Saddam Arrested

[notAFanB]

Do you realize Mugabe is still in power? How does Europe plan to remove this invididual and government.

They (as in the political forces in Europe) plan to do no such thing. Condemnation coupled with political economical sanctions as a means of attrition are use to 'persuade' sane leaders to reconsider.

Never said they were useless. I said they weren't good at removing dictators.

They tend not too in the short term.

 

[Legion]

They (as in the political forces in Europe) plan to do no such thing. Condemnation coupled with political economical sanctions as a means of attrition are use to 'persuade' sane leaders to reconsider.

This seems to be more harmful to the people of Zimbabwe then to the "dictator."

They tend not too in the short term.

Opportunity cost I suppose. Less of your dead over time verses more of theirs.

 

[CorwinB]

I'm not defending him, I'm attacking your lack of knowledge. You just stating that they French and English "declared war" as if that was anything but a political move is wrong.

Where did I state that except in your mind ? I said "declared war", nothing else. That further conduit of the war was totally inept (especially on the French side, the so called "Funny war" ("drôle de guerre"), I totally agree.

Just to sum it up : ByteMe, in his monochromatic view of the world were the US are the holy knight in shining armor and the UK its fidel squire, said he liked UK because they stepped in WW2 when "they didn't have to", to which I answered they declared war on Germany because of their treaty with Poland, and that for most countries except the good Ol' US of A, honoring treaties to allies generally counts as "having to".

 

[London Geezer]

This seems to be more harmful to the people of Zimbabwe then to the "dictator."

EXACTLY! Same scenario of every US-sanction-striken country out there!

What do YOU suggest then Legion? Because either I can't read, or you're being very contraddicting.
U're saying bombs are good, then say u're not suggesting bombing everyone is a solution, then turn around saying that negotiations are useless (in removing dictators). Then you make it look like a good thing that the US is/was sanctioning countries, then turn around saying the very intelligent "but sanctioning Zimbabwe would only hurt its people".
I don't get you.
What do YOU suggest?

Opportunity cost I suppose. Less of your dead over time verses more of theirs.

Errrmm that's not really an opportunity cost, but i digress...

 

[notAFanB]

for the record (and to avoid a pssing match), can someone explain to me the original aims of sanctions versus their actual effectiveness?

 

[Vince]

to which I answered they declared war on Germany because of their treaty with Poland, and that for most countries except the good Ol' US of A, honoring treaties to allies generally counts as "having to".

Which is why I stepped in and stated that just because you legally "declare war" doesn't mean shit as the British and French let the German's take Poland and then Norway and Finland later and it took the invasion of France itself for them to reach a state of active war.

 

[London Geezer]

for the record (and to avoid a pssing match), can someone explain to me the original aims of sanctions versus their actual effectiveness?

In a perfect world, sanctions are supposed to scare country leaders away. In the real world, they only hurt the people, while the leaders have it very easy in their palaces at the expense of the people (not like one needs a Nobel Prize for Quantum Physics to realise that beforehand).

That is, to put it simply...

 

[pax]

Tho France and Britains reticence at attacking Germany directly was obvious in 39-40. There is also the fact they werent ready for war then anymore than the US was had it been attacked by Japan at that time... Im not sure what alied startegy was at the time maybe they hoped enough allies would come online to counter the nazi threat and some diplomacy could be had...

It was known Hilter feared the British commonwelath as it could supply Britain with huge amounts of supplies and manpower... Maybe the allies hoped that threat would be enough to dissuade Hitler...

 

[notAFanB]

for the record (and to avoid a pssing match), can someone explain to me the original aims of sanctions versus their actual effectiveness?

In a perfect world, sanctions are supposed to scare country leaders away. In the real world, they only hurt the people, while the leaders have it very easy in their palaces at the expense of the people (not like one needs a Nobel Prize for Quantum Physics to realise that beforehand).

That is, to put it simply...

well I realise that part, but what I was referring to is the theory behind it. that is, is it (as I have come to believe).

a: provide a negative incentive for said leader to continue in their current line of activies (genocide, flouting international law etc......)

b: pressure the nation so much that it either collapses (system reset) or allows for a fertile ground for rebellion/mass exodus.



it's never really been clear to me 'how' it's supposed to function effectively in case of extreme dictatorships (please nobody mention China)

 

[London Geezer]

Besides the useless posturing of Pax is see little else.

He'll be happy to read that
Besides, you seem to be using the word "useless" rather sparingly. Might want to go to that much loved dictionary of yours and see how you can and how you cannot use it.
Unless of course you use your usual "But i didn't say that" card... :|

 

[Legion]

This seems to be more harmful to the people of Zimbabwe then to the "dictator."

EXACTLY! Same scenario of every US-sanction-striken country out there!

Not true. Infact delaying the enevitable with negotiations is what causes the deaths. If we had attack Iraq and removed Saddam a long time ago not as many would have died up to date. The UN had its hands in the Oil for Food Act as the US. I do not blame either entity for the problem! If Saddam had wanted to care for his people he could have with the billions he received. However this doesn't change the facts. If Saddam had been removed these people could still be alive today.

What do YOU suggest then Legion? Because either I can't read, or you're being very contraddicting.

I am not being very contradicting. Rather you are selectively reading.

U're saying bombs are good,

I am saying removing a dictator by force has been proven more successful over time then negotiations.

then say u're not suggesting bombing everyone is a solution,

London you are being completely ridiculous. Never were we discussing negotiations of nondicatorships.

then turn around saying that negotiations are useless (in removing dictators).

London i am not quite sure which world you live on but not every country is a dictatorship. Again i was never speaking in regards to negotiations with nondictatorships. Get and grip and learn to read context.

