Journal CleverNickName's Journal: Return of the son of the mailbag! 123
Because I so enjoy sharing the brilliant emails I get, I present to you:
"How Sad."
From:swiftparrot@sbcglobal.net
To:wil@wilwheaton.net
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:50:16 -0600
You prefer to have the Iraqi people continue their brutal lives under 'the
butcher' Saddam. It makes you a lot smaller than I thought you were. You are
actually in favor of a brutal dictator over the lives of the people he
brutalizes. You support the ongoing torture and murderous subjugation of the
Iraqi people. You are against offering the people of Iraq freedom and free
markets.Although it is well documented that the 911 terrorists trained in Iraq in
big jets on the ground using small knives to overcome the jet's crew, you
choose not to believe that there is any link between Saddam and terrorist.
It is certainly your right to choose to be blind. Saddam gives money to
martyr's families and openly supports Hamas. (Are you also anti-Semitic?) So
called 'Palestinians' could have had a state of their own any time in the
last 30 years. They choose not to have it. They do not want a state. They
simply want all Jews to die. They want the Jews thrown off the continent and
will be satisfied with nothing less. Ever. Do you also support the
Palestinians hatred of the Jews as strongly as you support Saddam's hatred
of all things American? You must agree that the US is the great Satan. After
all, you are rich. You are the devil incarnate to Saddam and those who
support like him.Do you pretend to worship God the way you pretend to be 'for peace'? After
all, the peace you want is the ongoing brutalization of the Iraqi people by
the Butcher of Baghdad. And you are clearly FOR that. It is interesting that
a person who is a recipient of the best the US has to offer anyone is so
totally against anyone else having the same opportunities.You may well be anti-war but the only peace you are 'for' is the peace of
death for any Iraqi who dissents from Saddam's wishes. You are 'for' the
peace of death for thousands of Iraqis, by starvation, every year your
sanctions continue. And if you are also not against sanctions and not
against attacking Iraq then you obviously support Saddam's attack of Kuwait
and Iran and the deaths by gassing of the Kurds. You are 'for' the many war
crimes Saddam has committed and you do not wish to see him punished...How do you sleep at night?
Sincerely Baffled by your anti-Samaritanism and un-Christian attitudes.
PS> You truly hate the Iraqis a great deal to wish such an existence upon them. May god have mercy on you.
sigh (Score:2)
Beam Me Up, Scotty (Score:2)
Geez (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Geez (Score:1)
Re:Geez (Score:2, Interesting)
I keep hearing all this "brutal dictator" shit, but there is no evidence provided by the media. Just vague "assisting terrorism" comments.
To the email author: Post proof of your comments.
If any Middle East country needs a good smack it's fucking Israel. Notice how every day some jackass suicide bomber goes off out there... To this casual observer who doesn't buy into media hype, Israel seems to be the place that has the problems, not Iraq.
And I also noted that CNN left out chunks of the UN testimony on the 14th that said that Iraqi scientists had been helpful...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2763653.
Anyone who wants to see a war in Iraq is a fucking sheep who needs to pull their head out of their ass and take a look around instead of blindly buying this shit.
In short: Follow the money. That invariably leads to the root cause of everything. And in this case, it be black gold that's the cause of all this.
Re:Geez (Score:2)
Whoa, interesting. Where can one find this "actual proper translation" ? I haven't seen it anywhere. But it would seem more consistent with historical Osama.
Re:Geez (Score:1)
www.metafilter.com
www.thememoryhole.org
Can't remember which one though. THINK it was memory hole.
Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/yt-misleading.
Re:Geez (Score:1)
dunno, I think there's all kinds of evidence that he attacks his "own people." The problem is they're not his people...
afaik, there's like 7 religions there that saddamn wouldn't consider "his" people. And I imainge... they'd attack kurds on sight. But those aren't really his people either. I think a kurd would kill a saddamite on sight too.
Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:1, Insightful)
If the sheeple only knew the true motivations for this war, they may not be 100% behind it. Also, the Bush administration is not logical about applying their standards for justifying military aggression. Why is Iraq in our crosshairs, when weapons inspectors can't find any weapons of mass destruction, while North Korea can crank out the nukes without fear of reprisal by the US. North Korea is also far more likely to be able to actually reach US soil with a nuke.
Part of this is a blood feud between George W Bush and Sadam Hussein for Sadam's failed assassination attempt on GWB's daddy, King George I.
Part of this is to clean up our own dirty work, as we *gave* these chemical and biological weapon technologies to the Hussein regime back in the Reagan administration so he would fight dirty against Iran (since we couldn't fight directly, as it could force us into a direct engagement with the USSR).
And part of this is to try to have a more US-friendly regime running a major oil producing country.
There are no lofty morale reasons for this upcoming war. It's all about blood feuds, sweeping our own dirt under the rug and oil money for the industry executives who helped Bush to narrowly win the presidency.
But the sheeple don't want to know. They want cowboy George to ride in on his white horse and blast all the Ay-rabs with his six shooters. All those movies Hollywood has cranked out have trained us well (not aimed at your works of course, Uncle Willie).
