AMERIČANI mrzlično iščejo IRAŠKO orožje, torej pomagajmo jim!

O moškosti ne bi,..ker

Sem ti povedal. Če pa ne razumeš pojma državnih skrivnosti ipd. je pa tvoj problem.

Legitimnost oviranja inšpektorjev ZN si pa omenil samo ti. Vsaj z moje strani ni prišla nobena takšna cvetka.

Pa da še tebi razložim podrobno da boš razumel. Razumeti nekoga zakaj ovira ZN še ne pomeni priznavati legitimnost njegovim dejanjem. Če je Sadam oviral ZN ga po mojem mnenju ni zaradi strahu, da bi mu dokazali proizvodnjo orožja za množično uničevanje. Ima namreč še kakšno drugo plat, ki ni hotel, da bi prišla v javnost. Tudi z stališča gospodarstva. Načina vladanja.

Le zakaj sem omenjal Sadamovo paranojo pred agenti zda.

Če pa s Thomasom zmoreta samo takšen trhel zaključek, da to pomeni podpiranje Sadamovega režima? Zakaj bi vaju "konfuziral".

P.S.:Razumeš?

He noted that "the most important problem we are facing" are the weapons and weapons programmes for which previous inspectors found evidence, but which are still not accounted for. These include as anthrax production, microbial culture medium, possibly 1000 tonnes of chemical agents including the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles.

Tole je izvleček iz poročila Blixa. Tega orožja ni, bilo pa je. Najbrž je v Siriji ali Iranu.

Soze, jst te tudi ne razumem.
A ZDA so skrunile božjo (tj. OZN) besedo, ko so intervenirale brez njihovega žegna, Sadam pa je upravičeno vlekel celotno organizacijo iz upravičenih razlogov?

No ja pa še zate davids.


Ne, ne. Malo se usedi, preberi poste za nazaj in malo pomisli. Pa bo.

Hja. to smo tudi že obdelali. Koalicija bi bila širša, pa so nekatere pomembne članice VS OZN imele z Irakom drugačnih, zase koristnejših načrtov. Bolj jim je ustrezal Sadam, ki je pošiljal zastonj nafto za staro orožje. Rusi, ki kljub visokim cenam nafte komaj še flikajo proračun, pa se od vsega najbolj bojijo prihoda iraške nafte na prosti trg.Lep kos VS pa predstavljajo države z nikakršnimi demokratičnimi standardi in v strahu za svoje riti glasujejo Rusko. Enako je bilo v Jugi. Rusom in Francozom je bolj ustrezal Miloševič. Odobritev VS OZN je prišla šele naknadno. Francoski del SFOR-ja pa je kasneje najbolj umazal ime mirovniških misij OZN doslej. Po Beogradu pa so morale same usekati ZDA, ker se je Evropa nekaj obirala. In če gledava danes, bi bi bilo tam bolje, če bi usekale že kako leto prej, še preden so Nizozemci dovolili Srebrenico in kdo-drug-kaj-drugega.. Pa Irak? Isto!

Vsaka država ima svoje skrivnosti, ki jih pač noče nikomur razkriti. Inšpektorji so pa imeli preveč dovoljenj in sadam jih je oviral, da nebi kej preveč vidl in tega povedal njihovim sovražnikom. O tem sedaj dosti, pač je to počel in lahko bi ga bol stisnli. Pa ga niso.
Američani in njihovi ritolizniki so trdili da ima sadam orožje za možično uničevanje. Niso pa imeli pravice napasti iraka na podlagi neke trditve za katero sedaj vidimo, da je neresnična. Če bi obstajalo 1000 ton antraxa - bi ga že vsaj 1kg dobil od tega, pa niso nič. Vsaj kaka lsed bi lahko kje bila, pa je ni.
Amerika je podpisala listine OZN o nenapadanju suverenih in neodvisnih držav. Pa se tega ni držala. Me ne zanima, če Thomas trdi, da so to bedni in zastareli zakoni, zakoni so in treba jih je spoštovati, če niso več dobri jih naj napišejo na novo, ampak preden ni novih, so stari v veljavi. In na podlagi tega, je amerika kršila pravila in napad je bil nelegalen. ZAKON JE ZAKON in treba ga je spoštovatipa če je dober ali pa slab.


