Aside from questions of right and wrong re: Iraq...

[John BigBootay]

does the war give America a greater position of strength to PEACEFULLY negotiate with Iran and North Korea to surrender their nuclear weapons programs?

[movonne]

1. I wouldn't think so....

[sangh0]

2. Why don't you tell us what you think?

I have no idea why anyone would think so, and your OP is silent on an issue you seem interested in.

[John BigBootay]

7. I think an argument can certainly be made, Sangh0...

But I am asking YOUR opinion. Can you elaborate? I am not here to argue, but listen to what you and others have to say.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. But your question is a BUSHCO talking point...and I've noticed your

posts in the past on this matter...I think you should tell us all what you think...otherwise...it's just baiting.

Frankly, I fail to see why either country would be swayed based on what they see in Iraq...the fact that we don't have anough troops and the fact that it only WEAKENS us to threaten and STRENGTHENS China and Russia who are NOT caught up in quagmires.

In fact, I'd look to the long war in afghanistan and the manner in which it bankrupted then broke up the USSR for your answer.

This was was STUPIDLY planned and its real ramifications were given very short shrift.

[John BigBootay]

13. Who or what would I be baiting?

I think there is an argument that negotiating from a position of strength has possible merits. Have I snared you with my logic trap?

Whether we are for or against the war in Iraq-- it is now a historical fact. Does it give any advantage at the negotiating table?

Should Kerry be elected, will the war be a liability in his work with these new emerging nuclear threats or a hinderance? Will it make his job easier in approaching Iran (as I believe he should) to PEACEFULLY persuade them to disarm. Is it possible that "speak softly but carry a big stick" is pertainent today?

I know Iraq is a sore subject around here, but it is a fact. JFK is not hiding from it or trying to wish it into the cornfield. Can he get some use out of it at the negotiating table? Simple question.

[AntiFascist]

23. Iran might argue that....

they need to defend themselves from an attack by Israel, especially in light of the bombs we just sold to Israel. Would the U.S. ever defend Iran from such an attack?

[BeFree]

24. Position of strength?

Are you saying America doesn't have enough strength? What planet do you live on?

No, it's a question of diplomatic finese.

The Iraqi invasion was not a diplomatic success. It was a miserable failure, and it weakend America around the globe due to the enemies it has created.

If anything it has increased the desire for others to have nukes.

[AntiFascist]

26. It is the recently stated position of PNAC that there should be....

eventual regime change in Iran. The only ones who could possibly be in a position to negotiate anything would be the new Kerry administration. Besides, Bush is the self-proclaimed war president.

[BeFree]

37. Two part post

First, War is the product of a failure of diplomacy. Actually, there was no failure of diplomacy in Iraq, there was NO diplomacy. B*sh just attacked for no good reason.

Second part.. to the following post.


Does a track record of aggressive "anti-terrorist" action provide a bargaining chip at the table?

No. The actions of B*sh actually made other countries value having nukes as protection from an Iraqi style invasion.

How do you account for Libya's disarmament post-Iraq?

Libya has been hounded for years, by the US and Europe, to disarm. I would say the increased trade with Europe was the best bargaining chip to get Libya to get rid of it's nuke program.

Ya know, we pretty much overcame Russia without firing a shot. It was a diplomatic success done with finese.

[John BigBootay]

27. Is finesse enough to disarm rogue nations?

Does a track record of aggressive "anti-terrorist" action provide a bargaining chip at the table?

How do you account for Libya's disarmament post-Iraq?

Just some questions that are on my mind.

[AntiFascist]

28. Libya had already incurred the wrath of the international community...

because of the French airliner bombing incident. They already had sanctions imposed, etc.

[John BigBootay]

32. Why does Tenet link WOT with Libyan disarmament? n/t

[AntiFascist]

33. Maybe he's trying to defend the reputation of certain CIA agents...

Nothing is absolute, I'm just saying it seems that Gadaffi (however you spell it!) had been going through a period of deep soul-searching for quite a while. He remembers, from personal experience, what it's like to have his family bombed. I don't believe Iran equates to this same experience.