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
The "blood feud". Now, think about this a second if this were merely a blood feud because of "merely" a failed assassination attempt on an ex-president of the United States do you think we'd be wasting any time with inspectors and international coalition building? Heck, President Clinton launched cruise missiles for far less egregious offences. Were you up in arms about those "blood feuds"?
Did you know who gave the most recent collection of chemical weapons building equipment to Iraq? Germany. If we wanted to clean up any "mess" that was left around we could have very easily ran right over Iraq back during the initial war there. The fact was that the US restrained their actions because the international community wasn't willing to properly prosecute the war to a complete conclusion.
This also goes to your "more US-friendly regime" quip. Again, if the US really wanted to have a state in the Middle East it would have been very simple to have overrun Iraq back in 1991. (More so as there was much more backing at the time for the war.)
The fact is that Iraq surrendered in 1991. As part of that surrender they agreed to complete destruction of their WMD's and most of their missiles. This particular task was backed by a UN resolution and supposed to take 90 days to accomplish.
Here we are in 2003 with a bunch of people shouting "give the inspections time to work". How much time are the supposed to get? 15 years? 20 years? (Note: the inspection clock didn't magically reset so that it's only been 2 months of inspections it's been over 8 years.)
So, are you a member of the other "sheeple" who simply take these nice easy sounding sound bites and turn them into your reason for opposing war?
Strangely enough I don't recall seeing any alternative solution suggested in your diatribe.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:1)
I stand by my previous arguments.
With regards to you point that I didn't suggest a solution, actually I have in many public forums but not in this specific thread. My proposed solution would be as expensive as a war in Iraq, easily, but at far less cost in human blood. It would also serve to get us out of the affairs of the Middle East which would allow us to significantly reduce our *ahem* "defense" budget (it's about time to call that an "offense" budget, but I digress).
Stop or severely limit the use of petroleum feuls. That is the one sentence version of my alternative. The technology exists today to make very decent alternative feuls from renewable agricultural products. Our farmers are being paid to keep their fields empty, or not being paid much at all in many cases. Let's kill two birds with one stone. Instead of throwing money at blasting Iraq to bits (and then the obligatory reconstruction costs that come later), let's aggressively revamp our infrastructure over a five to ten year period where we refit our filling stations, convert our refineries to handle biofeuls, and offer strong tax incentives for people to convert their existing cars to biofeuls. And, of course, new cars coming out of detroit would have to be biofeul friendly.
We sent boatloads of money to the middle east every day for our oil. It comes back in the form of trained terrorists who hate our lifestyle (but love the money we send). Let's keep that money at home, and become a world leader in responsible energy policy at the same time.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Let's see, if we stopped buying ALL oil today how would that solve the Iraq situation? What would it do to stop the problems in Israel?
Not a thing.
First off, we only purchase about 25% or our oil from the Middle East at the moment. Now, try and imagine what would happen if we stopped buying all that oil from there.
Nothing. China is increasing its oil demands almost daily. The rest of the world is continuing to develop and they need that oil just as well.
Now, we add to that fact that the fanatics in the Middle East would spin this particular attempt as the US waging "economic war" on the Middle East.
Going further, you've only talked about how we could replace the gas requirements for automobiles. What did you plan on running our airplanes on? How about heating all the houses in the Northern US?
Next time we'll start talking about petroleum byproducts and you can suggest alternatives for all of those.
The point is that we can't solve the problem by walking away. You may recall the last time we tried that we had fighters flying over Hawaii.
Ways to deal with Saddam (Score:2)
As for things like "how would we heat northeastern homes?", well, he says, brushing the blizzard snow off his waterproof footwear, there are ample approaches to that sort of thing.
First of all, the technology has been there to make desirable, livable, practical homes that need NO EXTRA HEAT BEYOND BODY AND APPLIANCE OUTPUT for almost twenty years. From the Rocky Mountain Institute to This Old House, the details are plenty available.
Secondly, let me try to put this in perspective for you. By Bush's own estimates, his plan for an Iraqi invasion and "regime change" will cost three hundred billion dollars
That's over a thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. It's also the estimate of a man who has never had any history at all of giving honest estimates. Why, the boy and his friends have been cooking the books on a regular basis since he was a rich boy oil speculator in West Texas. There are reasons that he has so many connections to Enron.
So I feel pretty doggone confident that we can up the numbers by a factor of two.
So, if you think that we can't walk away from twenty-five percent of our oil imports (let alone simply buying more from the Mexicans, British, Russians, Venezualans, and others we want to prop up) with a home improvement budget of six hundred billion dollars, then, boy, you just ain't too grounded in this here shared reality of ours.
Rustin
Re:Ways to deal with Saddam (Score:1)
Great. You do all of that work.
What does it get you? It certainly doesn't end terrorism. It doesn't put a dent in Saddam's oil revenues. We're still stuck exactly where we are right now. Except we'll be flying ethanol-powered jets to enforce the no-fly zone.
WHAT ACTUALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF A RUTHLESS TYRANT WHO HAS POSSESSED AND WANTS TO POSSESS WMD'S?!?
