'Islamising' the war ?

[Joe DeFuria]

OK...I'll ask you. How do you get Sadam to listen to you? Pascal won't answer, maybe you can.

when I wasn't even talking about Saddam? I was talking about how we relate to our *Allies* and that talking to our *Allies* that way won't engender any good will for us to push our policies around.

Yes, I know what you are asking, but I'm turning it around to the topic at hand: convincing Sadam in a similar manner.

(I didn't ask you why you tried to derail the topic, I just tried to use your comments to illustrate a point to Pascal.)

To clarify: You seem to think that we could have easily made the case and brought folks like France and Germany with us on this action.

On the other hand, you DON'T believe that we could have done the same with Iraq. (We would never convnice them to peacfully disarm...)

Why?

Just because traditionally, we agree on many things with France / Germany and are "allies?" Does that mean we are bound to always reach an amicable agreement on how to proceed? Has it dawned on you that no matter what we argued, or how we argue it, we might just end up agreeing to disagree? (Like we do with Sadam?)

God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer. And it is infuriating to be chastized instead of just being asked for a clarification.

 

[Silent_One]

Iraq is very complex with many internal tensions. In fact it could sucumb to its internal tensions dividing the country and putting democracy at risk.

Agreed.

I dont know how strong are those internal tensions and how much exposure is needed to MTV, Coca-Cola and other things to change their minds

MTV? A few days

This issue of country rebuild is very complex and I am not familiar with it. I am not prepared to discuss it.

Yes, it is very complex. And the most important part of the whole effort. Getting rid of WMD, getting rid of Saddam and his cronies are just a part of the overall picture. We can win the battle but lose the war if we don't win over the people.

Here are a few links regarding rebuilding after the war:
Indipendent Task Force Reports
http://cfr.org/pdf/Iraq_DayAfter_TF.pdf

Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq
http://cfr.org/pdf/Post-War_Iraq.pdf

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma-
I think Joe answered you. I don't think he meant to confuse you on purpose.

God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.

Ah, but you have fun don't ya!

 

[pascal]

Here are a few links regarding rebuilding after the war:
Indipendent Task Force Reports
http://cfr.org/pdf/Iraq_DayAfter_TF.pdf

Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq
http://cfr.org/pdf/Post-War_Iraq.pdf

Thanks Silent_One, lots of pages
I will do some search later.
I going home now

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Iraq is very complex with many internal tensions. In fact it could sucumb to its internal tensions dividing the country and putting democracy at risk.

Agreed.

I agree as well. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried (speaking to pascal). That's similar to agruments about Iraqi or other nations "not ready to handle freedom."

That's a pretty arogant position to take, IMO. Who are we to say they don't deserve freedom or democracy, when we feel we deserve it?

I beleive everyone has a right to freedom. I believe it is human nautre. However, just as the U.S. did, Iraq will ultimately have to determine their own destiny with respect to how freedom shapes their nation.

Less than 100 years after the U.S. declared our independence, we pretty much sucumbed to our own similar internal tensions, in a very horrific way: the Civil War.

Our differences probably looked pretty similar to the differences between Iraqi parties / regions: so different...can they really co-exist?

And to be clear...no outside party stepping in to try and "solve" the problem in the 1850's would have likely been successful. We just had to go through it, and heal the wounds. And I can imagine how the "old world" was laughing at us during that war and saying "see...they can't survive on their own without us!"

But we did survive, and in a big way.

It's similar to dealing with a child. You can try and help and assist, and "protect him from himself." But uiltimately, at some point he will have to do things on his own. He will make mistakes, he will probably hurt himself along the way by doing "stupid childish things that I could have prevented if I stepped in."

But nothing quite educates someone as going through the ordeal and learning from experience.

The U.S. survied the Civil war. And so, I believe, will Iraq survive internal tensions. Though they will be facing a rough road, and they will more or less have to find their own way.

 

[Natoma]

OK...I'll ask you. How do you get Sadam to listen to you? Pascal won't answer, maybe you can.

when I wasn't even talking about Saddam? I was talking about how we relate to our *Allies* and that talking to our *Allies* that way won't engender any good will for us to push our policies around.

