What did history teach us? - Page 2

JohnT · February 13, 2003, 22:32

I think that if there is one irrefutable fact of history, it is that increasingly greater ease of communications tend to produce more of it, and at an accellerating pace.

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 22:33

Tandee....quite true, the cultures are different, but the attitude of a bullying ruler, is not.

That transcends cultural boundaries. I daresay that the schoolyard bullies on the playground in China, are not terribly different in their tactics than the ones in America.

Different culture, same old bullying ways.

-=Vel=-

Static Universe · February 13, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by tandeetaylor

Not it's not. Heat = heat, fire = fire. We're talking about different people, different cultures, different background, etc.

Heat comes from fire.

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 22:35

Case in point:

NK and Iraq.

Two very different lands, two very different cultures.

Both ruled by tin pot dictators.

Both oppress their people brutally, Saddam by gassing his Kurds, Kim by starving the masses. Both threaten their neighbors with armed invasion. Both love to rattle their various sabres. The particulars might vary (Kim has nukes, Saddam does not (yet), but the end result is the same.

Oppression is oppression though, regardless of the form it takes.

-=Vel=-

tandeetaylor · February 13, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Static23
Heat comes from fire.

Really? Thanks for pointing that out, little man.

Edit: It's like I said, "I like kiwis," and you, with a brash though not charming sarcastic reply said, "Kiwis are green."

tandeetaylor · February 13, 2003, 22:40

I didn't say that there are not sometimes similarities. (By the way, if you think that NK and Iraq are so similiar, do you recommend identical or similiar action?) But this whole appeasment thing is used most to compare Sadam to Hitler, and I think that's a very silly generalization to make.

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 22:49

I agree on the whole that a Hitler-Saddam comparison is offbase (for a number of reasons, not the least of hich is the scale of ambition of the two men), but to the extent that their bullying methods are similar, and given that we have seen the (disasterous) results of giving in to a bully's demands, I think it unwise in the extreme to coddle this man, or give him and his methods any legitimacy whatsoever. The moment we give in to a demand of his in the name of "containment," we do just that.

As to NK, I think we should adopt a quite similar posture with them. We gave Saddam a decade, plus before it comes to this. I do not think Kim will allow us the luxury of that much time. I believe, because his government is in dire straits and crumbling around him, he will force our hand one way or the other, long before that kind of time has passed, simply because he does not HAVE that much time, and he knows it.

If it means that we must resort to force to deal with him, then force it must be. Not as a first choice, I grant you, but then, after a decade of other methods with Saddam, it can rightly be said that force was not the first tool out of the toolbox in the ME, either.

-=Vel=-

Static Universe · February 13, 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by tandeetaylor

Really? Thanks for pointing that out, little man.

Edit: It's like I said, "I like kiwis," and you, with a brash though not charming sarcastic reply said, "Kiwis are green."

Thanks for the lesson in charming wit!

vee4473 · February 13, 2003, 22:59

wow,

i couldn't agree with Vel more.

his posts throughout this thread are right on.

i considered posting, but he nailed my words.

'nuf said

vee4473 · February 13, 2003, 23:05

the one thing i disagree with Vel on is the when he said he doesn't agree witht he hitler/saddam comparison.

i think the only thing that kept saddam from a hitler like conquest of the middle east was his army's defeat, not his lack of ambition.

just a guess.

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 23:10

Vel always has quite a following

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 23:21

Thanks Duncan!

And vee....I think that Saddam would dearly LOVE to become a bigger man than he is. Power breeds a desire for *more* power, that is true, and one realized goal serves as the stepping-stone for the next, but I do not think that, even on his most ambitious days, his ambitions run anything close to Hitler's. Hitler sought to destroy an entire people (side note - while there are some similarities between Saddam's killing of the Kurds, and Hitler's killing of Jews--singling out a specific people to persecute--the scale and intent are remarkably different....so different as to defy comparison, I would say), and pretty well conquer the world.

I think Saddam's ambitions, if left entirely unchecked, would be much smaller in their scale, amounting to a desire to be THE dominant force in the gulf region, and controlling a bigger share of the oil pie there (which he could then use to dictate terms to the Western World), and become a middle eastern power that could in some ways, rival the powers of the Western World (meeting them on more than equal terms via a control of most, if not all of the ME's oil).

Those are, as you say, just guesses on my part, however. I don't really know enough about the man to comment on anything besides his bullying tendencies. In that, I am entirely confident. In my supposition above....significantly less confident, without doing some digging.

