Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Spriggan on September 10, 2002, 11:08:23 AM
-
Could it be...France comming around and actualy makeing sence for once....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62477,00.html
-
it doesn't surprise me that france supports military action, they're just repressed bullies
-
har har har. have a look at this.
The old order endeth
William Safire gets it. The loud squeaks emanating from France and Germany are likely to be the final straw for the Atlantic alliance. Safire writes particularly about Schroder:
What this final victory [actually not a victory, because the Mail on Sunday stood up to his bullying -- ISM] shows is that Schröder — with all his illusory conquests, triumphs, glories, spoils — does not share the free-speech values of the West. Though cannily manipulative, he lacks a sense of the absurd, which is why his war on the press is making him "der Gegenstand des Gelächters" — the laughingstock.
But his political switching and diplomatic maneuvering are no laughing matter. The German design is apparently to saw off the Atlantic part of the Atlantic Alliance, separating Britain and the U.S. from a federal Europe dominated by Germany and France (with France destined to become the junior partner).
No wonder the British press catches a whiff of the old Berlin imperiousness. No wonder the idle French threat to veto a resolution — which Chirac knows will not be offered — reminds populous and powerful nations like India and Japan of the inequity of mid-sized France having the veto power, and of the need to prevent Germany from getting it.
France is not aiming its barbs purely at America, though. She too recognizes the Anglosphere, and is basically playing the Great Game again, trying to make the various despots of Africa her clients. Witness this invitation to Robert Mugabe despite British protests:
Mr Mugabe is currently banned from entering the European Union because of doubts about the legitimacy of his re-election last year.
But French President Jacques Chirac was convinced that the Zimbabwean leader's presence at the summit would help promote justice, human rights and democracy in his country, foreign ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau told journalists.
The real reason is stated later in the report:
Correspondents say that France sees itself as Africa's best friend on the international stage. It recently extended a $3m grant to help some eight million people in need of food aid in Zimbabwe.
As relations between the UK and Zimbabwe have deteriorated, France has been moving closer to Mr Mugabe's government.
Mr Rivasseau said France understand the "emotion and indignation" of the British over the visit, but said that no sanctions would be broken.
Tony Blair is coming close to the moment when he will have to choose between Europe and the Anglosphere. I find it exemplary of continental arrogance that they are forcing this issue, which will almost certainly leave them poorer and weaker.
Posted 9:26 AM by Iain Murray
i say we let em stew in their own juices.
this comes, incidentially, from The Edge of Englands Sword (http://englandssword.blogspot.com/)
-
Agreed!!
-
As long as Spriggan has brought up the old question of possible invasion of Iraq, I thought you might find this little tidbit interesting:
There are several international relations scholars lately who have been saying that the best method for ensuring peace is through extensive, if not universal, nuclear proliferation.
The major proponent of this idea, John Mearsheimer, takes a lot of his ideas from another structural realist, John Gaddis. Gaddis' main thesis is that the Cold War should be more accurately defined as the "Long Peace." Looking at the last several centuries, there has never been a more peaceful time in Europe than the fifty or so years of the Cold War.
Anyway, Mearsheimer believes that, among other reasons, one driving force behind this peace was the concept of mutually assured destruction. Both the U.S. and the USSR were involved in conflicts, but never directly against each other because the threat of nuclear war was too high.
Therefore, Mearsheimer says, we should carefully proliferate nukes to everybody, because then, while conflict will still occur, large scale war will ultimately stop since no one wants to run the risk of getting nuked.
For a real life example, look at India and Pakistan. They hate each other and have been at war forever, but, since they both aquired nuclear weapons a decade ago, large scale military action has stopped. They still don't get along, but their not at war.
So, maybe the answer isn't to make sure Iraq doesn't have nukes, but to make sure that it's neighbors do.
That ought to tick a few people off.
-
It didn't tick me off, but I consider the idea a pure form of idiocy. The Cold War was based off the idea of mutual destruction, but the players who possessed the weapons weren't specifically raving lunatics. Extensive proliferation would give weapons of mass destruction into the hands of the madmen we all know are out there, and their usage would surely follow. Even if you aren't willing to call them madmen, many would be given toward using those weapons at the expense of their own country or a neighboring region, and it wouldn't take much for a fanatic to start a nuclear war in such an environment. We aren't even taking care of the weapons we have properly...I don't know what possesses the 'intellectuals' you mentioned to think that extensively proliferated nukes would be sufficiently secure from abuse.
Besides, the Cold War was in no way a 'Long Peace'. War and death between the US-led and USSR-led factions was common and rampant during those years. The only peaceful parts of the world were the developed nations. Sometimes. Both the US and USSR fought costly wars against factions supported by the opposing regime. Nor does peace exist between Pakistan and India. They haven't annihliated each other yet with their biggest guns, but people still die in their conflict.
-
Speaking from a military perspective I would have to agree with Prometheus on this one. There are several countries in this world that I know would abuse the weapons were they provided with them. I could not bring myself to trust the fate of the world into the hands of such people as Saddam.
I guess this is as good a time as any to break the news. I will have to be leaving the forum for about five months, starting Feb. 11, due to such incidents as those we are discussing. I am headed in for training with the National Guard and will not have access to a computer for recreational purposes during that time period. It has been great getting to know all of you, and I will try to keep in touch as best as I can. My training is scheduled to be over in July, and I will try to catch up with everything then. Thanks for all the fun times.
