats to try to avoid war, right?

**DudeMan** · 11-08-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I think these are pretty simple observations that fail to account for the context of these relationships. For example, there are plenty of pictures of Churchill and Stalin hanging out and acting like buddies, but no-one who has read about Churchill is under any illusion about his thoughts on Soviet Russia. The only thing he hated and feared more was Nazi Germany. Stalin was crucial in winning THAT fight. Once it was done, so was the opportunity for cheery photo-ops, so to speak.

Same with SH. Had Soviet-backed mullah-governed Iran not been at war with SH I doubt very seriously that you would have seen Reagan's team partner with him at all.

It's a matter of setting priorities and fighting the most critical fight first. Sometimes this creates worse problems down the road. We can't see the future. But allowing Nazi Germany to crush Europe because someone decided Stalin was an unworthy partner would have been bad, I think, and allowing Iran to crush Iraq would have been bad too, I think.

Should we not be working with China and using our partnerships to lobby them to change some of ways they treat their people? Musharrif is a pretty rough customer, and no-one thinks of Pakistan as a model democracy, but he is critical in the fight against Al Qaeda NOW. What should we do?

hell yes,

history is full of this kind of alliance, but the British and American forces are not to blame for the soviet opression under stalin, even though they supported and fourght with them against the facist german forces.

why is rumsfeld therefore a co conspirator when you look at the americans actions in the iran iraq war. they are not, they were picking the lesser of two evils in an increasingly destabilised region.

good point leejo well made.

Kerostasis · 11-08-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

It is amazing to me in foreign affairs how quickly we move from moral absolutes to realpolitik. Could one not argue in 2002 that the threat of a destabilized and violent Iraq was greater than a crippled Saddam clinging hopelessly to power?

I'm a big fan of realpolitik, so I'll bite.

Yes. You are absolutely and completely correct here. The hope is that the "destabilized and violent Iraq" phase will only be temporary, and will be followed by "stabilized and Democratic Iraq", which would bring untold benefits. But if we never reach that stage, then I will concede the invasion was a mistake from the beginning.

Unfortunately, we've got that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing going, and before the invasion we really thought we could push through and reach peace and stability. Only time will tell if that proves correct or not.

**DudeMan** · 11-08-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I'm a big fan of realpolitik, so I'll bite.

Yes. You are absolutely and completely correct here. The hope is that the "destabilized and violent Iraq" phase will only be temporary, and will be followed by "stabilized and Democratic Iraq", which would bring untold benefits. But if we never reach that stage, then I will concede the invasion was a mistake from the beginning.

Unfortunately, we've got that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing going, and before the invasion we really thought we could push through and reach peace and stability. Only time will tell if that proves correct or not.

very good point, totally agree..

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-08-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I'm a big fan of realpolitik, so I'll bite.

Yes. You are absolutely and completely correct here. The hope is that the "destabilized and violent Iraq" phase will only be temporary, and will be followed by "stabilized and Democratic Iraq", which would bring untold benefits. But if we never reach that stage, then I will concede the invasion was a mistake from the beginning.

Unfortunately, we've got that whole "hindsight is 20/20" thing going, and before the invasion we really thought we could push through and reach peace and stability. Only time will tell if that proves correct or not.

I think you are just whistling past the grave yard if you believe a destabilized and violent Iraq is only temporary. As it stands, we are into the fourth year of instabliity in Iraq with no end in sight which is a longer period than this country's involvement in WWII.

As Steeler's declassified document from the CIA pointed out, the instability due to the invasion of Iraq was seen years before. Hardly a case of hindsight is 20/20.

**leejo** · 11-08-2006, 11:43 AM

I dunno dude. I mean, 6 months before Germany surrendered they launched the Battle of the Bulge. Things tend to go from terrible to OK pretty fast when they turn.

Saddam lieutenant asks Baathist insurgents to end fight

I think this is a very positive development, for example.

AMosely · 11-08-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Look. I don't think moral absolutes and realpolitik are mutually exclusive, but diplomacy and war are a continuum. It's precisely when a relationship is teetering between diplomatic relations and some form of conflict/confrontation that you're going to have the most opportunity to get photo ops like the Rumsfeld SH one posted here. That's when it's critical to send envoys and diplomats to try to avoid war, right?

