Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Knute Snortum
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Frits Walraven
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis

Political Science Exercise

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This thread has made me think that this might be something some are interested in as a hypothetical exercise. It was the final project in class I recently finished called Dynamics of International Terrorism. It's purely hypothetical of course.
Our class (there were 13 of us) ended up divided into two teams to come up with our final proposals. To say the least, the approaches varied widely between the teams. Our team (consisted of an active duty military person with a background in intelligence, a military reservist who was a psyops specialist that served in Bosnia, two students of Middle Eastern origin, and myself) ended up with something that would be more in line with the Bush doctrine, whereas the other team took an approach that was, shall we say, idealistic at best.
But we have some "deep thinkers" here, as well as those whose automatic reaction is to do the opposite of what Bush would do regardless of the situation, so I was thinking we might see some interesting approaches to this hypothetical scenario.
-------------------------------------------
The date is 10/01/2002, and President Bush and his staff are six months into preparing to invade Iraq. The Administration plans to attack by air and by land (from both Kuwait and Turkey) using a total of 400,000 troops. Congress has already passed a resolution supporting the invasion.
New intelligence (from reliable sources) strongly suspects that Iran is the financial source of funding for the 9/11 attack and is busily preparing an additional attack on a high visibility U.S. target within the next three months. In the mean time, Israel has informed Secretary of State Powell that it intends to launch an all out attack on the West Bank within three weeks. The objective is to take Yassir Arafat and his top lieutenants prisoner. The attack is planned in response to several suicide bombings (in the past month) that have killed approximately 200 Israelis and a top aide to Prime Minister Sharon.
Additional intelligence from a third party suggests that indeed Iraq has doubled its chemical weapons capability and has added 50 new intermediate range missiles to its stockpile. It is also refining its biological weapons capability and a third party has observed several low-level representatives from Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Recent polls have shown that there is a good chance that the Democrats will recapture the House if they can win several hotly contested races in both Florida and New York. Several influential Jewish groups have promised to come out in favor of the Republican candidates in both states if the Bush Administration exhibits continued unequivocal support for Israel. Conversely, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt plan to support the United States if Israel refrains from any attacks prior to or during the course of the war that will take from four-eight months, with an additional occupation period of 1-3 years.
The United States currently has sufficient troops and resources to win a war with either Iraq or Iran assuming that long term occupation forces will be required; however, to fight both nations will require reinstitution of a draft with a total mobilization effort of 1.2 million troops. The U.S. still has a presence in Afghanistan with a new request from the Afghanistan government for an additional 20,000 soldiers. This request is in response to increasing evidence that the Taliban and its terrorist allies are regrouping in the Southeastern part of the country.
Develop an integrated written strategy for President Bush. Identify priority domestic and international objectievs, costs and benefits for each component substrategy, and a specific overall recommendation.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Would an invasion of Syria win votes in Florida and New York? Would destruction of the terrorist camps in Syria reduce the blood and mayhem in Isreal and on the six o'clock news?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Ok, Jason. First off, not to blow your cover (or bubble), but this only emphasises my strong suspicion about the nature of work you do (did)
Second of all, your imaginary scenario only covers bad guys, and portrays US as lonely good-warrior, which has little to do with reality, but hey, that's what imaginary scenario is for.
I'd give you some first-pass approaches, some of which worked in the past. Approach one: divide-and-conquer, which means, do not let them unite against the single enemy (USA), but rather make them "aware" of each other. For instance, Iraq and Iran has had their problems in the past... What adds complezity, is that dubiya has to make a choice between his own arse (or his party's nomination) and support of arabic nations. Later seems to have a higher potential of success. Assuming that Al Gore will be Democratic candidate again (and he is a loser), I would recommend Bush taking a chance, warning Israel and taking Syria/Saudi/Egypt support. This way you might even avoid long-term occupation of Iraq because these three can potentially put serious pressure themselves (would they? I don't know, but I would doubt).
And last, but not least, I would make a search for another oil supplier my very HIGH priority (hello, Russia???). OPEC will not like that, but hey, you are fighting half of them anyway... Plus, I would give huge amounts of money to alternative fuel research. The goal - take US dollars away from that region.
I'll take your military buddies supported 1.2 million draft to "stop both of them", right? My first impression is not to, but I'll make a second pass later...
Shura
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1055
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Wow! Sounds like a Clancy novel.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The date is 10/01/2002, and President Bush and his staff are six months into preparing to invade Iraq. The Administration plans to attack by air and by land (from both Kuwait and Turkey) using a total of 400,000 troops. Congress has already passed a resolution supporting the invasion.


