Why they distrust us

[Joe DeFuria]

....and from that understood that committing aggressive attacks such as those waged by the terrorist would serve to vindicate the instigation of violence.

Agreed. And that's why we aren't going to hijak Iraqi airplanes filled with civilians and run them into civilian targets with the express purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as our "response."

In short, our forthcoming "aggresive attack" on Iraq is NOTHING "such as thoses" waged by terrorists on us.

I know you obviously disagree with that. But I can not let your implication that any attack on Iraq is not much different than terrorist attacks themselves, go unchallenged.

exactly, i don't belive that i should be able to kill someone in this society just because i have convinced myself that the person might kill me first.

And where is it stated that our goal is to kill iraqis or even kill Sadam, because we think Iraqis might kill us first?

Our core disagreement is this:

YOU believe that the fact that civilians (and possibly Sadam himself) will be killed as a consequence to the action to oust Sadam's regime, is the NO DIFFERENT than us going into Iraq purposely killing as many Iraqi's as we can because "Iraq" is a threat to us.

The two are COMPLETELY different, IMO.

but if there is nothing like that to be found i would not be shocked if some evidence was manufactured to serve the same purpose; after all there are a lot of people who think that what others belive is more important than the truth and understanding that i cannot see that this course is a good one to follow.

I was wrong. I said there would be accusations of manufacturing / plantig evidence AFTER it was found. It looks like it's begun PRE-EMPTIVELY.

 

[Deflection]

I thought one of interesting ideas was the whole "substance versus style" theme that showed up many times in the article. In many cases "style" of the administration is causing undesired effects that the "substance" doesn't substantiate.

To me, I particulary see this in the Iraq conflict. The administration has spent the better part of year(longer if you count all the resolutions since the original Gulf War) trying to work with the UN on Iraq resolutions acceptable to everyone. At the same time they are deploying troops and giving Iraq ultimatums.

To many this is seen as US bypassing diplomacy in a unilateral way. To me, it seems like US for a long time tried to make the threat seem real to Iraq so that they would capitulate while still working with the UN. In some respects it worked, such as Saddam admitting to having missles recently that were not on their original submission to the UN. Saddam cetainly did nothing with the UN resolutions until the US made the threat seem real. Kicking out inspectors for years etc. At some point the US will go to war with Iraq if th esituation continues but all substance indications at this point show that it would prefer not to.

So far,
style -- US ignoring UN, wants war with Iraq.
substance -- US has not gone to war with Iraq, keeps seeking some sort agreeable consensus resolution.

Ironically, Clinton was viewed by many Americans as the ultimate in style over substance. His actions rarely reflected what he said.

The Kyoto treaty is whole other bag of worms. I wrote a paper on this back in college. I think the main idea of the treaty is laudable but the treaty itself had many difficulties. They say the devil is in the details.

 

[Silent_One]

As a side-note, some of us have lived with terrorism on our home soil for decades now (within western Europe: UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, possibly others I'm unaware of). Nothing individually on the scale of 9/11 of course, but decades of constant threat has a scale all of its own

True. Europe has had to deal with terrorist groups throuout the 1970's to the 1990's. The fact that many European countries have long experienced terrorism helped ensure a great deal of empathy and cooperation after 9/11. However historically European's responces to terrorism has been, in the long run, more of a negotiated and diplomatic responce. This has happened with the IRA and other groups. Even HAMAS has apologized for inadvertently killing an American in the Hebrew University bombing last year(?). With Al Qaeda, however, we are faced with a international threat which is only interested in bringing goverments down, no negotiations. Europeans need to be more responsive in their homeland security measures. Their previous methods with dealing with terrorists do not apply with the "new rules".

 

[kyleb]

Agreed. And that's why we aren't going to hijak Iraqi airplanes filled with civilians and run them into civilian targets with the express purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as our "response."

In short, our forthcoming "aggresive attack" on Iraq is NOTHING "such as thoses" waged by terrorists on us.