Thomas, če je bil napad upravičen ali ne, jaz o tem ne bom sodil, dejstvo pa je, da je bil nelegalen. Pa sej ni v tem problem, problem je v tem ko ameriški psi zdej čuvajo nafto, namesto, da bi čuvali ljudi in jim nudili pomoč, kar so tudi obljubili. Če jim ne bodo hitro pomagali, se zna zgodit, da bo kak naslednik sadama spet kmalu sedel na prestol in bodo ljudje zmetali amere ven iz države. Ljudje so lačni in bolani in upravičeno zaskrbljeni in takoj ko jim bo kdo ponudil najmanjšo trohico upanja za boljše življenje se mu bodo klanjali in mu brez besed sledili. In ameri s čuvanjem nafte niso rešilna biljka, še manj kot to, ne dovolijo samim ljudem do nafte, do zaslužka, do boljšega življenja, ki so jim ga tako obljubljali.



Balandeque: Glede bosne pa itak vemo, da so svet in evropa dopustil da se muslimani iztrebijo, ker jih nihče noče imeti blizu sebe, zato so tudi pustili da so se take stvari dogajale, mal so pa še sforjevci pomagal - vsaj u nekaterih taboriščih so (po pričevanju prič) se sforjevci ravno tako kot ostali izživljali nad ujetniki. Nekateri, ne vsi.


LP
Nebivedu

Po tvojem je tema kaj?

Žalovanje zaradi intervencije?

Pa še zaradi intervencije v Jugoslaviji 1999?

Obsojanje ZDA in VB zaradi tega, ker niso našli WMD v Iraku?

> Zlagali so se pa, in svet je po mojem zaradi tega zdaj slabši.

Kakšna groza - lagali so! To da so odstranili diktatorja, ki je še letos izvajal množične pomore (da o rutinskih mučenjih ne govorimo) - se ne more meriti s strahoto, da so lagali!

To, da se pa morda sploh niso - in da je VX izginil v isti smeri kot Sadam - to pa mirovnikom ne pride na misel!

> ki je mimogrede ubil manj ljudi, kot Izraelci palestincev, pa jim noben ne upa mu rečt.

Link prosim!

Pa ti za nazaj potrdim, da si imel vse prav.

Recimo, da je Sadamu ubil 100.000 folka (pa ga je po moje več). Pol so Izraelci ubili 1000000 Palestincov, v kar pa ne verjamem. Koliko ljudi pa so Palestinci ubili? Sploh se ne da primerjat Sadama in Izraela-Palestine, ker sta to dve državi (ajt, Palestina še ni priznana) v vojni. S kom se je pa Sadam boril?

Thomas bo ravnokar zlezu v rit Američanom. Dej, mal razmisel kaj govoriš. Jaz sem tudi vojno podprl, pa čeprav je nelegalna.

ti ekstremneži mi gredo ful na živce, ker cel narod na slab glas spravljajo

> Thomas bo ravnokar zlezu v rit Američanom.

Meni je vseeno, če kdo misli, da "Američnom lezem v rit", ko pravim, da je njihova država in sistem "komaj za silo dobra", medtem ko "so ostale države in sistemi slabši (kot za silo)"!

Če kdo coolness nekih izjav meri po tem, "da se zameriš vsem približno enako", potem ima ta (upirna), dokaj problematične poglede na vse reči.

V 50 letih, je Izraelcem uspelo pobiti 13 tisoč Palestincev. V vstaji zadnja leta pa 2000.

_{Jordanci so pobili 20 tisoč Palestincev svoje čase. Alžirci se pobijajo s hujšim tempom kar sami...}

To so že vse prežvečene zadeve, vsak bi jih lahko poznal. Mogoče bom dal nekaj tovrstnih vprašanj v Yohanov topic/kviz. A je mogoče, da bi to ljudi streznilo stereotipov?

