The Un Role In Post-war Iraq
Wheeee
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think?</div> <opinion>
Personally I have to say that I can understand why the President and the Pentagon have been reluctant to allow the UN a big role in the post-war "reconstruction" of Iraq. France and Germany, who have heretofore been very outspoken against the US and Britain when they proposed war resolutions, have suddenly jumped all over the role of the UN in providing "humanitarian aid" and government after the war is over. This seems to me (and probably to many other people) to be a blatant PR blitz - after all, if the UN-administered government fails, they can always blame the US for starting the war in the first place and thus destabilizing the country; if it succeeds, then they may claim credit for something that, in my opinion, they spent very little effort in doing.
This does not make me very happy, since it is apparent to me that if those governments had truly been seeking to "aid" the Iraqi people, they would have at least abstained from voting in the UN to show that they were displeased with the war, rather than vehemently opposing it. Their desire to show "compassion" for the Iraqi people at this stage is certainly not to be discounted, but there's always the little question at the back of my head saying "is this for their own interests only?" That's pretty galling to me.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are many other people in the world who were wondering the same thing when the US went to war. But just to discount the "blood for oil" theories, let's see - the war may cost $75 billion (rough estimate, including the post-war occupation), at least that's what the White House has asked for (I know that's a rough estimate and includes spending for other departments, but bear with me). Current prices for oil are around $30-35 a barrel. The daily production of Iraqi oil (at its maximum) is 2 million barrels, or thereabouts. That means it would take 2500 days, or 8 years, of Iraqis giving their oil to us *for free* for the cost of the war to be defrayed. Only after 8 years would America stand to "gain" from this. Not to mention the fact that most likely we will be buying oil from them at market price, instead of getting it for free (granted, the prices will go down, but still...).
Personally I have to say that I can understand why the President and the Pentagon have been reluctant to allow the UN a big role in the post-war "reconstruction" of Iraq. France and Germany, who have heretofore been very outspoken against the US and Britain when they proposed war resolutions, have suddenly jumped all over the role of the UN in providing "humanitarian aid" and government after the war is over. This seems to me (and probably to many other people) to be a blatant PR blitz - after all, if the UN-administered government fails, they can always blame the US for starting the war in the first place and thus destabilizing the country; if it succeeds, then they may claim credit for something that, in my opinion, they spent very little effort in doing.
This does not make me very happy, since it is apparent to me that if those governments had truly been seeking to "aid" the Iraqi people, they would have at least abstained from voting in the UN to show that they were displeased with the war, rather than vehemently opposing it. Their desire to show "compassion" for the Iraqi people at this stage is certainly not to be discounted, but there's always the little question at the back of my head saying "is this for their own interests only?" That's pretty galling to me.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are many other people in the world who were wondering the same thing when the US went to war. But just to discount the "blood for oil" theories, let's see - the war may cost $75 billion (rough estimate, including the post-war occupation), at least that's what the White House has asked for (I know that's a rough estimate and includes spending for other departments, but bear with me). Current prices for oil are around $30-35 a barrel. The daily production of Iraqi oil (at its maximum) is 2 million barrels, or thereabouts. That means it would take 2500 days, or 8 years, of Iraqis giving their oil to us *for free* for the cost of the war to be defrayed. Only after 8 years would America stand to "gain" from this. Not to mention the fact that most likely we will be buying oil from them at market price, instead of getting it for free (granted, the prices will go down, but still...).
Comments
I'd however like to point out that the US administration has requested at least financial backing for the rebuilding by Germany and France from day one. If they help funding the effort, they have every right to claim some influence in the organization.
If we're talking about the governemental reconstruction, I'd say bring the Iraqis up to date on all the U.N. discussions/security council meetings. Then let the Iraqis decide if they want governments who were against regime change involved. I'm sure they'll have an opinion.
BTW, I don't remember hearing that the Iraqis would be required to reimburse the Coalition for the costs of the war. They may, but in everything I've seen regarding the supplemental requested by the White House, I don't think that was discussed.
And THAT is the best argument I've seen yet about how the war is not specifically about oil. Well stated - I'll be sure to whip this little formula out as often as I can in the future, and send you a nickle for royalties on each occasion.
