Why I don't like the look of this coming conflict.

When the first cruise missile is launched in the direction of Baghdad many may not appreciate the new and very dangerous era that mankind will be embarking on.
Regardless of your views on the rights and wrongs of this coming war (I am against) it is only a question of time before Iraq is attacked.Only the most optimistic or deluded think war will be avoided.The majority except now that this will probably be done without a second UN resolution,either,because a) No resolution is voted on.b) The Resolution,either,does not receive a majority in the Security Council or is vetoed by one or more of the Permanent Security Council Members.We may argue about whether the USA and a"coalition of the willing"should attack regardless but few,in their heart of hearts,believe that they will not.
I seriously doubt that any who read this could believe that the UN would not be damaged.Those that are pro-war believe the UN would be damaged because it had failed to act on Resolution 1441 and left States to act alone.Whereas those that are anti-war believe that the UN would be damaged because it had been bypassed or ignored by two Permanent Security Council members.Either way the UN would suffer from a crisis of credibility
There are some,on both sides of the debate,who argue that this would only be a temporary setback for the UN and international relations in general.They argue that the UN would have to play an important role in any post-war Iraq,supplying humanitarian aid and even peacekeeping troops once the Americans had affected regime change and engaged and disarmed resistance.This is the Afghanistan model.
However,I disagree that this will be the case and I feel that the consequences could be far-reaching and leave us in a polarised world bedevilled by conflict where the population of the world live in continual fear of a Nuclear Holocaust,a world less stable even than during the Cold War.The polarisation of the world is not the"Clash of Cultures"or the "Clash of Religions"or even the"Clash of Civilisations"that we've all been reading about lately,rather,this is a Clash of Political Philosophies and so polarised are these two views of the world now,that neither side appears to understand the language or principles of the other.

To understand the origins of this Clash of Political Philosophies we must go all the way back to the end of the Cold War.Unlike most wars the history books do not tell us the exact date it started nor,more importantly for this purpose,when it ended.For simplicity most cite the fall of the Berlin Wall but in truth the USSR died by degrees.For me it started with the death of Breznev from his death it took a decade for the world to come to terms with the new reality.The transition from Cold War to peace was slow.The world,relieved of the threat of Nuclear annhilation,breathed easier without thinking too hard about how we had arrived there.
There were,however,some to the Right of US politics who saw an important role in the world for the USA.In the early years of the 1990's they saw an opportunity for the USA to reap the benefits of winning the Cold War but the window of opportunity for this was limited and they became increasingly frustrated by the Clinton Administration for,what they saw as,frittering away the advantages that the USA had earnt through decades of defense spending and investment in military technology.This group of Republicans formed an organisation calledThe Project for the New American Century(Details can be found on their own website)members includeick Cheney,Donald Rumsfeld,Paul Wolfowitz,Jeb Bush,and Richard Perle to name but a few.They started publishing open letters in 1997 lobbying those with influence to sieze this unique opportunity while it still existed.When G.W.Bush became President many became part of the Administration and it would seem strange if the Administration did not embrace the same views laid out in the P.N.A.C "Statement of Principles"(again see website)and so the present situation must be seen in the context of a long term policy strategy not as a reaction to September 11th 2001.Though the hardening of that policy since that date can not be denied 9/11 increased impetus rather than changed direction.It confirmed the view that the P.N.A.C were right in the mind of the President.
It is important for those of us that disagree with the P.N.A.C to understand that their view of the world is genuine.Unlike most Nationalists they are not rascist simply because,unusually,one trait of those that adher to US Nationalist principles believe it is for the benefit and long term peace of the world.For many that is not just a consequence of US Nationalism but it's guiding purpose.Many would be insulted to even hear it called Nationalism.

So let us fast forward again to the credibility crisis in the UN when war breaks out.The USA will not abandon the UN imediately because for the present policy to continue the USA wants UN Peacekeepers to take over duties in Iraq so that US forces can move on to the next target.
(probably Iran maybe North Korea)but will France,Russia,Germany and others want to finance troop deployment in a country invaded without UN sanction?I think not and it will be about then that the present Administration decides that if the UN is only going to try and thwart and delay the US foreign agenda and not help finance it then it may as well not be a member.I think the USA will withdraw from the UN.The UK will not withdraw as if it did it could not expect to be readmitted as a Permanent Member of the Security Council also in the absence of the USA the UK could do its bidding.It would not be long before the Security Council tabled a Resolution condemning Israel.The UK would of course seek to Veto but the precedent of the "Unreasonable Veto"would now exist bringing directly the USA into conflict with most of the world.Anyway those are my fears.I hope I am wrong but I expect that either France,Russia,or China will test a Nuclear weapon in the near future to remind everyone just why it is that UN Vetoes exist.