Yes, I know what you are asking, but I'm turning it around to the topic at hand: convincing Sadam in a similar manner.

(I didn't ask you why you tried to derail the topic, I just tried to use your comments to illustrate a point to Pascal.)

To clarify: You seem to think that we could have easily made the case and brought folks like France and Germany with us on this action.

On the other hand, you DON'T believe that we could have done the same with Iraq. (We would never convnice them to peacfully disarm...)

Why?

Sigh.

That is what we should be debating imo. The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen. Imo it was an open and closed case, but this administration made it so murky that it was easy for those who would have opposed us anyways (france as a huge example) to take that and muck up the entire argument, then get most of the world against us.

I answered your assertion that I believe we could have brought countries like France and Germany on board easily. As I stated, they would have opposed us anyway. But when they're able to convince much of the "fence sitters" of the world to their side, and we're not, that's what I'd call a total diplomatic failure.

Let's get one point clear. Saddam Hussein's regime has been violating UN resolutions "under-the-radar" for over a decade now.

I answered the reason why I think convincing Saddam was pretty futile. However, you don't go to the UN publicly grumbling "Well this isn't going to work anyways. So why are we doing it??" That does nothing but engender distrust and ill-will with the very people we can seriously bring to our cause.

As for the topic, I didn't derail anything. The topic on the page that I got to was talking about Saddam Hussein and the use of force being necessary, not the islamicizing of this war. I addressed what was currently being discussed. I had nothing to add to the original discussion, so I did not chime in. But it shifted and I felt I had something to add to the conversation, thus I did so.

Just because traditionally, we agree on many things with France / Germany and are "allies?" Does that mean we are bound to always reach an amicable agreement on how to proceed? Has it dawned on you that no matter what we argued, or how we argue it, we might just end up agreeing to disagree? (Like we do with Sadam?)

See above Joe.

God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer. And it is infuriating to be chastized instead of just being asked for a clarification.

The point is Joe, you went in the complete opposite direction that I was going. You asked questions that I had already answered and made assertions that were completely false, and you would have seen if you had simply read.

*That* is what infuriates me. That I have to say things two, three, four times before you finally see what's being said, if ever.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I stated, they would have opposed us anyway. But when they're able to convince much of the "fence sitters" of the world to their side, and we're not, that's what I'd call a total diplomatic failure.

said, if ever.[/quote]

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that France is a better bullshit artist than the U.S. is. Yay France. I agree with you too.

In any case, it seems to me that one of the "reasons" why a good portion of the world is "ganging up on us", is because we don't have U.N. support.

If France would have opposed us anyway, we would not have UN support. Security council veto=no UN backing of force.

Bit of a problem, wouldn't you say? Why do you see this as so clear cut?

The point is Joe, you went in the complete opposite direction that I was going. You asked questions that I had already answered and made assertions that were completely false, and you would have seen if you had simply read.

Unfortunately, I was reading in the context of the topic at hand. Sue me. Next time I'll heed the warning when you explicitly state what YOU feel "this topic should be about," rather than what it's was, um, actually about.

To address a specific point of your, less I be subjected to your wrath of not responding to every sentence:

However, you don't go to the UN publicly grumbling "Well this isn't going to work anyways. So why are we doing it??"

When someone goes to the UN, despite the fact that we didn't have to, just like past presidents didn't when taking action, you don't thumb your nose and say "we're not going to listen, no matter what you have to say."

The bottom line is "diplomatic failures" are TWO WAY STREETS.

 

[Natoma]

As I stated, they would have opposed us anyway. But when they're able to convince much of the "fence sitters" of the world to their side, and we're not, that's what I'd call a total diplomatic failure.

said, if ever.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that France is a better bullshit artist than the U.S. is. Yay France. I agree with you too.

In any case, it seems to me that one of the "reasons" why a good portion of the world is "ganging up on us", is because we don't have U.N. support.

If France would have opposed us anyway, we would not have UN support. Security council veto=no UN backing of force.

Bit of a problem, wouldn't you say? Why do you see this as so clear cut?

Clinton subverted the UN when we went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda I believe. Why didn't the UN get up in arms about those instances? Why didn't the world at large oppose us?