I know you obviously disagree with that. But I can not let your implication that any attack on Iraq is not much different than terrorist attacks themselves, go unchallenged.

i know this, we have come up with what has been deemed by supporters to be a "new and better plan" to committing aggressive attacks. but i still disagree with the underling logic and hence i am unable to accept the plan.

And where is it stated that our goal is to kill iraqis or even kill Sadam, because we think Iraqis might kill us first?

well if there was an example of a war without killing i might be able to separate the two, but as it stands i have seen that they go hand in hand.

Our core disagreement is this:

YOU believe that the fact that civilians (and possibly Sadam himself) will be killed as a consequence to the action to oust Sadam's regime, is the NO DIFFERENT than us going into Iraq purposely killing as many Iraqi's as we can because "Iraq" is a threat to us.

The two are COMPLETELY different, IMO.

no, i find the former much more favorable than the ladder, and i know that the former is the plan; however i still argue that both are on the side of bad and i think we should be working on the side of good.

I was wrong. I said there would be accusations of manufacturing / plantig evidence AFTER it was found. It looks like it's begun PRE-EMPTIVELY.

well i was right when i said accusations of evidence would be brought up to initiate a preemptive strike, so if you call accusations off i will call mine off as well. that seems only fair to me.

oh and in my opinion Clinton was nothing more than a used car salesman in a nice suit. i was very happy to see his time in office end, but unfortunately didn't realize that what was coming next i would not find any better.

 

[DemoCoder]

The irony of Kyoto is that we were this close to agreeing to stick with it, but the French fuqued us again. Many leftists claim that even though Kyoto is flawed, the US should have tried to make changes in it that would satisfy it. Well, we tried at one point, which was to have the onerous limits on the US slightly reduced by utilizing our massive carbon sink as credit. The other change we pushed was emissions credit trading. Other countries with large forests agree with us (including Japan) and were pushing the request too. Poor countries love emissions trading. Russia likes it (has lots of forest sink) France has not reforsted like the US, and led a backdoor diplomatic effort to humilate US diplomats. The Moreover, Chirac and several French diplomats went to the press and publically berated the US. One of the French diplomats made comments that make Rumsfeld look positively nice. The French Environmental Minister is the worse, and is practically a greenpeace-style zealot.

In any case, everyone knows that Kyoto 1.0 isn't going to do anything, and is mainly to get people signed up and get the ball rolling. It's symbolic. The US simply wanted some concession, a token concession, that it could take to Congress and get the thing passed, something to show good faith on the part of the EU. The British tried to broker the deal between the US and EU.

First, we asked for 310 million tons of carbon credit (the estimated amount we "soak" up). Then we offered to cut that request back to 110 million. Then 75 million, and finally only 40 million. The 40 million in credit would have done barely anything to change the environmental status quo, and would have been enough to get Kyoto up for another vote, but the French vehemently rejected ANY concessions, not soundingen a note of willingness to compromise. Then went to the press and attacked the US while these negotiations were happening.

The Clinton administration left in disgust. Only a few months left in office anyway. Hope would fall to the Bush administration. But with the French acting so hostile to any modifications to Kyoto, can you even blame Bush for pulling out? The treaty is super-flawed anyway and not in our best interest (strike #1), and any attempt to modify it is shot down (strike #2), and #3 we are publically insulted by EU ministers over it (strike #3)

Long before we were making "axis of evil" statements, the EU environmental ministers were sounding off negative rhetoric against us. Is it any wonder relations over this broke down? I don't think Bush is all that suave at international relations, but can you lay the blame solely on him? Especially since Mr Suave himself, Clinton, abandoned late state negotiations.

 

[Natoma]

I actually just finished reading that article in my copy of Newsweek that came in the mail today and I have to say that I agree completely with Zakaria (and that's pretty rare for me. hehe.)

As an american, I find that I completely distrust this administration because of the way it has dealt with not only the world, but with the american populace as well. If Bush were truly interested in the UN and making the inspection process work, he would have pulled the leash back on Cheney and Rumsfeld long ago and spoke with a unified voice.

