Anti-War Signs

[Drake Tungsten]

You really think that the Kurds would meekly go back to submission to Baghdad after Rumsfeld gives them lots of weapons and liberate the Iraqis to the South, given the penchant for ethnic cleansing among the states in the region? Who's going to take away their guns?

Do you really think the Kurds would be so stupid as to declare independence, encouraging the Turks to invade and wipe them out once and for all? Their future lies in taking part in a democratic Iraq and they understand this.

We've already given up on the reformists.

Not true. We've simply been less vocal about our support, as it was hurting the democracy movement. The democracy movement in Iran can't afford to be see as an American puppet.

it would turn Iraq into a bloody Civil War. We aren't about to committ are resources into that fight or let Iran play a part.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your crystal ball...

[Clear Skies]

"How do they plan on democratising the Middle East?"

So imposing a military ruler on the place for seven or so years is democratising? Wow. Just like you redemocratised the Dominican Republic.
Damnit. Someone buy America a dictionary.

[Drake Tungsten]

So imposing a military ruler on the place for seven or so years is democratising? Wow. Just like you redemocratised the Dominican Republic.

Or Japan...

[Ramo]

Do you really think the Kurds would be so stupid as to declare independence, encouraging the Turks to invade and wip them out once and for all? Their future lies in taking part in a democratic Iraq and they understand this.

Whether they formally declare independence or not is irrelevent, but they won't accept submission to Baghdad. I wouldn't if I were in their place, given that it's their only shot at freedom.

Not true. We've simply been less vocal about our support, as it was hurting the democracy movement. The democracy movement in Iran can't afford to be see as an American puppet.

That's not true; they weren't seen as an American puppet. We've simply undermined the credibility they had, and set the movement back years. We wrote them off as ineffectual and impotent, despite the progress they have made.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your crystal ball...

You really think that the Sunni interests in power in Iraq would simply give it up, completely? You really think we want to play a part in this Civil War? You really think Iran wouldn't? If you do, you're dreaming.

[Az]

Do you really think the Kurds would be so stupid as to declare independence, encouraging the Turks to invade and wipe them out once and for all? Their future lies in taking part in a democratic Iraq and they understand this.

no they wouldn't. Unless they don't want to join the EU.

[Drake Tungsten]

Whether they formally declare independence or not is irrelevent, but they won't accept submission to Baghdad.

Since when is participating in a representative government "submission"?

That's not true; they weren't seen as an American puppet. We've simply undermined the credibility they had, and set the movement back years. We wrote them off as ineffectual and impotent, despite the progress they have made.

Bullshit.

You really think that the Sunni interests in power in Iraq would simply give it up, completely?

No, that's why American forces will have to oversee the transition.

You really think we want to play a part in this Civil War?

Of course. A stable democracy in Iraq is worth dealing with a possible civil war.

You really think Iran wouldn't?

How are they going to intervene with US troops in Iraq?

If you do, you're dreaming.

At least I'm not attempting to predict the future based on faulty assumptions...

[Drake Tungsten]

no they wouldn't. Unless they don't want to join the EU.

Like Turkey's ever going to get into the EU...

[Ramo]

Since when is participating in a representative government "submission"?

1. Representative gov't doesn't automatically preclude ethnic cleansing (*cough* Turkey *cough ).
2. A representative gov't won't happen for the reasons I've already pointed out.

Bullshit.

What an illuminating response.

Of course. A stable democracy in Iraq is worth dealing with a possible civil war.

Yes, just like US troops are taking out the warlords in Afghanistan and why Afghanistan is a democratic place with the gov't in Kabul fighting for the rights of Afghanis all over the country. Oh my mistake, that isn't happening.

How are they going to intervene with US troops in Iraq?

Because they won't be there. Besides, an intervention can take non-militaristic forms - i.e. subsidizing certain Shia factions.

At least I'm not attempting to predict the future based on faulty assumptions...

Yes, the best position is to have absolute faith in the gov't to do the right thing. My bad.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, just like US troops are taking out the warlords in Afghanistan and why Afghanistan is a democratic place with the gov't in Kabul fighting for the rights of Afghanis all over the country.

Afghanistan isn't nearly as important as Iraq. We're trying to reform Afghanistan on the cheap because it doesn't really matter that much.

Yes, the best position is to have absolute faith in the gov't to do the right thing. My bad.

I hardly have absolute faith in the government; to do so would be as stupid as having no faith in the government as you do...

[Ramo]

Afghanistan isn't nearly as important as Iraq. We trying to reform Afghanistan on the cheap because it doesn't really matter that much.

