It's been done. Congress has given Bush authorization to attack Iraq. This is for primarily sharing opinions as to what you think the possible ramifications of this latest event could be.

I can see a number of outcomes, none of them very beneficial to the American people. If America wins, it will forever secure us the hatred of the Middle Eastern governments. If we lose, well, I hate to think of losing this.

[ October 20, 2002, 11:23: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Last time I looked, Bush didn't need authorization. But he said he wanted congressional support, which is of course, the smart thing to do if you're the man making the call and would like to be reelected.

Other than that, send in the Special Forces. My God, do any of you realize just how many of those guys Live for stuff like this?

Psychopaths with extensive training and the weaponry to match. All of them. Not excepting the guys that jump out of planes, or make their way through known landmine areas. Sure, some of them won't come back, but they specically know this going in.

Let the guys that want to play, have their fun; I say!

Bush needs congressional support if he wants to keep troops stationed in a hostile area. He could send them without Congressional backing, but they would just recall them after 24 hours or some such small time limit. Not only would that be an awful political move regarding upsetting the legislature, it would also be rather embarassing to be so publicly overridden and chastised.

Actually, if he wants to the President can make war for 60 days without going to Congress. A lot longer than 24 hours, plenty of time to wreak havoc.

I've actually changed my opinion regarding the appropriateness of a forced regime change, but the other thread on the subject had deginerated to the point that I chose not to post there.

Perhaps more important than Congressional support are the reports of a compromise brewing in the U.N.

In short, there was a lot of shouting here in particular about "Bush is a power hungry moron waging unilateral war!" when there has yet to be a war and now it is becoming more and more likely to have multi-lateral support.

I've started to change my mind on whether we should force a regime change. Most of the arguments against it on this board have not been persuasive. Here is a short article about why it may not be the best move, I'm purposely leaving the author's name out since it may create bias. I'll give the name later if anyone is interested, some may have read it. It's filled with rhetoric but makes some good points.

The fires had not yet gone out at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a year ago, before the War Party had introduced its revised plans for American empire. What many saw as a horrific atrocity and tragedy, they saw instantly as an opportunity to achieve U.S. hegemony over an alienated Islamic world.

President Bush initially directed America's righteous wrath and military power at al-Qaida. But in his "axis-of-evil" address, he signed on to the War Party's agenda.

What lies ahead? When America invades Iraq, it will have to destroy Saddam and all his weapons of mass destruction. Else, the war will have been a failure. And to ensure destruction of those weapons, we must occupy Iraq. If you would see what follows, pull out a map.

With Americans controlling Iraq, Syria is virtually surrounded by hostile powers: Israel on the Golan, Turks and Kurds to the north, U.S. power to the west in Iraq and south in Jordan. Syrian President Assad will be forced to pull his army out of Lebanon, leaving Israel free to reinvade Lebanon to settle accounts with Hezbollah.

Now look to Iran. With Americans occupying Iraq, Iran is completely surrounded: Americans and Turks to the west, U.S. power in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. U.S. warplanes will be positioned to interdict any flights to Lebanon to support Hezbollah.

Iraq is the key to the Middle East. As long as we occupy Iraq, we are the hegemonic power in the region. And after we occupy it, a window of opportunity will open – to attack Syria and Iran before they acquire weapons of mass destruction.

This is the vision that enthralls the War Party – "World War IV," as they call it – a series of "cakewalks," short sharp wars on Iraq, Syria and Iran to eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat to us and Israel for generations.

No wonder Ariel Sharon and his Amen Corner are exhilarated. They see America's war on Iraq as killing off one enemy and giving Israel freedom to deal summarily with two more: Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Two jumps ahead of us, the Israelis are already talking up the need for us to deal with Libya, as well.

Anyone who believes America can finish Saddam and go home deceives himself. With Iraq's military crushed, the country will come apart. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south will try to break away, and Iraq will be at the mercy of its mortal enemy, Iran. U.S. troops will have to remain to hold Iraq together, to find and destroy those weapons, to democratize the regime, and to deter Iran from biting off a chunk and dominating the Gulf.