Instead you have Bush going to the United Nations, and the next day Rumsfeld basically calling the UN a crock and the French and Germans 'irrelevant'. That's not what I call good diplomacy. I honestly believe that Saddam needs to be removed. But if we as Americans want the world to come along with us, we need to be a little more diplomatic with how we approach things.

People aren't automatons that will go along just because something is the 'right thing to do'. And it's that simple lesson of diplomacy that is still lost on this administration. A little diplomacy from the get go would have, imo, made this entire process go a hell of a lot smoother than it has, and it would have allowed the US to maintain the feeling of goodwill that we enjoyed for the first year after 9/11.

Unfortunately nowadays that goodwill is all but vanished.

 

[pascal]

The interresting side is that few countries are really supporting US.

The oil conspiracy comes from places like Iraq´s enemies (Saudi Arabia)

Seven years or so ago, he saw a letter addressed to ex-President Clinton by a group of politicians advising him to attack Iraq, occupy the country and operate the oilfields.

Those who signed the letter are now in power - including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2851723.stm

When an Iraq enemy says that US only want oil then what to believe?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2847905.stm

 

[pax]

Ive read elsewhere that Iraq could pump as much as 10-12 million barrels a day by the end of the decade... this depends on how much investment will be allowed in and how many companies will bother if the price of oil were to drop too low ect... Arguments are built on perspective and insight in the industry... Other observers vary slightly to moderately vs that article but any developpment indeed depends on the next gov of Iraq and whom it can deal with as well as market forces...

Almost all Ive read agree the price of oil will never go very low again in the sub 20$ range as world consumption is just increasing too rapidly... both price and consumption will in fact consistently rise in the long term so Id be very surprised that the development of the oil reserves in Iraq would stall...

Iraqis are hard negociators usually tho... they squeeze every penny out of their deals but this is an unusual situation... for sure there will be plenty of scrutiny and I dont think any odd dealings if they occur will go unnoticed.

 

[kyleb]

and despite all this people and the fact that oil is a very limit resource on a long term scale, people can do nothing but cry out about weapons of mass destruction when France helps to create an alternative power source for Iraq. now i am not discounting the dangers involved, or even supporting the actions of France and Iraq on this; simply pointing out that i am disgruntled by people who completely overlook the good in favor of pointing their finger at the bad.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm trying to find a point in there somewhere.... :?

 

[kyleb]

the point was that i belive equal consideration is not shown for both sides of many of the current issues, and imbalance leads to injustice. do you not see any truth in that Joe?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

the point was that i belive equal consideration is not shown for both sides of many of the current issues, and imbalance leads to injustice. do you not see any truth in that Joe?

That imbalance leads to injustice? Sure...just not sure where I see imbalance in this situation. All sides are pointing all figers at everyone else. Seems pretty balanced to me.

 

[kyleb]

well i am at a loss as to how i might make my postion any clearer than i already did so i suppose i will just have to leave it at that.

 

[pax]

As much as I am anti war I think the oil question isnt helping us kyleb. The issue will be scrutinized after the war (if things are manageable 'after' the war). Ther is one good question tho. What effect would limiting Iraqs' oil sales to its oil for food program do to the worlds need for oil in the long term. how much faster would the world 'run out of oil' if it wasnt made readily available.

But all that is moot. Just another interesting question todays media wont dare ask. Instead we get the inane hyperbole like Lou Dobbs tonight. He should apply for a job with foxnews. I really think the news media should avoid blaming anyone until this is over... Why I bother asking this here I dont know... must be the lack of sleep I am and will be getting over the next few days ...

 

[horvendile]

Since the post I'm answering to is way back on the first page , I'll try to keep short and restrict myself to what I consider the point. For me, that means leaving the Iraq situation out of the question. The discontent with the US that I'm talking about existed before 9/11.

(Not to mention that your command of the English is better than most who speak it as a primary or only language!)

Thanks! But writing it is so s-l-o-w for me... I can never keep up!