On to the topic at hand:
It is interesting to hypothesize about all this (and I'm glad I don't need to deal with Nem for a few more weeks on it, apparently). It certainly is a very shady situation for France's government. Not that they are changing position, as they have used the UN as a tool for their oil ambitions all along, which this war plainly dismantled. To imagine that the governments of ANY european country were against this war purely on humanitarian grounds is of course, laughable. It has been almost entirely economic. Let us not forget that while the US gets a portion of its oil from the mideast, europe gets almost its entire supply from the region. It's why the French businessmen/ministers have worked out deals for a 25% share in the Iraqi fields with Saddam - their unilateralist (french translation: gaulist) traditions mean that they follow the rule of 'I got mine, how'd you make out?'. Now they see everything slipping away, including a $750,000,000 a year trade arrangement between Saddam and french big-business. Chirac is as big a stooge for corporate interests as anyone on earth. And you've seen nothing yet - wait until you see the Russians start tap-dancing as we show off their illegally sold weapons.
That being said, having the UN involved in a humanitarian fasion, not as some sort of ruling council, is perfectly acceptable. The WHO is a great fit for the medical situation, for example. If France's or Russia's or Germany's government really cared though, they would have already shipped off humanitarian aid through their own channels, like Japan and other countries announced today. And not use the UN as a way to jockey for position in the Iraqi feed-trough, like the swine they are. Where are the protests in Paris, Berlin, and Moskow about people's disgust with their governments for being all talk and no action?
There were a large number of fortune 500 companies that specifically released statements that they were opposed to the war. I don't see your point being valid. If anything, businesses used the distraction of Iraq to post their "real" profit margins and not some accounting hocus-pocus that they would have released otherwise.
And your point doesn't make sense; why drive up the deficit and create a HUGE PR problem (I mean, even a blind man could've seen the bad PR coming) just to benefit a couple of companies, which won't even break even? There is no logic in that.
I hear people say this all the time. Can someone please direct me to this policy in print (and not from www.i-hate-america.com please, something reasonably impartial)?
And whee makes a good point, worth a reply from a detractor.
There were a large number of fortune 500 companies that specifically released statements that they were opposed to the war. I don't see your point being valid. If anything, businesses used the distraction of Iraq to post their "real" profit margins and not some accounting hocus-pocus that they would have released otherwise.
And your point doesn't make sense; why drive up the deficit and create a HUGE PR problem (I mean, even a blind man could've seen the bad PR coming) just to benefit a couple of companies, which won't even break even? There is no logic in that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a unfortunate feature of humanity called greed that often leads to a majority of people getting royally dicked whilst a minority benefit. The business interests in this case will be making hefty profits so I don't quite understand "they won't even break even comment". And deficits are no impediment for rich to getting richer, just take a look at the 80s.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek @ Apr 9 2003+ 09:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek @ Apr 9 2003 @ 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Ahh but thats only assuming that you count the US as one homologous entity that only values the end net profit for the country. While the entire US make take a hit to the wallet Haliburton is going to make a tidy profit. Also the US is NOT allowing any non-us companies to bid on the reconstruction contracts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hear people say this all the time. Can someone please direct me to this policy in print (and not from www.i-hate-america.com please, something reasonably impartial)?
And whee makes a good point, worth a reply from a detractor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That I-hate-america crack really pisses me off because I spend a rediculous amount of time attempting <i>to improve</i> America. There's a famous saying about it that sadly gets truncated in one of the most important parts
My country right or wrong
when right to hold her steady
when wrong to set her right
Painting you're political opponents as un patriotic is one of the cheapest tricks in the book and you should really try to avoid it unless the person actualy says "I hate america."
Anyway off of that tangent <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html?ex=1050033600&en=4826cbde26815d1b&ei=5070' target='_blank'>here</a> is a link to the new york times which I hope will be to your satisfaction.
Anyway the war ISN'T just about oil, it's mostly about Middle eastern dominence. That may make you dismiss me as a tinfoil hat crazy but <i>pleease</i> just take a look sometime at the <a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>Project for the New American Century</a>, read through its plans, ponder the implications and look at who signed on to it and the fact that these <b>batfeces</b> crazies are currently <i>running</i> the country. I hope that covered all you wanted.