Racionalne ja - iracionalistov pa seveda ne. Ali pač?

To, da se pa morda sploh niso - in da je VX izginil v isti smeri kot Sadam - to pa mirovnikom ne pride na misel!

Ne vem zakaj skozi o mirvnikih, če ti pa še nihče na tem forumu ni rekel da se prišteva mednje, prej nasprotni. V pravni državi rabimo dokaze, ne vem kaj je z dokazi. Pa tudi če jih najdejo, vseeno trdim da je to samo njihov izgovor za vojno v kateri se jim je šlo samo za gospodarske posledice in je veliko ljudi umrlih in tudi še umira (pomanjkanje vode, hrane, razne bolezni, porušeni domovi - joj, kdo bi si misli, rušenje mostov in pa virov pitne vode je po med. zakonih prepovedano; pred vojno pritna voda ni bila problem, potem so bili pa USA vojaki rešitelji ko so pripeljali nekaj sodov pitne vode), prav tako kot ti trdiš da tudi če ne bodo našli orožja, je vseeno pravično da so odstranili diktatorja in s tem dobili nadzor nad nafto, ljudje pa pač niso pomembni, to pa je že jasno za kapitalistično družbo.

V 50 letih, je Izraelcem uspelo pobiti 13 tisoč Palestincev. V vstaji zadnja leta pa 2000.

Jordanci so pobili 20 tisoč Palestincev svoje čase. Alžirci se pobijajo s hujšim tempom kar sami...

Ja, kaj si pa s tem hotel povedati? Če že gremo gledat za zadnje par let, potem pejmo za obojne.

Torej, kolko palestincev so jordanci pobili v zadnjih parih letih?

Pa da ti še jst navržem eno tvojevrstno floskulo:

Al kaida je (if true) v napadu na WTC pobila 3000 američanov.

Vietkongovci so v Vietnamu pobili več kot 58.000 američanov.

Torej napada na WTC sploh ni vredno omenjati, ker je pač manjše zlo od "gookov"?

A ti je zdej jasno kakšne nonsense izjavljaš?

Če te prav zastopim Thomas, trdiš nekaj v smislu, da je (predvsem) važen rezultat, pot do njega pa ne (oz. precej manj). Zagovarjaš torej nekaj takega, da je rezultat neodvisen od poti do njega. Mam prav?

No, recimo, da imam. (Če nimam pa me popravi.)

Jaz pa trdim, da ne moreš ločiti rezultata od poti do njega. Odtranitev diktatorskega režima z vojaškim napadom in kasnejšo okupacijo sicer suverene države je zato v primeru, da te ta država dejansko ni neposredno ogrožala, jalova.

In izjemno nevaren zgled za bodoče ambicije raznih velikopoteznih državnikov.

> Sumarni rezultat je edino važen.

Prav. Tu ti ne morem oporekati. Imava samo različni mnjenji.

> Tale pot, z intervencijo se je vam mirovnikom (in vsem ki vas le jest tako psujem), zdela nekaj nezaslišanega. Kaj je bilo prej v Iraku, si pa še naprej zatiskate oči. Ali pa pravite, da je "bila njihova stvar".

Osebno si ne zatiskam oči, kaj je bilo prej. Še vedno pa menim, da bo imela pretekla vojna več škodljivih kot dobrih posledic za prihodnost svetovne javnosti. Spet imava različni mnenji.

> Kaj češ ločevat?! Zmeriš vse zlo, ki se je dogajalo in vse dobro v obeh alternativah. Potem so zadeve ZELO jasne.

Težko boš meril zlo in dobro. Sploh ker ni vatla za to. Kot bi hotel računati vreme. Po kakih treh tednih v prihodnost so rezultati že irelevantni. In bi bili tudi če bi imel podatke za celotno Zemljo na meter natančno. Je prekompleksno. Vsak od nas lahko samo po občutku nekaj trobi. Moj občutek je le drugačen od tvojega. Prav zato niso stavri NIČ jasne.