-
give em hell mate. not anybody in particular, just somebody ::)
-
Prometheus -
The reason that the Cold War was called the "Long Peace" is because, while there was conflict, there was no war between superpowers. The fear of nuclear war led to the total avoidance of direct conflict. We knew that the Soviets were aiding our enemies in Vietnam (both directly through sale of weapons and indirectly through support of China) but we never called them on it. Because of the fear of nuclear war, we never wanted to get into an all out fight. Likewise, the USSR knew we were supporting the mujahadeen (or however you spell that) in Afghanistan, but they never called us on it. True, the presence of nuclear weapons was not the end of conflict, but it was the end of direct, superpower conflict. Once again, I point you toward Europe in the 20th century.
To paraphrase Mearsheimer, after World War One, everybody got together, insisting that this must never happen again, and laid down several international rules and laws which led to another extremely devastaing war twenty years later. After that war, everybody got together and insisted that it must never happen again, except this time they all quarrelled and didn't make any ground rules. Instead, the world became a bipolarity of intense enemies and Europe existed in unprecedented peace for fifty years. It was only after the fall of the USSR that Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc...) started fighting again.
As far as the idea that a wacky leader would just hate everybody enough to start nuclear war, I think that is far fetched. Saddam, the wackiest leader out there right now, is not a gun toting idealogue. He is a power hungry ideologue. It is inconcievable that he would nuke somebody, knowing that he would get nuked right back. He wants to control territory, not get himself killed.
And look at India and Pakistan. They still shoot each other in Kashmir, but they've stopped invading each other. Conflict continues, but it is not as extreme.
Nicadymus--
Congratulations! Although I'm a theory loving Political Science fanatic who likes to argue, deep down I totally support the United States military. I don't think there are many better things a person could do than join, whether actively or reserve. Good luck!
-
I should probably try to remember my account username/pass before I start posting (I've never been a big one) but I'm too lazy, so I'll just dive in. But I'll preface this by saying by current standards of support for Bush and war in Iraq, I'm a peace-nik hippy boy.
Soviet indirect support for Vietnam through China. I'd like to see sources on that. My understanding is that the Soviet Union never got along well with PRC. Especially at that stage. But that's just a side note.
As far as the idea that a wacky leader would just hate everybody enough to start nuclear war, I think that is far fetched. Saddam, the wackiest leader out there right now, is not a gun toting idealogue. He is a power hungry ideologue. It is inconcievable that he would nuke somebody, knowing that he would get nuked right back. He wants to control territory, not get himself killed.
I don't think Hussein is interested in first strike Nuke (or chemical weapons or whatever) either. However, this doesn't mean it's a good idea for him to have them. For one, he's a genocidal maniac. For another, he supports terrorism, and I don't think he's beyond loaning out a WMD. For a third, we're almost definitely going to attack Iraq first. I don't think he's so sane that he won't lauch a WMD once he sees that he's not going to have any power at all ("If I can't have her NO ONE WILL!" sort of thing).
And look at India and Pakistan. They still shoot each other in Kashmir, but they've stopped invading each other. Conflict continues, but it is not as extreme.
I also don't condone the idea of nuclear proliferation. I'd be interested in seeing numbers of war-related deaths since the advent of the big bomb. But mostly, as has been said, we've got way too many governments and leaders willing to abuse nukes and use them as bargaining chips.
When you say "not as extreme," I'll concur that it's not as evident as full scale continental invasion. But it is more drawn out, and many, many people still suffer. To support a premise that the repetitious and continuous small conflict is less (or, for that matter is more) deadly than the occasional major war, you're going to have to show me numbers for world wide deaths from conflict (including the poverty and incidental damage from such conflicts). Keep in mind that during the Cold War there were no full multi-national long-term conflicts, there were still dozens and dozens of rebellions, "peace keeping" actions, and other violent conflicts AT ANY GIVEN TIME between the 1940s and late 80s. Many of them directly related to the two superpowers. I don't have those numbers on hand, so I can't say which resulted in the loss of more human life, but I don't think the difference is sufficient to justify the hate, fear, and shear potential disaster that results from so many WMDs floating around.
It seems to me that the approach of mass proliferation in order to avoid a few wars is akin to sticking your finger in the hole in the dyke. Eventually, it's going to fall apart on you.
-
("If I can't have her NO ONE WILL!" sort of thing).
I would challenge anyone to tell me of a world leader that has ever done anything so suicidal. I will concede that governments have taken suicidal tactics (the Kamikazis from WWII, or the Palestinian suicide bombers), but in no situation ever (unless I am grossly mistaken) has a leader taken deliberate action that he knows will destroy his own country and his own power.
You (Saint Ehlers, as well as many people around the world) talk about the insanity of Saddam. You claim that he's crazy enough that 'he just might do it!' What is that based on? Sure, he's a ruthless dictator. So what.
We know that he has WMDs because he used them twice, once against the Kurds and once again in the Iran Iraq War. But why didn't he use them against the US? Things looked, to him, during the gulf war, as though he was done for, but he never used his chemical or biological weapons once. He hated Israel to no end, but even when he was hucking scuds at them he never attached a WMD warhead. Why not?
Simply because he wanted to maintain his control. He knew that using a WMD could only be answered by turning Iraq into giant sheet of glass. He didn't use them then, when everything seemed against him, why would he use them today?
Look, as far as widespread proliferation goes, nuclear technology is here and there's no getting rid of it. There are only three possible scenarios:
1) Only states that currently have nukes can have nukes. This won't work because it already hasn't worked (look at N. Korea getting them against everyones wishes, or India/Pakistan.)
2) Everybody gets rid of them. The technology is here and people know how to make them. If everybody got rid of them, think of how much advantage one country would have if they got them back and were the only nuclear power. It would nag at every nuke-less nation until somebody finally built one again.
