Rumsfeld is a diplomatic genius - Page 3

Oerdin · February 9, 2003, 16:10

Let's face facts. There is going to be a war in Iraq. Saddam is going to be ousted but probably not before he lobbs a few chemical and/or bio weapons at a few of his neighbors.

After he does that will any of you people who say Saddam has disarmed/isn't a threat get up and admite you were wrong? If it turns out Saddam hasn't been hiding any WoMD and there's never been a single Al Qaeda member in Iraq I will certainly start a thread telling everyone I was wrong.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:35

I've never disagreed with any those points Oerdin. But going to war WILL PROVOKE SADDAM TO USE THOSE WEAPONS. The blood will be on Bush's hands. I don't want to see Americans die, or any other people die just because the Bush admin is either acting in their own interest, or too ignorant to see they're wrong.

But you're obviously more concerned with proving you are right and better than everyone else instead of coming up with a better solution to war... or even admitting you may be mistaken.

Oerdin · February 9, 2003, 16:41

The best solution is for Saddam to suffer from a sudden fatal illness. Failing that a long exile for Saddam is the next best thing and war is a lost resort if the first two can't be done.

What policies can we put in place to make options 1 or 2 a reality? If either of those could be achieved then no war will occur and every one, except Saddam, is happy.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:43

Or keeping Saddam neutralized and then despose/kill him when we get a chance. And having in place UN troops so that if there is a mistake, the US isn't to blame.

Oerdin · February 9, 2003, 16:46

I like the French-German proposal but I doubt Saddam would ever accept U.N. forces peacefully taking over Iraq. It's a nice little plan but it would never work.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:49

I didn't realize Saddam had a choice (I think I said this before). He shouldn't have a choice. And I think forcing this proposal on him instead of forcing war on him is a smarter course of action.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
But going to war WILL PROVOKE SADDAM TO USE THOSE WEAPONS. The blood will be on Bush's hands.

How will using weapons he's not supposed to have in the first place mean that the blood will be on Bush's hands? That can only happen if he goes in there and they find that Saddam was telling the truth about not having any. If Iraqis do in fact use those weapons, it will mean the US was justified in invading and disarming him. You're engaging in circular logic.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 17:12

You're missing the point Willem. If Saddam has these weapons (which I think he does) invading will only cause him to launch his stuff in a last-ditch effort. Since the US can't find these weapons, what makes you think he can launch them before the US forces stop him?

BTW I never said he doesn't have these weapons... your circular logic theory is based on an inaccurate stereotype of my opinions.

Wernazuma III · February 9, 2003, 17:19

Oerdin: It's an obvious try of Germany to get out of isolation by actually accept an Iraq war: Saddam will never allow this plan to happen. When it fails, the UN (with Germany) will allow the US to take action. The US-gov. is pissed becasue such an initiative will have a good support and makes more opposition to a quick attack more likely, plus they simply don't like the idea to give them any credit.
The plan is only an attempt to accept war without losing the face or having to completely change opinion.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
You're missing the point Willem. If Saddam has these weapons (which I think he does) invading will only cause him to launch his stuff in a last-ditch effort. Since the US can't find these weapons, what makes you think he can launch them before the US forces stop him?

BTW I never said he doesn't have these weapons... your circular logic theory is based on an inaccurate stereotype of my opinions.

If he has these weapons as you say, then invasion is justified, since disarming is what the issue is all about. There's virtually not a single nation that doesn't say he must disarm, if he has them. Explain to me please what you think this conflict is all about, as we seem to be on totally different wave lengths here. What is Resolution 1441 except a demand that he relinquish all WoMD, or risk war? What were the inspectors doing there 10 years ago when they were destroying everything they could find of these weapons?

Der PH · February 10, 2003, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
If it turns out Saddam hasn't been hiding any WoMD and there's never been a single Al Qaeda member in Iraq I will certainly start a thread telling everyone I was wrong.

The US will find WoMD as well as connections to Al Qaeda, if there are any or not!

Alexander's Horse · February 10, 2003, 06:29

I don't think the United States has foreign policy at the moment. Its more like someone staggering and flailing around in the dark.

LaRusso · February 10, 2003, 09:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Well, it was excellent. The material from which it was plagiarized is solid primary research.

obviously british civil servants thought the same way.

that certainly is SOME MA thesis. solid primary research is a prescribed (and often not met) phd standard

mindseye · February 10, 2003, 09:13

The latest from Rumsfeld: "hesitation increases the likelihood of war"

Yeah, gotta be careful with all that dangerous hesitation! Wait around too long and we could end up in a war or something!

Harovan · February 10, 2003, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye
The latest from Rumsfeld: "hesitation increases the likelihood of war"

That puts Rumsfeld an edge in front of Bush in the race for the "biggest moron" award. But both have yet ways to go to pass Schröder.