> Aha. Najprej te mora še neposredno ogrožat. In to tako očitno, da to vidijo celo mirovniki. In vsi, ki jih jest z mirovniki le psujem, sicer pa niso mirovniki ... yada, yada.

Ja. Najprej te mora neposredno ogrožat.

> Taki "velikopotezni državniki" imajo dovolj zgledov povsod po zgodovini. Zdaj so dobili še zgled, kako jih bo naveza USA-GB morda razsula.

Po mojem mnenju je ta zgled negativen in kot tak bo imel še dolgoročne negativne mednarodne posledice.


Kar se mene tiče, lahko prerekanje zaključiva, ker gre za moje mnenje proti tvojemu. Edina nedvoumnost pri celi stvari je oborožen napad na suvereno državo z lažnim izgovorom in brez mandata OZN. O tem pa lahko še naprej gonimo, če še komu ni kaj jasno.

> Napad na suvereno državo, kjer je na oblasti krvoločni režim je zate nekaj slabega. Ker ti je do tega principa suverenosti očitno največ.
>
> Zanimivo.

Ne, ne, ne. Samo napad na suvereno državo z lažnimi izgovori, brez mandata OZN, katerega član si z vsemi obveznostmi in omejitvami, ne da bi bil sam napaden od te države.

Ja, res je to neverjetno zanimivo!

Ne vem ke ma Kofi klele veze. Kot jest vem v tem primeru najmočnejše države dvignejo roke (za, proti, veto, vzdržan). Lahko da je proti=veto .. ne vem. A niso zakoni zato da se spoštujejo? A so napisani s kakšnim drugim namenom?

Zabava me, kako ti počasi postaja jasno, da imaš topogledno šibak sistem.

Baziraš na primarnosti OZN, organizacije za katero veš, da je (žal) smešna.

Balandeque, link.

Popravek. Ne gre se za enega od "stranskih" pogojev. Gre se za poglavitni povod za intervencijo.
Neposredna ogroženost zDA zaradi iraškega orožja t.i. ogrožanje nacionalne varnosti. Če komu ni to jasno, moram reči, da je zelo slabo informiran.

Nesodelovanje? Mislim, da je bilo sodelovanje kar v redu. Lahko prilepite tudi ta del iz Blixovega poročila. Ne samo tistega, ki vam pride prav. Tako da tudi ta trditev je bolj kot ne trhla.


Thomas? Ti misliš, da je OZN smešna. To še ne pomeni, da je to res. Razen v tvoji glavi. Kaj smešnega se pa nahaja še tam gori,...

Ko pa si že tako prizadeven. Irak je v razsulu. Čemu potemtakem ni v istem stanju stavba iraškega ministrstva, v pristojnosti katerega je trgovanje in črpanje nafte? Naftna polja ravno tako niso v slabem stanju. Kar pa ne moremo reči za bolnišnice. Iz bolnice si lahko odnesel cel CT scan, do ministrstva pa nisi mogel priti niti s tankom?

Jasno pa, da se je poseg izplačal predvsem ameriki. Saj v tem je celotna poanta te zgodbe.

Meni so se zdeli za kandelabre privezani pripadniki oboroženih sil OZN v Bosni dokaj smešni. Kot kakšne teličke so jih privezali tja Bosanski Srbi.

Mladiću so se pripadniki OZN v Srebrenici tudi morali zdeti prej smešni kot ne. Sploh njihov general, ki pomora 7000 Bošnjakov sploh ni opazil.

Smešno je bilo tudi, ko so OZN kot odgovor na nemire v Ruandi odpoklicali vse svoje vojake. Tako je bila pot za pomor stotisočev še olajšana.

No ja, ti dogodki seveda niso smešni - smešna je bila samo OZN. Vse okoli nje je bilo pa tragično.

Razen mogoče UNESCO je pa res smešen. Za ohranitev kulturne dediščine je nekoč namenil PLOju več, kot Grčiji. To je pa definitivno smešno.

Smešno je tudi predsedovanje Libije OZN agenciji za človekove pravice. To je smešno približno toliko, kot izvoliti volka za pastirja.

