Next stop Iran

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Perle
He deserves the insults.
People who talk about things they do not know the first thing about, deserve to be insulted..
and what tearing apart??
those are facts and he didn´t respond to them because he couldn´t.
He just used the insults as an excuse to not lose countenance.

---
Heh, I didn't think he could tear them apart you know... Facts aren't that easily removed.

I really don't think he is stupid, he is just blindfolded by FOX or CNN or something... Stupid or not stupid, the fact remains that insults ruin every discussion, and therefore when you're winning you might as well not use tem )...

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
You might want to read that again tacitus, now with the silly insult removed, you can actually tear the arguments apart. Or maybe not...

Well, since you asked nice. But there's not much there worthy of my time, frankly.

1) That Turkey developed nuclear weapons decades ago? Um, please provide a reference for that.

2) That the US is allowed to randomly break all treaties? Um, no. I've already said in this thread that pulling out of treaty isn't the same as breaking it. Iran is free to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if they want to (after which, any subsequent attempts to develop nuclear weapons would not be in violation of any treaty--see India, Pakistan, and Israel for examples of countries which did not sign the NPT and developed nuclear weapons). In any case, it's a bit of a self-defeating argument. Even if the US randomly breaks all treaties that hardly gives Iran the right to do so--unless you think all treaties are worthless, in which case you have no complaint with the US.

3) That Iran has been isolated and "threatened" for decades? Putting aside the fact that that's mostly their own fault, it's still irrelevant except for those who want the make excuses for them. The NPT doesn't say signatories can't develop nuclear weapons unless they're isolated and threatened; it says they can't develop nuclear weapons period. It doesn't matter why Iran thinks they need nukes; if they're developing them then they're in violation of the NPT treaty--which they signed.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Tactitus
That the US is allowed to randomly break all treaties? Um, no. I've already said in this thread that pulling out of treaty isn't the same as breaking it. Iran is free to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if they want to (after which, any subsequent attempts to develop nuclear weapons would not be in violation of any treaty--see India, Pakistan, and Israel for examples of countries which did not sign the NPT and developed nuclear weapons). In any case, it's a bit of a self-defeating argument. Even if the US randomly breaks all treaties that hardly gives Iran the right to do so--unless you think all treaties are worthless, in which case you have no complaint with the US.

The US pulling out of treaties DOES make them worthless;

see: Kyoto.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Iran is free to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if they want to (after which, any subsequent attempts to develop nuclear weapons would not be in violation of any treaty--see India, Pakistan, and Israel for examples of countries which did not sign the NPT and developed nuclear weapons).

I don't get this viewpoint. Is this a legal thing? Are you saying that if Iran (or anyone else, say Cuba) withdrew from the NPT and then developed a massive nuclear arsenal the United States would simply do nothing?

If this is the extent of the argument, then surely all action is purely treaty-enforcement (which is a noble enough goal)? If this is the case, then why not consider military action against those that, say, violate child labour treaties, or trade treaties, or anything else.

Surely there is something about the development of nuclear weapons per se, rather than merely violating existing agreements.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The US pulling out of treaties DOES make them worthless

So that justifies holding us to a different standard?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Tactitus
So that justifies holding us to a different standard?

Yes. The US need to set an example, especially given their self designated role as Global Policeman.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I don't get this viewpoint. Is this a legal thing? Are you saying that if Iran (or anyone else, say Cuba) withdrew from the NPT and then developed a massive nuclear arsenal the United States would simply do nothing?

Depending on the country and other circumstances we might well do "nothing" (depending how count things like recalling ambassadors, diplomatic protests or cutting aid packages). I know we blustered a bit when India and Pakistan revealed their nuclear weapons programs (Israel hasn't officially acknowledged theirs yet, so there's been no official grumbling), but we certainly didn't attack them just because they developed nuclear weapons.

If this is the extent of the argument, then surely all action is purely treaty-enforcement (which is a noble enough goal)? If this is the case, then why not consider military action against those that, say, violate child labour treaties, or trade treaties, or anything else.

If the violations are egregious enough that might be one possibility, although force should always be the last resort. Look, I'm not advocating military action against Iran or even North Korea. I'm not suggesting that violating the NPT is grounds in itself for attacking Iran or any other country. However, it is a treaty violation, and a serious one (given the potential of nuclear weapons), and should not simply be ignored (which seems to be the general response here).

Surely there is something about the development of nuclear weapons per se, rather than merely violating existing agreements.

Of course. Nuclear weapons are extremely powerful and indiscrimate weapons (wmd if you will). I think everyone ought to be concerned about who has them and what they might do with them. That's the main reason why treaties relating to nuclear proliferation are so important.

