South Afrian position on Iraq

[Anonymous]

Will someone please try and explain to me why a South African politician is trying to strengthen ties with Iraq. I am sure we need friends all over the world, but right now isn't this kind of flying in the face of the USA. What are these bloody fools thinking or no .. rather do they even consider that they can possibly think.

If a small kid with a lolipop kicks a big kid in the balls hard, real hard and then runs way. I don't think it's a good idea for another small kid to wag a finger in the face of the angry big kid when he catches the guilty lolipop kid and is brandishing a baseball bat. This is what I learned in kindergarden. Is it at all possible that the politicians in South Africa never went to school and learned anything at all????

.

[Marc]

Issues at stake here-

1) Nuclear weapons
2) Chemical and or Bio weapons
3) Dictators
4) War strategy involving issues 1 or 2 is VERY different than conventional war. Just take 60 seconds to think what those differences are. They are often very counter intuitive.
5) Oil exporting nations once again all involved, either directly in the case of Iraq, or tangentially in the case of the Gulf Sates and their exporting the "insitigators" of 911
6) Oil consuming nations are involved in "solving" the issue
7) World economic malaise - principly the oil consuming nations. By the way(BTW) the oil consuming nations create over 95 percent of the worlds GDP (GDP for those not exactly familiar can be thought of as "income" or the creation of what is valuable)

Now in answer to your thoughtful posting:
a) South Africa belongs to one of the few "nuclear capable" nation states hence some interest in the outcome
b) South Africa is the major GDP nation in Africa and as such is a net oil importer
c) South Africa is in the midst of tenuous economic times
d) South Africa is a major arms producer

I don't have an anaswer but it is obvious that there are some politicians there who think that they "should not stand on the side lines and should at least state some position".

Not a very rational reason to get involved from my perspective.

[kindaconfuzed]

Hi

It would seem to me that we need to understand what the overall strategic diplomacy plan for the area is, and while SAs contact might be isolationist in terms of USA and possibly the UK there are good number of people in the UK who don't want war (or is it genocide) and they believe the case for war hasn't been proven. We in the UK even have lobby groups going to Iraq to tell the Iraqs that the UK people are against the war

Now not so long ago the UK and America were friends, so what changed - the invasion of Kuwait but who are Iraq invading now, but then if you still want scapegoats for 9/11 then yu go for it. It just seems that Blur (sic) has no heart for it and pretty soon Uncle Sam will get a bit pi**ed off with him. Now it isn't the first time that a country so powerful as the States gets paranoid about its perceived undermining of its power, I believe the Romans went thru a similar period.

The worrying thing is that there aren't more ordinary Americans protesting about whats goin on but then it may detract from what Anerica is condoning in Palestine and the self rightous attitude of the israelis. It seems retribution for the atrocitites in the Second World War is being perpetrated against the Palestinians while the world stands by and watches. Perhaps the SA politician would have been better also aligning himself with the Palestinians then he would have had my support.

I for one can't understand how the world lets Israel carry out there atrocities with impunity, and if I remember Blur (sic) said the answer to the Middle East problem and the priority is to solve the Palestinian and Israel issue before tackling Iraq, this was something Cheri Blur also stated and got into trouble for. Now why is Blur silent about this, because of course its not what the Americans want because of the power of their home Jewish lobby. Surely there are bigger atrocities going on in Palestine than in Iraq so how can the world stand by and let it continue.

As I have got older I have become more critical of America, and of course their bully boy tactics can go on unhindered now that Russia has dipped out of the global policeforce.

Unfortunately the USA is hell bent on a war and I'm afraid its inevitable and it doesn't matter if the UN inspectors don't find anything. Now I have never reconciled if they were that anti Sadaam, why didn't they finish him off the first time, now the USA will need to kill a lot of innocent Iraqs to get Sadaam.

Well just a few of my thoughts - hope they kinda maked sense.

Stops we talkin about the wifey.
Cognitive behaviour therapy really does work.

Kinda gotta go

[Marc]

Kinda, you use words in rather a cavalier manner from time to time. When humans are killed, does it imply 'genocide'. Where is the determined attempt to eradicate an entire civilization or race of people? Please don't use words that imply the wrong concept. If you are against killing people then say killing, but don't use the term genocide when there clearly isn't any. Genocide took place in only a few instances in human history. Please don't use such terms lightly when its not warrented. The 'charge of the Light Brigade' had alot of deaths, even slaughter, but that doesn't mean it was genocide.