Not allowing them to bid, maybe. But...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More than 50 percent of the money will actually be spent by subcontractors. Companies in any country, save those on the administration's terror list, can apply to be subcontractors, he added.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Per the NYTimes article.
Also...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But those arrangements do not satisfy construction industry experts, who say that the administration is asking for trouble by not setting up an independent monitoring process from the beginning. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd love to hear just who these "experts" are, and then have them define "independent".
And try not to be so overly sensitive, psycho, or it will be impossible to discuss anything. It's called hyperbole, no one is trying to attack you personally. No one is calling you un-american, I was pointing out that I was looking for an objective website.
(and go back and censor your language please. We're running a tight ship in this forum now, and just because our censor list does not cover your profanity does not give you license to use it.)
And try not to be so overly sensitive, psycho, or it will be impossible to discuss anything. It's called hyperbole, no one is trying to attack you personally. No one is calling you un-american, I was pointing out that I was looking for an objective website.
(and go back and censor your language please. We're running a tight ship in this forum now, and just because our censor list does not cover your profanity does not give you license to use it.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I chose that article since it was the most well known source, I can dig up more articles with more concrete sources if you like.
And I'm sorry about being sensitive like that. It wasn't really you that set me off but more a general air of dismissing dissent as un-american that I've been running into lately has really been getting under my skin. Sorry about using you as a target to vent at, you didn't deserve it.
And sorry but I though that would get censored and Im used to debating on non censored boards anyway.
Did you actually take the time to check out PNAC? Really man that site chills me to the core just thinking about it.
And I've actually already read about that. In fact, I listened to an interview with one of its authors on NPR the other day. Some of it's nutty fringe, some makes sense. Like most governmental ideas... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I've actually already read about that. In fact, I listened to an interview with one of its authors on NPR the other day. Some of it's nutty fringe, some makes sense. Like most governmental ideas... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
whoa, another NPR-listener <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> that's the only radio station i listen to anymore.
<a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/888057.asp?0cv=CB10' target='_blank'>Show me the money!</a>
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_russia_iraq&cid=540&ncid=1473' target='_blank'>No oil for blood!</a>
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030411/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_russia_summit&cid=1514&ncid=1473' target='_blank'>Strange lack of demands from Russian government for 'Central UN roll in Chechnya'</a>
Here's a nice quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MOSCOW - Russian lawmakers on Friday rejected a senior U.S. official's suggestion that Russia, France and Germany forgive debts to postwar Iraq (news - web sites) to help the country restore its battered economy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop hurting the Iraqis with your invasions! Oh wait, can your troops empty out their banks for us? And we of course want our oil deals made with Saddam honored here at Total-Elf Aquitaine.
At least there is a side-effect of liberation and freedom the coalition way, if you are so cynical as to believe it was primarily motivated by economics. But these guys? Straight up hypocrites.
edit: changed from EU to European (Russia ain't EU), and aded word 'government'. Physician healing himself.
To be fair though, countries have a right to look out for thier national interest. It was in most European interests not to attack Iraq. What I find despicable is that these countries are putting economic interests of themselves ahead of the national security of America and, to a lesser extent, Western Civ. Adding salt to the wound, some countries acted very hypocritcally when they insinuated it was the US, not themselves, who based their policy on economic concerns.
I personally think the whole Iraq debate comes down to your perception of Bush and America.
If you're Pro War, chances are you trust Bush and beleive that the US has been, most of the time, a force of good in the world.
If you're Anti-War, chances are you think Michael Moore should be in office and the US has been, most of the time, a force of bad in the world.
Sure, they're generalizations, but I've found they fit pretty good, at least in my encouters with people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The national security of America...
You know, I'm going to do what most of the world is doing and wait to see these supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Because let me tell you something, if Iraq didn't have those weapons they weren't a threat to anyone but their own people.
Speaking from a personal perspective I'm rather more worried about North Korea who defenitly have nukes, and certainly have the power to launch them at Australia where I live. Yet the US doesn't invade them. Why? Because North Korea could actually fight back.