Re:Ways to deal with Saddam (Score:2)
This is slashdot. We are systems people, hackers, and optimizers. Brute force violence is for the kind of crude-thinking lusers who still think that Microsoft must be right because, after all, they have all that money.
So, are you suggesting that the United States pay for retrofitting every home in the NorthEast?
Why not? We already massively subsidize every mortgage in America, many of the car loans, student loans, and pretty much all other noncredit card consumer debt.
How about we finally cut out the middleman and pay for home improvement directly instead of sending yet more billions to the banks?
In practice, we wouldn't have to do anything as sloppy or inefficient as you suggest. Far better to use a graduated program like the ones long used to get polluting cars off the roads. At the suggestion of free-market (that's smart-speak for "Reagan advisor") economists, states like California offer a program where they will flat out buy your old, sh*tty car if it is in any of several categories. They have long since learned that it is cheaper to buy back the worst cars and scrap them then it is to pay for the scrubbers and such that would be needed to clean the pollution that car creates. For them to get those older cars off the roads can be paid by corporations who then have done more to clean the air for less money and hassle then putting tighter pollution controls on their factories. Cheaper, faster, and permanent.
So let's use the Milton Freidman, free-market approach. Our goal is to undermine tyranny and terrorism as effectively as another massive gulf war would for less then six hundred billion dollars.
This'll be fun.
Insulation So let's start with that insulation thing. Anybody who insulates their house gets a subsidy. Anybody taking an existing home up to as high as R-60 gets a thirty percent immediate cash payback and another twenty percent spread over five years. (Cutting our stressing of the spanking new Shrub national debt.) Anyone building a new home will be expected to pay for insulation themselves up to R-30 or whatever the current median is for homes of that type now being built in that region. (Don't worry, construction organizations already collect detailed data on that.) All insulation beyond that will be subsidized at fifty percent. As has long been found cost-effective by utilities for distributing low-demand light bulbs, people below a certain income level get it all for free.
Oh, by the way, all that matters is effective change in insulation level. Homeowners are given a certain budget per degree of efficiency to work towards. So if you insulate your house with earth berm, fiberglass, homosote, or even building a greenhouse along one wall, Uncle Sam pays you. As long as you've cut your demand, it's all good.
Same, btw, goes for replacing ancient heating systems. That not only gets subsidized, it gets flat out paid for for schools and other buildings that the public needs but are of a type that is likely to be underfunded.
Better Building Materials So again, simple. New construction get paid, but only beyond existing norms. Old buildings get paid per cubic foot brought to higher level, regardless of how they do it. Also, fifty million a year goes to new testing of materials like Aereated Autoclaved Concrete, earth berm, rammed earth, yurts, and others currently in building code limbo because the makers can't afford the testing required to determine performance re fire codes, insulation, etc. If you have a new building material or technique, your Uncle in DC will pay from now on to have it tested for performance.
All of the above gets paid until it reaches a total cost of a hundred and fifty billion dollars, which should cut demand quite effectively, thank you very much. The construction trades and manufacturers will weep with joy, but that's just a handy side benefit.
Cutting New Demand Overseas A flat billion a year goes from now on to providing free solar ovens, diesel-to-biodiesel conversions, and training in DIY techniques like rammed earth in impoverished and developing parts of the world. Cut off demand before it starts.
Which brings us to biodiesel [greasecar.com]. Twenty billion dollars up front and a billion a year for twenty years goes to converting vehicles and providing infrastructure for biodiesel. Ya see, diesel engines actually run cleaner and hotter on vegetable oil. Ever had a grease fire? They're a bitch, aren't they? Vegetable oil is heavy duty fuel, just harder then petroleum to light.
But because engines are much less finicky then we are, they run just fine on stuff like left-over fry oil. Take out the particulates, preheat to reduce viscosity and you're good to go.
So in the first year, a fourth of that twenty billion goes to federal agencies like parks and prisons that both generate used grease and have vehicle fleets. Since conversions on the fleet level run about five hundred bucks each, we're talking converting every diesel vehicle or static plant (generators, heating systems) up to five billion dollars worth. The rest of the money goes into building infrastructure. Fueling stations, waste grease cleaners, etc. A paltry hundred million or so goes to helping local schools do their own conversion systems. From now on, School cafeterias, McDonald's and Wendy's replace much of the demand from OPEC and they do it with their waste oil. Better eat your french fries and burgers kiddies! America needs your grease!
Other Energy Stuff Next we put another fifty billion into all the relatively mainstream solar, wind turbines, and other decentralized stuff we should have been doing all along. Shrub's fuel cell allocation fits right in, but we also spend on subsidies for consumer-sized wind turbines (two hundred to ten thousand watt range), peltier junction heating and cooling systems, home refrigeration that uses cold air from outdoors in winter time, green rooftops [reedandwright.net], and "unsexy" but efficient things like multi-zone temperature control for office buildings so that you don't have one set temperature for three hundred cubicles.