When people think that using hyperbole terms adds to the weight of their argument then mistakes in logic are created and wrong conclusions are often arrived at.

War is sometimes necessary. Would Europe be better off if the US and UK negotiated a peaceful settlement to WWII rather than wage war? I doubt it. Why not negotiate a solution now? I believe that, like poker, the dance between nation states is a delicate dance, where all is not revealed at once. Jockying for strategic advantage. Bargaining clout in today's more information rich environment in not just a matter of "having the evidence" but is also a matter of legalistic position (i.e. look how countries UN resolutions) and public perceptions (i.e. people's opinion such as you, and everybody else)

Think back to WWI and WWII. How much did public opinion or the UN weigh in on the debate about whether or not those nation states were to wage war or not. Did they court public opinion or the UN as they do today? Heck no. Today there is far more posturing before direct acition is enacted. That's a good thing not bad. It means the world public opinon counts for more as time goes on. Thats worthy of note. In Vietnam it wasn't world public opinon, as much as it was the US public's. Now its just about all nations having their two cents worth of time. Thats a good thing. While we may not always agree with various opinions, the more we listen the more we learn, and its all part of democratization of world events. I for one welcome the debate process.

[kindaconfuzed]

Kinda, you use words in rather a cavalier manner from time to time. When humans are killed, does it imply 'genocide'. Where is the determined attempt to eradicate an entire civilization or race of people?


Marc
I will endevour to respond to your comments but feel your greater economic knoweldge may have me at a disadvantage but here goes.

I make no excuse for using the term genocide, it was meant to shock and convey my anger at what is going on, your dictionary definition does not detract from the eradication of Sadaam and by the way many innocent Iraqs who get caught up in it. The west is generally anti Arab and bringing this into the arena may allow me to claim validity under the dictionary definition, albeit loosely.

While you are debating the concepts and useage of words the troops are already on there way. I guess I can't criticise you for coming at it from an economist perspective cos after all yu are one!

Please don't use words that imply the wrong concept. If you are against killing people then say killing, but don't use the term genocide when there clearly isn't any. Genocide took place in only a few instances in human history. Please don't use such terms lightly when its not warrented. The 'charge of the Light Brigade' had alot of deaths, even slaughter, but that doesn't mean it was genocide.

I kinda think yuve overegged this point, but I wonder what the term is for trying to kill a lot of people, war doesnt do it justice when its gonna be such a one sided affair - again genocide seems nice and emotive.

When people think that using hyperbole terms adds to the weight of their argument then mistakes in logic are created and wrong conclusions are often arrived at.

Marc I accept the hyperbole comment but think the logic is not affected nor any conclusions, which I don't normally come to (but if yu find one let me know). If I was to try and get you out of your American comfort and safety zone then I have achieved my objective.
While you have been critical of word useage yer generally silent about the other issues, particularly those relating to the involvement of the USA and their puppets the UK.

War is sometimes necessary.

Not sure I agree with yu here Marc.

Would Europe be better off if the US and UK negotiated a peaceful settlement to WWII rather than wage war? I doubt it.

Marc if yu were jewish and in a concentration camp I guess yer would say yes (might have yer on the ropes here).

Why not negotiate a solution now? I believe that, like poker, the dance between nation states is a delicate dance, where all is not revealed at once. Jockying for strategic advantage. Bargaining clout in today's more information rich environment in not just a matter of "having the evidence" but is also a matter of legalistic position (i.e. look how countries UN resolutions) and public perceptions (i.e. people's opinion such as you, and everybody else)

I guess in there somewhere is your view on the Middle East but then again I dont think so. The USA have been planning the war for some time and they seem determined to go for it to reinforce their dominance. You are also forgetting that the USA have said they will invade regardless of what the legal (UN) mandate says. Not sure where that leaves yer argument.

Think back to WWI and WWII. How much did public opinion or the UN weigh in on the debate about whether or not those nation states were to wage war or not. Did they court public opinion or the UN as they do today? Heck no. Today there is far more posturing before direct acition is enacted. That's a good thing not bad. It means the world public opinon counts for more as time goes on. Thats worthy of note.