3) Nuclear Proliferation. They're going to proliferate. The only question is how, and whether it is going to be regulated by an international body, or whether rogue states are going to get them, destabilizing a region and using them against a non-nuke owning foe.
As far as terrorism goes, since everyone is scared to death that Saddam is going to be handing out whatever his scientists have come up with, I don't see the basis for the fears. Saddam, as we've already said, has WMDs and yet he hasn't ever given them to a terrorist ("yes, I know he might of and we don't know it yet," Mustard said, wondering what that strange smell coming through the heating duct was.)
It goes back to Mutually Assured Destruction. The only way that a government would hand out nukes is if it was 100% sure that nobody would ever ever know, because if anyone found out, then it would be the end of them.
-
After watching coverage of Iraqi leaders on C-Span, (some of it non-translated in straight English) I personally choose not to place any irrational action beyond their reach. They simply don't see the world straight on. They really do believe they are still getting away with their game of hide-and-seek with their weapons of mass destruction. They really do think that the rest of the world will still dance their little game along with them. It seems they have no real comprehension of what was handed to them in UN Resolution 1441 last November. All these impressions were solidly reinforced. Yesterday.
While you do make a moderately good case despite that for not believing that Saddam Hussein would directly attack us, you didn't say anything to refute the other points I made. There are plenty of non-governmental officials out there who are very interested in the destructive potential of nuclear capabilities, and who are not bound by the rules of mutually assured destruction. In a world of nuclear proliferation, the already weak safeguards on nuclear weapons would slack considerably, and their use would be virtually guaranteed. There is no peace down that road. I also don't see the point of calling the Cold War a Long Peace just because the superpowers used proxy nations to wage their battles. People still died. Perhaps more seriously, both factions aided brutal dictators in gaining control of minor nations, (including our favorite Iraqi tyrant) which led to decades of worldwide oppression, poverty, and death in parts of the world ill-equipped to recover from those calamities. In a very real way, the Cold War is directly responsible for every source of international instability (see terrorism and war) we see in the world today. Without the Cold War (had there been a way to avert it) would we see similar things in the world? Probably. I don't see it as having aided anything in the realm of world progress, however.
-
Note that the US has yet to have fought seriously ON Iraq soil, so I contend the fact that it looked like he was "done for." The Gulf War took place on Kuwaiti soil. You appear to have still missed my point. I wasn't simply saying "he just might" (although I'm scared as hell he will under the right circumstances). I'm saying that if he feels he will be out of control anyway. And let's face it, W. is fighting this war because his Daddy did, and he wants to be like his daddy -- yes a gross simplification, but you'll get my meaning -- and the way to turn this into a presidential "victory" is to take Hussein from power. This man is murderous. OK, let's not use nancy terms like "ruthless dictator." This man has killed hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people, and not out of national defense, but out of personal vindictiveness. You are far from convincing me that he is not capable of throwing a final punch once he's reached the point where he'll no longer be a player in his own fate.
As for world leaders destroying their own basis of power, I'd say yes, we've seen that. We've seen that in the 20th century. Hitler and Lennin and Stalin all did it. The Chinese do it. Not in such a dramatic way as getting themselves nuked right away, but by killing off their nations best resources: their own people. In a wholesale fashion. Several of these people have invited disaster to their own door as well by refusing to see reason. Remember Stalin's deal with the Third Reich? I don't see why you think it so impossible for a leader to act against his nation's interest when we have so many examples of it in history.
We've also seen real situations where we were | | that close to nuclear devestation. For a famous example, "Cuban Missle Crisis" anyone? I think that the situation with North Korea is perfectly frightening. All these situations take is for one player to improvise instead of reading from the expected script and you have one big mess. Remember we're dealing with human nature here, which is more unpredictable than most of the hard sciences. Full scale nuclear war is not an unrealistic scenario in the near future (though I don't find it highly likely soon)
As for the inevitability of proliferation, I again refer to the thumb in the dyke. But I also would like to add that nuclear weapons are like sin. Just because it's impossible to eliminate doesn't mean that we're morally obligated to embrace it. I still feel obligated to attempt to remove WMDs from the world. If that means starting by preventing new entries into the nuclear arms possessing club, so be it. (on the other hand, I'm extremely anti-war -- I fear more that these will be used in the case of challenging new developers of WMD than otherwise).
The only way that a government would hand out nukes is if it was 100% sure that nobody would ever ever know, because if anyone found out, then it would be the end of them.
I don't think the percentage is quite 100%. Probably confident of secrecy, but not perfectly predictable secrecy. I also think that this scenario has a higher probability than your comment implies it would be.
I think there's really two issues here being discussed. One is the value of nuclear proliferation. I cannot see that as a "good" thing. The second (actually the first issue mentioned) is the value of attacking Iraq. I also cannot see that as a "good" thing. This may seem contradictory, but it is how I feel and interpret events. You can't make a person listen to you by violence or threatened violence, and therefore true peace does not lie down that road.
-
Modern nuclear proliferation is a slightly different topic than "The Long Peace," and I come down on different sides of each issue. Sort of. For starters, calling the Cold War a Long Peace is a completely valid label, because I guarantee you that it kept us out of World War 3. I don't see how we would have avoided it, if not for the two enormous superpowers staring each other down with fingers on the nuclear trigger. Yes, America fought in Vietnam and Korea, so Americans were not completely free of war, but the Cold War kept those mini-wars contained.
The thing is, the Cold War worked because it involved two, and only two, nuclear powers. It was balanced. MAD applied. As Prometheus pointed out, there are a lot of people for whom it doesn't apply any more. With too many nukes, you lose the balance.
