Using nuclear weapons in Iraq

[Bronco]

so would I erik, but I'm pretty confident it wouldn't be anything like Iraqs current policy.

Edited February 11, 2003 by Bronco

[glacierdog]

well, damn it, I'm too lazy too read through 5 pages of posts. Looks like it was heated though. If we did nuke Iraq, you could probably see the glass bowl from space.

[freeclimb9]

why is it that our actions as americans are deemed worthy . . . yet everyone else is a punk???

For those who are Not Getting America.

[JayB]

Greg- that's a laughable statement. We probably ignore UN resolutions and international treaties as much or more than any other nation on earth (I think that makes us a "rogue"). Meanwhile, we maintain ties to all kinds of zealous groups all over the world and even arm them when they are on our side of any particular issue. Further, to name a few recent examples, we have supplied military assistance to governments in countries like Israel, Pakistan, and Indonesia, who are actively engaged in the destruction of cultures either within their own boundaries or nearby.

 

Matt:

 

What you state here isn't necessarily inaccurate, but it omits quite a bit of important information that is necessary in order to come to a fair and sober judgement concerning the US's involvement with these governments or radical groups within them. Much in the same way that the bare facts of a case such as "This man stabbed someone to death" are not sufficient to render a verdict in court, the omission of any information whatsoever concerning the reasons why the US allied itself with unsavory regimes or the characters within them is insufficient grounds for labelling the US a "Rogue State."

 

It's difficult to conceive of very many regimes more murderous, despotic, and hostile to the values of the United States than the Soviet Union in the 1920's and 1930's. Some of the highlights of that period in Soviet history include the wholesale slaughter of the intellectuals and the bourgoise and/or anyone else who posed a threat to Lenin and Stalin's ambitions for the country, the mass imprisonment of millions in the Siberian Gulags, and the state orchestrated starvation of nearly 10 million Ukranians who dared oppose the regime, and who happened to be in posession of the grain that the Bolsheviks needed to feed their power base when agriculture tanked throughout the Worker's Paradise after the adoption of absolutely disastrous collectivization schemes across the country. We knew the nature of this regime quite well, and yet we counted them amongst our most valuable allies for several years. Why? Well, you know of course that the Russians were also fighting the Nazis who, in our estimation, represented a greater threat to mankind at the time. After the Nazi's were defeated it didn't take very long at all before they assumed their rightful place as our foremost enemy, a status which they maintained for the better part of this century and your lifetime.

 

We allied ourselves with the Russians when we knew full well the monstrous nature of their regime? After they'd murdered millions of their own citizens in the cruelest fashion possible? We can't claim to be friends of liberty then! What hypocrites we are! Look how we spend millions arming and aiding the Russian one minute and then claim they're our "enemies" the next! Look how we let naked self interest dictate the true nature of our foreign policies and still delude ourselves into believing that we care about the rest of the world when our alliance with the Russians clearly shows that we'll join forces with any regime in order to eliminate any and all threats to our power!

 

It should be clear to anyone with even a passing aquaintance with the history of the latter half of the 20th century that the primary object of our foreign policy was to counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and their satellite states. The stakes for humanity were high, and just as we made alliances with evil regimes in order to neutralize the threat the Nazis posed to humanity, we worked with quite a few less than savory dictators, opposition groups, and who knows who else in our efforts to contain the totalitarians in Russia. In a perfect world such measures would not be necessary, but that's not the world we live in.

 

Our foreign policy these days is driven by a response to a different kind of threat, but the strategic considerations remain the same. We needed Pakistani cooperation during our attack on the Taliban and Al Queda, so we aligned ourselves with them on that basis, even though the current Pakistani leadership came to power by means of a coup and is currently run by a strongman pursuing policies that are inconsistent with our stated beliefs and fundamentally at odds with the Pakistani population's. It'd be nice if Pakistan were a textbook democracy that we could allign ourselves with without any reservations, but that, again, is not reality. The unfortunate reality is that for the forseable future a number of countries across the globe, but in the Middle East in particular will either be run by brutal tyrants who oppose our interests or...brutal tyrants who will work to futher our interests, as the case of Iran demonstrates quite clearly.