Reforming Iraq doesn't really matter that much as far as "US interest" go. The BoP would be insured and ME would be stable if we install another US-friendly Sunni dictator in Saddam's place. Democracy in Iraq would unleash a huge can of worms Shrub wouldn't want to deal with. Much simpler and much better for "US interests" if we don't rock the boat.

I hardly have absolute faith in the government; to do so would be as stupid as having no faith in the government as you do...

No, I have faith in the gov't. But I have faith that it will act in its interests, which is not to say it would never act in a morally acceptable manner, but this is a situation where the two conflict.

[Buck Birdseed]

It's interesting to note that the people who think Imperialism and bringing down violence on poor nations is a good, potentially beneficial thing are usually the same people who say that Communism is now a proven failure because of how it ended up in Russia or China. Considering the absolutely stunning rate of impoverishment, destruction and chaos caused by every previous attempt some poor fools are taught to believe involves "civilising savages", you'd think they'd have abandoned it by now. But no, they presist in their blind, revisionist historical idiocy, believing outright lies like "western colonisation has helped peoples in the third world", and "you can create sustainable, democratic regimes in other countries by bombing their population to pieces and destroying all infrastructure", not to mention that the motivations of their leaders are altrusitic and about being nice to the world.

[Drake Tungsten]

Much simpler and much better for "US interests" if we don't rock the boat.

Except for the fact that the root cause of terrorism will go unaddressed. I don't think the Bush foreign policy team is stupid enough to waste this opportunity. I really hope they're thinking long-term on this one...

[Ramo]

What does eliminating Saddam have to do with the root cause of terrorism? Saddam is secular, so he only supports Islamist terrorism in secular contexts (i.e. against the secular Kurds), just like most states in the world.

[Drake Tungsten]

What does eliminating Saddam have to do with the root cause of terrorism?

The reason that Islamic fundamentalism is so popular is that it is the only viable political movement in the region. People who are unsatisfied with their governments (and there are a lot of them) have no political movement to turn to other than fundamentalism. If America can successfully create a functioning liberal democracy in Iraq, it would help the region out immensely by creating a real alternative to fundamentalism. The only way to defeat terrorism is to dry up its popular support and you can't do that if there is no political movement other than fundamentalism for the masses to subscribe too.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Much simpler and much better for "US interests" if we don't rock the boat.

Except for the fact that the root cause of terrorism will go unaddressed.

The root cause is US support for Israel and support for the despotic regimes of the ME as well as the perception that the US cares nothing for the people and only about the oil (and a very apt perception it is).

Attacking Iraq will only outrage those who are not already siding with the terrorists. Far from dealing with the root cause of terorism, it will further enflame terrorism against us. Which of course, means that the War on Terrorism goes on, which means that the necessity for the national security state continues. In other words, it ensures we continue to have an enemy to justify our insane military budget and our growing police-state.

[Drake Tungsten]

The root cause is US support for Israel

A useful way to pull in the masses, but not a root cause.

support for the despotic regimes of the ME

This is part of the root cause. People hate their governments and turn to the only movement available (fundamentalism). The US needs to stop supporting despotic regimes and the creation of a democracy in Iraq would allow us to start cutting ties.

as well as the perception that the US cares nothing for the people and only about the oil

What better way to disprove this than by freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator?

Attacking Iraq will only outrage those who are not already siding with the terrorists. Far from dealing with the root cause of terorism, it will further enflame terrorism against us.

This point is certainly up for debate. It is extremely unclear whether the Arab street gives a **** about Saddam or not...

[Ramo]

The reason that Islamic fundamentalism is so popular is that it is the only viable political movement in the region. People who are unsatisfied with their governments (and there are a lot of them) have no political movement to turn to other than fundamentalism. If America can successfully create a functioning liberal democracy in Iraq, it would help the region out immensely by creating a real alternative to fundamentalism. The only way to defeat terrorism is to dry up its popular support and you can't do that if there is no political movement other than fundamentalism for the masses to subscribe too.

The whole reason the Islamist movement has any power nowadays is because we've been destroying the leftist movements in the region for the past several decades.

This point is certainly up for debate. It is extremely unclear whether the Arab street gives a **** about Saddam or not...

The Arab people clearly oppose the possibility of Gulf War II immensely. Their gov't's are more lukewarm of course. And they may very well fall to Islamist rebels in the event of such a war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This point is certainly up for debate. It is extremely unclear whether the Arab street gives a **** about Saddam or not...