So my thoughts are these:
1. Giving every nation in the world a nuke is not a good idea.
2. That doesn't mean that the Cold War was not a time of peace (not for everybody, I admit, but for the people actually involved in the Cold War it was pretty dang peaceful).
-
Ok. The problem with Mearsheimer is that he is a theorist and, as such, he doesn't like to be bothered with the real world. Structural realists, and all realists, believe that the only actors in world affairs are soveriegn nations and little things like terrorists with nukes don't fit in. So I will grant that the idea is bad because of a lack of security, and that nukes could get out of the hands of leaders and into someone who might do something really bad.
That said, Mearsheimer refers to all terrorist activity, be it suicide bombing, or 9/11 or a stray nuke that got into the wrong hands, as a sideshow. Terrorists by their very nature are weak and ineffectual - that is what leads them to terrorist tactics. In the grand scheme of things, a large terrorist threat wouldn't shut down a country, even if, dare I say, a nuke went off in Washington. It might kill a lot of politicians and infrastructure, but the government would continue because that is how the government is designed. So, I agree that a nuke might get into the wrong hands and we might have a lot of people die, but the international system would continue.
Now on to other issues:
As for world leaders destroying their own basis of power, I'd say yes, we've seen that. We've seen that in the 20th century. Hitler and Lennin and Stalin all did it. The Chinese do it. Not in such a dramatic way as getting themselves nuked right away, but by killing off their nations best resources: their own people.
You miss the whole point. What I'm saying is that no leader would take an action knowing full well that it would be the end of him, his people, and his nation. None of those examples come anywhere near that. I have no idea where you got China from - they're still around. How can they be an example of a nation that killed themselves?
The thing is, the Cold War worked because it involved two, and only two, nuclear powers. It was balanced. MAD applied. As Prometheus pointed out, there are a lot of people for whom it doesn't apply any more. With too many nukes, you lose the balance.
The balance was, in the bipolar world, that everybody had nukes. The US and it's allies had nukes, and the USSR and it's allies had nukes, so MAD applied. And it is true that right now there are a lot of people for whom it doesn't apply now. But if everybody had nukes again, it would apply again.
Take our friendly Takriti Saddam again. He was more than willing to use WMDs against a non-WMD owning enemy. But he wouldn't use them against the US or Israel because it is a general rule of international politics that WMDs are responded to with WMDs. Both Israel and the US were nuclear, so he didn't want to cause any problems with them. Even Saddam understands MAD.
But I also would like to add that nuclear weapons are like sin. Just because it's impossible to eliminate doesn't mean that we're morally obligated to embrace it. I still feel obligated to attempt to remove WMDs from the world.
You're looking at this awfully ideologically. Illogically ideologically, I might say. You say that I am wrong about nuclear proliferation because 'in the real world' the human element counteracts the theory of the balancing factors of nuclear proliferation. Yet you are morally obliged to do something that 'in the real world' is impossible because of those same human elements.
As far as my personal, non-arguing-for-the-fun of-it views:
I think that nuclear proliferation might work if there was an international body in place that had much more rigid control than the UN now has (in other words, it's not going to happen in the real world.)
I think that we have yet to see any good reason to go to war in Iraq. Well, let me change that. There are a lot of good reasons to go to war in Iraq, but I have yet to see any good reason for the US to make a preemptive strike in Iraq. There may very well be evidence out there that the gov't can't release because of protecting methods and means, but so far I'm not convinced of anything.
-
It might kill a lot of politicians and infrastructure, but the government would continue because that is how the government is designed. So, I agree that a nuke might get into the wrong hands and we might have a lot of people die, but the international system would continue.
Ah, I thought we were talking about people. Not the need to redesign a political map. My bad. ;D
Seriously though, I don't give a fig that the government continues, the impact on human life is what I'm talking about. If several million people die, that's a major event, regardless of the integrity of the government of those people.
You miss the whole point. What I'm saying is that no leader would take an action knowing full well that it would be the end of him, his people, and his nation. None of those examples come anywhere near that. I have no idea where you got China from - they're still around. How can they be an example of a nation that killed themselves?
Actually, I didn't miss the point. I never claimed that it was the absolute destruction of the nation. However, I still contend that leaders have conducted policies that were bad for their country in the long run. Even fatally bad. I don't recall you placing a condition that a mistake had to be a final one though, so that's where I got China from. They carry out practices daily that weaken their government and nation. On the other hand, you still haven't acknowledged my point. I'm STILL NOT talking about someone who's making decisions that he knows will finish him. I'm talking about a scenario where the leader makes a decision after his fate is already sealed.
You're looking at this awfully ideologically. Illogically ideologically, I might say. You say that I am wrong about nuclear proliferation because 'in the real world' the human element counteracts the theory of the balancing factors of nuclear proliferation. Yet you are morally obliged to do something that 'in the real world' is impossible because of those same human elements.
Actually, I'm not clear what you're saying there, but I think I see what you may see as the problem with my argument. Yes, I'm being ideological. Maybe even illogically so. But I don't see that as a problem, even if it doesn't fit someone else's notion of good argument (ah, yes, I know I'm entering Flaming territory and simply saying something's right because I said so, but that's not what I'm doing, so let it slide, will ya?).