 

We are, at the moment, in the midst of an effort to remove one of the nastier dicators present in the region, who happens to oppose our interests, by force. As with the Russians, we sided with him in order to counter the greater threat, and...as with the Russians we are working (with the help of some less than savory nations) to remove him now that it is he who represents the greater threat. Thankfully doing so at this time is consistent both with our interests and with the ideals that we've been responsible for advancing, however imperfectly, since this nation's inception.

 

So while you may be right that the US has "maintain[ed] ties to all kinds of zealous groups all over the world and even arm them when they are on our side of any particular issue." your failure to address the strategic imperatives that brought about those ties is represents a standard of intellectual honestly well below what one would expect of the Effortlessly Cool One.

 

P.S.

 

There was no UN mandate authorizing the use of force in Yugoslavia, as Russia and China would not vote in favor of any such maneuver. The Europeans resisted the use fo force for years and counseled "further dialogue to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution." Did you oppose the use of force against Serbia on the basis of the same arguments that you are using to oppose attacking Iraq?

[mattp]

JayB-

Thanks for the history lesson. I agree with you that the U.S. has a policy goal in mind when it arms countries like Pakistan and works with Russia, and that even when we are dealing with the very worst of thugs around the world we are probably always doing so in the pursuit of policy goals quite apart from the crimes those thugs may commit. It is not intellectually dishonest of me to argue that is what we do, however, and that Greg's statement could apply to the U.S. in every way.

[JayB]

JayB-

Thanks for the history lesson. I agree with you that the U.S. has a policy goal in mind when it arms countries like Pakistan and works with Russia, and that even when we are dealing with the very worst of thugs around the world we are probably always doing so in the pursuit of policy goals quite apart from the crimes those thugs may commit. It is not intellectually dishonest of me to argue that is what we do, however, and that Greg's statement could apply to the U.S. in every way.

 

Matt:

 

No history lesson intended (for you), just using an example to advance my argument. It just happened to be a long one.

 

Maybe I misunderstood your post. When I read it I got the idea that you were not simply listing instances in which the US acted in certain ways, but going further and claiming that these actions rendered the US a "rogue state," irrespective of the goals or ends that we were pursuing at the time. If that's not what you were doing, my bad.

 

It's not uncommon for those criticizing the US to cite a litany of actions which, if performed in a historical vacumm, would be legitimize claims that the US is a "rogue state." As easy as that is to do "The US intentionally firebombed Dresden and killed 100,000 German civilians!" citing such facts without acknowledging the historical circumstances which lead the US to do so can only be called intellectually dishonest. Sorry if I misread you.

[sexual_chocolate]

Of course those would be the apologist answers given when justifying US foreign policy maneuverings. Anything else would be "un-American", by golly, and verging on "intellectual dishonesty", right?

 

WWII I personally feel to be a rather poor example through which to examine any conflict we have had since. Hitler, if I understand his motives correctly, was intent on an expansionist policy (much akin to a policy of ours which unfortunately "inconvenienced" a few Natives) which had as an end goal perhaps global domination. The argument can certainly be made that the former USSR had a similar plan, although I'd be hard-pressed to say right now that they had one any more pressing than we did.

To compare these cases to Iraq borders on hysterical, and if it wasn't for this possible explanation, would certainly reek of more "intellectual dishonesty" than anythign I've heard said here before.

 

And a question to the war advocates:

 

What do you think we accomplished in Afghanistan?

[JayB]

Of course those would be the apologist answers given when justifying US foreign policy maneuverings. Anything else would be "un-American", by golly, and verging on "intellectual dishonesty", right?

 

WWII I personally feel to be a rather poor example through which to examine any conflict we have had since. Hitler, if I understand his motives correctly, was intent on an expansionist policy (much akin to a policy of ours which unfortunately "inconvenienced" a few Natives) which had as an end goal perhaps global domination. The argument can certainly be made that the former USSR had a similar plan, although I'd be hard-pressed to say right now that they had one any more pressing than we did.