Let's not forget that in the past 5 years something like 12-15 million koreans have simple starved to death in that country (that we know of). They are likely not feeling much loyalty either.
Moot point though, as your and my points are mostly speculative. Although yours are more opinion, I reckon...
Speaking from a personal perspective I'm rather more worried about North Korea who defenitly have nukes, and certainly have the power to launch them at Australia where I live. Yet the US doesn't invade them. Why? Because North Korea could actually fight back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that is true. It is more difficult to pressure/intimidate a nation who can put up a great amount of resistance, let alone one that has a nuclear weapon. Thus more time is given to diplomacy. Could you imagine what would happen if a single nuclear weapon was detonated in anger? The world economy would crash hard (but probably not for a long time unless it affected an import nation). I believe that if the US knew for sure that NK would launch a nuclear weapon at Australia, Japan, or South Korea that there would be immediate action. As for their military, 950,000 starving conscripts vs 650,000 professional (South Korean) soldiers and an unknown amount of forces from other nations, the latter would win. Sorry for going off topic.
As for Iraq. The coalition forces should install a military ruler for a short period of time until an interm government is created. Then a date for election should be set. Then the new Iraqi government should be assisted by the UN, since it a rather large burden. But until then it should be under coalition control/guidance, to at least maintain and establish order.
Not in the slightest. a) We would have to make sure, and I mean SURE that those nukes were down. Because if we missed just one: goodbye Sydney/Melbourne. b) North Korea has been acting threateningly to everyone, but it's mainly for bluff and show. The Soviet Union and China are/were often quite agreesive towards the west, and these nations weren't pre-emptively attacked, nor did they ever/have attacked.
This is the reality of the world we live in. Sure, North Korea having nukes worries me, but I'm not going to lie awake at nights worrying. Mainly because North Korea isn't ruled by a lunatic with no grip on reality (the guy's won't win any human rights awards) and he's not going to undertake an action that would see his country renamed to "Smoking radioactive hole in the ground". It's the same reason the US doesn't/didn't pre-emptively strike China or Russia, or even France: deterrance. North Korea has it's weapons and now it can use them diplomatically. The only way to ensure their usage would be if we actually attacked them.
Countries don't use nuclear weapons if their opponants can respond in kind. For the US, and Australia, the possible risks of eliminating North Korea's nuclear arsonal are far too great. For the United States, trading the destruction of Los Angeles for Pyongyang isn't even a consideration. If it were possible to eliminate these weapons and be absolutly and totally sure they were gone then maybe I'd consider the action. However the prospect of starting off a new Korean war is utterly abhorent; the casualties in such a conflict would be shocking. Even if it could be theorised that the North Korean army would do what the Iraqi army did, it stil doesn't discount the nukes. Thats the main reason behind my reasoning that North Korea can fight back. There's no doubt that in a strickly conventional war North Korea would lose. However, issues such as China, the wishes of South Korea, and the omnipitant nuclear weapons must all be taken into consideration.
Aside from all that Australia can't undertake that mission anyway. We got a squadren of F-18s and some F111's <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> And North Korea does have missiles that can hit us here down under, hence why we'd like to see a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Another document, dated March 12, 2002, appears to confirm that Saddam had developed, or was developing nuclear weapons. The Russians warned Baghdad that if it refused to comply with the United Nations then that would give the United States "a cause to destroy any nuclear weapons".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So it is there, and we will find it. The UN will be shown for the inept international organization that it is and devolve into a forum for humanitarian needs. This week's US based Buisness Week has an interesting article about the UN. It says that the UN operates on the princple that Multilateral Actions are always morally sound, but unilateral actions are always morally wrong. It disproves this with citations of moral actions not taken unilaterally or bilaterally by the US and 1 or 2 allies.
Speaking from a personal perspective I'm rather more worried about North Korea who defenitly have nukes, and certainly have the power to launch them at Australia where I live. Yet the US doesn't invade them. Why? Because North Korea could actually fight back. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. We should let people dying under oppressive regimes rot because if they're not American or Australian or someone I know, they don't matter.
