is anyone worried about money?

[billvon 3,119]

>So you believe it would be okay for a country like Luxembourg to
> block UN resoutions that countries like the UK, US, France, Japan,
> Russia and Germany might support?

No. Nor is it OK for a country like the US to block a resolution passed by 95% of the other members of the UN.

>It was not UN ambassadors that urged Bush to use the UN channel, it
> was Blair and Chirac and other heads of state.

And Powell.

>And exactly how has our foreign policy changed?

Rather than invade immediately and destroy Hussein (which Bush suggested we might do) we agreed to resume inspections.

>We did not win the cold war through diplomacy. We won the cold war
> through a literal "war" of the economies.

I agree with the second part. Diplomacy is the engagement of another country through non-military means. We shipped an awful lot of grain to the USSR; that had a significant effect on their perception on what would happen if we suddenly stopped. That was a good idea on our part, and an example of how diplomacy can often work better than violence.

>Also bear in mind, that while we have been at odds with Russia, the
> former USSR, and eastern Europe in the past, they followed
> accepted diplomatic methods and protocol.

"We will bury you?" Shipping missiles to Cuba? Shooting down spy planes? Launching satellites over the US? Odd that all those are part of our accepted diplomatic protocol. If Iraq did any of the latter things we'd already be at war with them.

The USSR really pissed us off. If you listened to McCarthy (or even Reagan) they were the most evil thing in the world - untrustworthy, violent, bent on world domination, hated freedom, motherhood and apple pie. They could have destroyed us. Yet we dealt with them, and they with us. We can do it again.

>That engagement didn't occur until their system was already in
>decline and Gorbechev and Reagan met in Iceland...also recall, there
> was no treaty for a long time.

What? We were shipping mass amounts of grain to them between 1970-1980. In 1969 we signed a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to smaller countries. Nixon had a good relationship with Brezhnev; he even visited there in 1972. It wasn't until the anti-communist Reagan administration took office in 1980 that we slowed down our diplomatic efforts. Even then, we only reduced (not eliminated) those grain shipments. By 1986 Gorbachev was in power, and we re-engaged them.

>I believe that they think they could engage us with WMD and "win"
> despite our stated policy, and ability to ensure otherwise.

If that were the case, Hussein would not be allowing arms inspectors to crawl all over his palaces. He realizes how vulnerable he is, and will do what he can get away with. Fortunately, he also responds to being told that he can't get away with it, as is now being demonstrated.

>Tell that to Vietnam vets.

The dead ones? There were around 50,000 of them. I think, if you could somehow ask them, they would tell you they prefer diplomacy to war.

[Slappie 9]

I've read this whole thread and I find some things I can agree and others I disagree with. Very nice well writen debate.

I for one am not that terribly worried about money. I shall continue to support my goverment as much as I can. Even though I don't always agree with the desicions they make, policies they put into force or the way they deem it nessicary to spend "my money". I posted this a couple of months ago on the Iraq deal, this was before the actual inspectors were in Iraq an doing their jobs. Which I dont think their going to find anything. Not because Iraq doesn't have any or they destoryed them. It's because it's all move to Syria.. So now what? GW can't really say that Iraq is hiding anything. So they -GW ect.. ) will attack anyway. There is nothing we nor the UN will be able to do to stop the "war" from happening. GW is bent on replacing Hussien.. Period.

The following was copied from antoher thread back in Oct. Along with Billvon's responce.

Quote

Okay, let's lay down the ground rules.

First, I think we can all agree that Saddam Hussein is without question a latter-day Hitler. He's a butcher of the highest order, a mass murderer, a megalomaniac, and completely off his fucking rocker. What some people dispute is whether or not he's really a danger. Well, make no mistake, he IS. Just because he hasn't tried anything wacky lately doesn't mean he's suddenly seen the error of his evil ways. He is even now devising means of scamming the UN regarding his weapons of mass destruction, thinking of ways to finally shoot down a U.S. Aircraft, and licking his lips at the thought of gassing to death more innocent Kurds, Shiites, and whoever else.

And he also is doubtlessly penning even MORE ridiculous romance novels. And for that, he deserves to die.

However.... and this is a big however.... it's not that easy. As dangerous as Saddam is, he does serve a valuable purpose. He's a buffer against an even more dangerous and much more insidious foe-- Iran. We NEED Hussein around, because as long as he and Iran are staring down the barrels of each others' guns, they can't aim all of them at us.

Let's not forget that the majority of Iraq's population is of the Shi'a persuasion and have been brutally repressed by Saddam's Sunni affiliated Ba'ath party, who demographically are the religious minority. Soooooo, we can't KILL Saddam, 'cause if we do, his likely replacements will be Shi'a Muslims who find a very convenient ally right next door, and that would be very bad for us. So, since we're stuck with Saddam, how do we deal with his hokey bullshit and occasional power plays without upsetting the already-perilous balance of power in the regime? Well, the traditional answer has been sanctions. And sanctions work, right?