Smešni so pa tudi tisti, ki kljub vsemu še vedno prisegajo na OZN.

Thomas, pljuvaš v lastne češnje...

Tudi tvoji prijateljčki so del ZN. So celi eni od vodilnih. Eni od tistih, ki odločajo v ozadju z "lobiranjem" oz. bolje rečeno podkupovanjem in izsiljevanjem. J... ga, velika mafija. Samo s to razliko, da ima mafija vsaj ena moralna načela.

In kdo misliš, da je ena od ustanoviteljic OZN? Ena od glavnih pobudnic te tvoje "šarade"?

To ti rečeš. Vseved??? Prevečved???

Oni pa drugače. Na srečo si ti in tvoje mnenje tam nič. In gredo na srečo stvari v smeri "nostalgikov".

Pa se praskaj če se moreš.

Thomas tuki se je tebi zataknilo. Če je amerika napadla irak brez privolitve ostalih, se kaj hitro lahko zgodi da kitajska napade kako drugo državo in jo zavzame, brez dovoljenja ostalih. Kdo bo pa pol kitajcem zatežil? ZDA? vsakmu kitajcu damo samo po en kladu - pa s temi kladivi potolčejo vse američane u parih dneh. Drug tak primer je pakistan in indija, zarad kašmirja.

Zarad tega pravim, da je problem v tem da je bil prej vsaj en red, ki se ga je vsaj malo spoštovalo, zdej pa očitno tega ni treba več, al kaj? Pomeni, da bo spet lahko kaos, in to je to kar so naredili amričani s svojo "intervencijo". Nobena od večjih držav ne bo spoštovala pravil, in se bo začelo sranje.

LP
Nebivedu

nebivedu ...

Ko sem te tazadnjkrat vidu tle, sem te prosu za en link, za argumentacijo tvojih trditev. Sej nisi pozabu?

Do takrat o teh tvojih kladivih nič. A je prav?

September 20, 2002

Dan Lindley




War Against Iraq: Too Many 'Ifs'




Saddam Hussein is a determined proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, an evil man who has started two wars and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens on his hands. Who wouldn't support a war to oust him? I would if the war was short, successful, and did not cause too many deaths to our soldiers or to Iraqi civilians. If the war gained the support of a broad swath of other countries, and was supported by United Nations resolutions. If the war did not jeopardize other foreign policy priorities. And if the U.S. and its allies were committed to stability and democracy in Iraq, and could achieve both.

These are big "ifs." The U.S. and the world community must address these basic issues head on. It is possible that a U.S./U.N. war against Iraq would be a great success. But the odds are against it. Overall, the war is a bad bet.

Will the war be short? Probably. This is a decent bet because the Iraqi armed forces, and the key Republican Guard divisions, can read the writing on the wall. They will not fight a losing battle to save Saddam when they can live and be part of the new Iraqi army to which new equipment will soon flow. The counterargument is that the Iraqis will be defending their homeland (not Kuwait), and a nationalistic fighting force on defender-friendly terrain like cities can cause immense pain to any attacking army. See the lessons of U.S. in Vietnam, Russia in Chechnya, or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some in the Iraqi army may fight to avoid being lynched by the repressed Iraqi people in the aftermath of a loss against the U.S. Even a short war could cause U.S. casualties numbering many, many times the luckily low 16 lost in Afghanistan to date.

Will we be willing to pay the blood price? Perhaps, but even if we do, it will leave a bitter taste and make the war politically unpopular. Consider that in the necessary war in Afghanistan, the U.S. was not willing to risk our soldiers' lives to encircle and capture or kill Taliban and Al Qaeda forces at Tora Bora or at Shah-i-Kot. Because of casualty intolerance, these operations were military disasters. We let the enemy escape, perhaps even bin Laden himself. This enemy attacked the U.S. and caused 3000 U.S. deaths.

