Forums | MacLife

I only partially agree with that.  I'll just state for the record that the party who does brinkmanship ought to be the "sane" one.

What that means to me is "morally sound", "sound of judgment", "with fervor and principle", and with a strong courage of one's convictions.

Unfortunately, Bush is either feeble in those qualities or lacking.

Ok, I see your point or definition on brinkmanship.

That, Dragula, is the REAL reason that Brinkmanship won't work.  I think your comments are generally in the right direction.  However, the REAL problem goes well beyond the platitude of "axis of evil."  As a  leader of a world power, Bush has the responsibility to be firm in his commitments.  He also has to pitch solid sense and express firm moral judgment in pitching his case to the world.  Clearly, he is not.  As the days go by it becomes highly unlikely that this war will ever happen, beyond the skirmishes in the "no-fly" zone.

France and Germany are not idiots.  They see a leader of our once proud nation who is devoid of resolve.  This is what they really see.

If Bush is to be considered as a madman, this is why.

I think that part of the problem with european support, outside of Britain, is that the U.S. is the only super-power.  If I lived elsewhere, I would be distrustful of the U.S. as well.  Who keep's the U.S. in check?

As for GWB, I still think it's more of a personal vendetta more than anything else, but I agree with him that Saddam needs to go bye bye.  But Bush lacks the education and life experiences to fully understand what he's getting the U.S. into, something his father knew and all to well understood.

Prime, that's a good, challenging post.  I am not ignoring it.  I 've been busy.  I'll respond at length tomorrow.  Two things, though, in the meantime:  First, to clarify, I do not believe that Hussein has destroyed what WMD he had and I'm convinced that he has been doing his best to research and develop such weapons.  Sorry for the confusion.

Also, I agree that the economic sanctions have served more to harm Iraqi civilians than they have in containing Hussein.  In fact, because of the serious problems they've caused (i.e. starvation, illness, lack of medical supplies, potable water, etc.)  I am against them.  I think it is immoral to continue the sanctions while knowing the harm they are doing.  My point was simply to highlight that they have worked to contain Hussein on some level and that maybe we can learn something from them.

Got to go.

You all seem to know so little about the Cuba crisis yet seem to write in terms that you know everything.

As being just a simple members of the public, I doubt anyone here is privy to all the intel and information even on an event as old as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But you sure seem really sure of yourself on this one, you must be one of those "Junior G-Men" types David to be so convinced of your knowledge and information of that particular event are correct huh? 

So unless you have access to classified information, which I seriously doubt, you're in the same boat as the rest of us, you only know what the government(s) feeds you or want's you to believe to be the truth.  So get over it.

Dragula is exactly right.  Saddam fears no retaliation so the threat of mutally assured destruction will not work.

Have you seen the amount of preparation that Saddam goes through to keep himself safe?  Sleeping in a different building every night?  Employing several body doubles?

I don't think that such a statement can truthfully be made...Saddam is not even aligned with any religious movement, so to compare him with other extremists in the area is false.

Saddam paranoid? No...can't be.

So was Stalin, and millions of Soviet citizens died because of his paranoia.  Saddam has a lot in common with Stalin, and that makes him very dangerous.

Prime, your point is well taken that the UN has to establish consequences for a nutter like Hussein.  Otherwise the resolutions are useless.  Hussein has proven to be extremely manipulative with UN resolutions, capitalizing on the Dove-like and sluggish nature of the institution.  But there are some serious problems with the UN situation that I don't think have anything to do with the immediate Hussein problem. .  First, the US has been manipulating the UN, as well.  Our government has also strenuously backed countries that have violated resolutions for peace.  Namely Israel.  I'm not looking for a fight about Israel.  Basically, my point is that the U.S. isn't demanding that the UN back up its resolutions with united resolve and decisive force.  No, the U.S. is only demanding that the UN back up certain specific ones as we see fit.  To be clear, I think the Bush administration is only interested in the UN's rubber stamping powers and is pissed that it didn't go down like that.  The Bush administration made a serious mistake.  It underestimated the power and resolve of key members the UN.  Oops.  Way too many members are standing against the world's only superpower and could quite possibly defeat it on this issue.

Why?  Why isn't the UN interested in enforcing its own resolutions against Hussein?  Actually, at this point I don't think the UN sees Hussein as their biggest problem.  I think this UN conflict has to do with a bigger problem: reigning in the aggressive imperialist nature of the United States.  Looking at the problem this way makes it a lot easier to see why the Bush administration is acting confused.  This conflict in the UN is not really about Hussein.