WRONG. They did work not so long ago, back when the world stood united in righteous, "Don't Fuck With Us Anger" against Hussein. However, that situation has reversed itself completely. Why, you ask? Well, a couple points.

First, Russia, China, and that fucking shithole excuse for a country we call France all see potential markets in Iraq-- markets they desperately need. Practical considerations on their part call for an end to the sanctions, and since they all happen to be permanent MEMBERS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNSEL, we can pretty much accept that our UN Support has withered away completely.

Second, the Arab countries (that were scared shitless of his crazy ass ten years ago) now see him as a potential ally against Israel. Without question, no matter how dangerous he is to the, his anti-Zionist line has brought him back into the good graces of his Arab neighbors, and there he shall likely stay. And without the Arabs on our side, we really have our hands tied.

Third, Hussein has skillfully convinced the world that WE are the bad guys. By painting a picture of starving Iraqi children, he has somehow convinced every kind-hearted, well-meaning non-profit aide group in the world that the Iraqi people are the victims? These are of course completely untrue-- the UN has been more than generous in allowing him the means by which to feed his people. He rejects them, because he can use the image of starving Iraqis precisely as a propaganda weapons against the sanctions. Saddam is a scary combination of twisted and intelligent. Like Stalin, he's purposefully starving his own people-- and he shows them off the news cameras, blaming it on our sanctions?

"But... it's not true!" you say. No, it's not..... but so the fuck what? This sick fucking liar has somehow convinced the world that he is the victim, and our support had completely and totally withered away to nothing. Our only remaining ally in this is Great Britain, and as much as I admire the British people, they can't do shit on the world stage.

Where does this leave us? Nowhere. As a practical matter, the sanctions are dead-- we just won't accept it yet. It's only a matter of time before we are forced by world opinion to revoke them.... and if we don't, the world's just going to ignore us anyway. And, even more frightening, were we forced again into military action in Iraq, we would be totally alone, without any regional support.

And make no mistake-- we would LOSE.

So what do we do? Well, it's simple............

Let's give Saddam exactly what he claims to want.

Let's make him an offer he can't refuse. Let's say:

"Okay, fucker. You want the sanctions gone? No prob..... provided you offer unilateral and unconditional cooperation to U.S.-British Weapons Investigators, and open every warehouse, storage plant, and 'baby milk factory' you have. We'll drop the sanctions completely-- you can sell all the oil you want, buy all the food your people need-- hell, you can be the fucking jewel of the Middle East. But the one nonnegotiable condition of this arrangement is complete and total disclosure/cooperation with our inspection teams, period. And, if at any time, you welsh on the deal, not only will the sanctions be placed back into effect, but swift military retaliation will follow."

We pull this card, and Hussein is fucked. Why? He can't win either way.

Of course, he won't want to cooperate, but suppose he does. Well, shit we've got what we want. Hussein is defanged, there's no further bloodshed or starvation, and the world is safe again. And, if he doesn't cooperate (and he won't), world opinion wills wing right back against him. He's going to e advertising to the world that he has something to HIDE. Even his staunchest allies will say 'What the fuck/ they're giving you what you want, right?" And pretty soon, they'll clue in to what he really wants.... and he will once again be a pariah in the world community. Then, the world can stand again united against Hussein, and there will be no wiggling out this time.

But, as you see, this is all dependent on us playing his own game BETTER than him. We take the moral high road, and he undercuts us through duplicity. Fine, motherfucker, we'll undercut you right back. What are you going to do when the we offer you EVERYTHING you've asked for.... and you REFUSE? I suspect you may have a bit of explaining to do...





billvon
Moderator
(Full Profile)
Oct 7, 2002, 2:14 PM

Post #7 of 57 (312 views)
Copy Shortcut
------------------------------------------------------------
Slappie, I'm impressed. It's good to see someone thinking beyond "it would be cool to blow him to bits." I agree, our best way out of this is playing the game better than he does. We should be at the UN now pestering the arms inspectors to get in there NOW, and give us a call if the Iraqis hide anything at all. And after you call us, call the BBC and CNN and get that out to the world.

After we do that, whatever else happens, we win. If he thwarts the arms inspectors? Well, sorry, you knew we had that UN resolution, and now we have to back up those arms inspectors with a few hundred tanks and close air support. If he agrees? Sure, he will play the shell game, but we will have all the resources of US intelligence to locate and track his weapons - and the people on the ground in Iraq to get there and inspect them.

And if, by chance, he actually grudgingly cooperates? We will have yet another Fidel, another impotent anti-american madman who can't hurt us, waging his own internal wars until someone overthrows him, or until he dies of old age. We still win, and no innocent Iraqis (and more importantly to me, none of our military) will die.

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Engage North Korea diplomatically. Don't tell them "we're not going to negotiate until you disarm."

Hey, Bush must be reading Dropzone.com! He's taking Bill's advice now.

Quote

Keep our promise in terms of fuel oil deliveries so they don't have that excuse to fire up their reactors.