[Zapman]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Adding nuclear weapons to all the arsenals of world would be new, however; and I think it would make the world a far more dangerous place.

Ah. I see. I wouldn't say it was new though. There seemed to be something in the past often refered to as the "Cold War". But I digress.

[Vermillion]

Far be it from me to defend the United States here, I am not a fan, but someone has to include some facts into all this vitriol.

1. As has been pointed out, not ratifying a treaty is very different from breaking it. The US did not ratify Kyoto, for example, which while there is some question of the morality of the act, it is quite legal.

2. As someone pointed out as well, there is a difference between withdrawing from a treaty and breaking it. Most international treaties have a withdrawl clause. The US can only withdraw from the ABM treaty wth permission from Russia, but they are working to get this permission, and as long as they do not deploy ABM defences they are not in violation of the treaty.

3. Turkey has had nuclear wepons for decades? I sez pardon?
There are three classess of nuclear powers in the world. Official, unofficial and former.
Official:
USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan.

Unofficial:
North Korea, Israel

Former:
South Africa, Ukraine, belarus, Kazakhstan.

Thats it.

4. Iran, at the moment, is in no danger. It is unlikely that the US even has the capacity to attack Iran right now, with deployments in Afganistan and Iraq, and potential commitments to other world hot-spots such as South Korea and Taiwan. Between Afganistan and Iraq, the US expended over 75% of its stockpile of smart weapons, including most of its Tomahawks.

Apart from the military, the US economy could not likely support another war, in particular against Iran who would be a difficult opponent, without economic difficulties at home, which the American people would not accept. Certainly it would have to go at it alone, as other 'allied states' such as the UK would be unable or unwilling to help, given the enormous political fallout of the Iraq war to the UK government.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Far be it from me to defend the United States here, I am not a fan, but someone has to include some facts into all this vitriol.

1. As has been pointed out, not ratifying a treaty is very different from breaking it. The US did not ratify Kyoto, for example, which while there is some question of the morality of the act, it is quite legal.

2. As someone pointed out as well, there is a difference between withdrawing from a treaty and breaking it. Most international treaties have a withdrawl clause. The US can only withdraw from the ABM treaty wth permission from Russia, but they are working to get this permission, and as long as they do not deploy ABM defences they are not in violation of the treaty.

3. Turkey has had nuclear wepons for decades? I sez pardon?
There are three classess of nuclear powers in the world. Official, unofficial and former.
Official:
USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan.

Unofficial:
North Korea, Israel

Former:
South Africa, Ukraine, belarus, Kazakhstan.

Thats it.

4. Iran, at the moment, is in no danger. It is unlikely that the US even has the capacity to attack Iran right now, with deployments in Afganistan and Iraq, and potential commitments to other world hot-spots such as South Korea and Taiwan. Between Afganistan and Iraq, the US expended over 75% of its stockpile of smart weapons, including most of its Tomahawks.

Apart from the military, the US economy could not likely support another war, in particular against Iran who would be a difficult opponent, without economic difficulties at home, which the American people would not accept. Certainly it would have to go at it alone, as other 'allied states' such as the UK would be unable or unwilling to help, given the enormous political fallout of the Iraq war to the UK government.

--------------
So the patriot missiles are not an ABM defence ? They are just rockets that shoot down rockets I guess, and if kept in a factory or just stocked, they don't exist do they ?

In the same way, as long as Iran just don't deploy the nukes they are not even making yet, they certainly won't exist.

Let me ask this way; are there nuclear weapons in Turkey ? The answer is yes, and wether they are controlled by US military in bases or the Turks themselves, is possibly important to you. But to Iran which is an enemy of the axis of good-doers it means di*k. And if you say the US don't have nukes there, you say more than the US military is willing to say. Plus the fact remains that Pakistan AND Israel are nuclear powers. A country surrounded by nuclear powers might want to protect itself.

Apart from that, I dont think Iran is a possible invasion to do for the US atm. Too costly, not politically doable, just like you're saying. But the propaganda build-up against Iran certainly indicates that the administration wants to prepare the population for the possible future invasion. For that to happen though they need to succeed in Iraq = install puppet regime, and have some law and order in place. Not an easy thing to do, especially when one is supposed to thrw in democracy in the bargain.

Treaties are not something the americans should even open their mouth about. Quite strikingly the US couldn't join in the support of an international court judging war-crimes. Or more prescise, the court was fine, as long as it judged the rest of the world, but US-soldiers were to be immune of course. We all know they cannot do anything wrong. I LAUGH AT YOUR EVIL EMPIRE; AND YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS BORN ON SEPTEMBER 11 , GET OVER IT, YOU ALREADY KILLED MORE CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN THAN THOSE 3000 KILLED IN WTC.

