War or Diplomacy?

[26 X World Champs]

So how long were you willing to have those 400,000 military poised on the border JUST to have the sham inspections going on? And after Blix came back saying they didn't find anything then what? What was the diplomatic settlement?

Far, far longer than I am willing to have 147,000 Americans massed INSIDE of Iraq being shot at and killed and maimed everyday....No contest Stinger...Let's see 400,000 (where does this number come from btw...some proof please) maintaining peace and completely bottling up Saddam after having cut off his balls or 147,000 targets that are being shot at and blown up everyday?

You actually believe that there's a choice here? :rofl

I think the "appeasers" at Debate Politics are those that condone am irrational war that has created terrorists and hatred for Americans all over the world.

Exactly who besides the British support the US war in Iraq? In this world of 6.6 billion people less than 1 billion support the war in Iraq which means that less than 20% of the world agrees with Bush....actually it's probably less than 15%!

That means those of you who support the war are the "appeasers" as you're supporting a government action that is only appeasing the radical war mongering American right wing....Nice.....Nice!

 

[Synch]

Who were the three fools who voted for war/diplomacy only?

They are intricately connected like our police and national guards are to our laws. If there was no an enforcement agency, laws would be void.

 

[Morrow]

There are a lot of terms that would need to be defined to construct a framework to hold any sort of debate on an issue like this.

For the purposes of this post I am going to ignore the moral implications of war and violence.

Just like the Liberty vs. Security topic, I think this is a false dichotomy. It implies that Diplomacy is simply the absence of war. If Hitler is invading Poland and I’m out back playing cricket, that’s not Diplomacy. Further more Diplomacy is not simply reactionary. “O Crap he annexed Austria, maybe we should talk.” Diplomacy is proactive as well as reactive.

Diplomacy may not be an option. If they are attacking you and they speak a different language, well you’re gonna have to fight. The Golden Horde’s assault on the Roman Empire would be an example. Strange people from a few thousand miles ride out to take your dinar.

Also war is only an option if it will work. There are many situation where war isn’t an option. In Vietnam war wasn’t really an option to achieve our objective unless we killed every comrade in Hanoi, but the will of the American people wasn’t there to do that. War could not work. Unless you are going to destroy the enemy then war is not an option.

The biggest reason this is a false comparison is mostly you will have both war and diplomacy. The reality is the US cannot simply kill al-Qaeda members to defeat them. We also have to use diplomacy to destroy their base of support.

 

[ProudAmerican]

The biggest reason this is a false comparison is mostly you will have both war and diplomacy. The reality is the US cannot simply kill al-Qaeda members to defeat them. We also have to use diplomacy to destroy their base of support.

I agree. I also believe we are doing exactly that. Could it be done better in some areas? sure. I would submit it can ALWAYS be done better.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
So how long were you willing to have those 400,000 military poised on the border JUST to have the sham inspections going on? And after Blix came back saying they didn't find anything then what? What was the diplomatic settlement?

Plz first answer my question.

No, you answer mine which I repeatedly tried to get an answer to.

 

[Goobieman]

But even though most americans probably believe this, our government does not. It seems that our current Right Wing radical Government are only interested in war for profits sake.

Noam? Is that you?

Anyone that beleives that we went to war in Iraq w/o first trying diplomacy is so blinded by their partisan hatred for GWB that we need not worry about them, accidentally or otherwise, contributing anything meaningful to any discussion.

:roll:

 

[Kandahar]

Anyone that beleives that we went to war in Iraq w/o first trying diplomacy is so blinded by their partisan hatred for GWB that we need not worry about them, accidentally or otherwise, contributing anything meaningful to any discussion.

:roll:

Wrong. We engaged in almost NO diplomacy prior to the Iraq war. Not only did we shun Iraq, but we even shunned our own allies.

You can argue all you want about whether or not Saddam was playing games with the weapons inspectors, but I ask you this: What was the first response of the American government when Saddam essentially said "You win, I'll let the weapons inspectors in." Did our government praise this astonishing diplomatic success? Did it express relief tempered by caution? No. The first response was this:

"We do not take Saddam Hussein at his word." - Condoleezza Rice

That's all well and good to not trust a murderous dictator, but what exactly is the point of diplomacy if you're going to make public statements like that? Wasn't Saddam's statement that the inspectors would be allowed in exactly what the US government (supposedly) wanted? By offering your enemy no "out" at all, you're essentially laying the groundwork for a war.