Will this be a coalition military operation (like the Gulf War) with Arab allies, or a mostly American affair? The former is definitely a better alternative.
Israeli presence in the war will be undesirable (to say the least). Intense diplomatic pressure should be brought to bear to stay their hand.
Iraq has already demonstrated its willingness to use chemical weapons. Let's paint them black on this one.
The deal with the Arabs has to be made. Jewish groups must be persuaded that it's in Israel's best interest to have the current Iraqi regime dismantled while they remain in the sidelines.
Too risky to take two at once. Concentrate on Iraq first. Victory in Iraq can serve as a deterrence measure.
On the domestic front, the war has to be packaged as a war of self-defense, as the US is making a pre-emptive strike. And yes, isn't it about time oil dependence is shifted to another country?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Ok, Jason. First off, not to blow your cover (or bubble), but this only emphasises my strong suspicion about the nature of work you do (did)


Software development? I only took the class because it sounded like it might be fun, and it was.

POLI 409 Selected Topics in Political Science 3 credits
Dynamics of International Terrorism:
National Policy Responses and Evolving
Challenges
This course explores the growing threat of global terrorism to the United States. Topics include: 1) terrorism versus other types of conflict and political behavior; 2) dynamic and static elements of terrorist behavior given the end of bipolarity; 3) special U.S. vulnerabilities to terrorism; 4) the probable efficacy of particular types of U.S. policy responses to terrorism; and 5) the feasibility of fighting terrorism while protecting civil liberties. The course explores and evaluates different social science theories and methodologies for understanding and assessing terrorist behavior. Students interested in environmental, biological, cyber, and nuclear terrorism are encouraged to enroll. This course is also directly relevant to students interested in a national security career. Students will participate in classroom discussions by employing conceptual frameworks to analyze real world processes and events. Students will also develop an analytical case study of a major terrorist threat/event. For more information please contact the Political Science Department at (410) 455-2193 or e-mail hody@umbc.edu.
Grade Method: REG
[7610] 7060 Meets 07/08/2002 - 08/16/2002 MUNRO, J
MW.........6:00pm- 9:10pm (ACIV015)


Talks by Palestinan activists, a former Israeli IDF territorial governor, a representative from the US Govt office that goes after terrorist funding, and an internationally recognized investigative journalist/conspiracy theorist... not a bad way to spend six weeks.

Second of all, your imaginary scenario only covers bad guys, and portrays US as lonely good-warrior,,


It's not *my* scenario. But otherwise, I think that characterization is accurate.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Shura: And last, but not least, I would make a search for another oil supplier my very HIGH priority (hello, Russia???).
Anthony: And yes, isn't it about time oil dependence is shifted to another country?

