How justified is this war?

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (SmokWawelski @ April 17 2003,19:19)]As to the chemical discussion: most chem factories/plants migrate out of this country to escape the harsh healh regulations, get cheap labor (both ethicaly questionable).

As my last post on any war-related topic let me only say this: No government created on the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power will be stable and fully recognized by its own people. It fails on the principle of people being able to decide for themselfs, and forcefully replaces one regime with another one, supposedly democratic. I stay correct: No to War
Japan. A government and constitution created upon the basis of military intrusion by a foreign power. It has been stable and fully recognized by its own people. Germany has also been stable as a result of the war. Both were tired of war as are most Afghans and Iraqi's.

As for chem plants. Yep, the labor is cheap overseas and some of the regulations weaker (depends very much on locale.) That does not mean a company has to hold itself to a lower standard (and in my own case I know that it is possible to maintain high standards in a foreign plant.) It's not just the operating labor so much as the reduced capital cost that drives some of this investment. Additionally, reduced shipping cost for bulk chemicals is a huge factor since the chemical plants are largely selling to downstream producers in the region and shipping costs can be a killer. Additionally, some regional industries won't buy your goods if they are not produced locally. The only way the US can stay ahead is by ceding commodity production to other regions, and continue producing innovative new products. We can't compete with the likes of China and India on labor cost. Personally, I would like to keep as much chemical production as possible in the US, but that is largely a money producing proposition. We've used much of the cheapest-to-extract feedstocks in our own backyard, and one way to reduce cost is to get closer to the cheap supply.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (MrNiceGuy @ April 17 2003,19:00)]So when you're checking out that cat cracker or coke drum you don't notice all those wonderful, sweet light end aromas or delight in the small colorful clouds of coke dust you kick up when walking through a refinery unit.

As an inspector I've seen refineries up close and way too personal. After a job in a Hersheys factory it was over a year before I ate chocolate. In South American and Asian (excepting Japan) countries with little or no environmental laws you'll see petrochem industries more than 50 miles away from the flares burning off the parts of hydrocarbons they can't use. My favorite quote was from a brit showing me around one worksite when you see the number four flare burn green you should get indoors, that means the acid from the desulferization unit is out of whack. I can't vouch for any spot in Africa as I've never been and don't want to go.

So that evil foreign industry is also my main bread and butter as well as yours. The only truly clean and friendly company I've ever seen was every manned Air Products plant, but they only deal with gasses.
My experience is not in petro chem although I've toured a few refineries. My work has been in chemical intermediates and cracking plants associated with them. Some of the derivatives we make intentionally or as byproducts make those refinery chemicals sound mild. Then again, we handle our stuff very carefully so that we don't expose ourselves or our workers. Accidents do happen, but my plant's safety record is better than any other plants or industries I've had the opportunity to compare with. I'm hands on and never ask anyone to do anything I won't do myself (and frequently assist.) I don't accept chemical odors or leaks in my units so when I catch a whiff of something I start hunting.

Air Products, yeah, pretty easy to be clean when you are working primarily with air as your feedstock...LOL.

[MrNiceGuy]

Good point about Japan. Perhaps a regime change in societies that have long caste-like tendencies are easier to assume control without much civilian unrest.

I respect your opinion Red and accept that in some areas we ' agree to disagree' but this topic now seems to be pretty much a moot point now.

I look forward to meeting you on the battlefield (and most likely have my n00b arse schooled) sometime soon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[The_Emperor]

Well the war is over... But America now has to win the peace, and that is where the real challenge lies.

Sadly the USA does not have a good record with nation building and Japan and Germany seem to be the only nations that they did a good job on (Yeah and that was over half a century ago)

As to if it is justified or not, in my view it was not and I voted in the 0-10% area

[Maedhros]

Despite all the glorious imagery and biased reporting, I am still unconvinced this was all necessary.

Is Saddam bad? No doubt, but he is still a small time thug on the global arena. Besides being a thug has never been a problem for US security planning or any previous presidents.

If we really cared about the people we would someplace where people are dieing on a huge scale. Like the Congo in Africa.

WMD? The technology behind some of those is now nearly a century old. Acquiring or developing them is inevitable for most of the countries in the world.