 

[AcePylut]

Wrong. We engaged in almost NO diplomacy prior to the Iraq war. Not only did we shun Iraq, but we even shunned our own allies.

This is incorrect. We had engaged in diplomacy for nearly 12 years before the jig was up.

Given Saddam's consistent deception regarding his weapons, his refusal to abide by all of the UN resolutions levied against him, etc. etc. etc.... taking him "at his word" would have been a fools errand.

And no one worthy took him at his word. Not Clinton, Not Bush, not Kerry, not anybody, because Saddam's "word" had already been determined to be worthless via his very own actions, and asking to "believe" Saddam would be like asking someone to believe the boy who cried wolf all the time.

 

[Morrow]

With Iraq our objective was the removal of Saddam. In that case war is the only option because no one is going to step down just because they are disliked. I think the real issue is how ridiculous our objective was. I don’t like George Bush, so by his logic I should be able to bomb his house and put him on trial.

 

[Goobieman]

Wrong. We engaged in almost NO diplomacy prior to the Iraq war. Not only did we shun Iraq, but we even shunned our own allies.

Horseshi'ite. 1991 thru 2003 there was nothing but diplomacy. 17 UNSC resolutions bear witness to this.

"We do not take Saddam Hussein at his word." - Condoleezza Rice

Reasonable and prudent response. It -should- have been everyone's response.

That's all well and good to not trust a murderous dictator, but what exactly is the point of diplomacy if you're going to make public statements like that?

Hmm.
In 1986, we openly said that we trusted the USSR, but needed to verify what they said. What was the point of diplomacy there if we were going to check on what they said?

We said we didnt trust Saddam and, as you said, we were correct in not doing so. So what if we sait it out loud?

By offering your enemy no "out" at all, you're essentially laying the groundwork for a war.

Saying you dont trust Saddam doesnt mean you havent left Saddam an out, nor does it necessarily lay groundwork for war.
Why dont you take what Rice said at face value?

 

[Red_Dave]

That is an extreme oversimplification. Some situations call for diplomacy, such as dealing with the USSR, or dealing with North Korea, or dealing with Saddam's Iraq. Other situations call for war, such as dealing with Nazi Germany, or dealing with al-Qaeda, or dealing with Ahmadinejad's Iran.

There is no standard approach that works in all situations. But I can tell you one approach that almost never works: Halfassed diplomacy combined with halfassed war. A key rule of poker also applies to international politics: Don't overcommit yourself to a hand unless you're willing to go all-in.

Im not sure an all out war with iran would work. Firstly theres no one left to fight it. Both the brittish and american armys are taken up in Iraq and Afganistan and drafties tend to be worse soldiers due to a lack of intervention . Secondly even if we went to war with iran with good intensions and motives [which i doubt] the iranian people would regard the war as an extension of centurys of western imperialism[hence why many iranian disidents are opossed to an invasion] . This would make both the invasion and occupation of iran nigh impossible. Idealy useing internal factions to remove the Iranian government would be more effective but that would be less likely to give us access to middle eastern oil.

 

[Morrow]

Im not sure an all out war with iran would work. Firstly theres no one left to fight it. Both the brittish and american armys are taken up in Iraq and Afganistan and drafties tend to be worse soldiers due to a lack of intervention . Secondly even if we went to war with iran with good intensions and motives [which i doubt] the iranian people would regard the war as an extension of centurys of western imperialism[hence why many iranian disidents are opossed to an invasion] .

That's true, unless your objective is to place yourself in a war you can niether win or lose. Now why would someone do that?

 

[Kandahar]

This is incorrect. We had engaged in diplomacy for nearly 12 years before the jig was up.

Given Saddam's consistent deception regarding his weapons, his refusal to abide by all of the UN resolutions levied against him, etc. etc. etc.... taking him "at his word" would have been a fools errand.

And no one worthy took him at his word. Not Clinton, Not Bush, not Kerry, not anybody, because Saddam's "word" had already been determined to be worthless via his very own actions, and asking to "believe" Saddam would be like asking someone to believe the boy who cried wolf all the time.

As I already mentioned in my previous post, the point is not that murderous dictators should be trusted. The point is that such hostile responses to getting exactly what you (supposedly) want through diplomacy, certainly lays the groundwork for war. If you don't provide your enemy with any way out of his predicament, war is inevitable.

 

[Kandahar]

Hmm.
In 1986, we openly said that we trusted the USSR, but needed to verify what they said. What was the point of diplomacy there if we were going to check on what they said?