Yes and yes. As far as oil goes, I believe we should push forward with ANWR development, and I would also like to see us give massive amounts of money to Russia to re-vitalize her oil production capabilities.
Naturally alternative fuel sources should be the long term goal, but for now I think we should work to make Middle Eastern oil as irrelevant as we can.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
An abbreviated version of our solution:
----------------------------
The overall strategy would be to just go after Iraq. We already have the political green light for this both domestically and abroad, but we do not have that political support for a campaign against Iran as of yet. In addition, we already have troops positioned such that Iraq is a more feasible target than Iran right now. In addition, we give Afghanistan the additional troops being requested, which gives us a pretext to move in more forces for later use as discussed below.
While the short term goal is Iraq, which is in line with the Bush doctrine, the long term goal would be Iran if necessary. After Iraq, Iran would be completely surrounded by US forces in Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Georgia, as well as naval and amphibious forces in the Gulf. We hold the information about Iran's involvement in 9/11 and other terrorist operations until after the Iraqi campaign, then leak this to the media in order to generate political will at home and abroad. Very possibly the proximity of our forces and the demonstrated will to use force might be enough to bolster dissident groups within Iran, but if not, we have ourselves positioned perfectly for large scale military operations.
As far as Israel goes, we need to sit on them. We need to make sure they do not proceed with their planned effort against Arafat. We let them in on our plans and convince them that successful operations against Iraq and then Iran (who Israel detests more than Iraq anyway) far better serve their long term security interests. We send a high-level delegation to consult with the Israelis, letting them know that we are deeply invested in their security, as well as reactivate the direct US-Israel hotline, Hammer Rick, that we had during the Gulf War. As with during the Gulf War, we deploy US air defense forces and equipment to Israel to assist in knocking down incoming missiles. In addition we keep a high mission tasking over Western Iraq specifically dedicated to SCUD hunting. We also deny Israel our IFF codes (identification friend or foe), give them little operational intelligence about Western Iraq, and lock them out of planning meeting. These acts would make it suicidal for Israel to try to involve herself in the war as Israeli jets would most likely be shot down thinking they were Iraqi since they wouldn't be squawking the correct IFF. Finally we should dedicate significant assets towards trying to pre-emptively warn Israel of any Palestinian related terror operations. Even given that terror operations do occur, they have to basically suck it up until after Iraq. Additionally, with US troops on the ground in Isreal, the Palestinians may restrict their operations voluntarily. Mistakenly bombing US military personnel would add a dimension to the conflict they are probably not willing to undertake.
The public doesn't know of Israel's planned operation against the Palestinians, and they don't need to know. The high-level delegation, setting up the hotline, and deploying US air defense assets to Israel plays very well to the Jewish lobby at home. This should be sufficient to garner their support for the upcoming elections. Even absent that, we can count somewhat on the flag waving effect. No Democrat will want to be perceived as being anti-American while combat operations are underway. As such, like during the Gulf and after 9/11, things should flow pretty smoothly through the legislature.
Given that we are able to sit on Israel, we should be able to keep the support of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. I would think of this support as more of non-interference than anything else. Any actual support we get from them should be logistical if anything. I wouldn't recommend we use their countries to launch military action from, maybe just for some overflight if necessary. Kuwait, Turkey, the Gulf, and Iraq itself should sufficiently serve as bases from which to conduct combat operations.
As far as the draft, we won't need for any Iraqi campaign. If we end up needing more forces for an Iranian conflict that follows Iraq, showing evidence of involvement in 9/11 and other terrorist actions would generate some public support for a draft if it were absolutely necessary. This was evidenced after 9/11 when several polls showed public support for a draft. However, we should try to avoid a draft, and only use as an absolute last resort.
Concerning the imminent Iranian-sponsored terrorist action against our interests. We should do our best to prevent it of course, but we hold back our knowledge that it was sponsored by Iran until we can use it to our best advantage.
If all goes to plan, the above course of action will result in a regime change in Iraq, we will keep Israel from becoming a distraction, we will maintain Arab support, we avoid a draft, the Republicans fare well in the upcoming elections, Afghanistan gets the troops they requested, and we leave ourselves in perfect position to undertake military operations against Iran if/when necessary.
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
{
We already have the political green light for this both domestically and abroad, but we do not have that political support for a campaign against Iran as of yet.
}
Are you sure about this. Is the UN and international opinion with the US for a strike on Iraq?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 43
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
We already have the political green light for this both domestically and abroad
Domestically yes, but here in Europe there is not total support for an attack on Iraq.
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Not bad at all. I have to add, that you would have to change a regime in Iraq, not completely destroy it. So you want to heavily finance some opposing group (not Kurds, but that may, and will, be another issue). The idea is that we still need a strong Iraq after Saddam (just like we need strong Afghanistan, we don't want a take-over by Pakisatanis or Iran).
Concerning the imminent Iranian-sponsored terrorist action against our interests. We should do our best to prevent it of course, but we hold back our knowledge
What exactly has been done, does anyone honsetly think it was bin Laden and Arabian princes, right? :roll:
Also, interesting comments about Israel. I think this game has been long underway...
As far as European allies...That's one of the reasons I think best and unlikely partner in all this might be Russia (not because I lived there, but because I could relate to what's going on there). Oil aside, Russia has long been dealing with many forms of small and medium level conflicts in Middle East and Asia. I can imagine the amount of intelligence it posesses. It is also stabilizing under new government, although some shakeouts might still occur in the next 20-30 years. The only big barrier here is financial, which can be taken care of with US becoming a large oil buyer, through Bering Sea - Alaska or by tankers out of Black Sea.
Shura
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
slacker: Are you sure about this. Is the UN and international opinion with the US for a strike on Iraq?
Dermot Curley: Domestically yes, but here in Europe there is not total support for an attack on Iraq.
It's a hypothetical exercise, not the real world. The scenario as given outlines under which condition we get the needed support.
As far as European support being needed in the real world, the only people who believe that are the Europeans.
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1055
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Iraq is governed by a totalitarian regime that murders its own citizens, and initiates wars of aggression against its neighbors. The Western press can take it from there.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Not bad at all. I have to add, that you would have to change a regime in Iraq, not completely destroy it.