[ilovenicepeople]

39. "Is finesse enough to disarm rogue nations?"

I keep hearing about this roguishness of nations,could someone explain the prerequisites to be deemed Rogue.Secondly I hope that my country ain't rogue,"America good,Canada funny monkey!":bounce:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. What do you think?

[DebJ]

4. based on our stunning 'successes' in Iraq? WTF?

[murphymom]

5. I don't think so

Looking at Iran, for example, on one border is a fractured country whose government we overthrew (Afghanistan) and on another border the same thing (Iraq). They've got to feel like the potential tasty filling in an imperialist sandwich - which I think will make them more likely to want to arm themselves rather than negotiate.

[luaneryder]

6. Were I Iran or NK

the US war on Iraq would make me less likely to negotiate peacefully. Rather, I would cling more tightly to the weapons I had and become more agressive in obtaining more.

[porphyrian]

8. Not with the level of incompetence we've displayed...

...so far. Had we actually kicked ass, maybe, but that's not an option at this point.

[Jacobin]

9. Ya mean, while we are getting our asses kicked over there

stretching out the army to the breaking point, wasting hundreds of billions of defense dollars and alienating the entire world and most of our former allies to do it?

I would have thought the question would have answered itself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Well, they can easily see we can't handle Iraq.

Now that we're resorting to the time honored tradition of the iron hand to win hearts and minds that worked so spledidly in Vietnam, there quaking in their boots. Or, holding their holding their sides with laughter at our much vaunted "strength".

Short answer: No.

[John BigBootay]

15. 100% agreement that Iraq is not going well...

but Iraq fell easily and Saddam was impisoned. Does that resonate with the Mullahs or with Kim Jong Il?

[Q]

18. Iraq fell easily?

- Golly, gee...mission accomplished! The families of the 1100 Americans killed in Iraq would probably disagree that Iraq 'fell' at all.

- The 'Bush* Doctrine has caused those countries in the Neocon's crosshairs (axis of evil) to rush to obtain the kinds of weapons (nukes) that seems to prevent the Bushies from attacking.

[John BigBootay]

21. Do you believe Saddam is still in charge of Iraq?

That's all I meant by "fell."

What do you make of Kaddafi giving up his weapons programs?

"Libya initiated contact with the CIA and explicitly committed to dismantling its weapons program - the first time any such program was self-dismantled without a shot being fired, Tenet said."

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2004/10/21/news/news1.txt

[Q]

36. Nothing 'fell' in Iraq...

...except Saddam's statue.

- What makes you think 'Kaddafi' had a weapon's program? Because Bush* said so?

- It seems to me that you're falling for the 'perception managment' program coming out of the Bush* White House.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

12. Aggression causes countries to arm themselves for defense.

The neo-cons have shown that they attack who they want to.

Countries on their hit-list will arm to the teeth to prevent invasion.

Why do you suppose Saddam was ambiguious about what weapons he had? To make the neo-cons think twice about the cost of invading.

Common sense.

[Bandit]

14. IMO the war has created more problems of proliferation

Both of those countries who have been called part of an axis of evil have seen what has transpired in Iraq and decided it was in their interest to acquire Nukes as quickly as possible and that the US is not a nation to be trusted. Every thing the US has said to justify the war has proved to be false so I believe just the opposite is true as far as providing us with a stronger hand.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. Did the Iran-Iraq war give either of those nations a stronger position to

peacefully negotiate with the US to surrender its nuclear program?

[John BigBootay]

17. I'm sorry, I don't understand that post...

Are you suggesting that Iran or Iraq should have or could have been in a position to negotiate an arms treaty with the US based on that war?

I'm not sure an arms treaty was relevant to either party at that time. I'm not sure what your post is getting at. Sorry.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. I will explain it to you as simply as I can

You are suggesting that the US should be or is in a position to negotiate an arms treaty with any other nation, based on having started a war.