Hell no the only reason the USA are courting opinion is to give them time and to see about future relations, after all they have already said they will go it alone if they have to.


In Vietnam it wasn't world public opinon, as much as it was the US public's. Now its just about all nations having their two cents worth of time. Thats a good thing. While we may not always agree with various opinions, the more we listen the more we learn, and its all part of democratization of world events. I for one welcome the debate process.

I think the American people only went against the Vietnam war when the casualities increased, if it where similar to fighting Iraq with a low caualty rate would they have protested against it, perhaps not. Maybe that is why American people protesting now are not in the majority. If America and Britain go in now where does that leave the world order, does it mean that they will go into other countries where they don't like, it really is quite worrying. After all its not how Sadaam has treated its own people that has brought about the need for an invasion but a anti/Sadaam, anti nuclear need.

A low casualty return means there is a market for going in but high casualty returns means some of those people for it now will question the need. Didn't something similar happen in Somalia, it was all gung ho until reality kicked in with casualties and the perception that the troops where not invincible that brought the withdrawal. Remember I am coming from the perspective that war is very rarely needed to solve the problems.

Marc for all what you have said you have not debated the Palestine issue nor Americas lack of committment to resolving it. While you encourage debate, do yer believe North Korea are debating at present or do you think they are just piling a little bit more onto Uncle Sam while he's pre-occupied with Iraq. America maybe powerful but not that powerful that they can cope in two arenas.

Its taken a while to entice yu into the arena and you haven't even slagged off the pomms yet!

Take Care

Kinda

PS forget the verbage and deal with the issues.

[freakazoid]

Kinda, uuhhm.. the he is actually a she (S.A. Politician) and in my biased opinion 'she' is a wacko. I find the whole saga of Iraq, USA Britain and Israel somewhat confusing. It's like the whole damn world has gone crazy. We have the yanks gunning for Iraq regardless of what the outcome of any inspections might be or what the rest of the world may say, we have the Brits peeping over the yanks shoulder hoping that Iraq or the rest of the world don't really get mad at them for taking sides and then we have Israel lurking in the background doing whatever takes their fancy to the Palestinians. It's almost as if the yanks are trying to shift the focus while they aid the Jews.

Just for the record, the Israeli problem will not be solved peacefully. Simply because if the Christian/Jewish countries withdraw aid they will be guilty of forsaking God's chosen people and will suffer the wrath of God. I know it sounds simplistic, but it is a fact. God fearing people will sacrifice everything and literally go to the ends of the earth on this matter of religious principle. As ridiculous as it sounds, it goes deeper than we can imagine and will not be solved by simply negotiating a workable solution where respect for 'God' will, in the Christian opinion be forsaken within a few years. I am sure everyone is familiar with the history of the temple and the biblical prophecies for Jerusalem.

In my humble opinion the solution cannot be found peacefully. From the religious perspective the Palestinians cannot have what they want. It's not negotiable and the reverse is true if you're a muslim. The bigger gun carrying Christian countries know this, they are all just to scared to do the dirty deed to get rid of the Palestinians, so they egg the Jews on and on.

The real sad part is that no matter how hard you try and evade the real issues they remain. You can threaten to bomb Iraq, raise alarms about Korea, manipulate the media any way you want, but the Israeli conflict will always be the horror of the decision makers dreams. The writings on the wall. USA need to solve the problem of Israel and one way to do it is to wave a big stick, invade the Middle East for whatever motives and in the end try and shape the opinion of the muslim world into believing that their motives are noble and true.

There are many other issues at stake I will concede, but in the end 'Kinda' hits the nail onn the head. What about the Israeli conflict? Why don't you just finish what you started?

[kindaconfuzed]

Freakazoid

You raise some good points and at the moment I haven't the time to do justice to a response. I realise I moved away from the originators point about the ZA politician, but in my view this was not important in the global sense, however I accept that to a ZA it is, for which I apologise.

I understand the intensity of religious belief, and not being a practioner myself, I have to believe that good outways evil and that finally justice will prevail, otherwise what is it all about.

I'll try and respond later.

Kinda - emotive about the injustice.