Yep.

So you want to heavily finance some opposing group (not Kurds, but that may, and will, be another issue).


We will assist some friendly post-Saddaam government for sure. Like you said though, not the Kurds as it would piss off the Turks too much, and we need their support. Based on the amount of ground troops we are sending in, it seems to me like we will be doing most of the fighting though.

What exactly has been done, does anyone honsetly think it was bin Laden and Arabian princes, right?


Are you talking within the scope of the scenario? The Iranians are providing funding to terrorist groups (such as Al Qaeda, who also receive funding from the Saudis probably), these terrorist groups then carry out the operations.

Also, interesting comments about Israel. I think this game has been long underway...


I'm not sure what you are talking about. The strategy outlined for Israel is merely a reflection of US strategy regarding Israel during the Gulf War. Check out this article if you are interested in more information.
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
From the same magazine, article about Putin and the Middle East. In regards of your scenario, fact that Russia looks at Iran as ally is not playing well into US hands. As well as $7 Billion that Iraq owes Russia.
Shura
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

As far as European support being needed in the real world, the only people who believe that are the Europeans.


Europe taxpayers pay for reconstruction after peace missions.
As long as you credit-loving americans spent so much money on consuption driving trade deficit up, no problem.
---
I like the idea to put away money from the region by downsizing oil imports.
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Dermot Curley
Ranch Hand
Posts: 43
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
As far as European support being needed in the real world, the only people who believe that are the Europeans
ha ha, true, you could add the UN to that as well
Iraq is governed by a totalitarian regime that murders its own citizens, and initiates wars of aggression against its neighbors. The Western press can take it from there.
First up I dont like Iraq much either, but if that is you critera for attacking other countries, how about what happened in Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor etc.. there were people who did equally bad things in those situations but no US invasion came in to help(or European one for that matter). The Western press as far as I can see are concerned with the balance of power in the middle east and the long term effects that any action will have in a region that is volatile to say the least. Up untill now Great Britain has been right beside the US in its "war on terrorism" but there isnot full support
for this action. When even your closest allies disagree with you maybe you should think why?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Dermot Curley:
no US invasion came in to help


Way OT since the purpose of this thread is one particular hypothetical scenario, but US military involvement in Bosnia was the reason for the cessation of hostilities over there. We tried to urge the Europeans to clean up their own back yard without our miiltary involvement, but they were having none of it. They would only become involved in such an operation if we led the military effort and it was under a NATO flag. So I would say that the involvement by NATO military forces in Bosnia cleaned up the mess that the UN helped make. Later military peacekeeping by other nations has also become instrumental to maintaining the current fragile peace. I share your regrets concerning Rwanda and similar nations.
The unfortunate truth is that the stability of Europe is generally more vital to our national interests than the stability of Africa. The Bosnian conflict began spilling over into neighboring states and that was a situation we just couldn't allow to continue. The UN/Clinton fiasco in Somalia no doubt gave us pause about Rwanda as well.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
From the same magazine, article about Putin and the Middle East. In regards of your scenario, fact that Russia looks at Iran as ally is not playing well into US hands. As well as $7 Billion that Iraq owes Russia.
Shura


After Bush has spoke with Putin recently concerning Russia's sale of nuclear technology to Iran, I have read news articles that point towards Russia capitulating on this issue. I believe we both recognize that our relationship with each other is more important than our relationships with countries such as Iran and Iraq. The US has shown a willingness to throw money towards Russia to make up for their monetary loss in the past under smiilar circumstances, and I see no reason we wouldn't again.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Europe taxpayers pay for reconstruction after peace missions.


I think we could be moving towards an equitable arrangement with Europe concerning the resolution of world conflicts. The US will take the lead with making the peace, Europe can participate in nation building afterwords.
That will work out for all involved. We will take the decisive action that needs to be taken, and Europe can get their warm fuzzy feeling by contributing to the social(ist) situation afterwards.
 