You would do this despite them breaking their promise about stopping their nuclear weapons programs? Wouldn't that be rewarding bad behaviour?

Quote

Keep pressure on Iraq via the UN. Support UN intervention rather than unilateral intervention.

I agree with this partially. Without the threat of US unilateral intervention the UN would have never done anything in Iraq. It took that threat, backed by US military force repositioning, to get the UN off of it's butt. The problem with a threat is you have to be willing to follow through with it if they call our bluff.

Quote

Skip the Department of Homeland Defense. Instead, keep the original agencies and make it clear what their roles are.

Amen, we don't need a domestic CIA. Remember the FBI during the Hoover era? That was a domestic CIA. It doesn't work.

Quote

Require a balanced budget every year.

In good economic times that is easy to do. If you try to do it during bad economic times it can lead to a worse economy. If you have a bad economy you are getting less taxes, therefore you increase taxes to balance the budget (or cut programs then you have to decide which ones to cut) which decreases spending which leads to a weaker economy.

Quote

Skip the missile defense program. It doesn't work.

..........yet. The real question is "do we need it at this time". I don't have enough information about foreign threats to make this decision and neither does anyone on this board. That means we have to trust the people in the know.

Quote

Would I want the job? Hell no.

Exactly.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Engage North Korea diplomatically. Don't tell them "we're not going to negotiate until you disarm."

Hey, Bush must be reading Dropzone.com! He's taking Bill's advice now.

Quote

Keep our promise in terms of fuel oil deliveries so they don't have that excuse to fire up their reactors.

You would do this despite them breaking their promise about stopping their nuclear weapons programs? Wouldn't that be rewarding bad behaviour?

It doesn't look like we'll be promising anything, clicky article about no inducements.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Tonto 1]

I read that a rocket with a 100kg (220lbs) payload of stone chips put into low orbit would nail just about every satilite within about 3 months. Any idea how you would get about a million pebbles out of shallow space other than wait a few years? What is the cost of every satelite vs 1 big bag of dirt?

How many countries have rocket technology?

(Oh. I do think a tank is more expensive than a trench though, but the rest of your examples are very valid)

There are no impregnable defences.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

It doesn't look like we'll be promising anything

I was referring to the fact that we are will to talk about their program now. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/08/nkorea.talks/index.html

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[PhreeZone 20]

Even better and a whole lot more effective then stone chips is lead shot. Lead shot exploded in a medium to low orbit would cripple the worlds satalites and basically plunge the world back to the 60's in terms of communication ability. No more Satalites is a very real possibility since some of the model rockets that are being built are almost able to reach the edges of space. An IRBM (that how mant counties have now?) probally have more then enough range to do it, ICBM's for sure.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,119]

>Hey, Bush must be reading Dropzone.com! He's taking Bill's advice
>now.

Well, he decided to "engage" them but not "negotiate" with them, which I don't get. At least it's a step in the right direction.

>>Keep our promise in terms of fuel oil deliveries so they don't have
>> that excuse to fire up their reactors.

>You would do this despite them breaking their promise about
> stopping their nuclear weapons programs? Wouldn't that be
> rewarding bad behaviour?

The fuel oil they need desperately, so supply that, perhaps in return for minor concessions (inspection rights.) The two light water reactors that we stopped - keep them as the bargaining chips. Better still, propose an alternate to the LWR's (like PBMR's, which suck for making nuclear weapons.)

>In good economic times that is easy to do. If you try to do it during
> bad economic times it can lead to a worse economy. If you have a
> bad economy you are getting less taxes, therefore you increase
> taxes to balance the budget (or cut programs then you have to
> decide which ones to cut) which decreases spending which leads to a
> weaker economy.

I don't believe that the government has that much influence over the economy. Using tax cuts and economic stimulus is like leaning in a boat to try to change its direction, but the US economy is a lot more like an ocean liner than a canoe.

>yet. The real question is "do we need it at this time". I don't have
> enough information about foreign threats to make this decision and
> neither does anyone on this board. That means we have to trust the
> people in the know.

I don't trust that people in government who do not answer to anyone will always do the right thing. Watergate comes to mind, as does Contra aid. SDI may one day make sense; right now it doesn't. The issue is not that we might need it, the issue is that it just doesn't work. Less than half the tests so far have been successful under perfect conditions, and even the ones deemed 'successes' were stretches (they defined one miss as a 'success' because had the missile detonated at just the right time it might have taken out the incoming missile.)

It would be bad to not have a system and need it. It would be worse to rely on a system we have that doesn't work.

[Muenkel 0]

I love Bush.

Has it occured to anyone that Bill Clinton's Presidency ended up as a Bush sandwich? So appropriate.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,119]

>Has it occured to anyone that Bill Clinton's Presidency ended up as a
>Bush sandwich?

Be interesting if Hilary runs in 2008; you could see a Clinton sandwich.

[Sebazz1 2]

Quote

Be interesting if Hilary runs in 2008

But she already served for two terms...

[billvon 3,119]

>But she already served for two terms...

They make an exception if you have a photo stand-in.