Uncle Sam Gets Crafty Now we get rude and have our real fun. I assure you, by now, Saddam, the Saudis, Kaddafi, Assad, and the whole gang of repulsive middle eastern despots will be getting mighty worried. Now we *really* get serious.
Language Training For Americans Ten billion a year FROM NOW ON goes to language training for American citizens. There should be an Arabic-speaking, Cantonese-speaking, or whatever American anywhere in the world that we might care about. Subsidize study abroad on the grand scale. If any kid from grade six on wants to study abroad, we pay for survival level language training and if and when they pass the language tests foot the bill for the trip. Put An American In Every Village Any U.S. citizen can apply to do the same thing. Twice per lifetime per citizen we will pay for them to spend a year abroad, given that they first achieve basic language and cultural competency. Travel costs plus health insurance, innoculations, and five hundred a month in living expenses. Anybody who submits useful intelligence data gets a bounty. Anybody who submits region briefs on a new area gets a fee. Submit three accepted briefs and you qualify for another year. Much cheaper then wads of secret agents, gets slackers out of our way, and never again will something as big as the 9/11 plan take place without some American somewhere finding out.
REAL Regime Change Fifty billion dollars goes to undermining their countries. No joke, no pretense, this is war and it's time that we admitted it. But we don't do anything as crude as mass field warfare. How twentieth century! We use the Bill Casey school of regime shredding. Every dirty trick that our newly toothy covert services can come up with to make totalitarianism a passe thing.
Serious Covert Ops, Done Right Okay, the whole WMD thing? Who says we have to invade the whole region to stop them? The Israelis showed otherwise in, what was it, '83? We should be flooding the region with intelligence agents and following up with covert ops. As the Israelis, Russians, and many others have long shown, you don't even have to hide it very well. Just enough so that when the press conference comes and the reporters ask, "what role did the U.S. play in last night's destruction of a factory in Yemen?" our people can just grin and say, "Maybe we did, maybe we didn't. I am not cleared at this time to say."
The only two conditions are an absolute minimum of secrecy after the fact and minimal civilian casualties. Photos and other evidence of WMD storage or use gets sent anonymously to the media in every case and ALL missions, without exception or routearound get declassified and written up in fifty page white papers ten years after the mission took place. I say again, no comment at the time, but everything disclosed, including, where possible, public personnel debriefings, approach, and videos from the action. That way the people planning and executing a mission know that the clock is already ticking on their being accountable for their actions.
The American Media Machine Takes On Al Qaeda
Come On In, Folks! American Decadance Is Much Better Then Radical Islam! We should be circulating jokes written by the funniest people in Hollywood about how radical muslims can't get it up. You know, all those minarets must be making up for *some* kind of lack.
Funding covert microloans to and cash giveaways to rural peasants who see the capitalistic light. Nightgowns, condoms, tight jeans and Arabic porn, all flooding the sandy parts of the world.
Undermining Dictators Worldwide Funding and support for divergent political parties with non-religious platforms.
Photocopiers, personal computers, 802.11 networks, and other means of undermining centralized control.
Field medic level training for locals in dozens of areas, from medicine, to birth control, to reasoning and language skills (call it market bargaining skills). An educated populace is much harder to mess with.
Flood the market with American television and movies on VCD with Arabic, Urdu, and all other relevant subtitles. Make sure that it goes beyond Dynasty and has more of The Family Guy, Titus, and other more day-to-day stuff. Let them see how we live. Get copies of The View and Oprah out where the women gather. Make sure that they get as many copies as the population can watch of Lifetime specials on date rape and other stuff where most of these women will never have considered that they don't have to put up with the cowardly sh*t that is the local village norm. (Remember, as I said above, we're already saturating the market with cheap PCs, perhaps making and airdropping extremely basic VCD playback devices meant to run with a PDA.)
Undermine centralized economies. Spread pot plants *everywhere*, encouraging spindly varieties that can survive drought, bugs and other miseries. Air drop the seeds in the hundreds of billions then teach people how to make hemp paper, hemp oil, hemp beer, etc.
Sneak in highly talented wheeler-dealers to infiltrate to hidden markets of Serbia, Iran, Albania, Rumania, and all the other shadowy corners of the trader's world and get them into the habit of voting about little things. Stuff like who goes out for more tobacco mid-game or what to do about that annoying camel behind the building.
Send in agents to find more profitable ways for low-level Chechen rebels to spend their days. Offer them literacy training, food, and subsidized brothels with heavy guards and cheap booze. But . . . only if they stop shooting at people.
Don't try to hunt down and kill everybody who backs terrorism. Make them look stupid, ugly, foolish, and poor. Millions of young men and women are willing to die or be imprisoned "for Allah" but NOBODY wants to be laughed at. If we ensure that the stay-at-home capitalists, the shopkeepers, teachers, machinists, and homebuilders get all the best nookie while the new pathetic character on those funny videos is a religious extremist, you'll hear the sound of AK-47s around the world being dropped and discarded.
We shouldn't play nice, we should play to win, and anything goes. Brute violence versus brute violence is their way and we have far superior tools at our disposal. Am I talking about a plan to undermine an entire civilization? Yes, I am. So be it.