Because we handled the matter diplomatically. We had the UN's *implicit* approval, and thus there was no uproar. Whether or not France and Germany would have vetoed us is moot. If we had gone to the UN from the very beginning and floated, clearly, concisely, and without bias why Saddam Hussein's time is up, then the court of public opinion would have more than likely swayed to our side.

But no, instead we used "Evil doer" and "Well he's a terrorist and harbors weapons of mass destruction and kills his own people!" as our argument. Gee, there are a lot of other dictators that do that around the world as well, but we're not going after them. See the diametrically opposed policies toward Iraq and North Korea as a prime example.

*That* is the opening that the people that would have opposed us anyways took. They were able to articulate their "reasons" far better than we were, and in the end it ended up as a complete diplomatic failure for us because they mucked up the debate and got it off course from what it should have been. Instead of a discussion on the evils of saddam hussein and what he's done, it became a discussion on the evils of america and how we need to be kept in check.

If that's not a diplomatic failure, I don't know what is.

The point is Joe, you went in the complete opposite direction that I was going. You asked questions that I had already answered and made assertions that were completely false, and you would have seen if you had simply read.

Unfortunately, I was reading in the context of the topic at hand. Sue me. Next time I'll heed the warning when you explicitly state what YOU feel "this topic should be about," rather than what it's was, um, actually about.

And that's the point Joe. I made a few statements regarding the topic at hand, and I interjected my opinion, as *everyone* has done on this thread. Yet you seem to take it personally (hence the uppercasing of YOU in the sentence "I'll heed the warning when you explicitly state what YOU feel "this topic should be about," rather than what it's was, um, actually about."). As if I'm trying to order people around, or walk about as some high-falutin character instead of just talking about things, and giving my opinion in a concise, calm manner.

Please don't tell me that you're that tunnel visioned that you never are able to segue into other discussions without getting the two mixed up.

To address a specific point of your, less I be subjected to your wrath of not responding to every sentence:

However, you don't go to the UN publicly grumbling "Well this isn't going to work anyways. So why are we doing it??"

When someone goes to the UN, despite the fact that we didn't have to, just like past presidents didn't when taking action, you don't thumb your nose and say "we're not going to listen, no matter what you have to say."

The bottom line is "diplomatic failures" are TWO WAY STREETS.

It wasn't a failure to not bring France and Germany along with us. They were most likely going to be intransigent anyways (see france's attempts over the past decade+ to undermine every single resolution that was put forth as terms of the cease fire in 1991).

The diplomatic failure was us not convincing the fence sitters, the rest of the world, of our position. The court of global public opinion is far stronger than the UN. Clinton's administration had it when he went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda. That's why no one complained at the time. He had made the case to the american public, and the world.

The diplomats this time around most certainly have not, and it cost us.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Clinton subverted the UN when we went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda I believe. Why didn't the UN get up in arms about those instances? Why didn't the world at large oppose us?

Because we handled the matter diplomatically. We had the UN's *implicit* approval, and thus there was no uproar.

That's a new one. "Implicit" approval? So that's OK not because there was diploatic success....but no diplomacy at all.

I would have preferred that as well.

Whether or not France and Germany would have vetoed us is moot.

As is the case with Iraq. They did veto us. And it's moot.

If we had gone to the UN from the very beginning and floated, clearly, concisely, and without bias why Saddam Hussein's time is up, then the court of public opinion would have more than likely swayed to our side.

No matter how we approached the UN, it's more than likely that public opinion wouldn't be swayed to our side. Next.

But no, instead we used "Evil doer" and "Well he's a terrorist and harbors weapons of mass destruction and kills his own people!" as our argument.

Yes, truth be damned.

Gee, there are a lot of other dictators that do that around the world as well, but we're not going after them. See the diametrically opposed policies toward Iraq and North Korea as a prime example.

Different situations, which have been discussed thoroughly onthis board before.

*That* is the opening that the people that would have opposed us anyways took. They were able to articulate their "reasons" far better than we were...

Someone else asked it. YOU, Natoma, please "articulate those reasons as the administration should have", such that everyone just magically falls in line.

...and in the end it ended up as a complete diplomatic failure for us because they mucked up the debate and got it off course from what it should have been. Instead of a discussion on the evils of saddam hussein and what he's done, it became a discussion on the evils of america and how we need to be kept in check.