/sarcasm
I'm not naive enough to think that freeing the Iraqi people was the original goal of this war or even a reason for starting it. But now that the war is mostly over, if hell freezes over and we don't find WMDs, the US was still justified in taking out Saddam because of the horrible treatment of his people. Just because we weren't motivated intially by a certain cause does not automatically invalidate it as a reason for justifying action in hindsight.
It should be pretty obvious what is happening to the world. Eventually, we'll live on Planet America, as Dinesh D'Souza calls it. The world is rapidly growing into a system of liberal, capitalist democracies. As that occurs, the UN will phase itself out. As France, Germany and Russia proved, trade is often a powerful motivator against going to war.
As for North Korea... we didn't attack them because THEY can fight back. We didn't attack them because it would draw international outrage AND draw China into a rival position against the US. Don't think that Bush is afraid of conflict- I think he's proven otherwise. N. Korea isn't stupid. They know, now more than ever, that Bush doesn't just talk tough. He speaks loudly and carries an even bigger stick.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sweet, I'll we waiting just off the Chinese coast for the US battleships to show up. I might be in for a bit of a wait though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for North Korea... we didn't attack them because THEY can fight back. We didn't attack them because it would draw international outrage AND draw China into a rival position against the US. Don't think that Bush is afraid of conflict- I think he's proven otherwise. N. Korea isn't stupid. They know, now more than ever, that Bush doesn't just talk tough. He speaks loudly and carries an even bigger stick. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So...attack iraq because they CAN'T fight back, but don't attack North Korea because they CAN fight back. Might be just me, but if I was a dictator I'd look at this and think "Hey, maybe I should get some nukes". Simple as that. Dictators will now feel much more pressure get WMD, hence negating the original aim of the Iraq war to neutralise Saddam's capaicty to attack the US with WMD and prevent the spread of WMD. Because whilst it might be fine to CLAIM that the war is justified because of the "freedom" the Iraqi people now have, without evidence that Iraq was a credible threat to the security of the United States then the legal justification, if there ever was one, is gone. I might think freeing people from the local jail is a good thing, doesn't change the fact I'd be breaking the law.
The only similiarity in the situations result from a dictator abusing his people. Saddam didn't admit he was getting WMDs. N. Korea did. That makes them 'less' of a threat.
EDIT
Removal of oppressive regimes != War
Just cause China is oppressive doesn't mean war is the only choice to opening the country up. China is capitalizing... democracy will probably break out sometime afterwards. Iran has a strong pro-western reform movement at odds with an againg theocracy. N. Korea... war might be the only option, barring a massive popular uprising. As for the rest of the middle east, a new, Pro Ameircan Iraq will have a huge influence. A domino effect is possible (hopefully it will)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
War in North Korea would bring far far more problems than the current ones, such as the stated effect of china's involvement. However, observe the actions of Israel and Pakistan. THese nations both aquired nuclear weapons, to much of the world's outrage, yet nothing was done to them. Pakistan's oppresive government would probably warrent dictator status, yet of course there's the India issue. Once a nation has nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them that nation suddenly has aquired much greater power and the resulting, if grudging, respect for this power. Hence, despotic nations will be far more likely to try and develop to buy this technology.
Also, a domino effect in the Middle east is highly unlikely as long as the American governmnet continues to solidly stand behind and support the despotic regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only similiarity in the situations result from a dictator abusing his people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yet if you're going to use the arguement like Monse that the fact that a government abuses it's citizens is grounds for an invasion then the 2 situations are one and the same. For the US to claim the Iraq war was justified they HAVE to prove that Iraq was a threat to the US.
UN puts the 'worthless' in 'the united nations is worthless past humanitarian issues'
Not in the slightest. a) We would have to make sure, and I mean SURE that those nukes were down. Because if we missed just one: goodbye Sydney/Melbourne. b) North Korea has been acting threateningly to everyone, but it's mainly for bluff and show. The Soviet Union and China are/were often quite agreesive towards the west, and these nations weren't pre-emptively attacked, nor did they ever/have attacked.
This is the reality of the world we live in. Sure, North Korea having nukes worries me, but I'm not going to lie awake at nights worrying. Mainly because North Korea isn't ruled by a lunatic with no grip on reality (the guy's won't win any human rights awards) and he's not going to undertake an action that would see his country renamed to "Smoking radioactive hole in the ground". It's the same reason the US doesn't/didn't pre-emptively strike China or Russia, or even France: deterrance. North Korea has it's weapons and now it can use them diplomatically. The only way to ensure their usage would be if we actually attacked them.