[Kåre Willoch]

P.S. I am te GHEY

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
So the patriot missiles are not an ABM defence ? They are just rockets that shoot down rockets I guess, and if kept in a factory or just stocked, they don't exist do they ?

Correct, patriots are not an ABM defence. They have no capacity to shoot down ballistic missiles, as is demonstrated by their 4% success rate during the first gulf war, they were deployed against the SCUD-B, a limited ballistic missile, and were completely unsuited for the role. The new patriot-III is supposed to be improved against this kind of target, but as a battlefield weapon, and only good against groundburst style weapons, they have their own classification, an anti-theater based missile systems (ATMS). The Russians have those too, the SA-10 and the SA-12.

Let me ask this way; are there nuclear weapons in Turkey ?

Yes, there are bout 30 gravity bombs of the B-61-10 variety based in Turkey, with no missile delivery system, controlled exclusively by the US under the dual key encoding system.

Quite strikingly the US couldn't join in the support of an international court judging war-crimes. Or more prescise, the court was fine, as long as it judged the rest of the world, but US-soldiers were to be immune of course.

They would not submit US citizens for jurisdiction to an extra-national court. I may disagree with their decision, but I understand it.

I LAUGH AT YOUR EVIL EMPIRE; AND YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS BORN ON SEPTEMBER 11 , GET OVER IT,

Ah, the phrasology of the lowest common denominator...

[Kåre Willoch]

[quote]Originally posted by Vermillion


1.They would not submit US citizens for jurisdiction to an extra-national court. I may disagree with their decision, but I understand it.



2.Ah, the phrasology of the lowest common denominator... [/b][/QUOTE
---

1. Exactly, the US has the right to judge others of war-crimes, through their own appointed courts of law, or through allied courts, never approved by those judged. The winner decides law, nothing new...sigh.

2. Yes I lost it, you are quite right, this boredom IS getting to me.

PPS. If you do think making a bomb is such an illegal thing, how illegal do you find the US-led invasion of Iraq ? The good motives were there, but under international commitments it is still illegal.

"Oh God, Bush stands over internatinal law, we must INVADE INVADE...!
If you cannot perceive your own double standards, you might as well remove "historian" and put "propagandist" there instead.

[DavinBrahm]

"I suppose that the UN should send troops in to get a legitimate government in power, one that listens to the people and will act in their interests and not in the interests of the friends of the power mad leaders. Only then will the US have a decent government"

Please do. Some frenchman's ears would look good hanging on a rope around my neck. Come and play. But don't plan on ever going home.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I see someone doesn't get the joke, or is trying to appear stupid.

[Marilyn Manson]

I was actually going to reply in detail to this thread, but I began to lose the will to live and had to desist.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I was actually going to reply in detail to this thread, but I began to lose the will to live and had to desist.

Much the same.

[plasmas_arms]

Invasion of Iran is unlikely as Iran is quite likely to actually put up some good resistance to US aggression, much like North Korea, and the US has neither the stomach nor the finances to support an actual bloody war against people who
A) Are willing to fight back.
B) Are equiped to fight back
C) Are not crippled by 10 years of sanctions
D) Dont actually pose any threat to the US and dont have any viable 'bogey men' for US demagoguery
E) Have no vast oil reserves.
F) Have not humiliated Dubya's daddy by not completely folding and dying away in a previous war
G) Have previously fought AGAINST Iraqi aggression whilst the US supported Iraq.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by plasmas_arms

G) Have previously fought AGAINST Iraqi aggression whilst the US supported Iraq.

So did bin laden.

[plasmas_arms]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
So did bin laden.

yeah but he doesnt have point D in his favour (allegedly) .

[Cynical Oracle]

It would be expensive to attack Iran, but I doubt the US would have much problems invading Iran had the funds and will been present.

How many 'Allied' soldiers died during the Iraq war?

[MrL_JaKiri]

It's more the lack of weaponary.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It's more the lack of weaponary.

Wich offcourse is due to lack of funds.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch

PPS. If you do think making a bomb is such an illegal thing, how illegal do you find the US-led invasion of Iraq ? The good motives were there, but under international commitments it is still illegal.

I have not decided yet, though I am generally against it. When the invasion started, my opinion (unusually, as I am a centrist with occasional leftist leanings) was FOR the war, simply because the possibility of Hussein having atomic weaons was an eventuality that needed to be prevented.