-=Vel=-

vee4473 · February 13, 2003, 23:22

im not a "follower" of velocyrix

i actually differ with him on some of his civ 3 opinions.

i agree with him here though

Sava · February 13, 2003, 23:24

Hitler didn't get his weapons from the US though.

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 23:33

Sava - Hitler got *plenty* of weapons from the US...."business end" first, that is....

You make an excellent point though, and one I've raised myself. We created this little pile of rubbish that is Saddam Hussein, and in that regard, I think it's well past time to take out the trash.

-=Vel=-

vee4473 · February 13, 2003, 23:40

there's another postion that is a bit simplistic i think.

if iraq got weapons from the us 30 years ago, that means we can never consider him a threat?

it all boils down to how the world works.

the enemy of your enemy thing.

at the time that any military aid to iraq would have been made was when iran was a bigger terrorist threat to the us.
and at a time when iraq was engaged in a brutal war with iran...a perfect time to covertly help weaken an enemy (iran)

all countries do this.

during the vietnam war, the soviets aided the north vietnamese..why? because we were the soviets biggest enemy and threat at the time...a perfect opportunity to weaken us covertly.

we aided the afghanies during THEIR war with the soviets...why? because the soviets were OUR enemy at the time.

to say that we have no right to defend ourselves now against iraq's potential of giving weapons to terrorists because we may have provided him with weapons 30 years ago is ridiculous i think.

the world changes, and policies must, of course, be adjusted accordingly.

that's like legally selling a gun to a neighbor and if he goes on a shooting rampage 30 years later, saying that you can't see charging him with a crime because, after all, you gave him the gun...

Sava · February 13, 2003, 23:44

Vel... I just don't trust Bush to do it. And he's already giving tons of arms and "aid" to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, I mean... he's creating more Saddams for Bush III.

Sava · February 13, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

to say that we have no right to defend ourselves now against iraq's potential of giving weapons to terrorists because we may have provided him with weapons 30 years ago is ridiculous i think.

Reagan armed Saddam well into the late 80's... and the first Gulf War happened in 1991. So yeah uhmm, your analogy is grossly exagerrated...

30 years ago? Does that figure stink from just coming out of your ass?

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 23:49

I agree, Sava....I don't trust the Shrub either, and let us fervently hope that there will never BE a BushIII.

At least in the case of the Saudis, I think there's a decent chance of seeing a more democratic government (eventually) taking root. Not nearly as certain wrt the others, however.

Nonetheless, even tho I have little trust in our current leader, the cause is a just one, and the time is now.

-=Vel=-
(impatiently awaiting the next election!)

vee4473 · February 13, 2003, 23:55

listen *******,

im trying to have a civilized discussion, if your politics cant handle it, go away.

the first gulf war happened due to iraq's invasion of kuwait.

not because we considered him a terrorist threat.

the iran/iraq war lasted until the late 80's, thus the aid stupid ****.

so if you gave a guy a gun and he shoots someone 2 years later, then you would let him go free?

why don't you list this arms aid to syria you speak of dickhead?

vee4473 · February 14, 2003, 00:03

"i dont trust bush to do it"....

does that mean you want it done and don't want a republican doing it?

what the hell does that mean?

vee4473 · February 14, 2003, 00:05

and, i'm also impatiently waiting the next election!

(for Bush to be re-elected.)

Andemagne · February 14, 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Hitory teaches us:
Kill your enemies
Help your friends
Do not screw around with thoses inbetween

Lefty allways speaks the truth.

Sava · February 14, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
listen *******,

im trying to have a civilized discussion, if your politics cant handle it, go away.

Civilized is throwing out insults left and right?

Quote:

the first gulf war happened due to iraq's invasion of kuwait.

Yes and No.

Quote:

not because we considered him a terrorist threat.

the iran/iraq war lasted until the late 80's, thus the aid stupid ****.

so the late 80's until 1991 is 30 years?

Quote:

so if you gave a guy a gun and he shoots someone 2 years later, then you would let him go free?

No, but if an administration financed a dictator who then killed thousands and now is causing all this ruckus, I point out who the f*ck financed him in the first place.

Quote:

why don't you list this arms aid to syria you speak of dickhead?

Check out my next post mkay

Sava · February 14, 2003, 01:04

Quote:

U.S. woos war allies with cash, weapons
Iraq's neighbors swap staging sites for billions in aid
By Stephen J. Hedges and Catherine Collins, Chicago Tribune. National correspondent Stephen J. Hedges reported from Washington and Catherine Collins from Istanbul

February 2, 2003

WASHINGTON -- When U.S. and Turkish officials meet this week to discuss Turkey's potential role in any war with Iraq, they will also review an offer of U.S. aid. The multibillion dollar offer may look like so much diplomacy but is, in fact, a bid--the price the Bush administration is willing to pay for the use of Turkey's military bases, airfields and ports.