What I'm saying is that a global government stability is irrelevant in the face of human life. Yes, I'm conflicted on the subject, possibly self-contradictory, but that's what makes this such an interesting subject (and the reason why I'm actually posting instead of just peaking in once a week or so). The reason why I think nuclear proliferation is bad even if it adds stability is I think in the long run we'll end up with an even greater instability eventually, and the cost in human life and quality of life will be drastically higher even in the mean time. Preserving life and quality of life is of a higher order of moral responsibility than the stability of international relations. So, I don't think we really disagree, it's just that according to Mearsheimer the stability is the end all, and I don't think that's so. The question is really whether this particular brand of status quo is more beneficial to human life and quality of life.
As far as my personal, non-arguing-for-the-fun of-it views:
I think that nuclear proliferation might work .... (in other words, it's not going to happen in the real world.)
... There are a lot of good reasons to go to war in Iraq, but I have yet to see any good reason for the US to make a preemptive strike in Iraq. There may very well be evidence out there that the gov't can't release because of protecting methods and means, but so far I'm not convinced of anything.
Well, then we really agree. Let's keep arguing. ;)
-
But why isn't stability the end all? Yes a stray nuke would kill a lot of people and be a very bad thing, but I'm saying that universal proliferation would end massive world conflicts, and decrease the quantity and intensity of minor conflicts, although terrorism might increase.
So the question is, which is better? More war and less terrorism? Or more terrorism and less war?
War, historically, has beaten terrorism in the number of dead a million times over. 9/11, though terrible, was the largest terrorist attack ever and it's death toll was no where near even minor battles in WWII. In WWI, 5000 British men died PER DAY.
Now, of course, a nuke would kill quite a few more. But nukes still aren't as devastating as total war. For example, in one day the bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed about 80,000. In one day of firebombing in Tokyo, 85,000 were killed. The numbers are very similar with the only difference being that that kind of firebombing went on all the time in Japan and Germany. One nuke killed 80k, but WWII killed 50 million, 67% of who were civilians.
Granted, nukes are bigger now, but not the ones that a terrorist could get - the so-called 'suitcase nukes.' I will also grant that a nuke that went off in New York City would be far more devastating than it's 1945 atomic predecessor. But just as nuclear weapons have grown more advanced, so have conventional weapons. Why are we so afraid of nukes destroying a city when a couple of dozen B-52s could do the same job?
Terrorism is a real threat, I just would rather see more terrorism and less war.
Ok, on to other things:
I'm STILL NOT talking about someone who's making decisions that he knows will finish him. I'm talking about a scenario where the leader makes a decision after his fate is already sealed.
I see now the point you were making, but I still disagree. You named three leaders, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin, and you also mentioned China.
--Lenin and Stalin: Whaaa?? How did they make decisions when they knew their fate was sealed. What big war did Lenin fight, let alone lose? There was, of course, the two Russian revolutions - BUT THEY WON!
And Stalin was on the winning side of WWII. He led the USSR to the biggest territory/client gain it ever had and the country survived another forty years after his death! If your argument is that these leaders made destructive decisions, knowing that their country was dying, how could either of these possibly fit?
--China: China has, right now the strongest economy it's ever had, the strongest military it's ever had and it is generally considered by most everybody who knows anything about the place to be the next rising superpower. How is their 'fate sealed?'
--Hitler: Ah - Finally! Somebody who lost! He still made commanding decisions, many of which were stupid, but he never suicidal ones (other than for himself). If the argument we're having is about whether or not a leader would take one last wild shot after he knew he was done for, Hitler never did anything like that. His last major offensive was the Battle of the Bulge, which he did have a legitimate chance of succeeding with. Everything else he did was purely defensive. Of course, he never surrendured, but that's quite a bit different from making a last Khan-setting-off-the-Genesis-device kind of attack.
I would love to address more of the argument, and I will later, but I have to get to class.
-
Ok, I see the problem. You think my arguments are cohesive and staying on the same subject! Foolish mortal. :o
Seriously, though. I'm addressing different aspects of the argument. I didn't mean to imply that any of those countries fit my fear perfectly, only to state that all of these examples have actively pursued policies that, rationally, they should have known would damage their counties' interest. Lenin created an atmosphere of mistrust that led to fear and mistrust, even among his loyal followers, an environment that led to problems for the next 80 years. Stalin, quite frankly, got into a bit of luck over winning WWII. His initial deals with Hitler, who openly espoused an ideologyy diametrically opposed to his own, cost them quite a bit of loss for three years and led to more suffering in cities such as St. Petersburg than most modern cities have ever seen. It also made victory for the USSR in WWII a doubtful outcome. Etc. My point is only that leaders do not always act in their countries', or even their own, interest.
No, there's no historical precedent for the "one last shot." But that hardly makes it unrealistic since all the other factors in the theory make sense. There's a first time for everything. And just because there's no historical precedent (like there wasn't for universal sufferage, or a Catholic President of the USA) doesn't mean it won't ever happen, or even be unlikely to happen.
As for nuclear proliferation being superior, I'm still not convinced that it significantly reduces the over-all number of deaths and injuries and collateral damage from violent conflict. We saw tons of fighting in the 20th century, and, as you said, very little of it from WMDs. Just because the two main guys aren't directly causing wholesale slaughter in each other's immediate territory doesn't indicate any sort of world peace. For example, we didn't see the internal rebellions in the Balkans much during the Cold War, but that can largely be attributed to Soviet suppression of information and to (also Soviet) violent and brutal suppression of dissidents.
"On a similar but unrelated note..." Notice how many of the things Bush said in his speach last night closely resemble the things the Hussein has been saying about us? Yeah, I thought so too. Granted, it's my belief that Mr. Hussein is evil while Mr. Bush is just, well, daft, but still, it kind of destroys any reliability he might have had for me.
-
I see strains of truth in Bush's comments, though. Iraqi rhetoric never matches up with reality very well.