Concerning important (my choice of adjective) treatises:

"Important" is in the eye of the beholder. If the USA doesn't think it's important (or of lower priority), does that by definition make us arrogant?

No, not by definition. But it can lead to very real problems, for no other conceivable reason, that the rest of the world can see, than that the US simply doesn't like international treatises.
I will limit myself to one example which I think is important in several ways: The ICC.
The ICC is working. Several of the war criminals from former Yugoslavia have been convicted. It is a strong message to all dictators and war criminals: You Are Not Safe. Yet, USA refuses to acknowledge it, and has even tried to sabotage it. Why? The official reason (I'm not saying that there is another hidden) is that the US doesn't want its own citizens indicted.
(Note: On second thought, I'm not entirely sure about the "official" status; it might be only other sources' guesses. I don't remember.)
But, as I said earlier, it's not hard not to be indicted by the ICC. Just avoid genocide.
OK, but what's the problem, assuming that USA doesn't go to genocide?
The problem arises from USA being the most powerful state. USA not ratificing gives other states of dubious morality an alibi not to participate. Liechtenstein not participating (they do, by the way) wouldn't be that disastrous; no country could say that "Why should we participate when Liechtenstein doesn't? If they don't need to, why should we?". That would be ridiculous.
Now, exchange Liechtenstein for USA, and it is another matter entirely.

The same goes for many other situations, e.g. Kyoto. USA being so powerful, both by military and economic standards, is exactly why it is important that international treatises are acknowledged.

I guess you could say that USA being powerful enough to employ a la carte multilaterism (I think Bush is on the record before 9/11 saying that this is indeed the new order of the day) is the very reason that it is so important that it is not done!

USA has the chance to accomplish much good at very small costs, just by using the power of international cooperation and the Good Example.
That is what I believe.

 

[DemoCoder]

Kyoto is not a "small cost". Do you advocate that we sign any and all international treaties, no matter what the context, simply because they are international treaties? Doesn't the US have the right to evaluate the content of treaties and actually vote against some of them? Don't we reserve the right to negotiate the modification of such treaties, instead of taking ultimatums from French ministers?


The ICC runs the danger of being a kangaroo court. Look at the way the UN conference on Racism was run. US pulled out because of the circus. The concept of racism has been cheapened. Now consider that Genocide could equally be diluted and applied to any American operation.

For example, Clintons' attack on the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory has been called genocidal by some chomskyites. Ditto for the cluster bombing of Kosovo. Is dropping cluster bombs an act of genocide?


Like the word "terrorism", there is no clear cut meaning what what is an act of genocide, just as "evil" has many definitions, and those definitions could easily be manipulated by anti-US spheres of influence within the ICC. Nazi and rape are two other overused words, often applied to anything and everything you disagree with.

Look, I'm not even sure Saddam Hussein could be brought up on genocide charges. Could someone define genocide, and tell me why the gassing of Iranian troops is genocide, but the use of WMD during WWI and WWII weren't? Was the bombing of Dresden genocide? Hiroshima?
This court will be a circus, the same way the Milosevic trial is a circus today.


I can see it now. Like Libya chairing the human rights commission, or Iraq chairing the disarmament commission, you get Iran, or Serbia, or Egypt, or someone else with an axe to grind as the lead prosector or one of the judges on the ICC. Then, some US bomb accidently goes astray and blows up a hospital. US is hauled into court on charges of genocide. US uses new e-bomb, some people with heart pacemakers die. Genocide. US causes someone to trip and fall in the middle east and skin their knee: genocide. Get the picture?

Since the US makes up the bulk of military power in the world, it will face the most charges, the most often, by those seeking to fight its power assymetrically anyway it can, even if that includes taking any grievance and turning it into an ICC trial.


I personally would rather try US war criminals in the US. IMHO, the US joining the ICC would just be us allowing the lynching of our citizens.

 

[pascal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2847905.stm

I have already seen this one too. The problem is the source of the first article, someone with "administrative" experience and contacts and that is supposed to be an enemy of Iraq.