In the 1980s we generally (with a few exceptions) didn't go into negotiations with the USSR issuing ultimatums, then responding with the most hostile language possible even if they offered concessions that were exactly what we wanted.

Imagine if this dialogue had taken place:

REAGAN: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
GORBACHEV: "OK, I'll start the bulldozers next week."
REAGAN: "You're a filthy communist liar. Tear it down NOW."

Would that really have been productive?

We said we didnt trust Saddam and, as you said, we were correct in not doing so. So what if we sait it out loud?

Because leaders of the world are not inhuman entities, and they respond to emotions even in matters of state. It's no different than trying to get directions from someone you just met. If you're an obnoxious ***, they're less likely to help you. A diplomat will succeed more often if he is assertive but calm with his enemies, instead of just insulting them even when they do as he's asked.

Saying you dont trust Saddam doesnt mean you havent left Saddam an out, nor does it necessarily lay groundwork for war.
Why dont you take what Rice said at face value?

I do take what she said at face value: An open declaration that nothing Saddam could possibly do would relieve the pressure on him, so he may as well stop making any concessions at all.

 

[Goobieman]

In the 1980s we generally (with a few exceptions) didn't go into negotiations with the USSR issuing ultimatums, then responding with the most hostile language possible even if they offered concessions that were exactly what we wanted.

And that's not what we did with Saddam. Your point?

I see you didn't address the response to your
"We engaged in almost NO diplomacy prior to the Iraq war. Not only did we shun Iraq, but we even shunned our own allies."
comment.

Nor did you respond to my
"Reasonable and prudent response. It -should- have been everyone's response"
comment regarding Condi's response.

Because leaders of the world are not inhuman entities, and they respond to emotions even in matters of state.

Oh jeez. I can't believe you're assigning this to Saddam.
The guy who murders his people by the tens of thoiusands is going to have his feelings hurt because we rightfully say we don't trust him?
That's lame, dude.

I do take what she said at face value: An open declaration that nothing Saddam could possibly do would relieve the pressure on him, so he may as well stop making any concessions at all.

That's not what she said.
She said we do not trust him. Nothing you said necessairly derives from that.

 

[Kandahar]

And that's not what we did with Saddam. Your point?

I see you didn't address the response to your
"We engaged in almost NO diplomacy prior to the Iraq war. Not only did we shun Iraq, but we even shunned our own allies."
comment.

I meant there was almost no diplomacy in the immediate lead-up to the war. You're right that there was diplomacy prior to that...but that's the path we should've stayed on anyway.

Nor did you respond to my
"Reasonable and prudent response. It -should- have been everyone's response"
comment regarding Condi's response.

I responded to it, I just didn't quote it. Absolutely NOTHING is gained by this kind of hostile rhetoric when your enemy says he'll meet your demands.

Oh jeez. I can't believe you're assigning this to Saddam.
The guy who murders his people by the tens of thoiusands is going to have his feelings hurt because we rightfully say we don't trust him?
That's lame, dude.

Dude. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac. Had we at least cautiously accepted his concessions instead of insulting him, it's very possible that the war would've been avoided. If we had done nothing more than let him claim victory over evil America by letting the inspectors in, rather than insult him for his compliance, then it's very likely that his (and our) policies could've taken a different course, at least in the short-term.

If you think that policy-makers never let their emotions get in the way, you're quite mistaken. They are human beings. This is even true among our allies. For example, Reagan/Bush41/Clinton all acted unilaterally, but they weren't universally loathed in France and Germany because those countries felt like the President respected their opinions.

Saddam Hussein certainly didn't want a major war with the United States. He had delusions of grandeur, but no so much that he truly thought he could defeat the United States in a full-scale war.

That's not what she said.
She said we do not trust him. Nothing you said necessairly derives from that.

Then perhaps you could explain what we gained, diplomatically, by mocking Saddam's declaration that he would comply with our demands? Of course we don't take Saddam at his word, but there's no reason to publicly say so after he just agreed to our key demand. Unless, of course, the US government didn't WANT diplomacy to work.

 

[AcePylut]

As I already mentioned in my previous post, the point is not that murderous dictators should be trusted. The point is that such hostile responses to getting exactly what you (supposedly) want through diplomacy, certainly lays the groundwork for war. If you don't provide your enemy with any way out of his predicament, war is inevitable.

He was given a way out of his predicament, he refused it.

 

[Morrow]

He was given a way out of his predicament, he refused it.