-
I don't have much time for a real response right now, but as far as the State of the Union, I was pleasantly surprised. The numbers he gave (regarding evidence against Iraq were interesting, though far from damning), and I'm interested to see what Powell will give to the UNSC on February 5th. Maybe he'll finally show some of the real evidence they say they've got.
But in reference to Ehler's comment, I thought that Bush's accusation against Iraq could be fairly made against the US as well:
He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.
Not only has the US done both of these things, but we all seem pretty proud of it. Why is that?
-
That's America's greatest contradiction--we demand a worldwide governing body, but we insist on acting above it. "We're the only ones smart/level-headed/advanced enough to do [insert anything we want to do here]."
You know when you get a group of kids together, and there's always some girl who's the same age as everybody else but she thinks she's the mother and has to take care of everybody? Then she starts lecturing everybody and trying to get them to do whatever she wants. America is a lot like that annoying little girl.
-
Exporing the "why" on that requires some cultural grounding. It's been my impression that anti-UN sentiment is stronger in the western parts of the US. For example, the town in Utah that passed a law FORBIDDING any display that openly supported the UN (a gross violation of the 1st amendment, and probably a handful of others if I took the time to think about it). Likewise, it was only when living in Las Vegas and Utah that I heard people tell me that I should be shocked and alarmed that a soldier was court martialled for failing to salute a UN officer (imo, he darn well SHOULD have been court martialled, that was out of line, even if you have to interpret in terms that the US military was placed under a UN action, and therefore the implied order was to hearken to UN officers).
I think a lot of this has to do with fear of no home rule. The west has become sort of a bastion of the state rule sentiment. The federal government is bad, according to this line of thinking, so therefore anything that moves central authority even further away from local govt is even worse, generally speaking, even Biblically evil.
I think a lot of it also has to do with New World Order conspiracy theories too (I'm not going to get into that debate, but just remember that when most politicians say the phrase "new world order" they are referring to something grossly different from a) pro wrestling, and b) Illuminati style world domination conspiracies).
To those not directly affected by UN movements (such as those combatting world hunger or disease problems), the UN tends to be seen as a quasi-world government organization. I personally don't think that's bad, though many, many do.
To those who do benefit (like my friend in the Coast Guard who benefits directly from how members of foreign militaries are treated), the UN is usually seen as a boon.
But at the REAL root of all of it, I think the problem comes from the idea that the UN, whether or not it is a world government organization, is not completely controlled by the US, and therefore, it must be bad. Americans resist control and regulation, and the UN seems to be a constricting factor. It is, in short, a violation of personal space. (Though let's not forget that it comes in handy when we want to drop bombs on foreign countries).
-
Okay, I've got a little time - I'll be brief.
My point is only that leaders do not always act in their countries', or even their own, interest.
I agree with that. It could be argued that many of the United States' policies over the last several decades (specifically economic and social) have been somewhat destructive. But that does not mean that they are going to do something deliberately and knowingly to get themselves nuked.
As far as historical precedent for one last shot, I don't think that it is such a plausible possibility. There is a mountain of historical precedent for people defending themselves insanely, down to the last man. That is the essence of Realist thinking, that people will always vie for power and do nothing to give that power up. If that means that they will attack a weak foe, then they will do it, but never never ever at the expense of their own power. Saddam wants power more than he wants to kill the Americans, more than he wants to unify the Arab world and definately more than he wants to get nuked.
As for the numbers you request, I'll do a little research and get back to you - probably tomorrow.
Anyway, that's it for now.
-
Oh crap - while I was posting, Fell and Ehlers posted. My last post refers to Ehlers' post before this most recent one.
Fell - America is the Lucy Van Pelt of the world? That's sad. Who's Charlie Brown? For that matter, who is Pig Pen? I say he's the French.
-
America is a lot like that annoying little girl.
can i use that as my signature? ::)
-
You can if you want, but "America is the Lucy Van Pelt of the world" is a lot funnier. Only if you know who she is, I guess.
-
i dunno who that is
-
Lucy is the girl who picked on Charlie Brown a lot. Linus' older sister (Linus is the kid with the blanket).
-
Does that make Britain the Linus of the world (since it kind of follows the US around and nods its head when we tell them that fir trees give us fur for coats and that the ants job is to make the grass grow)? And is the security blanket that Britain clings to is its one time status as the main world power?
-
No, because Linus was also more thoughtful and learned than Lucy and/or Charlie Brown. And while Britain often feels like they are, Tony Blair, who presumably represents them, has shown otherwise.
But on that note, I think that makes the French Pig Pen, and Germany is Peppermint Patty. What I really want to know, is if the US is Lucy, wth is Charlie Brown? Canada?
-
I still hold that Linus is Britain. He is more culturally refined, but he still believed everything Lucy said. Shortly after the attacks in Afghanistan, Blair was referred to by the international press as Bush's lapdog.
Who is Schroeder? Who is America's unrequited love interest?
-
Arab Oil, or possibly Japanese technology.
I think Mexico is Charlie Brown, because we always pretend that we're their friends, and then we yank away the football of friendship and economic support just as they're about to kick it.
-
"Life is like a bowl of Peanuts." I always thought it was "Life is like a bowl of cherries."
-
So back to the original topic: France (or, as Spriggan says, Frence).
This morning on MSNBC they had one of their military analysts on shooting his mouth off about somethig or other, but they made an interesting point about France and Germany. They said that both of those countries have been known to sell things to Iraq in the last decade. It was the opinion of this guy (and I have no idea how credible he is) that Germany and France don't want to go to war because the world will find out how involved they really are.
So, who knows. It's interesting though.