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 09:49

I like Rumsie. He's like a teddy bear that always wanted to be a werewolf. Just which whacko gave him all the toys? Ah yes, dubya...

Well, what's the outlook now? The bushies will get their war, mid-march or so? France will reluctantly go along. Germany will say "uh, well". NATO is in deep **** over Turkey already.

The funny thing is that virtually all of europe, including the politicians right down to Blair, do not want this war. Bush & co want it under any circumstance.

So the interesting thing will be the follow-up. At one point all US allies, including the UK, will be fed up to the point where an alliance ends (if Iraq turns out to be a big mess, the sooner).

On the other hand, our politicians have shown a level of incompetence over this, that it is about time for another round of election ass-kicking here in good ol' europe. That should bring us a step forward...

Der PH · February 10, 2003, 10:01

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
On the other hand, our politicians have shown a level of incompetence over this, that it is about time for another round of election ass-kicking here in good ol' europe. That should bring us a step forward...

That should bring us a new bunch of incompetent wannabe-wiseguys. At least here in Germany it's a tradition to put the most incompetent idiots into political offices. And all parties follow this tradition.

Halfway competent politicians like foreign minister Fischer only happen accidentally.

Harovan · February 10, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Der PH
At least here in Germany it's a tradition to put the most incompetent idiots into political offices. And all parties follow this tradition.

That's a common tradition. Dubya, anyone? Or Berlusconi? Yeltsin, in the past? Or Blair, who can't even properly lie, which should be a basic skill for a politician?

Der PH · February 10, 2003, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Or Blair, who can't even properly lie, which should be a basic skill for a politician?

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 10:23

Well it's the purpose of democracy to have gullible and mediocre people in power. The prime civic duty is to whip them in the direction we the sovereign citizens want.

About Blair's dossier, that was so stupid, if I wouldn't know governments I'd assume he did it to torpedo the US rush to war.

DanS · February 10, 2003, 10:48

NATO is in deep **** over Turkey already.

Like Rumsfeld, I find the Belgian, German and French response in NATO inexplicable. (As I understand it, Fischer was willing to go along with the request.) It looked to me like the US carefully crafted the request to be of an entirely defensive nature and to allow for planning for a number of different contingencies.

DanS · February 10, 2003, 10:53

The latest from Rumsfeld: "hesitation increases the likelihood of war"

This is entirely true. Hesitation takes the pressure off of Hussein and allows him the luxury of miscalculating that he can get through this with his WMD intact.

Harovan · February 10, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The latest from Rumsfeld: "hesitation increases the likelihood of war"

This is entirely true. Hesitation takes the pressure off of Hussein and allows him the luxury of miscalculating that he can get through this with his WMD intact.

Yea right. And warmongering reduces the likelihood of war. Is that what you mean?

DanS · February 10, 2003, 10:59

No, that's not what I mean.

Harovan · February 10, 2003, 11:03

So what would reduce the likelihood of war?

DanS · February 10, 2003, 11:11

A situation where the choice is made clear to Hussein. Either he will lose his WMD or will be overthrown. This dithering sends incorrect information to Hussein and invites him to miscalculate.

Post WW2 (and drawing on WW2 experience) it has been the bedrock of American foreign policy that the US is willing and able to use force, including nuclear weapons, when we say that the option is on the table. This is a decidedly non-pacifist posture that has seemed to help keep the overall peace very well.

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 11:23

Dan:

"Like Rumsfeld, I find the Belgian, German and French response in NATO inexplicable."

NATO is a defensive alliance. "Defending" Turkey against the fallout from a US attack is quite questionable. Also, the issue is mostly about timing - why should they go along with Washington's timetable?

"Hesitation takes the pressure off of Hussein and allows him the luxury of miscalculating that he can get through this with his WMD intact."

Well this is correct, but the Washington position of war no matter what virtually invited obstruction.

DanS · February 10, 2003, 11:41

"Defending" Turkey against the fallout from a US attack is quite questionable.

Why so? Hussein lobs a chemical warhead into Ankara. This wouldn't fall under NATO?

why should they go along with Washington's timetable

Because to do otherwise could leave Turkey undefended.

CerberusIV · February 10, 2003, 11:53

NATO is a treaty about mutual defence if subject to external attack. Sounds fine - until the attack is provoked by the actions of another NATO member state.

HershOstropoler · February 10, 2003, 11:55

Dan:

"Why so? Hussein lobs a chemical warhead into Ankara. This wouldn't fall under NATO?"

It would, unless Turkey is aiding in an attack - which makes it an offensive war on Turkey's part.

"Because to do otherwise could leave Turkey undefended."

Then Washington should adjust its timetable.