I want this shit over and I want it over for all time. I want the Pakistani equivalent of Jay Leno cracking wise about Osama not even getting hand jobs from his young boys anymore. I want alternatives to the Koran-centered brainwashing academies that are all much of the poor world has for schools. I want radical Islam and its assorted terrorist and totalitarian cousins dead, buried, and laughed at.
And that is how we could really take down and destroy Saddam Hussein and all his buddies with him.
Rustin H. Wright
Founder, Reed and Wright [reedandwright.net]
Optimization Geek to non-profits and Fortune 100 hundred firms since 1990
Re:Ways to deal with Saddam (Score:2)
Yes, it certainly *is* an oversimplification. But, then so was my response. First of all, as I should have stated (come on, it took me several *hours* to write even as much as I did!) that I agree with a policy of graduated cooercive inspections under the aegis of the UN.
But keep in mind, the treaty never allowed Saddam permission to play Hide and Seek and it would take literally hundreds of thousands of full-time, well-funded inspectors with powers up to and including use of lethal force on those who stand in their way to even have a chance of finding and getting rid of all possible WMDs in Iraq alone. I say let them rachet up some but don't let it go on forever. At some point you've just got to drop the hammer. Saddam has been playing games with the inspectors for over ten years now (though so, for that matter, have we).
We're swiftly heading towards the time for guys in black BDUs dropping from helicopters.
Not to mention that my approach cuts them off at the short hairs. Without oil money they're just a bunch of self-important local tyrants that we can blow off at our ease.
Would I prefer to have this all go through a multinational force with broader backing? Of course. But show me that force. The guys in the blue helmets just aren't set up for that kind of thing.
Now that you mention it, yes, I think that the US should heavily back the U.N. Peacekeepers. In fact I've been trying to figure out for years how the U.N. could get something more like a real miitary of their own. As in troops who must give up their citizenship in their former country and declare themselves citizens exclusively of the U.N, itself. But that would be a very long post so let's leave that for another time.
So, you briefly responded to my intro sentence, brought up a side point, and mentioned one possible shortcoming that I had already mentioned.
I hand you a goddamned policy brief with a full set of horizontally integrated mandates and you can't even do better then one gripe and some quibbles?
Rustin
And another point (Score:2)
First the "King George" crack. This has been gone over time and again. Like it or not George W Bush is the elected president of the United States. If you have a problem with how that happened then work on fixing the election system and don't distract yourself with silly snide comments that might detract from your message.
Second, your casual dismissal of the "sheeple" who might not think the way you do. You then act hurt when someone calls you a name. Think on that for a bit.
I'm all for constructive discourse. I'm all for a "non-violent" solution to the Iraq problem. (I'm not sure how an 11+ year issue became a crisis.) The problem is that all we hear is "give it more time". So, when is the time up? The only reason we have inspectors in there right now is that Iraq didn't want a war. If there's no credible threat of force behind the current inspections then they'll just draw them out for another 11+ years.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Lebanon. We have reliable, though unconfirmed, intelligence that truck convoys have been crossing the border into Syria at Abu Kamal, heading west toward the city of Hims, then turning south to the Lebanese border, crossing between the Syrian town of Riblah and the Lebanese town of El Qaa. I'm not sure if this information has been released to the public yet, as we're still awaiting confirmation.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Seriously, is there anything that can be done to counteract this, besides cratering the entire region??
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Not really, no. If the Hussein regime wants to hide his stockpiles of chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear materials from both the UN inspection teams and the scrutiny of the US intelligence agencies, he can do so. It wouldn't even be that difficult, generally speaking.
For the past twelve years, the UN has called upon Iraq to voluntarily disarm itself of all chemical and biological weapons and of ballistic missiles with ranges of more than 150 km, and to stop all programs related to the acquisition or production of nuclear weapons. It is obvious that this is never going to happen. Iraq defies the UN, telling them to produce proof that Iraq has proscribed weapons. The UN, unfortunately, is taking the bait, which shifts focus away from the requirement on Iraq to unilaterally and voluntarily disarm to an imagined burden of proof placed on UN inspectors. It's really a masterful stroke of international diplomacy; I wonder whether Iraq planned it, or whether it just happened to them by lucky accident. Knowing what I know of Iraq's diplomatic corps, I would suspect it was just a lucky accident.
The bottom line is this: UN inspectors by the thousands can wander the Iraqi countryside for decades. When they report that they have found no evidence of proscribed weapons, that will have proven nothing.
If I look in your left pocket and find no breath mints, does that prove that you have no breath mints? Of course not; you have some in your right pocket. So I look in your right pocket, and find nothing. Is that proof? No, because while I was moving from your left pocket to your right, you moved the mints from your right pocket to your left. And if I were to get together with a friend and inspect both of your pockets simultaneously, that would still prove nothing; you hid the mints in your back pocket during the inspection.