In contrast, Iraq did not attack the U.S. and nobody will ever know if they ever would. A war against Iraq will be almost thankless because no one will ever know what threat we were pre-empting. The only sure things will be the casualties of this operation, and hopefully improved lives for Iraqis. How many U.S. soldiers are we willing to lose in an optional pre-emptive war? Based on our failures in Afghanistan, not many. Saddam and his army know this, and this is another reason they may choose to fight.

What of Iraqi civilian deaths? With Saddam fighting for his life, a good bet is that he will try every trick to cause outrage against the U.S. He will place civilians at any target worth bombing. He will drag people from morgues (or kill them for the purpose) and scatter them at bombed targets. This will create gruesome pictures for the world press. When the U.S. killed hundreds of civilians at the Al Firdos bunker in Gulf War I, it damaged our reputation and shook up our bombing strategy. Do we, should we, have the guts to see these scenes replayed over and over and in an optional war?

Will the war be considered a success if it prompts Saddam to use weapons of mass destruction? The war could cause the very thing we are trying to prevent. What will we do if our troops or Israel are attacked with biological weapons? If we are fighting for the noble and just cause of saving lives, what if this war ends with an Israeli nuclear attack against Iraq?

Will the war receive international backing through the U.N.? Probably. The squabbling over inspections will get sorted out. Fundamentally, other countries are having a hard time opposing the U.S. juggernaut, and France, Saudi Arabia, and others seem willing to sign on if the U.S. gets U.N. approval. It is wise for the U.S. to seek U.N. authorization for the war. Even if the Bush administration scorns the U.N. and multilateralism in private, allies are helpful in war and U.N. resolutions will reduce resentment against the U.S. That said, one should not mistake any future U.N. resolutions for a pro-U.S. lovefest. Countries like France and Russia will support the U.S. mainly for money: oil contracts and debt repayment in post-Saddam Iraq. They aren't motivated by a shared sense of threat.

Indeed, who does share the administration's sense of threat? Classified briefings on Capitol Hill do not seem to persuade our own lawmakers, some of whom point out that Iraq is a minor terrorist threat compared to Syria or Iran. I am deeply worried that the Congress will sign on to the war and avoid tough questions due to a sense of inevitability and fear of seeming weak on Saddam. If the administration had some new evidence, surely they would present it before Congress. Surely President Bush's speech before the U.N. would have included new facts. What has changed to make Iraq such an urgent priority? If petrodollars, politics, and 'inevitability' are creating supporters at home and abroad, this raises serious questions about the actual case for war.

The most likely reason that Iraq is now a priority is that President Bush's ear has been captured by a coterie of war hawks in the administration and around the beltway. These hawks have it in for Saddam, and many are also some of Israel's biggest supporters. It is no coincidence that Saddam poses a far greater threat to Israel than to the U.S.

Strategy is the art of prioritizing. This raises two issues: does the threat from Iraq outweigh other threats that deserve a higher profile? And will the Iraq war hurt other U.S. priorities? The U.S. will spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the war and (hopefully) rebuild Iraq. All in part to prevent Saddam from getting nuclear weapons. Analysts agree that he could build one in short order if he obtained nuclear materials. The most likely place to get fissile materials is in the crumbling nuclear infrastructure of Russia where only fifty percent of these materials are adequately safeguarded. This is where Al Qaeda and other terrorists have sought nuclear materials, and the 'loose nukes' problem in Russia is a national security threat of supreme order and consequence. Yet the U.S. is only spending one billion a year under the Nunn-Lugar and other threat reduction programs. At this rate, Russian fissile materials will not be fully secure until 2018.

Another priority that ranks higher than Iraq is stability in Pakistan. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan has nuclear weapons - some 24-48 of them. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is filled with Al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers, and many other stripes of Muslim fundamentalists and extremists. Even worse, many of these extremists held significant positions in the military and the important Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. If extremists ever control Pakistan, the world would be faced with a nuclear-armed Taliban-like government, with strong ties to al Qaeda, and bent on dramatically escalating trouble in Kashmir. The latter of course risks war and nuclear war with India. This threat dwarfs the weapons of mass destruction threats posed by Iraq. This threat would be so great it might provoke pre-emptive strikes - conventional and/or nuclear - from India and/or the United States.

