>>> Improving economic conditions I agree is the best way to move toward freer societies(Vietnam, China spring to mind), but the Arab world has been given trillions of $ for oil--all of it squandered on the dictators. This was tolerable until 9-11. We must find a different way.<<<
The US, were it really intent on change things to the better, would have more support and more respect taking down Saddam if the US were first more forceful with Israel's repression of the Palestinians. Regarding the money? Hey, the powers that be liked Enron when Enron was good at getting; Worldcom and all the rest.
>>>-Our past history is very mixed. Plenty of bad(Latin America, Vietnam) & plenty of good(Japan, Kosovo, E. Timor).<<<
The Ugly American springs foremost to mind. You really think we were all that great in East Timor? That's a very, very heavy death count, that one.
>>>The Russians were defending their homeland against the Nazis. Do you really believe that Hussein has any support outside of the Baath party?<<<
Yes, he does. He's got 100,000 to 150,000 of the elite Republican Guard troops and 100,000 of special spy and intelligence police (sorta the SS types). That's a sizeable force to be defending a city of 5.5 million people, some of whom themselves will be armed. The military elite forces will see their own lives as threatened if the Americans take over, so they have reason to fight.
>>>I agree this is a risk with North Korea, but I think they are looking for food & not a fight.<<<
Any military strategist would want to hit America hardest when it is weakest. And a nation is weakest when it's fully engaged in a war somewhere else. But it's not simply North Korea. There's lots of hotspots out there.
>>>Again, I do not bleieve the Iraqi war will be long. I suspect that Hussein supporters will back down rather than die. He does not have the support of the Iraqis(perhaps we disagree on this?)<<<
See my answer above relative to the Battle for Baghdad.
>>>Come on. The Iranians hate Hussein & are trying to mend fences with the US. The Syrians voted for 1441 in the UN.<<<
UN Resolution, as was the US congressional resolution, passed largely on Iraqi nuclear fears which have largely subsided. One could reasonably argue they were tricked. Iran, meanwhile, if it became convinced that the US were going to invade Iran next, might conclude a team-up against the Americans might be better than going head-to-head. Iran, by the way, now has forces in Northern Iraq, and the government is on record as actually wanting Saddam to defeat the US.
>>> "enables OBL increase..." Yes. This is a good argument. More Al Qaeda recruits. It does give me pause. I also feel that a Democracy in Iraq could create a lot of goodwill in the longterm(if handled properly). Perhaps Bush is too inept to pull this off & it does worry me.<<<
OBL could be effective not so much at aiming for the Americans, but rather stirring unrest in nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan--encouraging rebellion and destablizing those nations, picking up additional recruits from the process. America in Iraq clearly opens this door. Right now, I suspect OBL has all of the enthusiasm as does a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader: G-O B-U-S-H !!!
>>>e) "What happens if the citizens of Turkey revolt against their government? Or the citizens of Saudi Arabia?" I have heard no signs that the Turkish population is seeing revolution. I HOPE THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT FALLS. The House of Faud pretends to be our friends but funded 9-11. Of course I am hoping for a Democracy. If Islamic extremists take over the country, I feel it is the same situation as now, but at least we will know they are our enemy.<<<
Who knows. Each of those countries are 85 percent or better opposed to this war. And Americans on sacred ground stirs anger.
>>>f) "What if the environmental consequences become greater than any we have known in the modern age?" You mean from the destruction of oil fields, I think. Yes, a decent argument. One thing we both agree on is that Bush wants those oil fields intact. I am assuming that he has a plan to protect them before hostilities break out. This is also a risk.<<<
I'm not sure about that since there is as much a strategy to oil of keeping it off the market as there is to keeping it on the market. Lots of money has gone into alternative oil investments. If Iraq's spickets open up, it could cause some problems for Bush's buddies who've got money committed elsewhere. However, controlling it all is the secure strategy. Whoever controls Iraq's source controls the future supply, but today's present price.