Iraq has a lot of pockets. It is physically impossible for weapons inspections to solve the Iraq problem. Those who cry for more time for inspections miss the point entirely.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
I think you're right about shifting burden of proof, UN taking the bait, and lucky diplomatic accident -- but I wonder if that was avoidable under even the best of circumstances. IS there any way to make Iraq assume that burden and "prove" it has no WMD? "Sure, we can prove we have none, here are maps to all our facilities..." that we want you to KNOW about, that is.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
We have a standard for unilateral, voluntary disarmament. South Africa, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine all did it. (The State Department released a short paper last month on the subject; read it here [state.gov], if you're interested.)
Iraq's Baath government is not now and has never been interested in unilateral, voluntary disarmament. A nation cannot be forceably disarmed; it's simply not possible. So as long as Iraq is unwilling, disarmament will not happen.
That's why I strongly support the case for forceful regime change in Iraq. Only the removal of the Baath government, apart from being a blessing to the Iraqi people, can set the stage for sincere and effective unilateral disarmament.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
I'd guess there's also some of what I've been given to understand is a cultural thing for some middle-easterners: if I can pull one over on you, that means I'm a better man than you.
The blunt-force solution of "remove the head and the body will follow" has the potential drawback that someone even worse (whether more violent, less predictable, whatever) may be waiting in the wings, and "better the devil you know". I think we'd have to be careful to remove not only the head, but also all the ganglia.
I have an interesting book from the early Cold War era called "Why They Behave Like Russians". One major point of the book is that a people tend to wind up with the gov't that their culture is predisposed to support, and often that may well wind up being a totalitarian or abusive gov't. I think there is a great deal of that in Iraq, so merely replacing the current leaders won't have much long-term effect, at least not until when and if their economy finds some way to improve and the general mindset follows -- as has been pointed out, and I firmly concur, the only TRUE freedom is economic freedom (ie. there's not much use in having "rights" that you're kept too poor to exercise). Best-case might be to wind up with, if not *our* idea of a "good" gov't, at least something less hostile to the rest of the world, and perhaps headed in the direction of say, Saudi Arabia.
"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus" - Aneurin Bevan
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
That's why we're working very closely to develop a consensus interim government among the various Iraqi opposition groups. We've held a few face-to-face meetings in Turkey to discuss how the interim government is to be set up. Some key members of the opposition don't like our initial proposal of a short-term military governorship, so we've got some work ahead of us, but I feel confident that we'll have a plan in place for a smooth transition of power before the first cruise missile leaves its tube.
I have an interesting book from the early Cold War era called "Why They Behave Like Russians".
The Fischer book? If so, I'm pretty familiar with it.
One major point of the book is that a people tend to wind up with the gov't that their culture is predisposed to support, and often that may well wind up being a totalitarian or abusive gov't.
This thesis was bounced about a bit in the middle of the 20th century-- I believe Fischer published his book in '46 or '47, right?-- but it never gained much of a following. The prevailing opinion now is that representative democracy is not an intuitive thing. Being told what to do is a fairly easy prospect to grasp; our parents tell us what to do when we're kids, and when we reach adulthood the various state authorities step in to take their place. But representative democracy, with its mandate of personal responsibility and judgment, is a harder thing. It requires a political tradition. Countries like Iraq that have no established democratic tradition can't just be told, "Okay, you're a republic now, go hold an election and try to have fun!" It won't work. The nation-building process both before and after the coming war is critical to Iraq's future health as a foundling republic.
Saudi Arabia the monarchy? No, thank you.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Why They Behave Like Russians -- can't recall author's name offhand and can't find the blasted thing either (probably still in a box -- I moved along with two full pickup-loads of books in 2001, some of which haven't seen daylight in decades) but [googles it] yeah, you've got the right one. Anyway, yeah, to think that democracy is "intuitive" is self-delusional; if it were, little kids left to their own devices would set up pocket democracies. In the real world, Lord of the Flies is closer to what kids, and humans in general, wind up with whenever someone bigger fails to come along and periodically smack 'em upside the head for excessively dictatorial behaviour. Saddan Hussein isn't human-wise "unusual" in that respect, he's just a few hundred years behind the times.
I was thinking of Saudi Arabia not as a gov't form, but as being at least nominally-friendly to more of the world than not, and not a total bust in terms of rational behaviour toward their own people. I don't think representative gov't is going to fly very well in Iraq as yet (maybe not ever), largely due to entrenched cultural mindset, and that a gov't attitude akin to the Saudis might be the best we can do until Iraq's econony gets to where people can see personal freedom with their own wallets and some perception that they CAN have a say in running things (hopefully without tipping too far and winding up with mob rule). As you say, a long process, not something you can toss a country toward and let sink or swim -- cuz if you do that, they'll sink every single time.
You sound very much on-the-spot. Are you??
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Absolutely. Saddam Hussein is a madman; he's evil incarnate. It's not hard to find somebody less horrible than he is. In a sense, our problem in Iraq is that we have too many less horrible candidates!