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1055
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Dermot Curley:
First up I dont like Iraq much either, but if that is you critera for attacking other countries, how about what happened in Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor etc.. there were people who did equally bad things in those situations but no US invasion came in to help(or European one for that matter).


Because those did not directly affect US interests. Historically, the uS has often taken a moral stance when she enters a war, but that does not cover the fact it is always done for the sake of her own interests. To believe that America acts as the world's policeman for purely altruistic reasons is to be naive about political realities.


The Western press as far as I can see are concerned with the balance of power in the middle east and the long term effects that any action will have in a region that is volatile to say the least. Up untill now Great Britain has been right beside the US in its "war on terrorism" but there isnot full support
for this action. When even your closest allies disagree with you maybe you should think why?[/QB]


I've always believed that a major reason for Middle East unrest is the prevalent socio-economic imbalance. Extremist ideologies always flourish when people cling to outworldly hopes and promises in the midst of unpleasant social conditions. This was true in Tsarist Russia in 1917, and Germany in 1933. There is also a disturbing tendency to blame groups or classes of people as being the primary cause of the misery.
Isn't it in Europe's best interest as well to pacify this region, since it remains to be a major petroleum source? If somehow respect for and practice of the democratic rule of law can be inculcated among the inhabitants, wouldn't that go a long way in cooling down the tensions?
 
Dermot Curley
Ranch Hand
Posts: 43
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Ok "invasion" was a bad word to use but I think you know what I mean. I never intended to hijack this thread so I guess I better say something about your scenario: hypothetically speaking, it could work
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

That will work out for all involved. We will take the decisive action that needs to be taken, and Europe can get their warm fuzzy feeling by contributing to the social(ist) situation afterwards.


With our socialistic promise to integrate Turkey in the European Union we helped to fuzzy warm bettering of human right standards in Turkey.
Nearly all western europe is governed by conservative governments at the moment. Germany will be too, after the september election.
Sometimes I ask myself if
- some of the muslims posting here are more anti-american in a fundamentalistic way. OR
- Jason Menard and Thomas Paul are more anti-westeuropean in a fundamentalistic way.
 
Anthony Villanueva
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1055
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
This is MD, my friend. You can hijack a thread and nobody would notice (or mind if they did)
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Anthony Villanueva ]
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Jason Menard and Thomas Paul are more anti-westeuropean in a fundamentalistic way.


Americans in general seem ambivalent to westeuropeans, with the exception of the French.
When Saddam send the US a nuclear bomb in a shipping container, the belief is that it will come via France. Just like the shoe bomber did.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 91
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
What if we were to incite Iraq and Iran against each other? As soon as we stop threatening them, I expect that they would fall back into a state of hostility towards each other.
Also, what if we went a bit farther in Israel? Request land for a military base directly on the border of the West Bank. Maybe even offer to help clean up Hamas and Hizbollah as part of our War on Terrorism.
-Stu
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
American oil company, also known for its gas stations, Getty, purchased by russian oil company Lukoil
First ever consignment of Russian oil arrives in US
Shura
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
- Jason Menard and Thomas Paul are more anti-westeuropean in a fundamentalistic way.


Hmmm... could you give me some examples of my posts that are anti-western European?
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
for example:

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Since no one else noticed. Of course all the Europeans are going to think I'm bragging about having made 5.000 posts!


For me, this goes somewhat in the same direction as Jasons fuzzy warm feelings: Europeans are very political correct and a little bit stupid.
o.k. its a little bit exagerated, MD.
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I recently read an article from the International Herald Tribune where the author argues that the Bush hawks are policy amateurs who dont think long term.
A small snippet from the article
"Law doesn't come much into amateur discussions since it is taken for granted that the United States is justified in doing pretty much as it pleases. This administration has consistently insisted on exemption from international law and refuses the inconvenient constraints of treaties signed under previous administrations. In internal security affairs, it claims an equivalent exemption from constitutional restraint.
This administration seems to regard the United States as exempt from the laws of war and from the traditional norms governing just and unjust war. These have only philosophical or moral authority, but were taken serious in American government as recently as the 1950s and 1960s in policy debates over nuclear war."
You can read the entire article from the IHT website.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
You forget to say that the "so called" treaties where never ratified by Congress as required by law. They were signed by the Clinton administration knowing they would never be ratified by his own party let alone the other. They were signed to show his base that he cares. But this is off topic if you want to discuss this start a new thread.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <slacker>:
[QB]I recently read an article from the International Herald Tribune where the author argues that the Bush hawks are policy amateurs who dont think long term.[QB]


I think it's fairly well known that the Bush cabinet is one of the most experienced ever assembled. But aside from that, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
- Jason Menard and Thomas Paul are more anti-westeuropean in a fundamentalistic way.