Now, of course, it seems that the whole "atomic bomb within 2 years" thing was either fabricated or in error. Unquestionably the Administration's handling of the event was weak, and their propaganda machine shot itself in the foot. But ignoring the propaganda, was the actual removal of Hussein by force a worthwhile endeavour? I am a historian, and as such I tend to take the long view, and the long view is simply, I dont know yet.

By the way, strictly speaking, there was nothing illegal about the attack on Iraq, unless it can be demonstrated that the WMD threat was purposefully exaggerated or falsified.

Dont get me wrong, I am itching to condem the US. being canadain, disliking the US administration is in my blood. But in this case, I cannot let my dislike of Bush blind me to the issue of Hussein, and at the moment there is not sufficient distance or knowledge of the event to allow me to determine which in fact was the lesser of two evils, invading or doing nothing.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
[b]Invasion of Iran is unlikely as Iran is quite likely to actually put up some good resistance to US aggression, much like North Korea,

A few points here. Firstly, Iran.

Dislike the US, hate Bush, insult their politics if you must, but do not make the mistake of underestimating the military capacity of the United States. Assuming the overcommital issue could be resolved, and it was simply armed forces against armed forces, the US would be able to dispatch Iran without much difficulty. Their air defence is less advanced than Serbia (where the US lost 1 aircraft) their arforce is comparable in quality and numbers to Iraq's air force in 1990 (so, no chance in hell) and their ground forces, while dedicated, are equipped with 3- generation-old soviet weapons.

The main problem confronting the US in Iran would be access. certainly the Persoan Gulf and Gulf of Oman would be the main access point, but the could not enter from the North, politically it would be a terrible idea to invade from Iraq, and whilethey could invade from Afganistan, that half of Iran is entirely uninhabited salt desert.

Next Korea.

Barring nuclear weapons, a war between the US and North Korea would be over in 48 hours. North Korea has an enormous army, but its technology is utterly antiquated, being mostly T-55 tanks, with a small elite of T-72 tanks, which are 3 generations old. Their air force is in worse shape. However the biggest problem NKorea faces is one of access and size. Seaborne US aircraft can attack from pretty much every direction except from China. NKorea is small, and their industry and military command is centralised, and their navy consist of 20 year old frigates and patrol boats.

They only have one way to go, south, and that could be air-interdicted easily. If the US attacked first, the North Korean military structure would disintigrate within 36 hours. fanaticism is one thing, but a fanatic with a rifle can do little against overwhelming air-power.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

Iraq was NO threat and everyone knew that.

The US could have helped regime change by removing sanctions, intervening at the end of the Gulf war to stop Saddam from massacreing his opponents,
Giving more support to insurrectionists in Iraq,
Promoting more trust in the region by not arming every single nation in the Middle East to the teeth.

Again I find myself in the unenviable position of defending the US, something I am not used to but...

-Ending sanctions would have vastly solidified Hussein's reign. I have never understood at ALL those who claimed otherwise. It would be a victory for him that the West caved in, and he wouldhave had far more access to finances to rebuld his country.
-Yes, perhaps the US might have gone further in 1991, but I have strong suspicions as to why this was done.
-Your last two points are a wonderful contradiction, and should be made into somebody's signature file. "Giving more support to the insurrectionists" of hostile governments, is exactly what turned the Middle East into an Armed camp. Further, you have to consider the fact that most of this 'help' was given by BOTH sides during the Cold War, when priorities were necessarily different. That may not be an excuse, but it is an explanation.

Also, you 'Knew' Iraq was no threat? really? I work in the Intelligence community and I did not 'Know' Iraq was no threat. I 'Knew' that Iraq was rebuilding its military, that Iraq had invaded two neighbours and fired missiles at Israel, I 'Knew' that Iraq had brutally supressed both internal rebels and the Kurds, once using Mustard Gas. I 'Knew' that Hussein was offering money to people willing to carry out suicide attacks against Israel. I 'Knew' that a certain amount of chemical and biological weapon components were unaccounted for by the UN inspectors.

That is what I knew, all of that is fact, not propaganda. So while the case for an armed invasion based on those facts is questionable, it is fascile to say you 'knew' hussein was no threat to anybody.

Was removing Saddam a worthwhile indeavor? Well no, it had it's positive points but we can see that iraq in fracturing, there is a vigourous opposition, many Iraqi's are still being killed.