Among the Afghan opposition, Hamid Karzai quickly emerged as the most respected of all the faction leaders. He's a Pashtun-- they're the majority Ethnic group in Afghanistan-- and at the time he was in charge of the Populzai clan. Back in the 18th century, the Populzai clan provided the land on which King Ahmad Shah Durrani would build the city of Kandahar. They've been a respected group in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
Iraq is more complex. In the northeast, you've got the Kurds. In the middle of the country, basically from the Syrian border down to Baghdad, there are the Sunni. From Baghdad south to the Gulf and the Kuwaiti border, there are the Shia. (In the provinces of Anbar, Najaf, and Muthanna, along the Saudi border, there's basically nobody. It's a vast, empty desert.)
Everybody knows about the Kurds. They control a section of the country called Kurdistan, along the Turkish and Iranian borders. The Kurds are divided into two groups: the Kurdistand Democratic Party (KDP), which controls Dohuk and Erbil provinces, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which controls Suleimaniyah. In a sign that this truly is the 21st century, both of these groups have web sites of their own: the KDP [kdp.pp.se] and the PUK [puk.org].
The Shia, in the southeastern part of the country, make up the ethnic majority in Iraq, about 55% of the population. (The Shias and the Sunnis aren't technically ethnic groups, but their differences are so deep that they might as well be.) They practice the same form of Islam as found across the border in Iran. The Shia have been excluded from the bureaucracy and the security forces; the regular army is comprised mostly of Shia infantry and Sunni officers, while the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard are comprised entirely of Sunnis. (This is, incidentally, one of the reasons we expect practically no resistance from the regular army corps when we invade.)
The Shias pose a problem. Many of the organized Shia opposition groups are based in Iran, and the administration is understandably reluctant to work with them. One Shia group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, has been a particularly active participant in the postwar planning talks. There's a little bit of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine going on there. While Tehran is no friend to the US, they don't oppose a regime change in Iraq, either, for reasons that are fairly obvious.
For most of its existence, SCIRI has pushed for the creation of a clerical government in Iraq, but lately their talk has shifted away from that position.
In between the Shia and the Kurds we have the Sunnis. The Sunnis only account for about 30% of the population of Iraq, but because Mr. Hussein has effectively purged the government of Shiites, the Sunnis are nominally in charge of the country. The is no significant Sunni opposition.
Right now, the opposition factions are best represented by four groups: the Iraqi National Congress (INC, an umbrella group, and the most pro-US faction), SCIRI, KDP, and PUK. These four groups are, as a matter of fact, meeting in the Kurdish enclave of Salahuddin right this very minute. (Well, actually, they're sleeping there this very minute, but you get the idea.)
The US has floated a plan to form a military government in Iraq for as long as it takes for the Iraqi people to elect representatives, decide on a Constitution, and form a government, up to two years. The opposition factions soundly rejected that idea; one fringe INC member called anybody working with a US military governorship a "quisling." But since there is no single clear leader among the opposition, we can't just hand the country over and say, "Go for it, guys. Good luck." So the negotiating continues.
One interesting idea that's been batted around the State Department has been partition. The tentative plan calls for the central Sunni region of Iraq-- including Baghdad-- to become a part of the neighboring Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, leaving the southern part of the country to the Sunnis. It's an interesting idea, but there are two big problems. First, Turkey continues to stridently oppose the formation of a sovereign Kurdistan, because they fear that it will awaken their own Kurdish separatist movement. Second, the Sunni state would almost certainly align itself closely with Iran, and while that doesn't pose an obvious threat to the US or our interests, it doesn't sound too great, either.
That was way, way more than you wanted to know, right?
I was thinking of Saudi Arabia not as a gov't form, but as being at least nominally-friendly to more of the world than not, and not a total bust in terms of rational behaviour toward their own people.
I agree that we could certainly do a lot worse than to aspire to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia.
I don't think representative gov't is going to fly very well in Iraq as yet (maybe not ever), largely due to entrenched cultural mindset
I don't really agree. There is a democratic tradition in Iraq; it's just that it's a sham. I think they've got a good chance of turning the corner and becoming a strong republic. If we play all of our cards just right.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Not so much more than I wanted to know (tho now my brain hurts, and it's your fault
Saw the CBS interview with Saddam tho I was too tired to absorb much and can't remember a word he said. But I did get the impression that he's a much more controlled madman than, say, Idi Amin (sp?) who per an interview/documentary I saw in the 1970s, was an outright raving lunatic. But Saddam also struck me as more inflexible in his position. He reminds me a bit of Stalin.
As to the partition idea: Yugoslavia's smoking remains sure points up the folly of forcing unlike ethnic groups to co-exist when they really don't want to. Which gives me to wonder -- how much of the current situation ultimately derives from diverse regions being smucked together that really shouldn't be?
If the Baghdad region became part of Jordan -- isn't that the economic (and agricultural?) center of the country? what happens to the rest of Iraq's economy if it were partitioned as you speculate might work? Given that Jordan seems halfway sane as the Middle East goes -- would such a scheme be good or bad for them in the long run??
And is there any *real* reason (ie. does it matter to their economy, not just to some general's ego) why Turkey is better off *keeping* its Kurdish region, rather than getting rid of the problem by joining it to this proposed Kurdistan?