Recall: After we crushed Germany and Japan in World War II, both were powerless to reassume their historic roles of containing Russia and China. So, America, at a cost of 100,000 dead in Vietnam and Korea, had to assume those roles. With Iraq in ruins, America will have to assume the permanent role of Policeman of the Persian Gulf.

But is this not a splendid vision, asks the War Party. After all, is this not America's day in the sun, her moment in history? And is not the crushing of Islamism and the modernization of the Arab world a cause worthy of a superpower's investment of considerable treasure and blood?

What is wrong with the War Party's vision?

Just this: Pro-American regimes in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh will be shaken to their foundations by the cataclysm unleashed as Americans smash Iraq, while Israelis crush Palestinians. Nor is Iran likely to passively await encirclement. Terror attacks seem certain. Nor is a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of believers from Morocco to Indonesia likely to welcome infidel America and Israel dictating the destiny of the Muslim world.

As for the pro-American regimes in Kabul and Pakistan, they are but one bullet away from becoming anti-American. And should the Royal House of Saud come crashing down, as the War Party ardently hopes, do they seriously believe a Vermont-style democracy will arise?

Since Desert Storm, America has chopped its fleets, air wings and ground troops by near 50 percent, while adding military commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia. Invading and occupying Iraq will require hundreds of thousands of more troops.

We are running out of army. And while Americans have shown they will back wars fought with no conscripts and few casualties, the day is not far off when they will be asked to draft their sons to fight for empire, and many of those sons will not be coming home. That day, Americans will tell us whether they really wish to pay the blood tax that is the price of policing the War Party's empire.

That was a good short article. If you have a longer attention span and want to see what I think is an OUTSTANDING non-biased analysis I think this is a start:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm

I thought that the reason Pres. Bush got the authorization was to avoid the same problems his father did in '91. That was to give iraq the time to hide it's weapon facilities. Am I wrong?

Does anyone know if the US will be taking along her little brother this time round?...

That authorization from Congress was very much expected... but it is an authorization, not a recommendation, or anything of the sort. In other words, a peaceful solution is still possible.

Personally I think a more interesting turn in these events is how the US actually seems to back down on their UN resolution demands. As it is now it seems like the French will get things their way, as usual. :D I don't mind though, it seems like a reasonable compromise, and to me, being european, the white house scores major points for trying to reach a consensus instead of going off on their own.

Once again, Saddam Hussein is somewhere around 75 years old now (noone knows for sure). He will not live forever. The Saudi-arabian royalty is falling apart, and the citizens are unhappy with the way they have cooperated with the US. Almost every country in this region has a similar situation: None of them are democratic, and in many cases those dictators seem to be on the verge of being overthrown.

The middle east is far from stable. In fact, if there is one place in the world where a world war might start, it's right there.

So shipping large amounts of troops to that same area doesn't seem like a brilliant idea. What the middle east needs is help to defuse this situation, before there is another war, and I think the UN has a better chance of doing something about that than the US, but of course, for the UN to be able to do anything, it needs US support. That's why I'm glad that the US seems to be willing to compromise and debate, instead of just pushing their own agenda at any cost.

Excellent excerpt and article, Laches. It's refreshing to see a clearheaded argument on the subject.

If Bush does attack Iraq, Sadam would probably do what he did last time, burn the oil. But not only the oil fields, all the oil. A fire that would last about 5 years to stop burning and the world economy would be wrecked. Does anyone want to pay 50 dollars for a litre of oil, that might be cheap if Bush really attacks.

[ October 22, 2002, 19:34: Message edited by: Silverblade ]

I wish Bush would stop sabre rattling and get involved in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute!!! I think that would go a long way if we could help the Palestinians get a little self-determination.

I think it would help them tremendously, raise US esteem in the rest of the Islamic world, and maybe even help in the fight against terrorism.

As far as Iraq...We made our bed in the Gulf War, now we have to lie in it. Military action against Iraq should not be an option. Sanctions have worked, between pushing for inspections and our own surveillance methods, we should know for sure if Saddam can make the bomb or not.

