The case against war

[Diff-chan]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
This comparison isn't sound. We actively occupied Japan for over 5 years and in that time brought over much of our own way of life. Not to mention that Japan was highly industrialized before we took over.

SC

The comparison only sought to say that Iraq will either be worse off, like a banana republic stripped for American corporate greed, or become better off, like Japan did. This question has yet to be answered, and won't be for a long time.

[spacecowboy]

I was just saying that using Japan as an example wasn't sound. I see your point though.

SC

[sggg]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Hey, I'm half Iranian! I'll admit though that the country is in bad shape. I've been there several times and it's almost like chaos sometimes. But they aren't all that different from Americans. They have cell phones, cool clothes and all that stuff. They just want to hold on to some tradition at the same time. Too bad the U.S. won't allow that. I'm glad there are some more progressive leaders in Iran now. The initial Ayatollah were a little overboard. They are good people though that just want to do things their way. Hopefully, they will get it straightened out.

That was actually the point that I was trying to make. I have read up a fair bit on Iran in the past few years. It is a fascinating country that has a long history and an interesting and friendly culture (which of course is not portrayed as such in the US media). Iran was a very unjust place under the (US backed) Shah though... and that is why there was a revolution. The revolution brought about a lot of good things in removing the bad - but it was an extreme fundamentalist solution which also carried with it many problems (like you said things went understandably "overboard"). If the problem was not so bad in the first place then the solution would not have been so equally extreme. This is the result of US intervention.

I am happy to read about the many progressive movements in Iran though and how things have generally improved in recent times. It's very interesting. If you can spare any more insight I'd love to read about it.

Also, I am sure I can guess the answer, but how do you feel about the widely reported rumours that after conquering Iraq the US will invade Iran (using Iraq as the base of US operations in the middle east)?

[Almaci]

That would destabilise the region completely.
Iran is turning into the democracy wich it ones was at a nice rate, US involvemend would mean certain victory for the fundamentalist elements there and would provide a feeding ground for terrorism.
Unlike the Iraqi regime the reform minded democraticaly elected in Iran is respected by other Muslim nations and proof that democracy can come from within and change from within is better then an imposed one, true the current Ayatollah has too much power but its diminishing.

[spacecowboy]

Also, I am sure I can guess the answer, but how do you feel about the widely reported rumours that after conquering Iraq the US will invade Iran (using Iraq as the base of US operations in the middle east)?

I actually haven't heard too much on that, but I'm not surprised. Americans hate the fact that Iran can stand on its own without their help. Iran is no Iraq, though. They have a very strong military. Plus the nation is remarkably united behind Shiite Islam, unlike Iraq which is divided fairly substantially between Sunni, Shiite, and a considerable Kurdish minority. So I think the U.S. is just asking for trouble if they attack Iran. Iran has much more clout in the region than does Iraq and many more supporters. I'd expect as much from Bush and his cronies. Iran ranks either fourth or fifth in world oil reserves and second in world natural gas reserves. The U.S. already exploited Iranians once, it won't happen again.

Iran is turning into the democracy wich it ones was at a nice rate, US involvemend would mean certain victory for the fundamentalist elements there and would provide a feeding ground for terrorism.

I agree. U.S. involvement would only further tensions and promote terrorism. Can't the U.S. just let alone?

SC

[sggg]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
I actually haven't heard too much on that, but I'm not surprised. Americans hate the fact that Iran can stand on its own without their help. Iran is no Iraq, though. They have a very strong military.

I have read quite a few articles that have stated that Iran is the US's next target, after Iraq. Whether it will ever come to pass or not is debatable... and hopefully avoidable.

Plus the nation is remarkably united behind Shiite Islam, unlike Iraq which is divided fairly substantially between Sunni, Shiite, and a considerable Kurdish minority. So I think the U.S. is just asking for trouble if they attack Iran.

You touched on an interesting subject and one of the reasons that the US will not allow real democracy in Iraq - if conquered.. It is strongly suggested that because Iraq is so divided, and many Shiites have sympathy and support for Iran and the new Iraq would move closer in that direction - something the US ovviously does not want and will not allow.

Iran has much more clout in the region than does Iraq and many more supporters. I'd expect as much from Bush and his cronies. Iran ranks either fourth or fifth in world oil reserves and second in world natural gas reserves. The U.S. already exploited Iranians once, it won't happen again.

I agree. I cannot even image what will happen if this comes to pass. WW3?