The U.S. is offering more than $4 billion in loans and grants, according to a Western diplomat in Istanbul, which represents a "significant step forward" in the Bush administration's efforts to add a critical ally to its "coalition of the willing" against Iraq.

"The United States has presented what we consider to be a credible offer," the diplomat said. "We have tried to design a package to give Turkey as much flexibility as possible."

The package reveals Washington's eagerness to secure the use of Turkey as a vital land bridge into northern Iraq. It also illustrates the powerful economic and diplomatic levers that President Bush wields as he rallies allies against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Who's trading what

In the Persian Gulf region alone over the past two years, the United States has sold, lent or given away an estimated $7.5 billion worth of weaponry, other military equipment and training assistance, according to State Department figures. Recipients have included such vital U.S. allies as Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

The deals include advanced fighter jets, radar systems and missiles. Airfields are being expanded. Military bases are being renovated.

In return, the United States has won the right to build bases, house troops and use sovereign airspace if it wages a war against Iraq.

Many of the same countries recently provided vital support, such as airfields, during the U.S. war against Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, foreign military assistance--mostly grants to buy U.S. weaponry--has increased $500 million, to more than $4 billion for fiscal 2003, State Department documents show.

Administration officials say the aid has been one of the most effective means of finding and sustaining foreign support for the global war on terrorism.

"We provided money so they could . . . participate in doing what we were asking them to do," said an official involved in the program. "Security assistance . . . is a tool of U.S. national security and foreign policy."

Analysts and critics, however, say the administration's use of arms as a diplomatic carrot has some potentially dangerous downsides, including a lack of control over the military hardware being provided.

`A coalition of the bought off'

The coalition of the willing, said security analyst Loren Thompson, "is really a coalition of the bought off."

"If the Bush administration wants a coalition of the willing, it had better give them a reason to be willing," said Thompson, who directs the Lexington Institute, a public-policy think tank. "But when you have to buy people off to do it, you have to think about the risks."

Others contend that the United States is busy arming nations that had been prohibited from receiving lethal U.S. weapons because of poor human-rights records and abusive militaries. Those countries include Yugoslavia, Uzbekistan and Indonesia.

They also say the U.S. policy of trading arms for support may serve to fuel regional conflicts with a wave of modern and highly effective weaponry.

"Who your friends are today may not be your friends tomorrow," said Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

"Look at India and Pakistan. They're hot and cold as U.S. friends. Do we really want to be selling them our hottest weapons?" Stohl asked.

India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed archenemies engaged in an ongoing, low-intensity conflict over the border region of Kashmir. The U.S. restricted military sales to both before Sept. 11, 2001.

After the terrorist attacks in the United States, however, both have become vital American allies. And both have gotten increased U.S. military aid.

Pakistan has received $1.2 billion in arms, including helicopters, radar systems, six used C-130 cargo aircraft, armored personnel carriers and F-16 fighter jets.

The U.S. has given India $78million in air defense and artillery-spotting radar, Sea King helicopters and training aircraft.

Cold War strategy revisited

Swapping guns for favors is one of the oldest games in the diplomatic repertoire. It ran rampant during the Cold War, which for many nations not directly involved was not so much an ideological struggle as it was an opportunity to squeeze arms, financial aid and a convenient alliance out of the United States or the Soviet Union.

"Everybody has a shopping list when we want to come in," said Milt Bearden, a former senior CIA official who directed the supply of U.S. Stinger missiles to Osama bin Laden and other Islamic rebels fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s.

"This is the reality of what's going on now, and it's time-honored. But I'm not sure I'm critical of it. You've got to do stuff," Bearden added.

The war on terrorism, and the building standoff with Iraq, have reordered some of the deck chairs that were scattered when the Cold War ended. With the United States racing to find allies, countries again have been willing to go along--for a price.

Potential allies, the administration official said, "are certainly looking to see what the benefits of a relationship with United States are going to be. As we approached countries in Central Asia, where we had no national security relationship before the war [on terrorism], it was one of the things that we did to make sure that we had a security relationship that wasn't just one-way."

Nowhere have those relationships had greater ramification than in the Persian Gulf region, where for more than a decade the United States has been shipping arms and assistance.