Your comment would suggest that any ultimatum, regardless of it's circumstances, is fair because it places the responsibility on the other party. No one is responsible for other peoples actions. It is fallacious to state that because we gave Saddam a choice he is responsible for the war. Bush is responsible, right or wrong, not Saddam.

 

[Kandahar]

He was given a way out of his predicament, he refused it.

He agreed to let the inspectors in, and the first thing the Bush Administration did was respond with even more hostilities. That certainly doesn't sound like a way out of his predicament to me.

 

[Goobieman]

I meant there was almost no diplomacy in the immediate lead-up to the war. You're right that there was diplomacy prior to that...but that's the path we should've stayed on anyway.

OK, so there was a TON of diplomacy right up to just before the war started, and then none right as the war started?

Isn't that how it normally goes?

Bush last open act of diplomacy was the monday before the war giving Saddam 48 hours. Not sure what else you wanted.

I responded to it, I just didn't quote it. Absolutely NOTHING is gained by this kind of hostile rhetoric when your enemy says he'll meet your demands.

Even if it the truth, and the truth is, as you admit, well founded?
It was clear that we did not trust Saddam before he agreed - we made no bones about it, and neither did anyone else. Not sure how maintaining this posiion after he agrees does anything.

Dude. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac. Had we at least cautiously accepted his concessions instead of insulting him, it's very possible that the war would've been avoided.

This is just plain nuts.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that had we played nice with Saddam that he wodl have done anything we wanted, given that he didn't do ANYTHING we wanted until we put 250,000 troops on his doorstep.

If you think that policy-makers never let their emotions get in the way, you're quite mistaken. They are human beings. This is even true among our allies.

First, most (modern, western) policy makers aren't responsible for mudering and torturing and raping and pillaging their own populations.
You cannot possibnly be arguing that a man that would do those things gives a hoot in hell what Condi Rice says.

For example, Reagan/Bush41/Clinton all acted unilaterally, but they weren't universally loathed in France and Germany because those countries felt like the President respected their opinions.

Here's the thing:
France and Germany agreed with us on everything right up to the point where it was plain we were willing to do something about it -- and then THEY decided to back down. How do WE get 'universally loathed' because THEY talk the talk but won't walk the walk?

Saddam Hussein certainly didn't want a major war with the United States. He had delusions of grandeur, but no so much that he truly thought he could defeat the United States in a full-scale war.

Everything he did speaks to the contrary.

Then perhaps you could explain what we gained, diplomatically, by mocking Saddam's declaration that he would comply with our demands?

your request here doesnt have anything to do with what I said.
You argue that Condi's statement left Saddam nowhere to go and was necessarily an argument for going to war. That is NOT taking it at face valke, as you said, and is in NO way the only way to interpret that statement.

 

[Goobieman]

He agreed to let the inspectors in, and the first thing the Bush Administration did was respond with even more hostilities. That certainly doesn't sound like a way out of his predicament to me.

Saying that we dont trust him isnt "hostilities". Its a statement of reasonable and prudent concern about his willingness to cooperate.

 

[Kandahar]

OK, so there was a TON of diplomacy right up to just before the war started, and then none right as the war started?

Isn't that how it normally goes?

No no you misunderstand. There was plenty of diplomacy from the end of the Persian Gulf War up until George W. Bush decided the time was ripe for us to go to war with Iraq (which was at least a year before the actual invasion).

Then there was very little diplomacy to try to actually avert a war.

Bush last open act of diplomacy was the monday before the war giving Saddam 48 hours. Not sure what else you wanted.

Giving him 48 hours to do what?

Even if it the truth, and the truth is, as you admit, well founded?

Yes. You don't publicly call the leader of another country a liar, when he just did exactly what you asked him to do. It serves no purpose. It's just like the ill-considered "axis of evil" comments. While true, it does nothing except infuriate those whom it is directed at. Nothing is gained from this kind of talk.

It was clear that we did not trust Saddam before he agreed - we made no bones about it, and neither did anyone else. Not sure how maintaining this posiion after he agrees does anything.

There's a big difference between not trusting him, and having a top member of the administration publicly say so immediately after the enemy has agreed to the demands.

This is just plain nuts.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that had we played nice with Saddam that he wodl have done anything we wanted, given that he didn't do ANYTHING we wanted until we put 250,000 troops on his doorstep.

Again, there's a difference between "playing nice" in terms of letting him do whatever he wants in terms of policy, versus simply not having diplomats behave like infants.