Yes of course the situation in Iraq is messy, but it is an occupation, and there is no such thing as a nice, pleasant occupation. It is too oon to now how the US will resolve the post-Hussein Iraq issue, and thus it is too soon to determine whiehter the removal of Hussein was a good thing or not. You may be pessimist about the potential for the US to act in a proper manner with regards to the future government of Iraq, but that is opinion, not fact. The fact is, we do not know yet, and so in my mind the jury is still out. I do know Hussein was an evil man, who ran an oppressive regime and who had invaded two of his neighbours over 15 years. So I cannot pretend I am sorry he has been removed.

Any historian should be interested in the tidal wave of propaganda that came out of this war.

Absolutely. I am facintated by the propaganda coming out of this war, propaganda from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

Sanctions put ALL the resources in the hands of Saddam, thus improving his economic poistion considerably. Anyone who didn't support him just wouldn't get any of the Food from the food for oil, and since there were sanctions they couldn't trade for it.

The resources are in the hands of Hussein with or without sanctions. Random people on the street could never trade for food regardless of sanctions, all the Iraqi Oil companies were state controlled, so that point is irrelevant.

Yes, the people were affected before Hussein was, same as the South African people were affected before the South African giovernment was. But pressure existed and increased, both internally and externally. Removing sanctions would have done nothing but consolidate Hussein's position.

if you are reffering to anti-war propaganda I can't say I was aware of any in the mainstream.

Are you actually serious? Did you just say there was no significant anti-war propaganda in the mainstream?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by JammyJim
Isnt it ironic that the quintessential 'draft dodgers' of Vietnam are now sending in thousands of american boys to die in the sand for their own personal benefits.

I wonder if the Bush-Cheney junta will ever ever get it right.

Hardly thousands of American 'boys' died in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
[b]1. Wrong prior to the First Gulf war the Iraqi peopel themselves were relatively well of, there was trade and a highd egree of personal wealth and education.

True, but irrelevant. Your initial point was that sanctions put all the resources in the hands of Hussein, but the reality is all the resources were in the hands of Hussein before sanctions. The fact that he chose to use some of that money for his people prior to 1990 is irrelevant, it was all in his control to do with as he pleased, and he DID use starvation as a weapon, withholding food and supplies from the Kurds, LONG before there were sanctions. Sanctions changed the situation not at all, he was still an autocrat with complete economic control, he simply had far fewer resources to spread around. He had all the money from the day he consolidated power. All major industries and certainly all the oil production were either owned by the Government of contract held to foreign countries, and in neither case did the people have any access to funds except through his largesse.

2. The pressure was much higher before the sanctions, after the sanctions there were almost no significant uprisings.

Really? I know of several attempted uprisings, in fact the media covered the Iraqi military acting against the Kurds and their anti-Saddam uprisings throughout 1994 and 1995. There were also political protests, there were defections from the government, including several of his inner circle (and his brother isn law), there was even a purge of the military command. Against that, there was not one significant uprising or political demonstration in Iraq in the 1980s except for several aboprtive demonstrations near the end of the Iran-Iraq war calling for its conclusion.

So it seems you are completely in error there. Now the fact is, in the 1990s, all of these uprising, defections and revolts were all put down, but the pressure was certainly there.


Sanctions are an effective, if slow method of international pressure for domestic change. It worked in the case of South Africa, but it took nearly 20 years. Nobody said it was an efficient or fast-acting method, but it works, but it is one of the few effective non-violent means of pressuring change.

Your alternative seems to have been: no sanctions, no invasion. Well, rather than saying what everybody should not have done, care to sugest what they should have done?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Sanctions are an effective, if slow method of international pressure for domestic change. It worked in the case of South Africa, but it took nearly 20 years.

The South African regime collapsed due (mainly) to internal pressures caused by internal resistance. South African whites increasingly didn't wish to pay the military cost (e.g. conscription) of a militarised state. After the fall of the USSR it was unlikely a quasi-planned state could have survived either way.

I'm not saying sanctions did nothing but to say they were responsible for the end of the apartheid regime is to do a great disservice to the resistance movement and the struggle of millions.

As for Iraq : I (if I was put in a position power) would have not assisted Hussein in the first place. To say "What would you do after Hussein was already in the position he was in" is the equivalent of saying "After you accidently killed the hooker, what would you do with her body?" - i.e. making the best of a bad situation.

But if I had to make the best out of such a situation, I would have ended the sanctions regime and called off military action. In the long-term I would certainly assist the Iraqi Communist Party (what remains of it) as well generally assisting the secular left in the Arab world generally, drastically scaling back western involvement in the region. Saying something drastic had to be done is merely to fall into the hyperbole of government propaganda.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The South African regime collapsed due (mainly) to internal pressures caused by internal resistance. South African whites increasingly didn't wish to pay the military cost (e.g. conscription) of a militarised state.