Also Daniel expect doubling the production but Yamani talk about quadruplicate the production. Is not it just a question of investment, specially if Iraq oil is so easy to extract as some people say?

Also, what about the letter?

edited: This post looks like of topic but think how a war without consensus will be subject of large suspicious and positions like above.

 

[horvendile]

Kyoto is not a "small cost".

Other countries have succeeded in introducing significant CO2 saving measures, and it turned out that it wasn't expensive. On the contrary, it
a) Generated new jobs through the research
b) Saved costs by lowering energy usage.

Do you advocate that we sign any and all international treaties, no matter what the context, simply because they are international treaties?

No.

Doesn't the US have the right to evaluate the content of treaties and actually vote against some of them? Don't we reserve the right to negotiate the modification of such treaties, instead of taking ultimatums from French ministers?

Firstly, the French have never seemed very, er, balanced, so I won't argue that particular point. (And don't get me started on French farmers in EU... )
Secondly, yes, the US has the right to do so. But legal right does not always equal what should be done, and I maintain that the US has been wrong in several of these cases. Not legally wrong, but wrong nevertheless.

The ICC runs the danger of being a kangaroo court. Look at the way the UN conference on Racism was run.

But it isn't. I agree on the Rasism conference, but that has nothing to do with the ICC.

This court will be a circus, the same way the Milosevic trial is a circus today.

Again, no, apparently not. Milosevic is a clown, yes, but so far he has only made himself look ridiculous. I can of course not guarantee that the ICC will work well forever, but right now, it's working better than anything we've seen for several decades. There was substantial fear that the ICC would turn out ridiculous (mostly because US refusing support), but so far, all such fears have turned out unfounded. The ICC is working, and it's working well.

I can see it now. Like Libya chairing the human rights commission

That is utterly silly, yes.

you get Iran, or Serbia, or Egypt, or someone else with an axe to grind as the lead prosector or one of the judges on the ICC. Then, some US bomb accidently goes astray and blows up a hospital. US is hauled into court on charges of genocide. US uses new e-bomb, some people with heart pacemakers die.

But the legal framework concerning genocide is nothing like you describe it. Killing lots of enemies in war does not equal genocide. Not even accidently killing civilians is genocide. Genocide implies systematically aiming for the extinction of a whole ethnic group. Accidently bombing a hospital does not come near. And people with pacemakers are not an ethnic group.
Also, the ICC has a very strict legal framework. It is not a formalised lynching led by whoever leads the court.

Since the US makes up the bulk of military power in the world, it will face the most charges, the most often, by those seeking to fight its power assymetrically anyway it can, even if that includes taking any grievance and turning it into an ICC trial.

It is of course possible that voices will be raised in this direction. But so long as the accusations are invalid, what's the worry? It's not like ICC is in the habit of hauling away people at any groundless accusation. So far, they have gone to great lengths to be sure what they're doing before they do it.

 

[Himself]

The US is an imperialist state akin to Nazi-Germany?

Now I've heard it all.

No, I said the situation was not totally unlike world war II. You have one country invading other countries for reasons that it finds valid but few other countries do. The leader of the invader has almost unanimous support due to patriotism, very strong nationalism in general. Contrary views are unpatriotic and immoral even when it's not being characterized as "leftist", "liberal", "chicken", etc, etc. Just about any excuse will do to justify invasion and placate the rest of the world, evidence is toss off without checking it so long as it supports their pont of view. And for a more direct comparison, if from a different slant, just like WWII, America sees itself as the saviour of the world, the hero rushing in to right wrongs, fighting evil and saving the day for the cause of truth, justice and the American way. It's a war that is a cause. The war I can tolerate somewhat as a UN thing just doing a job, the linking of it as a cause of rooting out evil is very dangerous because there will always be someone that is going to get the label of evil. It's a very dangerous precedent for that reason and for the idea of invasion as a deterent or preemptive strike by removing the government.