Does Iraq pose a threat to us? NO. They have no deep water navy, no airforce worthy of the name, and no advanced missile tech. No contacts with terrorist groups. (They give some cash to Arafat, but Hesbollah et al don't look further than the holy land.)

Iraq, despite what most americans think had nothing to do with 9/11.

What was then the real motivation behindthe invasion? Revenge, and control of oil. Control gained by replacing our old currenlty misbehaving puppet with new puppet who will do as he is told.

China will be the biggest global competitor to the US during the next century. The growing industrialization of China will push their oil requirements up substantially in the future. Where will that oil come from? They are getting oil in large part from the Middle East. We are getting our oil more and more from places other than the ME like Venezuala.

In part to counter any increase in the power of OPEC, and due the instability in the region. Also having the ability to squeeze China's throat with a mere phone call will be hugely important as the US and China begin their game of chess.

Control of strategic resources and the preemptive war theory (which dates back to Bush ptI) is the reasoning behind rummies push for war. I think the prez is a simple man with simple motives. I think he wants to avenge what he views as his daddies disgrace. He made his motives clear at a University speech during the presidential campaign.

Repect and support for the troops should not include using them like pawn or sending them out on personal vendettas.

[Puzz3D]

Maedhros,

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and the brushing aside of the UN along with the extra powers Congress has given Bush is frightening. I had to laugh when he said to the POWs in Texas, Thank god you're safe.. They wouldn't have been captured in the first place if not for Bush, and the dead and injured Americans wouldn't be dead and injured not to mention all the other people dead or injured. If Iraq had used chemical or biological weapons, the casualties would have been enormous. You can use the concept of preemtive strike to justify all kinds of military operations. The US people have been lied to before to justify military operations and escalations. Is Bush going to deal with North Korea the way he has dealt with Iraq? Think China will just stand by? Don't other countries have weapons of mass destruction that should be eliminated? Has Bush justified a preemtive strike using nuclear weapons in his own mind? He has certainly justified preemtive killing of men, women and children to himself.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ April 21 2003,12:06)]

Quote[/b] ]I wholeheartedly agree with you, and the brushing aside of the UN along with the extra powers Congress has given Bush is frightening.

OH GOD someone ingnoring the UN, wait no thats right. THe UN is a biast anti semitic organization that has iraq as head of disarming and libya as head of human rights. The sooner UN dies and stops teaching palestinian children with maps that do not include israel the sooner peace in the middle east will come.

And these terrifying measures they don't come in till 2005. Which do you think is better, dealing with rogue states with womd one at a time or letting them become stronger by the month until they start a nuculaer holocaust.

[Maedhros]

I have no argument the UN needs some revising. I wouldn't hesitate to say a complete rebuild.

However I can't say I can agree with antisemitic. They have never enforced resolutions against Israel, and have never pressured them on their human rights record.

Frankly, I can't say either sides hands are bloodless in that wonderful little quandry. Radically new leadership on both sides and a very extended incremental peace process which gives all sides security and equal treatment. It may also require the holy city itself be governed jointly.

maybe the city could be transformed into a theocracy with an appointed council? and a buddhist as head of state (no vested interest).

Excuse me while I dash to the window, I hear oinking in the sky. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Carrick1973]

People like to bring up Japan and Germany as examples of nations that we successfully 'built', but one thing that is not mentioned is how much it cost us. Here is a quote from the Marshall Foundation Organization's website: Marshall Foundation.org (http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures)


Quote[/b] ]Over its four-year life, the Marshall Plan cost the U.S. 2.5 to 5 times the percent of national income as current foreign aid programs. One would need to multiply the program's $13.3 billion cost by 10 or perhaps even 20 times to have the same impact on the U.S. economy now as the Marshall Plan had between 1948 and 1952. (Most of the money was spend between 1948 and the beginning of the Korean War (June 25, 1950); after June 30, 1951, the remaining aid was folded into the Mutual Defense Assistance Program.)

How much have we (the United States) spent in Afghanistan on rebuilding efforts? Only $290 Million in 2002, as opposed to the $10 billion that we spent on the destruction of Afghanistan. (Information from
The International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/afghanistan/outline0201.html) and from The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3362&sequence=0).

So before we bring up nations that we rebuilt properly, let's get it straight that 1) our economy cannot handle the expense of a 'proper' reconstruction effort and 2) the political environment in the U.S. would not attempt a 'proper' reconstruction in any nations that we 'rebuild'.