If the administration offered concrete proof of Saddam's misadventures, then I would act...But definitely not on what we've been presented with now. The rationale is very thin...Anorexic even.

Silverblade, Hussein couldn't burn up the second largest reserve of oil in the world. I'm sure he wishes he could threaten it (Dune anyone?) but your right in that he could burn the caps again. From an oil standpoint, the benefit to the West economically from having a stable and friendly power in place would outweigh the short term financial pain caused by forced regime change. If Iraq opened its production it could produce roughly 50% of the total amount pumped out by OPEC. Talk about driving OPEC nuts, that's why the Arab leaders in the area aren't and have never been interested in a stable Iraq -- it hurts them in the pocketbook. Same reason France, Russia, and Germany aren't interested in seeing Hussein out -- those countries do more business with the current regime than anyone else. Hussein gets to choose who he gives oil to in the current oil for food program and don't for a second think it's an accident that he chose Russia, France, and Germany and that they're now protecting him. I'm not so naive to think that opening one of the world's most untapped oil supplies plays a part in this, please do us the favor any of you Europeans reading this to not think Europes disapproval of regime change isn't linked to the billions Europe is making by dealing with Hussein.

Bel, I think there is an excellent reason for regime change. It's been presented.

Kanan Makiya, the great Iraqi writer and dissident, argues that the Baghdad regime is similar in ideology and practice to the European fascist dictatorships of the 1930s. This makes it fundamentally different from every other ridiculous Third World dictatorship currently holding a seat in the U.N. General Assembly. Saddam's Iraq is the quintessence of a security state, built on paranoia and homicide and Big Brother surveillance; its charismatic and megalomaniacal Great Leader thinks of himself as father of his people; his regime engages in racialist thought; it commits genocide; it seeks Lebensraum; and on and on and on.

So, what is conservative, or neoconservative, about Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle (or Dick Cheney) standing in the front line against fascism? I didn't realize that the fight against fascism is solely the province of the neoconservative movement. Isn't the real story here not the muscular unilateralism of the neocons, but the moral abdication of the moderate left, which is missing a chance to defeat a genocidal fascist?.......

But that certainly doesn't mean that abhorrence of Baathist totalitarianism is the exclusive preserve of the neocons. (For one thing, that's hard to square with the fact that the beatified Reagan administration pursued "constructive engagement" with Saddam both before and—worse—after he gassed Halabja.) Some liberals have missed the boat in taking humanitarianism out of the case for moving against Saddam. The death of about 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal should still offend the collective conscience of humanity, as did the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars, which goaded the reluctant Clinton administration into a humanitarian war. There's a fine liberal case for getting Saddam as well.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063437&entry=2063447

Here is some of the data from the Human Right's Watch:

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/iraq.html

And last years report from Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open

Since the end of the Gulf War the Iraqi government has, by its own admission, caused 16,500 "disappear."

There is more than enough justification for a forced regime change in my opinion.

The reason I am no longer comfortable with a forced regime change is not the justification but rather uncertainty about what comes after. The articles linked in my above post illustrate why, particularly the long Atlantic article.

I believe the U.S. has the resources to rebuild Iraq in a way that would make the world proud. However, with the Powell doctrine, and current state of political infighting, I do not think the U.S. has the will power to bring these resources to bear over the long term that would be necessary. Current Afghanistan is an example of that in my opinion. Therefore, a strictly utilitarian analysis makes me think that in the long run more harm than good could come from a forced regime change.

[ October 22, 2002, 20:48: Message edited by: Laches ]

I agree that Iraq NEEDs a regime change...I just don't see why it's America's job to topple the government. I could understand if the Kurds, or Shi'ite muslims being persecuted in Iraq rebelled and needed outside support to gain power...I'd be all for helping them out, if they intend to institute a democratic form of government.

That's different than saying: "We don;t like the way you do things...So you're going down!" What if China felt that way about the US (they do) and acted on it?!? I just don't think it's right.