You're wrong. Diplomacy is a continuum. War is not and never should be a continuum, nor is war any logical form or extension of diplomacy. Do not ever mix the two. War is by no means the natural answer to failed diplomacy any more than peace is.

Everyone should know their history by now. This isn't an opinion piece.

There was no diplomatic 'teetering' when this infamous photograph was taken. America was courting middle eastern allies following a national fuel crisis that caused it to immediately rethink our role in what was (and still is) the most oil-rich region in the world. There was no thought of Saddam or Iraq posing the slightest threat to the U.S. at the time the photo was taken. No teetering. Just plain old American capitalist self-interest diplomacy.

The U.S. initially tried making good with Saddam the dictator out of their own national interests (namely, middle eastern control and stability - both military and oil). The diplomatic landscape in the region changed, starting in the early 90's, with Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and Bush's response.

The leap to the war in Iraq was solely brought on by the Bush administration who fervently reacted to the attacks on 9/11 by taking the fight to the middle east on two fronts instead of one (just Afghanistan). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it was clearly the an unstable region that could easily be turned on its head. This was his (or their) conscious choice, it had nothing to do with past dealings with Iraq (other than to those who believe Saddam should have been removed in the first Gulf war) and the Congress and a good percentage of Americans agreed with him. There were alternatives, and many citizens are now apparently realizing that these were overlooked - that mistakes were made.

Diplomacy and war are not a continuum unless you add peace and stability into the equation.

Lastly, my opinion - executing Saddam is a mistake. He is guilty, but this is a clear opportunity to globally demonstrate the humility and morality that we believe is born out of democracy - and religious faith for that matter. Through execution we only demonstrate the identical desire to kill our enemies that any military dictator or terrorist holds most high.

Kerostasis · 11-08-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

I think you are just whistling past the grave yard if you believe a destabilized and violent Iraq is only temporary. As it stands, we are into the fourth year of instabliity in Iraq with no end in sight which is a longer period than this country's involvement in WWII.

As Steeler's declassified document from the CIA pointed out, the instability due to the invasion of Iraq was seen years before. Hardly a case of hindsight is 20/20.

Are you serious? You are aware we still have soldiers stationed in Germany and Japan, right? Our involvement in World War II lasted years past the official declaration of victory, just as our involvement in Iraq is currently lasting years past the official declaration of victory over Saddam.

I don't think WWII is really the parallel you want to draw. You want to compare Iraq to Vietnam. WWII makes my point, not yours.

**DudeMan** · 11-08-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

I think you are just whistling past the grave yard if you believe a destabilized and violent Iraq is only temporary. As it stands, we are into the fourth year of instabliity in Iraq with no end in sight which is a longer period than this country's involvement in WWII.

As Steeler's declassified document from the CIA pointed out, the instability due to the invasion of Iraq was seen years before. Hardly a case of hindsight is 20/20.

heres where you need to look back through history yourself. if you wish to point fingers and say that the instability was caused by the invasion in iraq, then you overlook one very important factor... the creation of iraq which was primarily a british and european thing was designed specifically to get oil from one place to another. the one place where iraq touches water the ultimate goal for european imperialists. it stretches from turkey to the persian gulf. unlike most nations iraq never ever had a unified thing to stand together. they have no nationality, never did iraq was carved through dividing religious and ethnic divides. and it was done for the gain of wealth. this inherintly left a new nation full of conflicting beliefs, all nations have a unity, an identity without it you cant feel national pride, this is usually a set of beliefs and values that we share, iraq never had that. so this sectarian feelings and violence is not a result of the invaision its always been there its just been tyrannically controlled by a cruel dictator. in fact although its going to get worse before it gets better the invaision has started the eventual healing process. its just not a pretty process.

further, whilst saddam was in power the country was not unified. to assert that it is better to live under tyrrany controlled by the minority rather than being free from that tyranny is ludicrous. the difference between now and then is that we have reporters and analysts who can accurately see how many people are openly dying rather than the thousands that died behind closed doors. is it a harder pill to swollow because we can see daily people are dying, absolutly, does it mean the situation is worse. not on my life, at least now, with open conflict and open debate we can try to rectify years of hatred. under saddam countless numbers would secretly perish for one thing or another, and that would continue to be the norm.

saying that kerostasis is being optimistically blind is wrong, you are doing far worse, you are dispelling every thing thats right about whats happening because things look tough. that is in my opinion far more destructive thinking. its not being realist, its being defeatist. at least kerostasis said he could see another conclusion, one which he did not like.