I would have weighted it the other way around. Sanctions were lergely responsable for the loss of control of the Sputh African government of its uniform support among the white population, and greatly increased the cost of running the country. While I do not wish to diminish the accomplishments of the resistance and the ANC, their pressure and anti-government actions had simply not yet reached a stage where they were putting that much pressure on the government institutions. They were increasing, and becoming more effective, and the pressure was mounting, but I do not believe you can credit the resistance for the change of regime.

Regardless, either way you weight it, sanctions, combined with internal pressure, collapsed the regime, given a great deal of time.

As for Iraq : I (if I was put in a position power) would have not assisted Hussein in the first place. To say "What would you do after Hussein was already in the position he was in" is the equivalent of saying "After you accidently killed the hooker, what would you do with her body?" - i.e. making the best of a bad situation.

Ah, but you are asking the question devoid of cntext. The US (and France and the UK) did not support Iraq just for the entertainment value, they supported Iraq because Iran was being actively supported by the USSR, and was threatening to develop e hegemony over the Middle East. In this case, the enemy of my enemy...

These proxy wars were a fixture of the Cold war, and either side felt obligated to react when one acted, lest the other gain too much control. Its funny, but as the cold war ended with a whimper rather than a bang, most people tend to look at these wars by proxy and their results as bad statesmanship or foolishness. But the whimper was by no means a foregone conclusion, and states who could not predict the future had to act as they percievd their best interest.

Were I in power, at the time the decision was made, and lacked the knowledge of what I know now... of course I would have funded the enemy of my enemy. What else could one do, in particular in a region of the world as strategically important as the Middle east?

In the long-term I would certainly assist the Iraqi Communist Party (what remains of it) as well generally assisting the secular left in the Arab world generally, drastically scaling back western involvement in the region.

You give too much credit to the arab left. Even in the post cold war world (supporting the communist parties during the cold war was not an option) they had no credibility. The only credible secular government was Hussein himself. The fact is the decision to support Hussein was taken in a very different context, a cold war contaxt, and applying modern sensibilities to such a time is the number one mistake of historical analysis.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Ah, but you are asking the question devoid of cntext. The US (and France and the UK) did not support Iraq just for the entertainment value, they supported Iraq because Iran was being actively supported by the USSR, and was threatening to develop e hegemony over the Middle East. In this case, the enemy of my enemy...

Yeah, but the Soviet Union (depsite their many, many flaws) would not have been my enemy. If the question is "If you were an imperialist leader what decision would you make to secure and increase Western domination of the world" then sure, we can debate the tactics undertaken by the US (or anyone) in a moral-free context. But I don't support the entire system, so I reject the entire question.

"Supporting the Communist Parties was not option". Once again - total agreement, it wasn't an option for the types of leaders we had at the time. I'm talking about what I'd do, not what some other guy would do.

But I am talking about right now either way. I'm well aware of the Arab left's many flaws (especially in the post-Cold War period, where they've had a near collapse in some places, or decline in others - like grass-roots Palestine movement), but that would be my long-term strategy. It would certainly be a long-term way of getting rid of Hussein, et al - but you yourself admit so would sanctions have taken time anyway.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Yeah, but the Soviet Union (depsite their many, many flaws) would not have been my enemy.

Well, in my opinion, and it is just my opinion, you are implying choice when there might not have been any. I do not believe you could have chosen to make the USSR not your enemy.

Dont get me wrong, I do not for an instant believe in the whole Right-wing US 'Evil Empire' claptrap, but I am very familiar with the actions of the USSR over the period of the Cold war. Unless the US would be willing to pull its forces out of West Germany and Europe, thus abandoning Nato and their European allies, there was no option of the USSR being anything but a cold war opponent.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Unless the US would be willing to pull its forces out of West Germany and Europe

Yup, I would have done this.

I am not of the opinion that it would have led to an invasion of any kind (although of course it depends when you're talking about).

[DavinBrahm]

"Yeah, but the Soviet Union (depsite their many, many flaws) would not have been my enemy. If the question is "If you were an imperialist leader what decision would you make to secure and increase Western domination of the world" then sure, we can debate the tactics undertaken by the US (or anyone) in a moral-free context. But I don't support the entire system, so I reject the entire question."

This is why you were not in office, nor will you ever be. You lack understanding and intelligence. The USSR would have been your enemy unless you were one of their puppet states. The only way for the economics of the USSR to work was the conquer more territory. Your reasoning is tainted with blind hatred for the United States and pure stupidity. The United States has not conquered and held a country to become part of a mother country for 100 years. Not a good track record for a supposedly "Imperialist" nation. Its is unfortunate you do not have the ability to understand the kill or be killed nature of cold war politics.