Don't get me wrong, I thought that kicking the crap out of Osama (does anyone remember who that is??) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and the Taliban was certainly within our right after 9/11, but the lame arguments that the current administration made trying to link Saddam to 9/11 and to purchasing nuke material from Nigeria were inexcusable. There is a thing in this world called sovereignty, and a little law passed by Ford that prevents assassination attempts on foreign leaders. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush slept through those classes in junior high. Unfortunately, the repercussions from this invasion will be widespread and it will be hard to connect to future events - meaning if another terrorist attack occurs on our soil, the administration and all neo-cons will say 'Just think about how bad it would have been and how many attacks we prevented by taking out Saddam...' when it is just as likely (or more likely according to the CIA) that future attacks will occur because of the attack on Iraq.

Anyway, enough rambling, but I guess you can imagine that I voted in the 1-10% range...

Oh BTW - What is this excuse that Rummie makes about not being able to find WMD's? Can't they just use those nifty satellite images that Secratary Powell flaunted at the U.N. to find all those 'Mobile Chemical Factories'? Seems to me that if the U.N. inspectors were so bad, and we know exactly where all the chem's are, we should be able to just saunter in and find them...

Steve

[Red Harvest]

Carrick,

I agree with you on the rebuilding part. While the Afghans are better off than they were not long ago, we should be putting more money into rebuilding efforts. I do see it as a responsibility after a war. It's also a wise political and economic investment in the long term. Additionally, subsidizing some US based rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan can also be a stimulus for our US economy. Unfortunately, Bush is rather short sighted and has very limited understanding of economics. Witness his tax cuts and the ballooning budget deficit. His solution right now is to pass on a tremendous debt to my children. Terrific, we had this deficit thing licked until he got into office. Not only has he resumed massive deficit spending, but he's determined to make it worse. He cut taxes at an economic peak, and many of us were screaming it was a bad idea for that very reason. The surpluses were part of the up cycle/unsustainable boom, rather than a long term trend. Of course, if you promise every one a pot of gold, you find it easier to get elected...or selected by the Supreme Court in his case. He lost the popular vote and his electoral win was only the result of voter error caused by a fluke of outdated technology and demographics.

[Efrem Da King]

The republican party is carrying a hit against colon powell with this stuff about how the US state department hasn't pavved 1 mile of road in 2 and half years. WHich of cousres coloon leads.I think it was pat buchananan. But the person after him on fox said that it was a hit and there is no way he would have done that without rumsfields permission.

[Popeye]

Just to weigh in with a my personal view of how we got to war in Iraq, this time. Conventional wisdom is that it's a choice between blaming the United States for the failure of diplomacy, or blaming Saddam for being stupid. I see it a little differently.

Bear in mind that I'm not judging right and wrong or international law here. Those concepts don't mean much in the context of war, and are usually decided by the one that writes History afterward.

Obviously the objective of diplomacy was to convince Saddam to do something he didn't want to do. How did diplomacy fail?

The nature of diplomacy is trade-off. The US wanted assurance that Saddam didn't have WMD. Maybe he had them, maybe he didn't, they wanted certainty. If he didn't have them, he certainly took great pains to prevent the US from being sure of that. That certainty was the goal. The question was how to get it.

One method is that Saddam could have allowed full and open inspections. That didn't happen, and even Hans Blix speaks in terms of ongoing negotiations to convince the Iraqis to be forthcoming. They were not forthcoming, and the question is why not. Well, it's clear enough that giving away the one thing we wanted held no advantage for Iraq, they'd rather go to the second method.

The second method is by diplomatic trading. They let us see enough to be certain he's unarmed, we give something they want. Don't ask what, it really doesn't matter.

The third method is we could just go in by force.

Those are the choices; One side wants something, the other can give it away, trade it, or we're down to naked force.

Now, in order for the diplomatic trading to work, the demands of both sides would have to be reasonable, and more attractive than using force. That's where the diplomatic process got into trouble this time.

It's fairly obvious that Saddam didn't really expect force to be used. This would lead him to expect to be able to make more demands in exchange for the certainty bargained for. As long as force was off the table, the price could go ever higher, or maybe the thing the US wanted was simply not offered at any price.