I am suggesting that you reverse your question. While it may be a long, hard leap for many Americans, the reality is that Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Liechtenstein, all strongly believe that they are not US property nor under any obligation to obey the US. They consider themselves every bit as sovereign as you consider the US, perhaps moreso, in the case of ancient lands who measure their history in millennia, while the US is struggling to complete its third century.

In other words, it is unlikely that other countries are going to disarm themselves to facilitate the US invading them.

Aside from all questions of right or wrong, naturally.

[John BigBootay]

22. Why did libya disarm and disavow it's weapons...?

"Libya initiated contact with the CIA and explicitly committed to dismantling its weapons program - the first time any such program was self-dismantled without a shot being fired, Tenet said."

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2004/10/21/news/news1.txt

BTW thanks for making that clearer-- I didn't get that at all from the first post.

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. And Abdullah has single-handedly caused the Biofilm company stock to

rise dramatically, so much Astroglide does Abdullah require.

One of the things the US does best is find the most buyable dollahos who are willing to send their own mother to Abu Ghraib if the price is right.

And I will concede that while no one person in Iran right now has the kind of singular authority over that nation that Mo has over Libya, Iran has essentially put itself up for auction on eBay.

However, both Mo and eBay sellers must remain always conscious of the fact that they have a population, and these populations do not always agree with the decisions of their US-propped native overseers.

For the rest of my post, save my tired fingers and click this link

http://ductapefatwa.blogspot.com/2004/10/century-of-resistance-us-has-limited.html

[John BigBootay]

31. Not sure how to respond to that...

...and a scan of your voluminous blog didn't shed light on the subject.

But I'll spare your tired fingers...

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. Just as well, I think it is an irreconcilable disconnect

While I recognize that the belief for many Americans that the US owns the world is so deeply ingrained that they cannot even recognize it, I cannot ignore the fact that the rest of the world's belief that the US does NOT own the world is just as deeply ingrained, and just as unshakable, as the belief that the sun will rise at dawn.

There really is no room for compromise between the two views.

Bush was right, as is a broken clock twice a day.

On some questions, there really is no middle ground.

[Eye and Monkey]

34. Libya began the process with Clinton - LINK

Bush is trying to take credit for Kaddafi's overtures and Clinton's ground-work.

<snip>
Tired of international isolation and economic sanctions, the Libyans decided in the late 1990's to seek normalized relations with the United States, and held secret discussions with Clinton administration officials to convey that message. The Clinton White House made clear that no movement toward better relations was possible until Libya met its responsibilities stemming from the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

These discussions, along with mediation by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, produced a breakthrough: Libya turned over two intelligence officers implicated in the Pan Am 103 attack to the Netherlands for trial by a Scottish court, and in 1999 Washington acquiesced to the suspension of United Nations sanctions against Libya.

Then, in the spring of 2001, when I was a member of the State Department's policy planning staff, the Bush administration picked up on those discussions and induced the Libyans to meet their remaining Lockerbie obligations. With our British colleagues, we presented the Libyans with a "script" indicating what they needed to do and say to satisfy our requirements on compensating the families of the Pan Am 103 victims and accepting responsibility for the actions of the Libyan intelligence officers implicated in the case.

We also put an explicit quid pro quo on the table: if Libya met the conditions we laid out, the United States and Britain would allow United Nations sanctions to be lifted permanently. This script became the basis for three-party negotiations to resolve the Lockerbie issue.
<snip - more>

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fleverett/20040123.htm

[leftofthedial]

19. this war makes us far weaker

we have no military resources left to confront these other actual threats because we are tied down in occupation of a place that was no threat.

This is the greatest foreign policy-military blunder in US history.