Please let me know what you think JB1

I just wanted to add to what I'd written above.I've just heard this present situation described as"The Perfect Storm"I think that is an apt description because there are many different factors converging at the same time and the present financial problems around the world appear to have become hitched to this conflict.
I get the impression that the US economy is not doing to well.This may be because of Bush's Financial policy or it may be an inevitable consequence of Clinton's Administration to argue this would be foolish as the situation is potentially so dire it would be the equivilent of arguing about who forgot to pack the parachute.
I read the other day that Japan had spent $44billion buying US$ to prop the currency up.Brent Crude hit $35 a barrel.Everyday troops are kept waiting its costing God know how much.Even now it is too late to stop and the USA will have no alternative but to pay for this war with Iraqi oil.What may well have started as a conspiracy theory with no foundation has become self fullfilling and yet relying on Iraqi oil to pay for this war could be like counting chickens before they are hatched if,as is likely,Saddam blows his oil wells up.

Could someone please write a small piece here about the US economy and how it may be a factor driving us toward war.How long could the US wait?How much is it costing per day?

I totally agree. It is a clash of political philosophies.
There seems to be a sense of a coming to a head of two factions amoungst people in general. I think we've got a big choice to make this year, that will shape the way our history unfolds forever. I think the divide between the left-wing/right-wing, captialist/socialist, republican/democrat, whatever label you want to put on it, could be coming to head. Its a culmanation of many things going back decades, and involves a lot of issues, but its mainly just that the people have reached their tolerance limits. The arguments themselves seem to have reached a natural limit, an level equlibrium on polar opposites. everyone on the side that they will always stay, all the discussions going round in circles on a merry dance to nowhere....


Or I could just be talking sh!t....

I have research things well enough to know that, the economy we know is not as drastic and unreliable as you and I know it. Yeah it may be bad for the poeple, but not the government. They don't lose we do. When interest rates go down, what do people do? They start buting, right? Well that's what all the big shot economists and business men want you to do. So when everyone is making payments on items they wouldn't normally be able to pay for because the prices we too high they have confidence in the economy, that's why they invest. They do what they are told to do...buy, buy, buy. When everything all fine and dandy in the economic field the big shots pull the plug. Who are the big shots? The Rockefellers, the Mellons, the Bilderberg Group, Alan Greenspan, the Bush Family, World Trade Organization, The Round Table, and the list goes on and on. Don't believe me? Well okay that's your choice, but don't say I didn't tell you so.

[Edited on 11-3-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

OK,First thankyou for all your replys.

By keeping my own analysis objective and trying to understand both points of view I was hoping to keep this one thread free of recriminations and insults and therefore keep it from polarising like other threads.I do not expect to change anybodies viewpoint on the subject of US foreign policy in general or War with Iraq in particular but I do hope others,even with opposite views to my own,will shine a light on the causes of the present situation and,perhaps,give clues to possible or likely effects of the powerful forces presently driving us to war.

Thankyou JB1.

And, I agree with most of what you said, despite being "for the war" myself. Though I am for the war, I am completely astounded at how it was handled. I do not think this war is being waged for the reasons cited. Problem is, it is done so badly, that even the public at large sees through this! I do agree it is necessary to oust Saddam, and stop the dozen-year long game. Then again, I felt we should have done so during the first war...

Bush failed to get Osama, so he went after the ones harboring him (how the international community went along with it, still amazes me, but I'm assuming it is simply because the Taliban weren't somebody's biggest customer). Still, the failure to capture Osama made him appear unable to protect the American people, so then he knew he must keep the attack going.

Rather than focusing on someone he couldn't find, he turned back to the idea of attacking the harborers... Saddam already had quite a few checkmarks by his name, so he was the designated target. After Iraq, if Bush still fails to capture Osama, the next Bogeyman on the list is NK...again, to make it appear like something is being done, all as a distraction from failing to apprehend Osama and crew.

That all said, I still agree with the war on Saddam for the simple reason that, if the UN allows a nation to continually ignore it's agreements, it weakens the world society as a whole. Personally, I agree that regardless of what happens, the UN will be weakened considerably. My hope though, is that this will serve as a message that the UN needs it's structure to be revamped and evolve if it is to be effective.

Gazrok - there are ways that the UN comes out of this stronger.

If, after failing to get international opinion behind him, President Bush backs down, he will have immediately provided legitimacy for the UN.

If, the inspectors discover WMD's and *then* a military campaign is launched, the UN will maintain it's legitimacy.