Ah but see, the Kurds have been fighting and asking for help for a long, long time now. We simply haven't responded to it because we didn't feel it was in our interest. See the Slate article linked above for some of the specifics I believe, there are other links on the web. Hussein has simply been more effective at killing the opposition, so they're not as strong, but they've been fighting and asking for help for a long time.

That's new to me...But I don't read the papers or watch the news...If that's the case, then Bush is getting worse advice on foreign affairs than I thought!

If the US could arm and support indigenous peoples to overthrow Hussein, and broker a deal for a Palestinian homeland - I think he could be remembered as a great president.

Too bad he's not, and it won't. Tragically, I voted for him! :eek: Oh well, the better of two poor choices...

Hmm, this whole Middle East thing has always been one huge mess. I tend to stay from that sort of thing, but if the US goes over there than let's just send some Rangers over there, have some Delta Force operators do the really nasty "behind enemy lines" stuff and air strike the rest. I'm not too opposed personally to giving Iran a headache (just us being over there is enough to do that), think they have something like that coming (sponcering terrorism and all (cowardly way to fight a war.) However, as militaristic as I may sound I don't think the US should act without the support of the UN.

atreides: interesting point, but I can't help but wonder just how much you know about the subject when you start talking about Iran supporting terrorism, in a thread where we're discussing Iraq... They are very different countries after all.

We've played a cat and mouse game between Iran and Iraq for most of the years I've been alive. I remember when I was very young Iran was almost a friend in the area, because we backed the Shah. When Khomeni took power, we turned against Iran and back...Yes! You guessed it! Iraq - in the Iran-Iraq war.

So it's understandable why the Mid-East isn't crazy about the US...We tend to be short-sighted and back dogs. See: Hussein, Noriega, even a spunky fellow in Afghanistan named Osama. The list caould go on, but I don't remember everyone's names...

The bottom line is, America's leadership need to think long term about the region and opt for overall stability rather than supporting the flavor of the month. With that said, most of these blunders written above were from the Cold War era, when the enemy of my enemy was my friend ruled diplomacy. The world has changed - we need to change with it.

Our primary goal in the region should be the institution of free-democratic autonomy for Middle Eastern nations. Our system isn't perfect, but it's a far sight better than most. Definitely better than the 8th century oligarchies currently in use in the Mid-East today.

I do wonder what a Middle East democracy would look like.

Ok, there's Israel. Let me rephrase.

I wonder what an Islamic Middle Eastern democracy would be like. Would they get sucked by the Hollywood culture as quickly as Europe and Asia have? (I hope not.) Would they be able to bring back something of the wonders of Byzantium?

Hell, would they finally be able to feed their people and keep order without constant anti-Zionist diatribes?

With most modern cultures I can see something that positive they contribute to the world as a whole. I have a very hard time seeing anything positive coming from the Arab Middle East in the past half-century or so. Perhaps freeing the people from the oppressive governments currently in power would also set them free to return work on the powerful culture of their grandfathers.

Shralp just two questions:
1)Arabs have no relation with the byzantine culture, they have developed their own culture. How do they bring back the the wonders of Byzantium?
2)Which are the wonders of Byzantium? The only wonder created by Byzantium was the church of Agia Sophia (I don't Know how it is called in english)in Constantinople, nothing else.

Do you see anything positive coming from Africa withing the next 50 years Shralp? We're talking about developing countries, that have, in some cases, been giving a push forward by the oil... but apparently that push has only reached a select few in each country. I don't expect much from the middle east, but democracy would be nice, there are some very nice african examples of how it is possible even in very poor countries, with a little help from the UN.

BOC, after the Arabs conquered Constantinople they created a huge empire that dominated that part of the globe. They had an actual culture, well-respected libraries and places of learning (I don't know that you'd call them colleges as such), and a host of technological accomplishments. I'm not just talking about big buildings.