First, most (modern, western) policy makers aren't responsible for mudering and torturing and raping and pillaging their own populations.

What does that distinction have to do with how people respond to diplomacy?

You cannot possibnly be arguing that a man that would do those things gives a hoot in hell what Condi Rice says.

Of course he does. Saddam saw himself as the most important person in the world, as most megalomanical dictators do. If our government had responded with cautious optimism to his concessions, instead of outright rejection, he'd be more likely to make others...or at least not reverse the ones he'd already made.

Here's the thing:
France and Germany agreed with us on everything right up to the point where it was plain we were willing to do something about it -- and then THEY decided to back down. How do WE get 'universally loathed' because THEY talk the talk but won't walk the walk?

It's not merely a policy difference, it's the fact that George Bush is perceived to have given them a big "**** you" after they refused to go along with him.

Everything he did speaks to the contrary.

your request here doesnt have anything to do with what I said.
You argue that Condi's statement left Saddam nowhere to go and was necessarily an argument for going to war. That is NOT taking it at face valke, as you said, and is in NO way the only way to interpret that statement.

So how would you interpret it then? What purpose did it serve?

 

[Kandahar]

Saying that we dont trust him isnt "hostilities". Its a statement of reasonable and prudent concern about his willingness to cooperate.

If that was what we intended to do, it could've easily been hedged in more diplomatic language. "We welcome this new development with cautious optimism, and expect Iraq to honor its commitments to avoid an escalation of tensions."

That sounds a lot better to me than "Liar liar pants on fire," which indicates a lack of interest in serious diplomacy and a desire for war.

 

[Goobieman]

No no you misunderstand. There was plenty of diplomacy from the end of the Persian Gulf War up until George W. Bush decided the time was ripe for us to go to war with Iraq (which was at least a year before the actual invasion).
Then there was very little diplomacy to try to actually avert a war.

Not sure how this is relevant. Diplomacy isnt limited to trying to avert a war.

Seems to me that at some point in time, expecially after over a decade of failed diplomacic efforts, that your diplomatic tack changes to using the credible threat of force to back up your words. That's exactly what we did.

"Ok, we've asked nicely - now do what you're supposed to do or we'll have to get rough" is a perfectly legitimate diplomatic tactic.

Giving him 48 hours to do what?

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

Yes. You don't publicly call the leader of another country a liar, when he just did exactly what you asked him to do.

We didnt call him a lair. We said we didn't trust him.
There is a distinct and clear difference.
One says that we know he isnt going to tell the truth
The other says that we look at everything he does with suspicion.

There's a big difference between not trusting him, and having a top member of the administration publicly say so immediately after the enemy has agreed to the demands.

There's NO difference when we publicly said we dont trust him -before- he agreed. Did anyone see Condis statement as a great revelation? No.
So...what?

What, exactly, do you suggest Condi should have said?

Again, there's a difference between "playing nice" in terms of letting him do whatever he wants in terms of policy, versus simply not having diplomats behave like infants.

And, again, playing nice got us nowhere. For 12 years.

What does that distinction have to do with how people respond to diplomacy?

LOL
You are essnetially arguing that Condi hurt his feelings.
What you seem to willfully ignore is that he has no feelings to hurt.

Of course he does. Saddam saw himself as the most important person in the world, as most megalomanical dictators do. If our government had responded with cautious optimism to his concessions, instead of outright rejection, he'd be more likely to make others...or at least not reverse the ones he'd already made.

Given that he doidnt do ANYTHING for 12 years until it was clear that GWB was willing to go to war, upon what do you base that position.

It's not merely a policy difference, it's the fact that George Bush is perceived to have given them a big "**** you" after they refused to go along with him.

And why would anyone see any other reaction as credible, especially given how clearly we did not trust him -before- he agreed.

If a violent criminal says he'll obey the law, do you do anything OTHER than not believe him?

So how would you interpret it then? What purpose did it serve?

Exactly as I have stated - its plain on its face. Anything else is your interpretation based on your preconcetion that Bush as going to war no matter what.

 

[Goobieman]

If that was what we intended to do, it could've easily been hedged in more diplomatic language. "We welcome this new development with cautious optimism, and expect Iraq to honor its commitments to avoid an escalation of tensions."

Oh -- so you're OK with the notion of saying we dont trust him, you'd just rather we say it with more words than necessary. :roll:

That sounds a lot better to me than "Liar liar pants on fire," which indicates a lack of interest in serious diplomacy and a desire for war.

Stawman. That's not what we said.