I know I haven't answered the question of how to deal with Hussein, but the reason is that I don't think Saddam is our biggest international problem.  Nor do I think the UN at this point is able to deal with him effectively.  Nor is the U.S...  Dealing with Hussein is extremely important, but forging lasting, trustworthy allies, and BEING ONE, is the only way.  It sucks that we find ourselves in conflict with so many important countries, but at least we can see what work needs to be done.  And since no one can produce evidence that Hussein poses and imminent threat to anyone (especially the U.S.), why don't we get creative with the measures already agreed upon and in place, and put ourselves hard at work in establishing meaningful alliances in the UN.  To me that means acting like a member- albeit an important one- and not the ruler.  Also, we could pay our dues.  Also, we could chill on the abuse of our veto power.  Also, we could commit to either enforcing all UN resolutions, or not and accept that other nations won't take us seriously when we demand that a particular one be supported. Etc.

One note about the dove-like nature of some European countries:  might it actually stem from wisdom?  I'm not sure, but these are countries that know very well what it is to be torn apart by war.  Many of them were on the brink of annihilation only 50-60 years ago.  They are aware, as we once again exhibit our unflinching ambitions for war, that we lack such experience.

We perceive ourselves to be an injured party (re: Sept 11).  In fact, we have been traumatized by violence by an offender that is difficult to identify.  As a nation we are acting like victims, which is justified to some degree.  Many nations in the UN know full well what we have experienced.  Many have been through far, far worse.  One thing we all know for sure: traumatized victims don't make sound judges.  Our sense of responsibility is replaced by simple blame, restitution: revenge, resolution: 300,000lbs of ordinance, etc.  Perhaps, to some degree, what the Bush administration doesn't like about the UN is it's level-headedness on this issue.

But, you're still right, Prime.  Hussein has to be dealt with and the sooner the better.  I guess I'm saying in a roundabout way is that we have yet to figure out what to do.

Damn odd all the way around isn't it. Those that support the UN way as our path to salvation and a wonderful new world miss the point that it is exactly that way that has led us to this current smurf.
Fine, lets do nothing and pull everyone home, leave the UN santions in place. The next stated reason for attacks will be the poor plight of innocent Iraqies dying because of santions. This is comming down to we either fix the problem, with or without UN support, or we keep doing it the old way and watch the attacks continue to escalate. Will ousting Saddam stop attacks? Of course not. Will they increase, I imagine they will. Guess what, they were anyway. Every last one of these jokers keeps calling for a holy war against the great satan. Fine, lets give it to them. They aren't going to stop any other way. To believe anything else is to deny the truth.

First, of all very few people are calling for a holy war against the great satan and, for the most part, there aren't too many people signing up.  We've got to keep this in perspective.

Second, no one is arguing that we do nothing.  If you think so, then you've missed the point.  To be as clear as a bell, here are some points I can make that underlie all my posts:

1) The only wars not immoral are defensive wars.

2) Not knowing what else to do is not a justification for war.

3) The decision to go to war should only come after extensive debate and the exploration of all other options.  Our (US/UN) lazy, half-assed 10 year sanctions do not pass for an exploration of all other options, and so arguing that we have reached our wits end is nonsense.

4) This Bush administration has proven itself incapable of conducting a just war.

I'm more than willing to listen to any other options. So far I've heard none besides continuing what we've been doing.

Therein lies the problem.  Our president is continuing to do what he's been doing since he first made the axis of evil speech.  Our president keeps mouthing off and doing nothing.  Don't expect a paper tiger to master brinkmanship overnight.  It's not going to happen.

We've had paper tigers for presidents since Kennedy was assassinated.  We've fought in wars like Vietnam, Somalia, and Kosovo where we had no business sticking our necks in.  Now we  are attacked on 9-11 by a real enemy and Bush and his merry administration still behaves like a bunch of retards when it comes to international crises.

I'm more than willing to listen to any other options. So far I've heard none besides continuing what we've been doing.

Therein lies the problem.  Our president is continuing to do what he's been doing since he first made the axis of evil speech.  Our president keeps mouthing off and doing nothing.  Don't expect a paper tiger to master brinkmanship overnight.  It's not going to happen.

We've had paper tigers for presidents since Kennedy was assassinated.  We've fought in wars like Vietnam, Somalia, and Kosovo where we had no business sticking our necks in.  Now we  are attacked on 9-11 by a real enemy and Bush and his merry administration still behaves like a bunch of retards when it comes to international crises.

Paper tigers?  Well, I'll admit Carter was one, and Clinton too, but I wouldn't call Reagan or G.H.W. Bush that.

As for 9-11, I do believe that the Bush Administration and the U.S. military is doing their best to wipe al-Qaeda's existence off the planet.  If you're inferring that Iraq is somehow responsible for 9-11 as well, your reaching there, there is no evidence to support that theory yet.

I also think Bush lacks practical military knowledge and experience, something that is only learned by those that serve, and he hasn't.

There is also a international view point that I think is being overlooked by many, since the Soviet Union fell there has only been one "Super-Power" in the world and that is the U.S.  Who keeps the U.S. in check?