To compare these cases to Iraq borders on hysterical, and if it wasn't for this possible explanation, would certainly reek of more "intellectual dishonesty" than anythign I've heard said here before.

 

And a question to the war advocates:

 

What do you think we accomplished in Afghanistan?

 

SC:

 

You missed my point. I was not claiming that Iraq constituted anything like the threat that the Nazis or the Soviet Union posed to humanity, which would indeed be ludicrous. I was using the case of Russia to make the argument that "when we are dealing with the very worst of thugs around the world we are probably always doing so in the pursuit of policy goals quite apart from the crimes those thugs may commit." I was also using the case of Russia (allies during the war, enemies after) to address the folks who believe that the fact that we assisted Iraq in their war against Iran makes us hypocrites or should paralyze our efforts to get rid of Saddam.

 

What did we accomplish in Pakistan? Did we wave a magic wand and make the legacy of two and a half decades of inveterate warfare go away? No? Did we create a utopia? No? Restore a decimated economy with the wave of a hand? No. We did, for reasons that had everything to do with our strategic interest and nothing to do with relieving the suffering of the Afghanis, overthrow the Taliban and dismantle Al Queda's organization in the country. After we got there and did these things we've also attempted to assist the Afghanis in their efforts to develop a means of governing themselves, and also provided schooling, food-aid, and medical aid, in an effort to promote conditions that will hopefully be less congenial to murderous fanatics than it was before.

 

There is no disputing the fact that the country is still dirt poor, beset by lawlessness, warring clans and warlords, and may yet descend into anarchy yet again. Whatever you think of our reasons for getting involved in Afghanistan, I do not see how it is possible to dispute the fact that we are making an effort to help the Afghanis, and tens of thousands have seen the efforts as substantial and promising enough to return to their home country after many years abroad in an effort to rebuild. I hope that they are right.

[sexual_chocolate]

Maybe you are privy to information that I haven't seen. The only reports I have seen indicate an active Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, including the rebuilding of their military training camps.

Again, based on what I have heard, most of the approximately 8,000 US troops are concentrated around Kabul, protecting the presidency of Karzai, while the rest of the country has fallen under the "aegis" of warlords. Women still wear burkas, because they fear being raped. Extortion and bribery are common, with disappearances the norm. The aid promised by the western allied forces has not materialized.

 

If the above is true, then I would think that our adventure in Afghanistan was entirely pointless, and models accurately what the people in Iraq can expect. Such is the case when national foreign policy is dictated by a short-sighted domestic axis of evil: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

 

Another point worth making:

Many voices opposing the US/Iraq alliance aren't necessarily objecting to the "hypocrisy". I believe one huge objection is Bush's continued portrayal of Hussein's "gassing his own people" as an uncondoned act, immoral beyond belief, when in fact the US knew very well it was happening, WHEN it was happening, and even moved to block UN censure at that time. The US could very likely have ended the gassings with a strategic intervention, but obviously did not wish to do so, since that would not have been in accord with our national interests. If this is not objectionable to you on many fronts, I find empathy welling up for you. You seem to excuse much in the name of "national interest".

 

Again, regarding my statements about Afghanistan, if you have info to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

[glacierdog]

Change doesn't occur overnight. Women are considered mens property there. It will take more than a regime change to fix that. Because it will be difficult, are you saying we shouldn't try?

[MysticNacho]

Sure sounds like a lot of effort so far at rebuilding. Kabul must be a great place.

[Fejas]

I think trying is worth a shot; SC seems to be suggesting, that before we act on what we assume to be good, we should think out fully the singificance of that act. Even though it may seem beneficial, such an act may produce greater misery in the futre. I ask you then; is it possible to have such profound insight into our own actions?

At the monment of action, we are enthusiastic, impetuous, we are carried away by an idea, or by the fire in the eyes of our leader.... All leaders from the most brutal tyrant, to the most religious politician; state that they are acting for the good of man, they all lead to the grave; regardeless we succumb to their influence, and follow them... Haven't any of you been influenced by such a leader? He may no longer be living, but you still think and act according to his/her sanctions, formulas, pattern of life...