I don't see this.

For me, this goes somewhat in the same direction as Jasons fuzzy warm feelings: Europeans are very political correct and a little bit stupid.


A "warm fuzzy feeling" kind of means "to feel good", albeit stated in a bit of a sarcastic way. So my comment about "Europe can get their warm fuzzy feeling by contributing to the social(ist) situation afterwards" just meant that Europe can feel good about themselves by contributing to the social (okay the -ist was a bit of a shot ) situation afterwards.

Americans in general seem ambivalent to westeuropeans, with the exception of the French.


This is pretty much true. If I take digs at Europe, it's for a couple reasons. For one, I read European press and watch European news, so I am very much aware of much of Europe's take on us. Second, I have lived in various parts of Europe over a span of around four years so I am aware of certain prevailing attitudes when it comes to us. I know these are not shared by all and are in different concentrations depending on the country. Third, the EU itself is a basically anti-American organization, although I can separate in my mind the individual countries from the body as a whole.
In actuality I truely love Europe and 99% of the Europeans I have met in real life have been great people (if you don't count my time in Paris ), but in the interest of balance when assailed by comments from those such as Mr. Essoubani, I also have no problem pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 
Dermot Curley
Ranch Hand
Posts: 43
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Third, the EU itself is a basically anti-American organization


Thats a bit of a sweeping statment, sure both sides have disagreed on certain issues but do you seriously think that there a group of Europeans sitting around a table in Brussels ploting against the US? Disagrements happen, its no need for paranoia.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 71
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I think it's fairly well known that the Bush cabinet is one of the most experienced ever assembled. But aside from that, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?


I do not think it is "well known" at all. In fact, I think it is fairly well known, if not in America then throughout the world, that the Bush cabinet and administration as a whole is one of the most war hungry and destructive that America has ever seen. The rest of the world has realized this, and I believe more and more people here in America are starting to realize this.
The Bush administration only had international support because of the 9-11 attacks. It is becoming more and more obvious to the world that the Bush administration is hijacking sympathy to attack anyone that does not agree with its policies. The comment, "You are with us, or with the terrorists" demonstrates exactly that. Anyone who does not blindly follow Bush's policies is now with the terrorists. This is ridiculous because America is not the "good guy". No country in the world has the right to declare that they are the leaders of good against anyone they want to label as evil.
I think more and more Americans are beginning to see the destructive and ridiculous nature of this administration. At least I hope so, for the sake of America. Anyone who believes that America does not need international support for the war against terror is insane. I think it is quite obvious that America is losing its support around the world, and the Bush administration is soley responsible.
 
Anthony Goshaunee
Ranch Hand
Posts: 71
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator


Are you talking within the scope of the scenario? The Iranians are providing funding to terrorist groups (such as Al Qaeda, who also receive funding from the Saudis probably), these terrorist groups then carry out the operations.


This is simply untrue. The Iranians were funding the opposition to the Taliban which supported Al Qaeda way before America even cared. Iran also recently captured and returned several Al Qaeda members to Saudi Arabia. The only reason America is upset is because Iran has handed over none directly to America, which is ridiculous given the hostility between the two countries.
In fact, with regards to Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai himself said that Iran has been very helpful, contradicting comments by Rumsfeld that Iran has not been helpful. Karzai thanked Iran for its contribution in ridding Afghanistan of terrorists. He said both America and Iran are friends of Afghanistan. I think it is quite ridiculous that America can claim Iran is responsible for aiding Al Qaeda when the current government of Afghanistan is claiming otherwise.
There is absolutely no proof that Iran is aiding Al Qeada. In fact, Karzai's comments during President Khatami's visit are proof that Iran was very helpful in getting rid of Al Qaeda.
Now, if by funding "terrorist groups" you mean groups such as Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, that is another story, but that is a much more complicated situation.
 
Does this tiny ad smell okay to you?
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!