A war with Iraq could stir up fundamentalism and extremism throughout the Middle East, and the consequences of this instability would be gravest in Pakistan. The 'Arab Street' was quiet as the U.S. and its allies toppled the Taliban. But the war in Afghanistan had a clear cause, and was easily justified. It is harder to justify a war against Iraq, and such a war is a larger and probably more bloody endeavor. Fears of extremism and instability should be higher.

This war will be a supreme example of U.S. power. It will breed resentment and balancing. Countries like Iran, necessary for maintaining our success in Afghanistan and Iraq in the future, yet unhelpfully labeled part of the axis of evil (remember: strategy = setting priorities), can easily stir up trouble for post-war Afghanistan or Iraq by shipping in arms, supporting extremists, harboring fugitives, and so forth. Many other countries from China or Russia to Syria might enjoy destabilizing countries where the U.S. has invaded and now must keep the peace. Moreover, will countries who resent the U.S. be more likely to buy from Boeing or Airbus? There are many prices an arrogant, unilateralist country may pay... And President Bush's pro-U.N., multilateralist 'don't let the League of Nations happen on our watch' rhetoric will prove hollow if we end up going it alone. If we spurn the U.N., the history books will blame us for making the U.N. go the way of the League. Especially after the President's speech.

Even if the war goes well, what will the aftermath of an Iraqi war look like? There are a number of worries here. First, the President talks about stability and democracy in Afghanistan and talks as if Afghanistan is already a stable democracy. This is false. Kabul has a weak grasp of the countryside, where warlords and factions dominate. President Hamid Karzai's life is in such jeopardy that U.S. forces are deployed to try to guarantee his security. The U.S. is trying to build up an Afghan national army, but is unwilling to conduct peacekeeping on a broader scale or spend the massive amount of money it will take to rebuild Afghanistan. This is dangerously unwise as Afghanistan could easily revert to a failed state harboring Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

Second, the administration talks of rebuilding and democratizing Iraq. Based on the Afghan precedent, this is hollow rhetoric. Where is the concrete plan and budgeting for nation-building? This term was scorned by most in the Bush administration, until they realized that lip service must be paid to the concept to build support for wars. Where is the admission that nation-building will costs tens of billions of dollars in Iraq, and that some tens of thousands of troops may need to peacekeep for a very long time? It will be great for Iraq and the Middle East if we can transform the country. The President has to pony up the plans, dollars, and troops to do so.

Third, can a country divided into three parts be stabilized, or will it fly apart into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite zones? What kind of government can govern these zones, especially if they see an opportunity for independence or greater autonomy? A very strong, and probably repressive government? Or a loose confederation that is a central government in name only? And what of the Kurdish zone's relations with Turkey? Many ifs and questions here.

Finally, Iraq is in a tough neighborhood. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get them. Both have been attacked by and attacked Iraq in recent decades. Any future Iraqi state is going to have powerful incentives to build a strong army and to obtain nuclear weapons.

Most wars are bets, but some bets are worse than others. There are many good reasons to wage a war against Iraq. But there are many ifs, and many ways in which the costs may vastly exceed the benefits. Perhaps the worst thing is that we are rushing to war, led by an administration seemingly determined for war. Many hard questions need to be asked and answered. Yet the President is asking for resolutions before the debate has really begun, before the arguments on all sides have time to be fully laid out and considered.

If we take the time to debate and avoid the rush to war, President Bush can use this time to markedly improve the odds of his bet. Reduce extremism by twisting arms and flowing billions to create a Palestinian state. Stabilize Afghanistan. Come up with concrete plans for a post-war Iraq, and get the massive funds committed. Get the Joint Chiefs to publicly commit the two divisions (plus rotations) that it will take to adequately peacekeep in Afghanistan and Iraq. Provide enough information to get domestic and international support for the war based on a shared sense of threat. I, for one, do not know why we are rushing to war now, and why we are focusing on Iraq at the risk of downplaying more pressing threats within Russia and Pakistan


LP
Nebivedu