They don't give a rat's ass about Hussein. He ruined his cred as the new Nassar/Saladin long ago. What the Arab street cares about is the bombing of Arab civilians, mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, etc. The last time through, the US comepletely destroyed the country's infrastructre: bridges, electrictal grid, hospitals, schools, etc.

Apparently (I haven't verified this yet) the current plan for opening hostilities calls for 800 cruise missiles to hit Bahgdad. The plan assumes civilians will flee the city, where they will have no food, water, and will be exposed to the elements. Don't tell me that civilian casualties won't be high.

When thousands of Iraqi children die, Arabs will be enraged, and rightly so.

[Drake Tungsten]

The whole reason the Islamist movement has any power nowadays is because we've been destroying the leftist movements in the region for the past several decades.

No ****, Sherlock. It's a problem inherited from the Cold War that needs to be fixed.

And they may very well fall to Islamist rebels in the event of such a war.

Wanna place a bet on that?

[Drake Tungsten]

Apparently (I haven't verified this yet) the current plan for opening hostilities calls for 800 cruise missiles to hit Bahgdad.

I think it's 8000 missiles at target throughout Iraq. I've also heard that US planners are intentionally avoiding vital infrastructure to make the post-war reconstruction easier.

Don't tell me that civilian casualties won't be high.

There's a good chance that they won't be. Our planners are probably trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

[Ramo]

No ****, Sherlock. It's a problem inherited from the Cold War that needs to be fixed.

What makes you think it will be? Our allies in the region
like Musharraf aren't exactly supportive of trade unions or land reform in these countries. Nor are we.

Wanna place a bet on that?

I never said I was sure it would happen. But I wouldn't suprised if one or more governments fall to Islamists in the event of Gulf War II.

[Drake Tungsten]

What makes you think it will be?

I'm not saying it will be fixed; there are many difficulties inherent in achieving it. I'm saying that the US would be stupid and selfish to not attempt to fix it. We helped make the problem that bit our ass on 9/11; it's time we tried to undo the damage.

Our allies in the region
like Musharraf

Musharraf isn't in the region...

But I wouldn't suprised if one or more governments fall to Islamists in the event of Gulf War II.

I would. The war would have to go horrifically bad for that to happen.

[Ramo]

I'm not saying it will be fixed; there are many difficulties inherent in achieving it. I'm just saying that the US would be stupid and selfish to not attempt to fix it. We helped make the problem that bit our ass on 9/11; it's time we tried to undo the damage.

What you think should or shouldn't happen isn't relevent. The only thing that is relevant is what Shrub et al. think should or shouldn't happen.

Musharraf isn't in the region..

Methinks you need a geography lesson. Pakistan is pretty damn close to Iraq. Just on the other side of Iran.

I would. The war would have to go horrifically bad for that to happen.

The Afghan War certainly didn't go "horrifically bad," yet there were large increases in Islamist support in quite a few countries.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Don't tell me that civilian casualties won't be high.

There's a good chance that they won't be. Our planners are probably trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

Like they did in Yugoslavia?

[Drake Tungsten]

The only thing that is relevant is what Shrub et al. think should or shouldn't happen.

Exactly and there have been indications that the Shrubya team is thinking along the same lines as I am. Nothing definite has appeared, but the glimpses have been telling.

Methinks you need a geography lesson. Pakistan is pretty damn close to Iraq. Just on the other side of Iran.

Pakistan isn't a part of the Middle East and has little effect on the politics of the region. Pakistan is part of the Central Asian or South Asian regions. Totally different ballpark.

Nice talking with you Ramo, but I gotta leave for the night. Don't have too much fun without me.

[Drake Tungsten]

Like they did in Yugoslavia?

I don't remember hearing about huge civilian casualties in Yugoslavia. Maybe I need to start reading different newspapers...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Like they did in Yugoslavia?

I don't remember hearing about huge civilian casualties in Yugoslavia. Maybe I need to start reading different newspapers...

Like non-American ones.

[Ramo]

Exactly and there have been indications that the Shrubya team is thinking along the same lines as I am. Nothing definite has appeared, but the glimpses have been telling.

Glimpses?

Pakistan isn't a part of the Middle East and has little effect on the politics of the region. Pakistan is part of the Central Asian or South Asian regions. Totally different ballpark.

I was under the impression that there were some Islamic states in Central Asia where Islamism is rampant, like, gee let me think... AFGHANISTAN. Our allies in the Middle East are right-wing autocrats to.

So supporting a brutally authoritarian right-wing dictator in a generally secular Islamic country doesn't say anything about what kind of regime there'll be in Baghdad?