[hughee99]

29. It depends...

Using Saddam as the example, I'm sure it is some consolation to him that the US is stuck in a quagmire, but all things considered, I'm sure he would greatly prefer to be in charge of his country. The US can argue that they can remove a foreign dictator from power, and that helps their negotiating stance. A foreign leader can argue, after the cluster fuck in Iraq, that in the end, the US leader will get fucked also (making the US case for military action far weaker). If Kerry can fix the issues in Iraq, or at least make things appreciably better, then this counterpoint will not be as useful to foreign leaders.

Example 1: * or Kerry wins, but things don't improve in Iraq.
The president tells Kim Jong Il that he'll force him out of power if necessary. Il knows that things aren't going well in Iraq (because Iraq hasn't improved), and therefore the president is less likely to create the same problem in another place. The threat is less real since the president will have to deal with the political fallout nationally and internationally of going into another quagmire.

Example 2: Kerry wins and things get better in Iraq (I discount the possibility that this will happen with another * administration).
Kerry make the same threat, but this time, Il can see that Kerry knows how to manage the peace. Since things are going better in Iraq, there is more of a chance that Kerry will be willing to try this somewhere else, if necessary. If his goal is to stay in power, he needs to take this as a real threat.

[MsConduct]

30. IMHO the war makes us....

look like we have no clue as to what we're doing. Saddam is not Osama
after all. Not knowing what we're doing does not give us any position of strength, greater or otherwise.


Peace

[eridani]

38. Excessive military strength = disastrous weakness

Military expenditures are destroying our economy, with nothing to show for it in Iraq. We can never win that conflict short of the mass murder of 1/3 of the population to put permanent fear of the lord into the other 2/3, an option which is politically impossible.

The primary strategic reality of the 21st century is that in our interconnected world, domination is extremely expensive and FSU (Fouling Stuff Up -- x-rated version immediately obvious)is extremely cheap. An overwhelmingly powerful military can accomplish nothing whatsoever against FSU. Last year a single whackjob in S. Korea killed 135 people in the Seoul subway system by the simple expedient of lighting off a can of gasoline on a train during rush hour. Really purposeful terrorists could get far more done, very cheaply, with little or no centralized direction necessary.

Think of the the problem of reinforcing the heels of your socks, which sustain more wear than the rest of the sock. The worst way to do so is by stitching four layers of much tougher material to the heel--all that accomplishes is to get the sock ripped to shreds quickly as the connecting point between the extra layers and and the rest of the sock gives way. That's what the war in Iraq is doing to America.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

40. I think you should hang in the Gungeon

your rhetoric is way too obvious in GD...

[mike_c]

41. this war undermines any shred of moral credibility we had left...

...and let's face it-- although we MIGHT be able to win it militarily we are not doing so-- and besides, a military victory would be pyrhic at best, a classic case of the flies conquering more fly-paper through overwhelming brutality. So we will never really win this war, and the rest of the world is getting a valuable lesson in how to serve the U.S. its comeuppance. Meanwhile, we have lost any credibility we might have used to seek diplomatic solutions to foreign policy conflicts. Iraq is to the U.S. what Afghanistan was to the Soviet Union-- the grinding reality that reveals a super-power's true weaknesses.

We are fumbling idiots when it comes to applied colonialism-- even our "successes" eventually haunt us. Manuel Noriega, Reza Pahlavi, Anastasio Somoza, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Tran Thien Khiem, and yes, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are all examples of U.S. "clients" that went wrong. There are many more. None have ever been truly successful. It's time we learned that, but somehow I doubt that the lesson will ever sink in.

[Eloriel]

42. We look like crazies who are unpredictable and won't abide

by treaties we've signed (aka: a rogue state!). We look like we need to be united against and opposed, which a number of other countries are doing. We look like a big rogue elephant in a china shop who breaks everything and then shits on it all, or is that shits on it all and THEN breaks stuff just for good measure?

We are dangerous and unpredictable and most of our traditional non-allies are thinking we've proven to them how much they need nuclear weapons: after all, Iraq had none and got dealt with severely; NKorea has some and lived to tell about it (so far).