Countries don't use nuclear weapons if their opponants can respond in kind. For the US, and Australia, the possible risks of eliminating North Korea's nuclear arsonal are far too great. For the United States, trading the destruction of Los Angeles for Pyongyang isn't even a consideration. If it were possible to eliminate these weapons and be absolutly and totally sure they were gone then maybe I'd consider the action. However the prospect of starting off a new Korean war is utterly abhorent; the casualties in such a conflict would be shocking. Even if it could be theorised that the North Korean army would do what the Iraqi army did, it stil doesn't discount the nukes. Thats the main reason behind my reasoning that North Korea can fight back. There's no doubt that in a strickly conventional war North Korea would lose. However, issues such as China, the wishes of South Korea, and the omnipitant nuclear weapons must all be taken into consideration.
Aside from all that Australia can't undertake that mission anyway. We got a squadren of F-18s and some F111's <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> And North Korea does have missiles that can hit us here down under, hence why we'd like to see a diplomatic solution to the current crisis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point A) This makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself.
B) Yes, but you're speculating on what their true motive is, which is a VERY dangerous thing to do with nukes.
C(Paragraph 2)) What? You contradicted yourself twice now.
D(Paragraph 3)) Countries don't use nukes if the other side has them, true. But what happens if you are desperate? Who knows? This is also a very dangerous thing to be generalizing on. And what does this have to do with the situation in Iraq? I can see some thin parallels, yes, but the overall situation is far different. In the middle east, we have barely any friends - and even then, of our biggest allies, Israel is universally hated and Saudi Arabia is only friendly in terms of their government; their populace actually is very anti-American. There are no large nuclear powers to hold the small guys in check, and you have constant grabs for power, which makes the middle east a huge powderkeg.
Consider, on the other hand, Southeast Asia. These countries are pretty much locked in politically speaking - I'm Chinese and I know Asian culture, and let's just say that people tend to keep to themselves and are pretty closed to outsiders - they only react when they percieve someone encroaching on their territory. With China, they tried to become a model Communist society (which failed) in response to Western democratic and economic pressure; now they react by trying to co-opt "free market" principles into their policies.
Now think about North Korea's position - it's surrounded on the north and west by Russia, a major nuclear power. The south and west is China; no matter how close their relations are North Korea has to be at least a bit nervous of what happens if China decides that it's in their best interests to pull a Tibet on North Korea. Throw in the largest army in the world, Nuclear weapons, and a Western-backed South Korea and Japan, and basically North Korea is smack dab stuck in between a rock and a hard place. Who knows what Kim Jung-il (sp?) is really thinking, but the question is: Can we take that risk? What about in Iraq then?
Issue: Why doesn't the US treat North Korea like it does Iraq?
A) There are no large powers near Iraq that can influence them politically, nor do any large states have a pressing national security interest in the region. On the other hand, North Korea has China and Russia next to their borders.
Consider what happens if N. Korea suddenly shows up with nukes - Russia and China become nervous and instantly put pressure on N. Korea. Japan and Taiwan and South Korea instantly feel threatened, which becomes a *VERY* bad scenario, since they may use that as an excuse to develop their own nukes. And let's face it, we've known for a long time that the more states that have nukes, the worse it is for the world.
B) My gut feeling is that the U.S. is trying to diplomatically resolve the issue with North Korea because of its ties to China, which we want to keep a good relationship with - at least economically speaking.
In any case, my issue with your post was that it made my head whirl because I couldn't make head or tails of what you were trying to point out.
UN puts the 'worthless' in 'the united nations is worthless past humanitarian issues' <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN is worthless even *in* humanitarian issues.