-
I wouldn't be surprised, but let's add to the rumor mill. Germany has a secret alliance with Iraq, that only France knows about. If we go to war with Iraq (or if France tells anyone about the alliance), than North Korea, Germany, and Iran will all declare war on the US and invade France. ;D
-
I say more power to 'em.
-
now hold on a minute mustard.
I still hold that Linus is Britain. He is more culturally refined, but he still believed everything Lucy said.
*snicker*
since when does britain believe everything america says? you realise that british opinion polls show 70% against war in iraq? your damn lucky blair likes you : his own party is howling for him to give you the middle finger and join the french position.
Does that make Britain the Linus of the world (since it kind of follows the US around and nods its head when we tell them that fir trees give us fur for coats and that the ants job is to make the grass grow)? And is the security blanket that Britain clings to is its one time status as the main world power?
...?
precisely where did you pull that bit about fir trees and ants from? do tell. you sound like your in need of psychiatric help there mate.
and our one time position as superpower is either two things in britain : for lefties its a horrifying concept, one treated with eternal shame. for righties its a was a glorious age, one we should restart with a punitive invasion of france. actually, that last part is just me.
a lot of people wish we could go back to the days when we would deal with mugabe slagging us by sending teh navy over to bomard any and all shore towns. wasnt terribly nice, but it was damn good fun ;D
actually, its funny you should mention teh british empire, since its america that did the most to destroy it.
As for us following you around, im sure that during the 50s and 60's we did anything but. first your presidents did their damnedest to get us to lose the empire, then you delivered a national humiliation during teh suez canal crisis. not terribly surprising that when vietnam started we turned around and said we didnt want to get involved.
-
Most of Mustard's comments were Peanuts jokes, which, as we are increasingly aware, don't make any sense whatsoever to British people who never read Peanuts.
-
ditto what Fell said, but look here, limey boy. We hardly need British assistance to embarrass ourselves. ESPECIALLY over how we handled Vietnam.
-
So, did anyone else watch Powell's speech to the UN? There was some pretty incriminating stuff. Anyone have any thoughts?
-
I didn't. Being a working stiff, I have to go to work. But I'm assuming it's posted on CNN or somewhere, and I'll be going to check that out now.
-
Well, now that I've read that, I certainly will be reconsidering my anti-war stance. I was thinking that if there was so much evidence, why didn't Bush produce it before? I am going to assume that their "sources" are being divulged to world leaders, especailly the evidence Powell didn't describe in detail.
I still think Iraq will be scarier when fighting on their own ground than as a general threat. However, I'm softened on the idea of going to war Iraq. I still think Bush is a doofus, but I may change my mind about this policy. Now, if he could just do something about our crappy economy.
-
I agree about changing my position. My main complaint was that, even though everybody knows that Saddam ought to get ousted, I didn't know why it had to be so soon. The evidence presented changes all that, in my mind at least.
Can I say one thing that may tick a few people off (or at least something that not many will believe)?
Ehler's said: Now, if he could just do something about our crappy economy.
Unfortunately, the President can't really do much about that, in the immediate future at least. The economy is this odd ethereal thing that can't be pushed around very easily, and the government certainly has no magic button that will fix it. The economic policies that Bush has presented, and is beginning to implement, will take at least a year, if not many years to change anything.
The problem is not with the government, but with the population in general. After the plunging stock market, there is no consumer confidence. Businesses are closing, laying-off, etc., and the economy spirals downward. How is the president going to convince everyone to begin reinvesting? For every hundred people complaining about the bad economy there probably aren't more than six or seven that are actually doing something about it (hiring more employees, investing, etc.)
Yes, the president has influence on the economy, but it is not something that he can change quickly. Without trying to make partisan comments, most of the problems that we're experiencing are either due to 9/11 or the latter years of Clinton's presidency. Bush's real influence will show up a few years down the road.
Oddly enough, there probably isn't much that he could do better for the economy than to kick Iraq's trash.
-
By the way, I would still much rather discuss Powell and Iraq and all that, rather than the economy. If anyone wants to argue with my claims, go right ahead, but there were few classes that I hated more than political economics, and I won't be arguing back. I would rather pound a nail into my skull than have a lengthy economic discussion.
-
All in favor of pounding a nail into Mustard's skull while discussing obtuse economic theories, say aye.
-
It's not that obtuse. And he's right. I wasn't being serious at all while whining about it. Althought I sure as hell would like to see my brother and my bro-in-law employed once again (as well as a slightly better salary for myself). Anyway, that's beside the point. I'm not fully convinced we should go to war yet, but I get the feeling I'm much more open to it than the French. But then, I suppose they're just worried about getting their butts handed to them. Again.
Oh, and I'm in on that nail driving thing. Not for revenge, but just because it might be entertaining.
-
I wouldn't be opposed to someone driving a nail into Chirac's skull, partially because of the Iraq thing, but mostly because he's a snooty frenchman.
-
heh. we're talking about economics, a subject im currently doing :)
mustard is mainly right. playing about with economies is not for the light hearted. nor is it easy. about all bush can do is drop IR (interest rates), encouraging more spending and investment and borrowing while discouraging putting your money in the bank.
That, incidentially, is why the euro is going to crash and burn within 10-15 years. the euro central bank cut IR to hep out germany. this immediatly caused problems for anyone who had a good economy, since it meant that their economies were encouraged to spend more, which will inevitably result in a recession (the economy will overheat and start dropping like a stone. its the economic cycle aka business cycle ).
and i hope you guys dont start the war too soon - its gonne take the british army another 6 weeks to get there, and its gonna look damn embarrassing if we send a third of the RAF and a quarter of the army and we dont actually arrive before iraq is defeated
-
I've been thinking about this again. Some of my thoughts may seem scattered, but I think they're all related.