The problem was that the demands, whatever they were, got too high. Force was perceived as the better option. The US said that force was a better option, but Saddam simply didn't believe it was an option at all. If he took the possibility of a full scale invastion seriously, everything he's done looks totally irrational. You don't survive 20 years as a dictator by being irrational. He was simply mistaken about the likelihood of force.

Now, the question is, WHY did he not believe the US would use force? They said they would if it became necessary. They moved troops. They mobilized reserves, they did all kinds of pre-invasion things. He knew he had not the means to stop the invasion if it happened. He wasn't even able to hold Kuwait ten years ago, and hadn't repaired his army from that. Why was he apparently so certain that the US would not invade?

Because the French said they couldn't. He thought that was enough to prevent it. By trying to take force out of the equation, the French encouraged Saddam to be unreasonable (at least as perceived by the US) in the diplomatic negotiations, and basically garunteed the invasion.

Diplomacy is a great thing. I'm all for it. Preventing war is why we have diplomats. Diplomats that refuse to acknowledge the possibility of war would be like a priest that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of eternal damnation. You can't help people avoid what you won't talk about.

The bottom line is that this war is the fault of the French for trying to take war out of the diplomatic equation, and the fault of Iraq for believing the French had that power.

I doubt the UN will recognize this, so look for it to happen again, not necessarily with the same issues or parties. The UN will fail because they don't understand the reality is that violence is always an option, even when parties agree that it isn't.

[KukriKhan]

Well thought-out piece, Popeye. I only have a bit of trouble with laying the fault at the feet of the French, alone. In my view, there's plenty of blame to spread around. However, your posit of France's obstruction leading to Saddam's miscalculation makes good sense. I guess we'll only know if Saddam shows up 5 years from now on some TV interview show.

[Popeye]

I think it's a theme that has repeated itself throughout history though.

People and nations have a tendency to ignore the possibility of violence, and press their demands on the assumption that they will not be forced to drop them. The American Civil War is a classic example. The Federalists wanted their way, and did not expect the South to resist by force. The Confederacy wanted their way, and did not expect the Federalists to oppose by force. By the time both sides realized how wrong they were in these assumptions, it was too late.

Argentina annexed the Falkland Islands, in the assumption that Britain would not argue over something that far from London.

Iraq annexed Kuwait in the belief that no one would object after the fact.

Hitler was baffled that the Americans cared enough about Europe to get involved, and underestimated British resistance to Nazi plans.

Even look at criminals in any given society. It doesn't matter what crime you talk about, and it generally doesn't matter how light the punishment for those convicted. If criminals didn't expect to get away with the crime, they would not commit the crime. They don't expect to get caught, they don't expect force to be used.

Carry this down to the even more basic school bullies. They don't expect anyone to fight, that's why they get away with whatever it is they do.

It is the same thing with Iraq. Saddam didn't expect force to be used. The blame for the war, in my view, lies with those that made him believe that. It isn't a question of whether the force was justified, it's a question of whether or not it was foreseeable.

[Maedhros]

Video and witness testimony just prior to the invasion showed Saddam making people treat him as a prophet gives an insight I believe into why he resisted.

People who argued or delivered bad news were summarily executed. Sometimes even by Saddam personally just outside the meedting room where the offense took place.

He may not have been aware of how dire his armys morale problems were. Or the general condition of his military. He may have assumed he could engage in delaying tactics to stall and cause mounting casualites in American forces.

Demonstrations around the world, especially London and several major US cities was evidence that Bush and his puppeteers were an island alone. If the war went on long enough, and cost enough lives he may have assumed we would stop short and negotiate.

Remember who Saddams idol was? Stalin who made famous the battle of Stalingrad. Sacrificed millions of civilians, and much of his military dragging the Germans into a battle he knew the nazis could not win. The winter ultimately did more to defeat what was a better trained, and equiped army.

Remember the rush to invade? Summer was coming to the Iraqi desert. I believe Saddam thought it would do for him what the winter did for Stalin. His city would ultimately be destroyed, but he would be remembered in history alongside the greatest Islamic generals. Maybe even build yet another mosque dedicated to great victory, and ever growing god complex.

I don't believe it occured to Saddam that he was fallible. Even if he had all the relevant information to make a reasonable can I pull this off? judgement. Which I don't believe he did.

[Efrem Da King]

I'm just happy hes out of power.