[Monkehpimp]

They can't attack Iran because any enemy the US/UK attack has to have a 'bad guy' with a name thats easy for everyone to go around hating and one thats easy for kids can make rhymes about, like 'Hitler' or 'Saddam'. I can't even remember whos running Iran :/




I felt this thread needed one more arguement that made no sense.



oh and Onion Article

I laughed :/

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by DavinBrahm
The only way for the economics of the USSR to work was the conquer more territory.

This is, of course, completely wrong.

Anyone surprised?

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Vermillion
This is, of course, completely wrong.

Anyone surprised?

Well yeah I would have thought that if you were (supposidly) giving equal amounts of everything to everyone, the less people you had to do it over, the easier it would be?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
Well yeah I would have thought that if you were (supposidly) giving equal amounts of everything to everyone, the less people you had to do it over, the easier it would be?

It's not really about that, but that the Core (the USSR) was often partially subsidising the Periphery (some of Eastern Europe) through oil and gas exports. The larger the Soviet's sphere of influence became, arguably the worst their economic performance became.

And obviously I wouldn't become President of the US. That's kind of a given, but I was attempting to answer Vermillion's question. Oh, and I don't think I have a blind hatred for the United States, although I'm sure all of us our freedom-haters think like that.

[Cynical Oracle]

Not having the excessive insight into these facts makes it hard to validate everything said here, altho I take Vermillions word as law, above many others.

I would just like to point out the need for objectivity. One cannot speculate on what Dante "The Commie Guy" Hicks would do if he where the master of the universe, as quite obviously, this would never happen.

The tactics applied by the US in their 'imperialism' are quite clever. They are currently the most influential state, and probably wich to keep it this way. There are alot of 'behind the scenes' we do not see, and the politics that end up in the newspaper may not always be what it seems. How can I prove this? Take a look out of your window and see for yourself.

Disagree with their stance, but do think they are a thoughtless in their actions. The US came out of the cold war ontop. Infact, had it not been for the US involment during WWII you would probably have clear blue eyes, speak German as your native language and be named Hanz. Nobody complained about their involment back then. The very fact that they 'helped' us back then gives you the choice to say what you want, and think what you want.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
the Commies were fighting against the fascist years before the capitalists got involved.

When the Italians invaded that north african country which I cannot remember the name of (it has since changed names anyways) and half the country was eventually appeased to Italy, only 2 countries that offered help were The USSR and..... New Zealand (apparently)


yay us.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Credit to the USSR please, they played a bigger role then the US in beating the hun. in fact it was the inransigence of the West throughout the 30's which allowed the Nazi's to get to the position they were in, the Commies were fighting against the fascist years before the capitalists got involved.

Uhm.. 18 March 1939, Stalin ask for coalition against Hitler. They played a major role, but was mostly cannonfodder. Not until the very late stages of the war did they actually accomplish something. Even back in 1937, the Soviet communist party killed 35.000 soldiers of their army themselfs.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Given the treatment of blacks, women and communists for 20 years in the United States after the war, i don't think your statement about freedom of thought is right. If you disagree go to Google and type "Cointelpro".

Did you miss my 'Occupied by Germany' point?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
When the Italians invaded that north african country which I cannot remember the name of (it has since changed names anyways) and half the country was eventually appeased to Italy, only 2 countries that offered help were The USSR and..... New Zealand (apparently)


yay us.

Are you speaking of Abyssinia?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle

The tactics applied by the US in their 'imperialism' are quite clever. They are currently the most influential state, and probably wich to keep it this way.

See I suppose this is why I would not categorise the US as Imperialist. Imperialist, in the classic sense, implies attempting to develop and maintain a (generally overseas) empire. The US has no such will, look at the Republicans, who are currently the party of power in the US: They would like nothing more than to withdraw overseas forces and cut back on commitments. The US as a state would, I suspect, like nothing better than to see the situation in Iraq favourably resolved and then get the Hell out of there. Thus, I cannot consider them traditionally imperialist.

What they do suffer from is an excess of zeal. Convinced of the superiority of Western morality, they often seek to impose their own view on the world upon others, and are genuinely surprise when this does not work, or is not appreciated. This is, I believe, a legacy of the Cold war, when the primary battle being fought was not a military one, but an ideological one. After emerging triumphant from such a 50 year battle, who can blame them for insisting on the superiority of their ideology?