There were a few accusations in Powell's remarks that he backed up with evidence. Most were not, but still remained simply accusations without any proof. A few of these latter have been seriously contended for several reasons. Some for their complete lack of evidence. Others because there is good evidence that contradicts directly what Powell says. I'm not convinced that Iraq has the capability to destroy as much as the current U.S. executive administration claims.
Bush needs to lay out ALL the evidence. He needs to share it with the executives and intelligence divisions of the entire world. He needs to stop fronting and stop trash talking. He should put a leash on Rumsfeld and Powell as well. His rhetoric and threats obviously fail to affect Hussein, Chirac, or anyone else. They don't seem to affect the population of Europe, which, while many of their governments back Bush, seem by all accounts to be against this war. A more diplomatic approach may be more likely to sway Europe, the leaders still opposed, and who know, possibly even Hussein (though I doubt it). If Bush MUST maintain a policy of violence to stop devestation, at least he could try to show the necessity of doing it rather than simply say he will no matter what.
Incidentally, Bush *IS* adversely affecting the US economy, which even Alan Greenspan tells us (though not in those direct words). War bluster and terrorism alerts seem nearly calculated to cause fear in the population (who needs al Qaeda when you can get scared by the Department of Homeland Defense -- interesting digression, Robin Williams joked that a lot of old Germans thought creating that department was very shrewed). Anyway, Greenspan points out that these activities very much hurt the performance of the stock market, investor mood, employment, purchases, etc. The diplomatic approach I mentioned earlier may allow some stabilization, or at least cause LESS damage.
Now, as for France. While I agree with them that it's not appropriate to go to war, I have a couple of reasons why I think they're not on the up and up. These are the guys that did nuclear testing in the 90's. Yes, just last decade. The entire world asked them not to do those tests. Yet, in typical French style, they waved their private parts at us and did it anyway. They aren't exactly alarmed by WMD activity that the world doesn't approve of.
{Time for more speculation and foundless rumors. Please note how I've started this section and when you disagree with me, realize that I'm basically saying this section is, in fact, a joke}. I wouldn't be surprised if France was engaged in bio/chem weapons production itself, and would feel guilty about attacking Iraq for the same.{/Baseless Slander}
In other words, while I agree that we shouldn't be going to war yet, I think that France is less than pristine about the issue. So again, I'm still not confident about the evidence they present either. Because of this, I'm not hardline pacifist. Either side could be right, but because neither is what I can call forthright, I'm still on the fence, thinking that, all things being equal, no war is better than war in most cases.
Now, on the other other hand, we have North Korea. Who has SAID they're working on nuclear weapons (though now they say they haven't said that), who breaks non proliferation treaties by skipping over the annullment procedure they agreed to. Who is building facilities in the public eye capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. Who basically say that if you don't sell them something they'll blow everyone up (give it a break, and embargo is NOT a declaration of war, it would NOT free your nation of guilt for the millions of deaths you'd cause). Now, if Iraq is so bad, why isn't North Korea. My first response is to say because they're not Muslim. But then again, I think there might be reasons for it. N Korea has acted this way before. It's their version of throwing a tantrum so they get their way. So I'm not sure I agree that even if war in Iraq is justified, military action against N Korea is as well. Yet, Bush is again shaping up for the same approach. Screw diplomacy, do as I say or we'll kick your butt. only, in this case, it's really, do as I say or we won't even talk to you and let you force us to kick your butt.
{sigh} I'm beginning to think of the end of the world in much closer terms.
-
i came across a deeply amusing conspiricy theory type thing, by someone who said he came up with it while considering frances actions. He said that france hates the US (or at least its leader's do) and so it is trying to bring the us down. since france cannot even begin to take on the US economically, militarily or politically (i doubt the entire EU could do that) it has to turn to covert means. This means arming people that hate the US. such as saddam hussain. The idea is this : france is against the war because when bangdad is captured we will find lots of interesting stuff saying how france gave them NBC weapons with the aim of fighting america, and terrorist activities aimed at america.
Like i said, its amusing, and even the guy who came up with it say's he think's it is unlikely in the extreme. Ill see if i cannot find the guy's post on the subject.
-
French Conspiracy Theory (http://chicagoboyz.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_chicagoboyz_archive.html#88893372)
The French World View (http://chaddimpler.blogspot.com/2003_02_09_chaddimpler_archive.html#88923075)
A rather amusing commentary on why Tony Blair should be glad for the French intervention. It is worth reading merely for the line "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!" ;D (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$1KN01NBQQTTUFQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2003/02/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/02/13/ixportal.html)
-
Just to precipate a atmosphere of linkomania here. Two comments on US/UK relationships, and how they look in reflection of the Falklands war, during which America came damn close to being an enemy, while france helped out immeasurably.
This one is from a left wing newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,893757,00.html
This one is from Edge of England’s sword, an anglo-american rightwing blogger.
http://englandssword.blogspot.com/2002_03_24_englandssword_archive.html#11213737
-
Like I said, I'm not friend to Chirac. But some of those are jsut WAY out there. They have even less evidence than we have against Iraq. No wonder they're willing to go to war. I mean, it's just a rational thing.
These people think it's "obvious" that there is a reason to go to war. What they don't see is that it's "obvious" not everyone sees it that way. Because they miss this, it's "obvious" that anyone opposed to it is in league with the dark one. Please.
*ring* *ring* "It's the clue phone. They'd like to give you one."