$1 billion in aid for Jordan

Jordan's agreement last week to allow some U.S. forces on its soil points up just how effective the promise of such aid can be. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war with Iraq, then-King Hussein remained neutral; his county shared both a border and a brisk trade with Iraq.

This time, however, King Abdullah II, the late monarch's son, apparently has thrown in with the Americans, and he has his reasons. For one, Abdullah's government must wrestle with the uncertainty of Saddam Hussein's presence and threats from Al Qaeda-linked cells in Jordan.

For another, the Bush administration has promised to provide $1 billion in assistance to Jordan in exchange for overflight and troop-basing rights. Before that pledge, Jordan had received $223 million in U.S. military aid in the past two years, according to State Department figures.

As the possibility of war against Iraq has neared, Turkey has remained a holdout. So far, Ankara has officially refused U.S. requests to use its bases and ports, but its reluctance may be part domestic politics, part bargaining chip. And the United States is sweetening the pot.

Turkey has long been a recipient of U.S. military equipment and loans. It has an estimated $5 billion military loan debt with the United States, which might be negotiated away as part of a new aid package, and it has received $65 million in outright military grants from Washington since Sept. 11, 2001, when the terrorist hijackers struck.

Also, Pentagon officials have said they are willing to spend up to $300 million to improve the facilities U.S. forces might use in Turkey. And a $324 million U.S. Export-Import Bank loan may be used to allow Turkey to buy 14 SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, according to the Pentagon.

While Turkish leaders once were adamant against cooperation, they have in recent days softened their stance. The National Security Council said Friday that it would recommend to parliament approval of the limited use of bases by U.S. forces. Turkish law requires such a vote.

Though nothing is certain, it increasingly appears that Turkey will agree to the U.S. requests once the aid package is hammered out.

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

Listen, Vee4473, you sound like a kid, so I'll spare you the embarassment of being wrong. In the future, if you post crap, don't get mad at the person when they show you're wrong.

JohnT · February 14, 2003, 01:24

Pot please meet kettle. Kettle, I'd like to introduce you to pot.

Pot to kettle: "Damn, you're black! What's up with that?"

Ming · February 14, 2003, 01:25

I think it's time to NOT BE SO PERSONAL.

Argue the issues... no insults.

GePap · February 14, 2003, 01:25

Comparing anyone to Hilter, or Stalin, or anyone else for that matter is historical idiocy. Saddam does not act like Stalin, or Hitler. He is neither man: is that so hard for folks to grasp? If you want to know what Saddam might do tommorrow, don't read about freaking Munich, read aboitu saddam's history. The man has been in power for 30 years. He has a record you know.

As for "appeasement". Everyone talks about Hitler. What about Japan? The US got into WW2 because of Japanese actions, not German ones. Did the US appease 10 years fo Japanese expansionism from 1931 to 1941? Did we sign some "Munich" over China that gave Japan a green light to go to war? NO. The US, specially after Japan begun to lap up the spoils of the Europeans war and moved into Indochina the US took a hard line with Japan, ad by the Summer fo 1941 was implementing sanciotns that could prove deadly to the Japanese economy. So in 1941 the US did NOT appease Japan, it took a hard line in demanding Japan back down. Did the ahrd line,the showing we mean bussiness, the taking a stand avoid war? NO. It did not. And what about 1945? Many call Yalta a piece of appeasement, the US and the west cumbling to uncle Joe, giving him Eastern europe. For fifty years the USSR was HItler, Yalta was a new munich, blah, blah, blah. Well, did Giving up Poland lead to WW3? Did not taking a ahrd line as the USSR swallowed up eastern europe wet the appetites of the godless commies to take the whole worlds, as supposedly letting Hitler take Czechoslovakia lead to WW2? NO. If you call Yalta an act fo appeasment, then IT WORKED. WAR WAS AVERTED, the USSR did not try to conquer Western europe.

The 'lesson' of Munich does not exist. It is a lie. WW2 happaned not because the Western allies took a soft line with Hitler in 1938. Had Hitler failed then, he would have simply begun the war at a different time, earlier or later, the only hope of avoiding it would have been an end to the Hitler regime, and by 1938 its hold on power was solid. No, Hitler did not start WW2 simply because he though the allies weak. Read Mein Kampf for Gods sake. He was planning a war from the day he took office, he wanted war, he needed war.

There are no such things as 'historical lessons', only policy arguments based on current ideology and realpolitik.

JohnT · February 14, 2003, 01:35

Yeah, Sava! What Ming said!

No problem, Ming.

*JohnT shuffles off to bed*

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:37

RAERRRRRR!!!!