>>>g) "What if our traditional allies turn against us?" When the war is over, everyone will be clamoring for their piece of Iraq. I believe we have already cut a deal with the Russians that will protect their interests in Iraq in return for abstention in the UN. I suspect somnething similar will happen with France. I don't see the longterm threat here, especially if a Democrat wins the next election.<<<
I don't think it'll ever be the same if we move forward. I see Germany and France growing closer to Russia with some of the smaller nations following. A new power: the Euro against the dollar.
>>>h) "What if Americans find they can no longer comfortably travel?" Most of us already avoid places with Moslem populations. Again, I believe the European rift is a temporary one & that longterm a Democracy in Iraq makes the world safer for all of us as longterm goodwill is created in the Arab world.<<<
Most European nations have strong Muslim populations, as is true in southeast Asia.
.>>>i) "What will be the effects upon education?" I am concerned about the financial costs of this war. I am not in favor of paying alone. The US needs to pay for it's own problems(state deficits, state education). However, you neglect the longterm financial benefits of a free Iraq which is producing oil & becoming a trading partner of the US.<<<
Bush is having a difficult time organizing the Iraqis before the war. What could it possibly look like after the war? Bush says he'll rebuild infrastructure of Iraq? Gee, pick a state and call any governor--lots of help needed here.
>>>If Democracy in Iraq does not take root, my arguments are destroyed. There is of course no guarantee here. It is a scary thought & this also gives me pause. I do need to study the history of the Iraqi factions further, but my impression is that Iraq is the most secular of the Arab countries, making the people more accepting of each other.<<<
Perhaps it well enough organized that we should go in and make sure every family has a family member, friend or neighbor who becomes dead. Saddam doesn't want to take over the world. He wants to be the big cheese of the Arab world. He wants to be known as the one who defied the giant and stood against great odds. Arab historians don't read the same way American historians do. In some ways, Saddam has already won. I think the only possible way Bush could be successful is if he moves immediately to Israel and forces change there. But he can't. He's gotta foremost deal with North Korea and that could well become time-consuming.
>>>Bush wants the oil-agreed. I had not thought of the military aspect-keeping bases there to replace the Saudi bases.<<<
The military base is very important. Once the Iraq issue is settled the Saudis are giving the US military the boot.
>>>Look, the best arguments against this war are the financial costs(which we will bear the brunt of) & the fact that Iraq is already contained & not threatening anyone. Also that Bush is a moron.<<<
I think the best argument against the war is it's not a just war, according to three very commonly accepted principles: a) it's not in our own self-defense and Iraq's neighbors don't want it; b) not all remedies have been exhausted, especially since the inspection process is showing new results; and c) the war itself will be worse than not having the war--3,000 kills from 9/11 cannot possibly compare to hundreds of thousands killed from the potential of this war.
>>>For the war, we have the chance to break the cycle of Arab dictatorships funding Islamic fundamentalism & anti-Americanism which could mean the transformation of the Arab world. Welcoming Iraq back into the world also has longterm economic benefits. The Economist also points out the humanitarian costs of the sanctions & that millions of Iraqis could be saved when the sanctions are lifted.<<<
Tripling inspections, lifting sanctions and enlisting Saddam, together with Kaddafi (whose already on board) in the war against terror is the more prudent strategy.
>>>I admit I am less of a hawk than I was a week ago due to many of the arguments on this board, but still backing the war if some friends go with us. Bush has handled this horribly & it does weigh.<<<
The only "friends" who'll be with us will be bribed and blackmailed "friends." Thus far, Bush's strongest and largest supporters require a second resolution--Britain, Italy and Spain. Pretty much all he's got now is the US military, Blair's commitment of British forces and a Czech Republic decontamination truck. Oh, yeah, I think he's bot about 450 Australians. Not a great line-up.
Finally, thanks very much for your honest and straightforward response. We should all be praying hard and deep that this doesn't happen. It shouldn't! |