Then you make it look like a good thing that the US is/was sanctioning countries,

Excuse me? The UN/Europe and their sanctions/resolutions are hardly beneficial to anyone.

Apply sanctions to countries does come with its costs. Its different per situation and the government you are dealing with.

then turn around saying the very intelligent "but sanctioning Zimbabwe would only hurt its people".

London can't you see what i was saying? Mugabe is hardly worth the effort compared to other dictators. I was implying Europe was wasting its time taking down and easy target.

I don't get you.

No wonder. You can't seem to read all of what i have written and grasp any form of context. Perhaps your are too illogical?

What do YOU suggest?

I suggest that Mugabe is a rather toothless "dictator" not worthy of the US' removal. In other words your suggestion that the US should find oil and come to remove this "autocrat" is completely insipid.

Errrmm that's not really an opportunity cost, but i digress...

Actually yes it is.

 

[London Geezer]

well I realise that part, but what I was referring to is the theory behind it. that is, is it (as I have come to believe).

a: provide a negative incentive for said leader to continue in their current line of activies (genocide, flouting international law etc......)

b: pressure the nation so much that it either collapses (system reset) or allows for a fertile ground for rebellion/mass exodus.



it's never really been clear to me 'how' it's supposed to function effectively in case of extreme dictatorships (please nobody mention China)

CHINA!!!!!!!

Seriously, yes, all those situations are "expected" from a country that is subjected to sanctions. However it either ends with:

a) The leader just not caring

b) Revolutions take place, and it just becomes a useful shooting exercise for the leader's troops... If you know what i mean...

 

[pax]

Pretty easy to declare soemthing inevitable. To say diplomacy only puts off war. History doesnt say that. Plenty of wars have been avoided, shortened and stopped thru diplomacy.

 

[Legion]

He'll be happy to read that

I am sure he will. Then he might try and lure me into another purposeless debate about his idealistic world view while assuring me I just don't understand.

Besides, you seem to be using the word "useless" rather sparingly.

No, you just take me out of context when i was being completely sarcastic in order to attack my character.

Might want to go to that much loved dictionary of yours and see how you can and how you cannot use it.

use·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ysls)
adj.
Being or having no beneficial use; futile or ineffective.
Incapable of functioning or assisting; ineffectual: He panics easily and is useless in an emergency. See Synonyms at futile.

Hmmmm seems to fit well .

Unless of course you use your usual "But i didn't say that" card... :|

A preemptive strike on me accussing you of taking me out of context. Wow you have all your grounds covered.

 

[Legion]

Pretty easy to declare soemthing inevitable.

Its also pretty easy to say the contrary.

To say diplomacy only puts off war. History doesnt say that.

No one state diplomacy only putts off war in all conditions. Again, we were discussing the removal of dictators.

 

[London Geezer]

Legion, i know you think non-US citizens have a lower IQ, but i thought it was OBVIOUS that my "everyone" meant "every country with a dictator".
Of course i don't think every country is a dictatorship. Jesus...

Let me recap,
In you view, if Saddam was there as long as he was, then it's the UN fault. Of course the fact that the US (and not only them, to be fair) financed his goverment over the years doesn't matter. The fact that when the US decided to do something about it more than 10 years ago then suddenly retreated and left him in his place doesn't matter. The fact that he was there as long as he was, because it was in the interest of many countries (including the US) doesn't matter. The fact that in a moment of economic regression of the US, suddenly they become interested in the world's dictators who coincidentally live in extremely oil-rich countries, is just that, a coincidence.

oh well...

I must say something that might be a bit off topic.

If Saddam was there as long as he was, its because it was in the interest of many countries (including the US) that he would remain there. I strongly believe that one of, if not the main reason why pretty much every country opposed action on Iraq, was because they had something to lose with the fall of Saddam.
I'm not talking about the people, who generally opposed war because they genuinly think bombing civilians is wrong. I'm talking about the goverments around the world.
Governemts are like firms in my opinion. And firms have only one objective: maximise profits. And it's clear that there was (and still is) a lot of money around Iraq like there is around the whole middle east. That is why it is so difficult to reach a conclusion to those issues. Money and religion.
The 2 evil doers of this world. Money and Religion.

But that's my very conspiracy-theory-view of the world...

 

[London Geezer]

A preemptive strike on me accussing you of taking me out of context. Wow you have all your grounds covered.

Well i DID work in a Law Firm for two years after all

 

[notAFanB]

No one state diplomacy only putts off war in all conditions. Again, we were discussing the removal of dictators.

and how would you classify dictactors? is there a matter of degree that of which war is no the only valid option or not?

CHINA!!!!!!!

I'd much rather not

a) The leader just not caring

yes I have observed that.

b) Revolutions take place, and it just becomes a useful shooting exercise for the leader's troops... If you know what i mean...

eventually even the troops have to realise the nation is collapsing in the long run. the problem is that the sanctions have only a minor (excuse my language) effect in the long term.

 

[London Geezer]

eventually even the troops have to realise the nation is collapsing in the long run. the problem is that the sanctions have only a minor (excuse my language) effect in the long term.

I think we never saw the effects of sanctions over the long term because before the "term" becomes "long", the countries either (1) start bombing each other, (2) the poor country collapses, but with the leader still in place walking over the bodies of his own people.
Actually yes, we have seen long-ish-term results. It's just that there not being any, we can't see them. :|

 

[Sxotty]

Pretty easy to declare soemthing inevitable. To say diplomacy only puts off war. History doesnt say that. Plenty of wars have been avoided, shortened and stopped thru diplomacy.

You my friend are inevitably wrong. You can never prove a war was avoided, it is only your opinion. The only way you can prove it is to have a time machine and try out different options.