scw@cepu.UUCP (05/23/84)
In the referenced note Mitzi Morris complains that too much US internal
politics gets into Europe. (Too true!) Here is an internation question
tht may (Real soon now) become *VERY* important to most of us.
Given that the War in the Persian Gulf (Iran/Iraq) is heating up and expanding.
There are only 1/8 of the normal numbers of tankers in the Gulf (100 vs 800),
insurance rates have tripled, there have been 7 attacks on tankers in the Gulf.
What actions would be reasonable/prudent for the world to take?
Who should take the actions?
Actually this is a moot point as there are only 4 countries with the
ability to intervene [USA, GB, France, and the USSR]. France's ability
is limited, only the US and GB have the ability to really project their
power into the region (The USSR is in the region). The Soviet Union is
unlikley to intervene to stop the fighting as it is to their benefit
that it continue (actually our discomfort).
The options as I see them:
(1) Do nothing.
Doesn't hurt the US much but I can see Japan and Western Europe getting
into a real bind here.
(2) Intervene (on either side).
This is as case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Neither
party is exactly what one would call savory.
(3) Quash them both.
How? Destroy their ability to wage war? Or perhaps just both Airforces
then they can only continue to grind away at each other without the
ability to bother anyone else.
(4) Nuc 'em back to the stone age-:).
Rather tacky don't you think?
(5) ????????
How about it Europe, you have the most to loose, (of the people who
are on the Net anyway, too bad Japan isn't here). Any ideas?
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (05/25/84)
The typical western attitude about wars like the Irak/Iran one is to look the other way and hope they go away. The combination of political/religious fanatisism which pervades these cultures of these countries is *very* differnet from our own brand of political and religious fanatism so we just don't understand what's going on (at least I don't). Acts like the Russian invasion of Afganistan are much easier to understand, since the Russians are maybe culturally closer to us than the Iranians/Irakies! We know what the Russians want and condemn them for it. Thus trying to mediate in the Irak/Iran conflict is nearly impossible for us Westerners - we have no grounds for understanding the problem. Trying to intervene would cause the same problem - which side should we support? Standing in the middle and letting them shoot at us wouldn't help much. Threatening them with the bomb was, I assume, a joke in rather poor taste. The only thing which might stop them would be an international embargo on the sale of weapons to both sides. However we need oil from them so they could reply by stopping the sale of oil to us! However I think we should take this risk and if necessary suffer the consequences in the name of humanity. Unfortunately we all know how effective international embargoes are, remember Rodesia? I don't suppose that any western country will react until the oil is already cut off by the war. However they may allow the oil tankers through anyway, they need the oil income to buy more weapons. --mike ps sorry for the double posting to net.misc but net.politics doesn't often reach Europe. I have proposed a group for world politics - see net.news.group.
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (05/26/84)
>The options as I see them: > >(1) Do nothing. > Doesn't hurt the US much but I can see Japan and Western Europe getting > into a real bind here. > What, for the first time in history the US of A isn't going to have crusade against .... :-) This is probably the best thing to do for the time being. >(2) Intervene (on either side). > This is as case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Neither > party is exactly what one would call savory. > Too true. See reply to (1). >(3) Quash them both. > How? Destroy their ability to wage war? Or perhaps just both Airforces > then they can only continue to grind away at each other without the > ability to bother anyone else. They would still fight anyway, even without weapons. (sigh) >(4) Nuc 'em back to the stone age-:). > Rather tacky don't you think? You missed a golden chance to do it to one of them a while back! :-) >(5) ???????? > How about it Europe, you have the most to loose, (of the people who > are on the Net anyway, too bad Japan isn't here). Any ideas? >-- >Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) I personally feel that for the time being most countries, especially the US, should keep out of it. Any power who actively enters the war at this stage will most certainly be forced to stay there for quite a while. So far both sides have been burned in this respect. Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm UUCP:{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!robert P.S. *Please* continue this discussion in net.misc as well, we here in Europe don't get net.politics (Hint, hint to the people concerned!).
goran@erix.UUCP (G|ran B}ge) (05/26/84)
I say STAY OUT. It is true that left to themselves things go from
bad to worse, but in this case I think interfering would mean that
things would go from bad to *very* much worse. It would be easy
to go in, but history tells us its damned hard to get
out again.
Goeran Baage @ L M Ericsson
Stockholm
Sweden
goran@erix.UUCP or
...{philabs,decvax}!mcvax!enea!erix!goranper@erix.UUCP (05/28/84)
My God! Is "it would be hard to get out again" really the best argument against (US?) armed intervention we can produce? How about "international law"? One is not *supposed* to come barging in, weapons raised, as soon as it would suit ones interests. The fact that one has let oneself become dependent on some product of the country/ies in question is not an excuse, nor that anyone can tell that their leaders are in acute need of mental care and totally incapable of acting in the best interest of their people. Living in a supposedly non-alliance country, we should be especially careful to take exception to any ideas of such enterprises, rather than tossing in our two cents of pros and cons on invading country X. In another place and time, "X" may very well stand for Sweden, and we're not very likely to get a say in that discussion! Per Hedeland per@erix.UUCP (PS: Any volunteers to gateway net.politics into net.misc out there? :-))
dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (05/29/84)
Although not a solution to the current Iran/Iraq conflict I can
think of two solutions to the security of oil shipments,which I
believe is all the "the west" is really interested.
1. A pipeline from Dubayy on the Persian Gulf coast to Djiba on
the coast of the Gulf of Oman.This could be through land that
all Arab countries in the Persian Gulf could participate in the
cost of construction ,upkeep and security[instead of just the
United Arab Emirates on whose land the pipeline would be built].
2. A stronger [ read more & better weapons ] Muscat ,so that tankers
travelling through the Straits of Hormuz could be better protected
whilst travelling on the Muscat side of the straits.Muscat does not
have the oil resources that other arab countries in the area have
and cannot therefore aquire the military might neccessary unless it
is given in the form of military aid.However Muscat used to have
very close ties with Iran and I don't know how relations stand at the
moment.
This is not the first Iran/Iraq conflict , each country has in the past
supported insurrections within the opponents country within the last
30 years and is probably doing so now [this might be another avenue to
investigate ].
Dave Peak(pyuxhh!dxp)