[allthumbs]

There is no solution in doing nothing. It only makes the problem worse. The whole situation reminds me of 1938 and 1939 and Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Think of how many lives would have been saved if the Nazis had been dealt with early on. Instead the entire world sat by and did nothing - just like they want to do now.

 

And the division between our supposed allies and us has done nothing but encourage Hussein and now bin Laden. Not a good situation. The only reason Hussein has made ANY effort toward the UN weapons inspections is our threat of force. Yet he STILL plays games. Toss the dog a bone, so to speak.

[mattp]

Trask, you are right that the only reason Saddam has conceded anything is because he is threatened. You are also right that we must do something about the situation. However, we are not at the point where it is necessary, in my opinion, to engage in a full-scale invasion of Iraq - yet. You are right, I think, that the divisions between us and our European "allies" are a problem and that this discord is being exploited by Saddam and BinLaden, but I think that aspect of the situation may get worse rather than better if we decide to ignore the stated concerns of France, Germany, Russia, or anybody else.

 

Though parallels could be drawn, I don't agree that it is like 1938. I don't think anybody in the U.S. is saying "hey, it's not our problem" and I don't think any significant player in the matter is thinking they can avoid involvement by appeasement. The questions surround issues like exactly what kind of response is appropriate, what are various scenarios that we might foresee, and whether or not the U.S. should act without U.N. endorsement.

[Fejas]

I couldn't agree with you more trask... I myself am a man of action... with passion and intent driping from my mouth. But this constant bickering amongst who is right and who is wrong... Right says this, and left say that...

Every party knows, or thinks it knows, what is good for the people. But what is truly good will not create antgonism, either at home or abroad; it will bring about unity between man and man. What is truly good will be concerned with the totality of man, and not with some superficial benefit that may lead only to greater calamity and misery. It will put an end to the division and the enmity that nationalism and organized religions have created. So, is the GOOD so easily found? I think not.

[mattp]

I couldn't agree with you more trask... I myself am a man of action... with passion and intent driping from my mouth. But this constant bickering amongst who is right and who is wrong... Right says this, and left say that...

Every party knows, or thinks it knows, what is good for the people. But what is truly good will not create antgonism, either at home or abroad; it will bring about unity between man and man. What is truly good will be concerned with the totality of man, and not with some superficial benefit that may lead only to greater calamity and misery. It will put an end to the division and the enmity that nationalism and organized religions have created. So, is the GOOD so easily found? I think not.

 

 

???

[allthumbs]

I couldn't agree with you more trask... I myself am a man of action... with passion and intent driping from my mouth. But this constant bickering amongst who is right and who is wrong... Right says this, and left say that...

Every party knows, or thinks it knows, what is good for the people. But what is truly good will not create antgonism, either at home or abroad; it will bring about unity between man and man. What is truly good will be concerned with the totality of man, and not with some superficial benefit that may lead only to greater calamity and misery. It will put an end to the division and the enmity that nationalism and organized religions have created. So, is the GOOD so easily found? I think not.

 

Admit it, you're a Trekkie aren't you?

 

 

[Fejas]

I can't stand Star Trek....

[sexual_chocolate]

What has Saddam conceded, mattp? What does he HAVE to concede? I swear the administration has the most liberal thinkers here pissing their pants about the potential of Iraqi aggression. They weren't a threat previous to '91, nor are they a threat now, although we've tried our hardest to make EVERYONE a threat through our empiric methodologies.

And the division between us and our "allies": I'd hardly call it a problem! I'd call it the voice of sanity staying the course in the face of bribery, threats, tantrums. I heard even the IMF has gotten into the game of bribery, telling certain countries that if they don't toe the line, funding will be threatened. Cool!

 

And again I ask you all:

 

What have we accomplished in Afghanistan? No one seems to want to tackle this one, which I find quite telling....No one wants to THINK about it, cuz it puts a blush on war rhetoric....

[glacierdog]

Okay, what are our options? We can let the UN do things their way. (Which, hopefully, has no similarity whatsoever to France's suggestion) We can ignore the situation and hope it goes away. We can blast Saddam to the moon. We can continue to threaten force on Saddam until he a) gives in b)starts shooting or c)takes up climbing, reaches inner peace and realizes the error of his ways. You pick.