Yes, there have been good examples of stable democracies among the poor countries in Africa. Senegal springs to mind. But my point is better addressed by the things we see contributed to the world from African nations: there we do see some vibrant, healthy cultures alongside the destitute nations. I can't point to notable scholarly achievements on the par of the old Arab empires, however.

Shralp - You have to give a little credit to the Arab world. Our number system is based on arabic, and the rediscovery of numerous ancient greek and roman texts by arabic scholars basically ended the "Dark Ages" and brought about the Renaissance revival in Europe.

You got it Bel, if not for the Arabic scholar Al Farabi, we probably would not have any Aristotle floating around today...

Heh. Bel, that's why I added my little "in the last 50 years" disclaimer.

Although I strongly contest the idea that Arabs had much to do with the end of the Dark Ages... or that the Dark Ages were all that dark. The monks who stockpiled books and then opened schools across Europe deserve a good bit of the credit.

Shralp
You are wrong. Constantinople was conquered by Turks in 1453 AC. The Arabs besieged Constantinople several times (669 AC, 674 AC, 717 AC) but they never managed to conquer it. The Arabs conquered Persia, North Africa, Southern Spain and some byzantine provinces in Minor Asia and Aegean Sea which were retaken by Byzantines in later years. I agree with you that arabs developed a great culture but their culture had nothing to do with the byzantine culture.It was far advanced than byzantine culture in many things. Byzantines, because of the theocratic nature of their state, have never developed a significant culture and therefore they have never created the wonders that you say.

[ October 28, 2002, 22:26: Message edited by: BOC ]

Shralp - I missed the half-century reference the first time around...

But - the middle east has jumped light years ahead in the creation of fanatical terrorists to foment anarchy and chaos! Give credit where credit is due! :p ;) :rolleyes:

Bel, I know that was tongue in cheek, but since I do think there may be a tendency by some to think Islam fosters terrorism I'll just assert the position that that is not so. (and I know you said Middle East not Muslim but to many they are inextricably twined.)

I think the reason for terrorism is usually soci-economic. While the Middle East is sitting on huge oil reserves, the overwhelming majority of that wealth has not resulted in the type of filtered down benefit to the populace one might hope.

There are many, many types of terrorist groups and the one common component seems to be they are usually born out of poor socio-economic situations. There are a ton of Christian terrorist groups. And Hindu. And Buddhist. And... Just think of all the Christian terrorists in Central and South America.

Here is a little list, not all the groups may fit neatly into the square hole, but it is a start.

http://fas.org/irp/world/para/

If Turandil reads this, notice all the communist terrorists? :)

Quote:
"The monks who stockpiled books and then opened schools across Europe deserve a good bit of the credit."

Shralp, the monks you are referring to really did not do that much until the later middle ages - AFTER the influences of the Arab teachers and philosophers were felt in Europe. Contrary to popular belief, monks were not really all that educated until the Scholastic movement started in the later middle ages - many of them could not even read, so I think you are giving credit to the wrong people. Pick a new history book.

Heh. BOC, unless I'm mistaken Constaninople has indeed fallen. They call it Instanbul now. :1eye:

Falstaff, behave yourself. Be polite. Atta boy.

Yes Shralp, it has fallen and it is called Istanbul now (here we call it still Constantinople),I have already written this. What I'm trying to say to you is that it was conquered by the Turks not by the Arabs.

Ah. I suppose by "Arabs" I used the wrong word for the group I was thinking of. Perhaps I should have stuck with "Muslims," but I was trying to avoid (further) stigmatizing the religion.

Sorry Shralp, sometimes I get a little excited - nothing personal! :thumb:

Lets have a show of hands. Who cares about who is leading Iraq?

Turks are muslims but this is the only common thing they have with Arabs. They have nothing common with arabs in culture or politics. I think it is indicative the fact that they are the only islamic country of the area, which has good relations with Israel.

NP, Falstaff.

Truth be told, BOC, a good bit of the people over there aren't Arabs. Depending upon whom you ask, you'll hear that Afghanis, Pakistanis, and even Egyptians are not Arabs.

I think anthropologists would agree about the first two groups.