If, the inspectors don't discover WMD's and are happy that Iraq doesn't have any, then the UN has maintained it's legitimacy.

If the US/UK go to war without UN backing, then the UN has lost authority in a serious way. Who is it that will have done the most to undermine the UN in that case? I'll give you a hint, it isn't Saddam Hussein...

PS By "the UN needs to evolve" do you mean that the UN needs to evolve into a mirror of the US administration? Because I think that would not be a very benficial route to take...

It needs to "evolve" to more accurately reflect "today's" political climate, not post WWII's....

The reason I didn't even mention your first three points (which are valid ones), is because each of them has a chance approximately equal to that of a snowball in Hades...thus, very little chance of the UN being "strengthened".

True, that if we go to war without the UN, it will be Bush weakening the UN directly, but really, indirectly, the UN did so itself, by failing to enforce it's resolutions.

JB, you're a breath of fresh air here!

The UN is in danger regardless. It shouldn�t' have gotten to 1441. I commend the current US administration for forcing the world to look at Iraq - and blame the former for it's ignorance and lack of wherewithal. Whatever the outcome, Saddam is in the spotlight. The US more/less said from day 1 she would disarm Iraq with or without the UN. I think everyone would like a peaceful outcome but when that outcome arrives, peacefully or not, Iraq will have had to disarm. The UN, realizing it's own uselessness, prefers to drag it's feet rather than address Iraq. Blix leaving out the drone the other day is a fine example, and then he says something along the lines of 'Iraq should have declared that.' Hans is more na�ve than I thought. Basically, the UN was damaged a long time ago - it's just coming to light. Its only salvation is to enforce its will in regards to Iraq - with force if necessary. Force has got to be an option for Iraq to take the UN seriously. Nor do I think the US/UK should give in to France and Russia just to maintain the appearance of a working UN, when it is in fact, not working.

Bob, your definition of "not working" seems to be "not agreeing with the US".

I'm afraid that there's no reason everyone should immediately think like George Bush, in fact it's far better for everyone to have different opinions. Then when a consensus is reached it really IS a consensus.

The UN cannot work without the countries of the world supporting it, and as you point out, with the US undermining the UN it looks like it could be sidelined. This would be a total disaster for international politics... particularly at a point when everyone needs to be working together...

It is surprising that there are so many statements above regarding the UN,from both sides of the debate,that I think are compatable.

The UN was set up with one primary purpose to avoid World War.
At first the four original Permanent Members ,USA ,USSR ,UK,and France(China came later) felt that world rule by commitee,recognising each others spheres of influence and issuing all four with vetoes would ensure that the major powers would not come into conflict.When the USSR developed the Atomic bomb it was even more imperitive that each major power recognised the spheres of influence of the others.Although the aspiration of the UN was for world peace it's most important purpose was to ensure Nuclear Powers did not come into direct conflict.By this ruse the Cold War was fought by proxy all around the world.
When the Cold War ended people and nations hoped that the UN could work toward what they thought was it's primary purpose,World Peace,yet in truth it had achieved it's primary purpose which was avoiding a 3rd World War.
So an organisation designed for one purpose is now being asked to do another.Perhaps we should look at re-organising the UN to tackle the problems of this new century but in doing so we must tackle the genuine fears many have about investing one nation with over riding power.

I think that Resolution 1441 was the low water mark of the UN.That 15 nations could spend 6 weeks discussing a resolution,to sign it unaminously,then imediatley claiming that it mean't 15 different things is disgusting.There is no way Syria would have signed 1441 if they understood the US interpretation,equally the UK would not have signed if they understood the French interpretation.1441 was histories worst example of political expediency.It was a diplomatic crisis waiting to happen before the ink had dried.Even we here on this board couldn't agree what it mean't.No Resolution should be crafted then passed just to gain concensus.It must never happen again.

Well put....

DEFENSE OF AMERICA'S HOMELAND
House of Representatives


that treaty says that each country can have one missile
defense system, one ABM system. The Russians chose to deploy such a
system around Moscow, which protects about 75 percent of their
population. America chose not to pursue any system, because it was
politically impossible in America to choose one city over another and
leave the rest of America vulnerable.

Today, Madam Speaker, America is totally vulnerable. If an accidental
launch occurred of one missile from Russia, from North Korea, which we
know now has the long-range capability, or from China, we have no
capability to respond.

Now, is that such a far-fetched idea or notion?

Well, Madam Speaker, let me document for our colleagues what occurred
in January of 1995. As we know, the Russians have hundreds of missile
launchers, all of which can reach any city in America within 25
minutes, and all of which have nuclear warheads on top of them.