I take issue with your statement of "supposed WMD" - even if there are no physical traces of WMD found, the guys at the Pentagon have to prepare for worst-case scenarios. You wouldn't want to buy a car with a reputation for blowing up 5% of the time randomly, and hope that your children are safe because "The manufacturer *probably* didn't make a mistake while constructing the car, I mean look there's a 95% chance that it won't blow up...therefore I'm justified in buying it"
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Point A) This makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um...wha? My point was that when you're attacking a nuclear weapons site you have to be absolutly certain that they're all destroyed. I was pointing out that if they're NOT all destroyed you get a nuke fired back at you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->B) Yes, but you're speculating on what their true motive is, which is a VERY dangerous thing to do with nukes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where's the speculation? The US went ahead and speculated that any WMD Iraq had would be used against the US, despite this never having ever occured. Secondly, nuclear weapons have, since the 1950's, been political weapons; their very use is considered almost unthinkable. I can speculate on how nukes are used in diplomatic and political environments because there's 50 years of deterrance history backing me up. Nukes have been used in an offensive capacity ONCE in a situation where only 1 world power had nuclear weapons. Every other time they have been used as a political weapon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->C(Paragraph 2)) What? You contradicted yourself twice now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please point this out because I'm stumped.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->D(Paragraph 3)) Countries don't use nukes if the other side has them, true. But what happens if you are desperate? Who knows? This is also a very dangerous thing to be generalizing on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem certain Iraq had WMD. So why weren't artillery shells loaded with anthrax slamming into US positions? You can hardly get more desperate than the Iraqi government's situation, yet we saw nothing. We've seen 50 years of a world in which mulitple powers have nuclear weapons. At no time have those weapons ever been used, because the consequenses are just too harsh. No matter how desperate a country may become, they will not make it worse by using nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity. Take North Korea. What could they possibly stand to gain by using their nukes in an offensive manner? Nothing, the retaliation and international backlash would ensure the destruction of the entire state. Every nation that has nukes has said they will use them at a certain point if they are invaded, which I assume would count as "desperate". But in an offensive capacity nukes bring far far more trouble than any possible advantages.
Now sure, deterrance could fail tommorow and the world as we know it would end. But it hasn't failed yet and no-one's got a better solution, aside from the complete elimination of nuclear weapons which certainly would never happen in our lifetime.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In any case, my issue with your post was that it made my head whirl because I couldn't make head or tails of what you were trying to point out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point: If you're going to use the debate that the liberation of despoticly oppressed people is grounds for war then this must be applied globally.
Point: Once a country has nuclear weapons, it is essentially imune to attack
Point: The original justification for the Iraq war was that Iraq posed a real threat to the US with it's WMD. Unless these weapons can be found the Iraq war will be unquestionably illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I take issue with your statement of "supposed WMD" - even if there are no physical traces of WMD found, the guys at the Pentagon have to prepare for worst-case scenarios. You wouldn't want to buy a car with a reputation for blowing up 5% of the time randomly, and hope that your children are safe because "The manufacturer *probably* didn't make a mistake while constructing the car, I mean look there's a 95% chance that it won't blow up...therefore I'm justified in buying it" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that car has a proven chance to blow up. Iraq has never attacked the United States with WMD. Hence, the comparison is worthless because there's no precedent. if Iraq had attacked the US in the past there would be validity. As it is there's just no proof *yet* that iraq constituted a threat to anything but it's own people.
...
Unless these weapons can be found the Iraq war will be unquestionably illegal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to object, the international laws allow for that if a country breaks the terms of a cease fire/surrender agreement, the other country is justified in enforcing those terms of the cease fire/surrender agreement.
Sadam Husien's Iraq invaded Kuwait, the USA and its allies stoped them with the UN's backing, the Sadam Husien Iraq agreed to the conditions of cease fire/surrender. Of those agreements, disarmorment (er, spelling?) of convential weapons and those deemed, er, dirty and the capacity to make those weapons, while being monitored to make sure that they were complying with the agreement. As soon as Sadam Husien's Iraq hampered and then kicked those inspectors out of Iraq, those groups that were involved in the cease fire/surrender had every legal right to enforce the agreement. But they waited several more years to try to appease various factions in the UN and the events of 09/11/2001 were the final political straw that broke the US camel's back, and there was a policy change. Time to enforce agreements, or time to continue letting Sadam Husien's Iraq making fun of UN inspectors?
No legal justification, bah, try coming up with some new fiction for a change of pace.