Liam · 11-08-2006, 12:04 PM

@Amosely: u got it right on the head, killing saddam is a very hypocritical thing to do

@Kerostasis: america has troops in japan and germany because your allied with them, same reason germany and japan have troops in america and why US has troops in britain and vice a versa

Kerostasis · 11-08-2006, 12:13 PM

To be precise, we put troops in Japan and Germany because we conquered them. Once the troops had already been there awhile, Japan and Germany decided they liked the cash influx that accompanies a US military base, as well as the general economic benefit of being allied with the US, so they never bothered to ask us to leave.

I think Japan was becoming less favorable to US troops a while back, but that may have changed with the North Korean situation heating up. I know Germany was actively complaining when we were reducing our presence there (to redeploy to Iraq), because they were making so much money off the salaries of the soldiers there.

11-08-2006, 10:31 AM	#46 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,925	Re: A Hangman's Day It is amazing to me in foreign affairs how quickly we move from moral absolutes to realpolitik. Could one not argue in 2002 that the threat of a destabilized and violent Iraq was greater than a crippled Saddam clinging hopelessly to power? __________________

11-08-2006, 10:35 AM	#47 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day Sure. That would have been the best time to make that argument, instead of waiting for the situation to develop then carping.

11-08-2006, 10:41 AM	#48 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: A Hangman's Day ok, i dont think the question has changed much, please know that we know the USA funded, supported and ensured saddam's success as a dictator in Iraq. however, use your hindsight i little further, a rogue dictator who was a western sympathisor in a region that was being supplied by soviets is an area you over look. the cold war and its implications plays a very important part. the decision to support iraq was more about that than anything else, the fact is the financial and intelligence support came for the Iran Iraq war, not specifically so saddam can kill his people and repress them. its only through hindsight and the fact that the coldwar so conveniently ended that the USA is left with the fall out. but the question of why sit there and harp on over this still exists, is the actions of this administration some how incorrect, should they have recognised that they were indirectly a cause of some of the atrocities in that they funded and supplied saddam, and just left him alone. or are you complaining out of some misguided campaign to have president bush sentenced to death over something which IMO is extremly questionably a US made. it seemsto me you are just making the point over and over that the USA could have contributed to saddam's regieme of terror. but that does not solve anything. what most people here are happy about, is the fact this man has been stopped from putting people of different political beliefs in a lions cage. or allowing his sons to rape 8yr old girls, or torturing nameless thousands...etc etc. __________________ The Queen "Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life," *Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community* TheFeniX "Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

11-08-2006, 10:44 AM	#50 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day Look. I don't think moral absolutes and realpolitik are mutually exclusive, but diplomacy and war are a continuum. It's precisely when a relationship is teetering between diplomatic relations and some form of conflict/confrontation that you're going to have the most opportunity to get photo ops like the Rumsfeld SH one posted here. That's when it's critical to send envoys and diplomats to try to avoid war, right?

11-08-2006, 11:43 AM	#55 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day I dunno dude. I mean, 6 months before Germany surrendered they launched the Battle of the Bulge. Things tend to go from terrible to OK pretty fast when they turn. Saddam lieutenant asks Baathist insurgents to end fight I think this is a very positive development, for example.

11-08-2006, 12:04 PM	#59 (permalink)
Liam Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: North Wales Posts: 26	Re: A Hangman's Day @Amosely: u got it right on the head, killing saddam is a very hypocritical thing to do @Kerostasis: america has troops in japan and germany because your allied with them, same reason germany and japan have troops in america and why US has troops in britain and vice a versa __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links