[sleeve]

I've wanted to make a detailed post about my thoughts on the Iraq situation but hesitated, because I think the quality of the debate has been very poor. I keep seeing the same dumb arguments rehashed over and over, e.g. "Saddam will attack us if we don't attack him first", "This is a war for oil", "Saddam is consorting with Al-Qaida", "Hundreds of thousands of civilians will die", etc. etc. etc.

Truth is, there are some very convincing arguments to be made both FOR and AGAINST this war. Many of them are quite complicated and cannot be boiled down into simple catchphrases. Let's start with the case for war. Most American hawks (including Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and most of Defense) see Iraq as an opportunity to flex American muscle, to prove to the rest of the world that it is serious about fighting terrorism. It's almost beside the point whether Saddam has connections to Al-Qaida since there will be very little immediate impact to the threat of terror either way. Best case scenario is that Osama loses an ally; worst case is that it doesn't affect Al-Qaida at all. But in the long run the U.S's military presence will arguably send shockwaves through the region and, hopefully, discourage Al-Qaida from carrying out more terrorist plots. If Iraq does possess biological or chemical weapons (I loathe the term "weapons of mass destruction" because it is vague and meaningless), then we will remove them from circulation, making it less likely they will end up in terrorist hands. Looking even further down the road, if the U.S. follows up on its promise to build Iraq into a functioning republic, it could create a wave of prosperity and hope that might positively impact the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

But this rosy, Panglossian worldview takes much for granted. It assumes that an Iraq war will be quick and painless (in terms of casualties and economic loss to Iraq). It assumes that the U.S. will indeed devote a decade or more to forcing a viable democratic state in Iraq, and spend the billions of dollars necessary to do so. It assumes that the Iraqis will greet the U.S. with open arms and will not stage any protracted guerilla campaigns. It assumes that Saddam will not torch his oilfields. Etc. etc. etc. One of the worst, most dangerous assumptions behind the war effort is that it will discourage other states from developing nuclear weapons. This is a terribly flawed idea and may actually have the opposite result. Burgeoning nuclear states such as Iran may decide to accelerate their nuclear programs, knowing that the U.S. is reluctant to attack countries with nuclear weapons and/or treat them with kid gloves (see North Korea and Pakistan). More nuclear weapons means more potential for leaks, and more leaks means more opportunities for terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons, and more opportunities for terrorist acquisition means NYC turning into a fireball. Not to mention the horrifically destabilizing consequences of having multiple nuclear-equipped nation states.

And what if our plan to introduce a democratic renaissance in Iraq fails? The Bush administration has provided no coherent post-war plan for Iraq, no projected cost estimates, nothing (although they are requesting that their billion-dollar missile defense program be exempt from Congressional oversight). With our country in as poor shape economically as it is, it's not a stretch to imagine that Bush's grand plans for democracy will evaporate. And what then? More chaos and civil war as the various Iraqi factions fight for control? Will the U.S. be willing to stage troops in Iraq for an extended basis under such conditions? There are many, many possible bad outcomes for this war, and I'm barely scratching the surface.

So far I'm undecided about this war, but I am gravely skeptical of it. Perhaps some of you hawks can change my mind.

[Almaci]

Sleeveboy, congrats, excellent post.

[Hero]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Installing a government won't help out Iraq. It certainly hasn't helped Russia or all of the other countries that sggg listed. And sanctions are the problem. The U.S. doesn't want anyone thinking that any other form of government besides it's style of democracy will work. For example, Cuba. The population has excellent health care and education for all of it's citizens. They also provide housing for everyone. The ONLY reason they can't become truly successful is because the U.S. won't let them. The sanctions on that country are the plague on their economic progress.



Exactly.

SC

If a country isn't self-sufficient, then that's how sanctions hurt. So how can a country ask for help from other countries but show no cooperation?

And Cuba, AFAIK, is a socialist government. Could you tell me how it's a democracy, because I'd like to know.

[Almaci]

Cuba would have had a democratisation process goin a long time ago if it wasnt for US interference.
The majority of people inside Cuba after the Revolution actually wanted ties with the US, the Cuban American lobby consisting of the Cuban elite who before the revolution were oppresing the Cuban majority however succesfully had the US government shut down any and all dialogue with Havanna.
Relations grew harsher and both sides grew extremer in theyre beliefs.
The US reluctance to loosen the embargo ensured that Cuba refused to evolve in a changing world.

Cuba didnt evolve into a democracy becouse the US stance against Cuba didnt evolve with the times.