Now, there is a very sophisticated command and control system on those
missiles, as there are on our missiles; but a significant number of
Russia's missiles are on mobile launchers. They are called SS-25s[by the way there are new ss-27's

]. If
my colleagues saw a photograph of one, it would look like it is on the
back of a tractor-trailer truck. But that missile, even though it can
be transported any place over an open road area, can travel the
necessary distance to hit any city in America and devastate that city.
Each of those SS-25s are controlled locally, even though they have to
have the command authorization of the central Russian Government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us look at what happened in January of 1995. Norway was going to
launch a rocket into the atmosphere to sample weather conditions. So
Norway contacted Russia and told the Russian Government not to worry
when we launch this three-stage rocket; it is simply for us to gather
more information about weather conditions affecting our country. Now,
because Russia's military has been in a state of disarray, they have
not been able to invest and reinvest in improving their conventional
alert systems and their intelligence collection systems. So that when
Norway launched that three-stage rocket, the Russian intelligence
agencies misread it as an attack from an American nuclear submarine.


Boris Yeltsin acknowledged the week after that incident that Russia
had, in fact, for one of only three times that we know of, put their
entire offensive ICBM system on alert, which meant, Madam Speaker,
that Russia was within 15 minutes of launching an ICBM with a nuclear
warhead against an American city.... With 7 minutes, left Boris
Yeltsin overruled them and called off the response against an American
city.

Nicely put, I agree with a lot of what you say. It may be that the UN needs little modification itself, the real work will have to come from member states, and the adjustments they'll need to make in order to work through the UN. It's purposes at inception probably *were* world peace, in practice it became avoiding WW3...

Let's just hope that it can stick around, and become more effective in it's responses to issues such as Kosovo and Rwanda...

Just needs to be reorganized...

Gazrok - Do you think the UN has actually done it's job in this case? It's definitely the case that the majority of people (if not countries) across the world don't want to see war in Iraq. So if the US/UK do not get a second resolution has the UN worked?

If I had to change anything about the UN, I'd add a clause which states that countries making votes on the security council cannot be diplomatically pressured by other countries to vote a certain way...

dom, no. That's not the case. (speaking about the earlier post of yours)

JB - avoid war at what cost? Syria being on the security council is in and of itself a joke. As is Iraq chairing a disarmament committee!?! But you're right: 1441 means different things - and what is a 'serious consequence' anyway? Another meaningless UN resolution? Every resolution passed against Iraq is another victory for Saddam. Another 'smart sanction'?

The US will disarm Iraq if the UN doesn't - I think the US has made that very clear from day 1. It's easier for the UN to scuttle the US - rather than confront Saddam. I hate to say it but if the UN, or at least the security council members, spoke with one voice and indicated force would be used - we would indeed see results from Saddam. Unless that happens, there will be a war.


[Edited on 11-3-2003 by Bob88]

bob - yes it is.

I could briefly summarise your post as follows.

The US will attack Iraq, with or without international support.

Your idea of why the UN should vote for war is...

The US is going to do it anyway, so the UN shouldn't let itself be sidelined by voting against the US.

I'm sorry, but The US is indeed going to undermine the UN, and international law, if it goes ahead with this attack in the face of global (and UN) opposition.

You've raised some important points there Bob,I'd like to address them.The fact that a state like Syria or Libya exists at all is because the over riding purpose of the UN was to avoid a Third World War.It is easy to forget just how polarised the world was.Both the USA and the USSR armed regimes that were despotic and gave them respectability in the UN.Syria and Libya were the Cold war Children of the USSR,Iraq and Saudi Arabia are the USA's begotten.50 years of the USSR and USA drawing lines in the sand of the Gulf have left divides that will take time to cross.
You argue,rightly in my opinion,that a country like Syria should not have a morality vote yet many will say that at least Syria's vote can not be bought.They are voting on conviction whereas other third world countries are being bought,bribed,and bullied.Are their votes,as a result,more legitimate?

The UN,now or in any future reincarnation,will not gain a moral legitimacy by forming a convenient consensus around the USA's foreign policy goals,however noble the intentions are.

I responded to your original statement where you thought my idea of the UN not working is not agreeing with the US. My idea of that UN not working has much more to do than that: Iraq chairs a disarmament committee; Libya chairs a Human rights committee (and for the first time, ever, the US isn�t sitting on that committee); Syria on the Security Council and the list goes on. That�s why I don�t think the UN works. What are they doing about NK? How �bout Sudan? Or how do you feel about its �minority rule�?

As far as voting for a war - they shouldn't vote that option off the table. The Un has used force before, it's only when the US now suggests force be used as a last resort does the minority-ruled, anti-American group of diplo-spies that call themselves the UN frown upon it.