[Fejas]

oh... c.. c... c.... oh.. oh.. c...

[allthumbs]

Matt, If you go back to my earliest posts on this, you will see that I have not favored a war with Iraq. Yet when it comes down to the bottom line, there is no one more in favor of peace than war veterans. For they have seen the horror of war and what it does to the bodies and minds of promising young men from both sides.

 

Politicians should fight wars - or at least accompany the troops into the fray. Then they might not be so eager to wage war.

 

Personally I would like to see us get out of the region and out of Europe and Korea with our troops. Let Europe and Asia defend themselves - it's about time they stepped up to the plate. That way they can quit riding our tails and not having to invest in defense and letting their economies prosper. Let them make the sacrifice. (yeah - right - like that would ever happen) We could reduce the size of our Army by two to three more divisions - divisions we can't fully man anyway. It would help us eliminate one or two wings of fighters. Our navy should probably stay the same size, as should the Marine Corps. And then we just sit back and wait. I would imagine it wouldn't take long.

trask

[Bronco]

....They weren't a threat previous to '91, nor are they a threat now....

 

What? didn't they invade Kuwait?

 

regarding Afganistan, the military did a good job of displacing and disrupting the terror network. Of course they are going to attempt to regroup where ever they can. And although they don't have a McDonalds or Starbucks on every corner yet, I think if you asked the average Afgani if they would prefer to have the Taliban back in control or continue the course, they'd probably answer the latter.

 

My rant for the day. Thanks for provoking me to rethink my opinions Sexual buttnugget.

[mattp]

Sexy -

I agree that the Europeans who ask that we take more time to pursue disarmament and containment before we invade Iraq are probably more sensible than our President is right now. Hell it seems that even General Schwartzkopf agrees with them, but apparently the administration put a gag on him after he offered his remarks and then confirmed that he stood by them. In addition to not wanting to discuss what we may or may not have accomplished in Afghanistan, most of the war hawks do not want to discuss how it is that Stormin' Norman came to the conclusions that he did, either.

 

By the way, according to the newspapers, Saddam has conceded on various matters related to the ongoing conduct of inspections. Read all about it.

 

Bronco -

you may be right, though I have not read any news account that supports what you say about the average Afghani on the street being happy that we pursued a war there last year. Being the cynic that I am, I wonder if the most signficant result of our invasion may have been that the country appears slightly more desireable for the construciton of a big new oil pipeline that was barely mentioned in the press about six weeks ago.

 

Trask-

I agree that if we were to suddenly adopt an isolationist posture we would probably see some of our protectorates and perhaps some of our European allies asking for us to come back and help them some more. However, I'd favor seeing our government try to work within the framework of established international law and if we think the U.N. is seeeking to deprive us of the right to be free, as GregW seems to assert, I would rather see us try to nudge it in the right direction rather than trash it altogether.

 

 

[Luna]

Wow. That's actually not a bad starter. Bravo.

 

Hate to digress but I'm going to jump back a few posts. Seems like JB was making the point that sometimes the US has to do bad things for a good goal. In some limited cases. I can't think of how we would have started to address the Bin Laden mess without going into Afganastan.

 

However, the US has a long and messy history of messing around in other countries because we don't like their politics and/or we want to secure their natural resources. Killing, arms dealing, turning a blind eye to human rights. It has not been a glorious march towards democratic regimes, as our intervention is often depicted. For example, overthrow of the first democratic government in Guatatemala (1954), CIA backed coup and killing of Salvador Allende (elected) in Chile, intervention in Honduras, supply arms and giving the nod for Indonesia to invade East Timor, bombing of Laos (then lying about it), CIA backing of Angola rebels, Nicaragua contras, El Salvador funding, backing of the Shah in Iran, invasion of Panama. This list could easily go on for several pages. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not admit that the US has mucked around in many places where we have no business, other than the code word of "national interest".

 

This is an especially good quote: "We have 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a paattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better" Geoge Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the US State Dept. 1948.

 

That democracy stuff. For the boids. Oh yea, bad example to use Dresden as a rationalization.