05-01-2005, 07:57 PM | #11 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
There are no small thoughts. Merely small brains. Words to live by.
|
05-02-2005, 12:18 PM | #12 | |
20th Level Warrior
Join Date: November 16, 2001
Location: Estonia
Age: 35
Posts: 2,775
|
Quote:
|
|
05-02-2005, 03:12 PM | #13 | |
Ra
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: Ant Hill
Age: 49
Posts: 2,397
|
Quote:
|
|
05-02-2005, 04:22 PM | #14 |
Dracolich
Join Date: January 24, 2004
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 3,092
|
I'm all with the logistics point, but if you have limited resources and toppling dictatorships if on the agenda then why not start with the worst? Or get one that is in the transition from non-nuclear to nuclear status. After they will become unassailable, so striking now would be the only chance.
Iraq is a very peculiar choice to start with, however you look at it. |
05-02-2005, 04:37 PM | #15 | |
Ra
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: Ant Hill
Age: 49
Posts: 2,397
|
Quote:
|
|
05-02-2005, 04:58 PM | #16 |
Dracolich
Join Date: January 24, 2004
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 3,092
|
Good points. What will be interesting is if the Iraqi government ask them to leave
Bang goes the most expensive 'lets build a few bases' expedition in the history of the world [img]tongue.gif[/img] |
05-03-2005, 12:00 PM | #17 |
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Well, I certainly agree that when nations act "morality" must not be an issue. What is moral for nation A is not moral for nation B, etc.
I do think that most reasonable people agree that human life is valuable and that human rights violations are bad. What I advocate is that sitting on the sidelines while a regime commits atrocities is akin to giving permission for such atrocities to be committed. This isn't an argument about the US being right or wrong, because I would be one of the first to admit that American involvement in Vietnam was wrong, as was our secret raids on Cambodia and Laos. Communism was never a real enough threat. This is about putting an end to things like the ethnic cleansings in Bosnia and near-genocides in places like Rwanda; I doubt anyone would disagree that stopping such things is wrong. Yes, such intervention would cost human lives; only an idiot would think otherwise. However, many more lives could be saved by intervening than by letting things take their own course. How many died in Rwanda? More than a million? Losing 100,000 by invading is a much more acceptable loss, even though such loss is itself sad. Truman had to make a similar choice: drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or risk many more thousands of lives--both Japanses and American--with a normal invasion. I am neither a warmonger nor a blind follower of Washington, D.C. I am, however, a realist and someone who would like to see the world become a better place. In order to accomplish that goal I am prepared to accept the negative consequences that would happen by intervening to stop abominable atrocities. Until someone devises a solution which could end atrocities without ending lives I do not see any other reasonable alternative.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
05-03-2005, 02:18 PM | #18 |
Avatar
Join Date: April 18, 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Age: 48
Posts: 549
|
"The goal justifies the means" in simpler terms. I happen to disagree. In certain cases it can be true and do not get me wrong - I am thrilled at the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq. I want to see it first, but it may actually happen. That is a good thing. I just wish someone would have told me that it was THAT the war was about, because I got the impression that it was to stop education of terrorists and to destroy facilities to produce ABC weaponry. Because if they had told me we could have had a sensible discussion on those terms and I could probably have given at least half a dozen solutions that would remove Saddam from power without war. After all WE live in democratic countries where the government answers to us don't we? It only works if we have open debates on common terms. Otherwise we are no better ourselves.
A string of thoughts: It is February 1991. The (then closely united) coalition have routed the Republican Guard, which is performing a fighting retreat out of Kuwait leaving the bulk of it's outfit behind. Two US and one Canadian division is poised to form an encirclement-destruction manoevre into southern Iraq opening an unoposed road to Bagdad. Saddam is seriously threatened. The Iraqi war council decides to take drastic measures and orders SCUD missiles armed with the last supplies of CIA manifactured serine gas Iraq obtained in the mid-late 80'es. It is hoped that this would leave the impression that Iraq is capable of producing said weapons and that direct invasion would be too costy. It works. Invasion is abandoned leaving the Kurd/Shia rebelion isolated to be crushed. Now the international comunity demands weapon inspections as part of the peace terms. We want to locate those factories and destroy them. But they don't exist, so there is nothing to be found. Ultimately Dick & Bush II decides that enough is enough and in a strike of irony the WoMD gambit winds up bringing down Saddam anyhow. Based on speculation of course, but consider 1) Given the allocated resources it is very unlikely that the inspectors would fail to locate massive production facilities. 2) Given the allocated resources it is extremely unlikely that the American military would fail to locate massive production facilities. 3) Given the circumstances it is unlikely that Saddam would destroy the facilities in secrecy. After all their destruction would mean the end of the restrictive embargo. 4) Without a suitable threat - real or fictive - the first Gulf War would have ended in total defeat. [ 05-03-2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]
__________________
[url]\"http://www.dsr.kvl.dk/~maddog/isur.jpg\" target=\"_blank\">Ooooookay. I surrender.</a><br />Sometimes I get the eerie feeling that my computer is operating me and not the other way around. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Small countries' contribution to the Iraqi war. | uss | General Discussion | 5 | 12-17-2004 11:27 PM |
The new Iraqi flag | Donut | General Discussion | 17 | 06-09-2004 03:50 AM |
Iraqi...say what??? | Sparhawk | General Discussion | 1 | 04-05-2004 07:36 PM |
Are Iraqi children going to school? ( Iraqi Indoctrination) | Chewbacca | General Discussion | 0 | 03-21-2003 12:41 AM |
Melusine - it's a small, small world | Donut | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 12 | 03-11-2002 06:54 AM |