They are the world's only superpower, and except for some raggedy NVA and VC, nobody has managed to put up more than a token resistance to their armed might in the last 40 years.

In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, the US is not imperialist, not expansionist, nor evil nor malicious in their actions or intent. They are however, self-assured about their own pre-eminence to the point of cultural arrogance.

Then again, in their arrogance they are no worse (and probably quite a bit better) than the British Empire in the last century, or for that matter any major Empire throughout Human history.

[Cynical Oracle]

I merly referd to other GD browsers opinion, hence the 'imperialist'. I agree with your post with one exception.

The VC may have killed far more American's than any other 'army', but let's not forget that 3 million Vietnamese died along with a 50 thousand American soldiers.

Heh, and once upon a time I debated that 'US culture/sub cultures' are of the most exported the world has ever seen. I still hold to that point.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
[b]Uhm.. 18 March 1939, Stalin ask for coalition against Hitler. They played a major role, but was mostly cannonfodder. Not until the very late stages of the war did they actually accomplish something. Even back in 1937, the Soviet communist party killed 35.000 soldiers of their army themselfs.

You probably should not have said that with me active in the thread.

Stalin had been seeking an anti-fascist coalition since 1934. The sole promary objective of the Comintern was to stir up anti-Fascist feelings in the European states. However the USSR was blocked or rebuffed at every turn, it was not consulted about the Anglo-German naval reaty, it was alone in its opposition to Franco, it was not even consulted about Munich, even though the USSR had a treaty with Czechoslovakia.

Skipping ahead, the Nazi-Soviet pact was an excersise in pragmatism for Stalin, who knew the Red Army was in terrible shape and had no desire to be forced into a lone war against Germany by the West.

Operation Barbarossa was of course a complete surprise, but it would be foolish to say that the Red Army did little until the late stages of the war. Their most important victory was the battle of Moscow in winter 1941, in which they stopped the Wehrmacht and diverted their attention south, inflicting serious casualties and killing their operational momentum for the first time.

All of the major victories of the Red Army against the USSR happened in the mid-point of the war: Stalingrad in january 1943, Kursk in summer 1943, and so on.

In fact, by the time the US got seriously involved against Germany, following Normandy in June 1944, the war had already been won by the Soviets, it was just a matter of time. So, in fact, it was the US who only acomplished anything in the late stages of the war. When the USSR was busy ending the German hopes for victory at Stalingrad, the US was minorly involved in a side-theatre in Africa, which even Hitler described as strategically useless.

Now that is not to downplay the role of the US prior to June 1944, they provided important materiels and supplies to the Allies, and in 1943 managed to eliminate the submarine threat in the Atlantic, thus freeing up UK resources. But even the Bomber campaign did not ramp up with any success until 1944.

Had the US not gotten involved n the War in Europe, people would be speaking Russian, not German.

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Are you speaking of Abyssinia?

yeah thats the one.


Its been a few years since I did origins of WWII in history.

I don't think NZ actually sent troops in the end but they offered some kind of support somewhere along the way. Apparently if they had closed off the watchamacallit canal (gawd I'm bad with placenames tonight :/) they never would have been able to invade, and the Facists wouldn't have been able to get that early upper hand. The American oil companies refused to close the shipping lanes...

[Monkehpimp]

Originally posted by Vermillion
the US was minorly involved in a side-theatre in Africa, which even Hitler described as strategically useless.

Why did Rommel get sent there then


Actually the New Zealanders were mostly deployed to north africa against Rommel, including Charles Upham, one of the best soldiers in the war due to the whole VC-with-Bar thing he had going on.

therefore, 2 of WW2s finest were facing off in an area that was stratetically useless.


once again,

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Monkehpimp
Why did Rommel get sent there then

Rommel was a skilled General who had brilliant ideas with regards to the concept of mobile warfare and operational command.

However, there exists this cult around him which I do not really understand. I do not mean to diminish his skill, he was an excellent commander, but I would probably rank him 6th or 7th on the list of able German commanders. Most of the rest were in the East, and we hear less about. The German professional staff colleges turned out excellent officers, and the manner in which they trained and advanced was at the time unique among the worlds armies. Germany had a lot of truly excellent military leaders, Rommel was just one of them.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Vermillion
You probably should not have said that with me active in the thread.

Clearly

I withdraw my "later parts" and replace it with a "late mid" part. Ok?

Secondly, yes many Germans died during their attack on Stalingrad, but it was rather the Soviet 'burnt land' tactics wich made it so successfull. The German tanks where not prepared to meet the coolness of Soviet climate, nor where the people. This was rather a German mistake, more than a Soviet accomplishment. Debatable offcourse.