I agree that's the result of the diplomatic failure, but I believe we would be in the same position no matter what approach we took. The UN would not sanction this action, the Arab street certainly would not like this action.

If that's not a diplomatic failure, I don't know what is.

Any time an agreement is not reached, it's a "diplomatic failure" by definition. This is no exception. You seem to assert that diplomatic success is dependent on one side of the table though.

[snip furhter pettiness about "the topic at hand" in interests of civility]

It wasn't a failure to not bring France and Germany along with us. They were most likely going to be intransigent anyways (see france's attempts over the past decade+ to undermine every single resolution that was put forth as terms of the cease fire in 1991).

Agreed.

The diplomatic failure was us not convincing the fence sitters,

Who are these FENCE SITTERS that you keep talking about?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html

As I see it, we have a good portion of the fence sitters. Some we do, some we dont. Do you expect the Arab street to go along with us? Where is the list of "Anti-Coalition" countries? (As opposed to the "abstaining" countries?)

the rest of the world, of our position. The court of global public opinion is far stronger than the UN.

Oh, do you mean "fence sitters" as just "public" opinion and not UN countries?

Clinton's administration had it when he went into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda.

Because Clinton is a leftist. Of course he has Euro support "by default." Conservative = direct threat! Watch out for this guy! in the eyes of most "non Americans" (and Half of Americans for that matter.)

That's why no one complained at the time. He had made the case to the american public, and the world.

I disagree. He made much less of a case to the American public and the world than Bush did before action was taken. There was MUCH more debate in fact and public airing of views before action was taken in the Iraq case. (And given the continued support for the action by the American public, I'd say American's are convinced of the case, wouldn't you?)

It's not that he hasn't stated his case. It's that he is inherently distrusted by "the popular world" because he is a conservative. There is no "implicit agreement", because he's not a liberal.

It's just that we have a conservative leader at this time, so he is by default labeled as such things as a "Cowboy" etc., before he is even given a chance to explain his view. He's been labeled that way since before his election by "the public stage."

Not really fair.

The diplomats this time around most certainly have not, and it cost us.

Cost us what, exactly?

 

[pax]

Asking him for another solution is like asking him how the war should be fought as if he were a career general. These types of questions are unfair because they put an end to the discussion. They dont so much display the lack of knowledge on one part as the on the part of the one asking. 3\4 of the world had a solution which was working before the US went in and attacked. It was slow but it was working. Forceful diplomacy. Oddly enough it was the US that initiated that. If you think you can call forceful diplomacy war your mistaken. Diplomacy has gradients. War is all or nothing. We'll never know now if it couldnt have worked in Iraq but it was working till the war started...

Now we have to live with 50 odd regimes who are feverously attempting to get nukes as that has been indicated as the one line the US wont cross no matter how bad the regime.

Very well said. Now the logic of war and mighty will prevail around the world.

The effects are perceptibe only in the long term. Probably many nations are reconsidering their position. Few like Russia will openlly express it.

Dont think you guys really know how freaking easy it is to hide chemical and bioligical weapons in Iraq.

1/ Go to desert
2/ Dig huge hole
3/ Build bunker
4/ Put some of your WMD there
5/ Cover with sand
6/ Voilá! No one will ever find your WMD UNLESS you tell the inspectors where that bunker is and the likelyhood of that is as close to nil as it can get.

-Neutrality-

Been gone the weekend and guess I missed quite a bit of the discussion... Looks like it went pretty well ...

Heres what even easier to do:
1\ develop bio\chem\nuke programs for 20+ years
2\ hide most of that program from the public
3\ hide the most important part of the program after losing gulf war '91 (bio program) while giving up as much as possible to satisfy the winner of the war (chem and nuclear)
4\ gamble with inspectors and diplomacy... (and get lazy in the process thinking it could last forever)
5\ upon failure and invasion make vague threats of total war on enemy (which could be misconstrued as propaganda for arab and domestic purposes)
6\ near endgame give your best bio weapon to a terrorist...

Personally im crossing my fingers over the next year or 2... after that Ill be breathing slightly easier year after year...