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Our hope is that we can have the entire region as our allies once we get to the other side of this thing.
Saw the CBS interview with Saddam tho I was too tired to absorb much and can't remember a word he said.
The transcript is available in my journal [slashdot.org] if you'd like to read it. There's nothing new there, really, but it's decent reading.
He reminds me a bit of Stalin.
Funny you should say that. I have been saying for quite a while now, much to the amusement of my readers, that Hussein is Stalin with a tan.
Which gives me to wonder -- how much of the current situation ultimately derives from diverse regions being smucked together that really shouldn't be?
How much of the current situation? I wouldn't say that ethnic differences have much to do with the current situation. It's true that Iraq was pretty much carved out arbitrarily by the League of Nations in 1920, with no real consideration given to ethnic or religious boundaries. But the political history of Iraq hasn't been driven by ethnic or religious conflict, particularly. The military coup overthrew King Faisal in 1958, and the (pro-Soviet, Socialist) Baath party rose to permanent power a decade later. Ever since, Iraq has been run more like the Soviet Union than like the ethnic states of eastern Europe and central Asia.
But ethnic issues will, of course, continue to be an issue once we bring the Baath government down. Will Iraq break apart into three separate nations along ethnic and religious lines? I don't think it's inevitable, but it's certainly a possibility, one we should work to prevent to the extent that it's practical to do so.
If the Baghdad region became part of Jordan -- isn't that the economic (and agricultural?) center of the country?
Economically no, because there are large oil fields in all three main regions of the country. And agriculturally no, because the entire region from Baghdad down to the Gulf-- the area known throughout history as Mesopotamia, or the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers-- is fertile. The Baath government has done a fine job of trying to destroy the southernmost parts of the area, but that damage is repairable.
Given that Jordan seems halfway sane as the Middle East goes -- would such a scheme be good or bad for them in the long run??
I don't think it would be bad, necessarily. Jordan is in much the same boat as Saudi Arabia: a monarchy rules the country politically, but the populace as a whole are fundamentalist Muslims. It wouldn't take much to provoke a Tehran-style uprising in either Riyadh or Amman, and that would be bad for everybody. So while Jordan isn't a bad country in comparison to a place like Iran or Iraq, it's not exactly an oasis of liberty either.
And is there any *real* reason (ie. does it matter to their economy, not just to some general's ego) why Turkey is better off *keeping* its Kurdish region, rather than getting rid of the problem by joining it to this proposed Kurdistan?
The Turkish Kurdish separatist movement is spearheaded by a group called KADEK, the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress. The name is ironic; before changing their name to KADEK ten months ago, they were known as the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. PKK was, and KADEK now is, a Marxist-Leninist separatist group that uses terrorist tactics to try to affect political change. The Turkish government and KADEK have been in a general state of cease-fire since 1999, but there have been occasional outbreaks of violence.
On the other side of the border, Kurdistan-- the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq-- is somewhat democratic, though not without its flaws, and the people enjoy a great deal of liberty and a strong free market economy.
So it breaks down like this. Turkey is a parliamentary republic that's enjoying a strong economy thanks to significant reforms. The Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey is Marxist-Leninist with terrorist tendencies, more politically aligned with the Baathists than with the Kurds of Kurdistan, although they have been kept under pretty decent control for the past three years. The Kurds of Kurdistan are well on their way to building a strong democratic tradition and already have a thriving-- in terms relative to the region-- market economy, albeit one based entirely on smuggling and the widespread violation of UN economic sanctions.
So we don't want to do anything to stir up KADEK, because they're (1) terrorists, (b) communists, and (iii) an annoyance to our ally, Turkey. We also don't want to turn KADEK's attention to Kurdistan for the exact same reasons.
It's a juggling act.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
After that do we need a removal of the US government or will they stop developing bacteriological weapons voluntarily? (and get rid of the rest of the weapons of mass destruction, and sign the UN human rights declaration, and sign the test ban treaty and stop executing prisoners and allow the prisoners at Guatemala fair trails and and and... )
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
The United States destroyed its last biological weapon in 1972. Your criticism seems to be a bit stale.
and get rid of the rest of the weapons of mass destruction...
Nope. Two reasons. First of all, our nuclear arsenal serves as a deterrent threat, just as it did during the Cold War. As nuclear conflicts like those over Kashmir and the Korean peninsula heat up, this deterrence becomes even more important.
The other reason, even more important in the context of the present discussion, is that the United States has never been ordered to disarm. Iraq has.
and sign the UN human rights declaration...
In the United States, unlike in most other countries, treaties carry the force of law. Signing a treaty essentially makes the stipulations of that treaty into federal laws, and requires the several states to be held accountable for violations of those stipulations.
Another important point of law is that the federal government of the United States is strictly limited in what it can and cannot compel states to do. The federal government cannot, for example, pass a law requiring states to change their minimum drinking age. When the time came to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21, the government decided to tie federal highway funds to the minimum age. States that refused to raise the minimum age didn't get any highway funds. This is perfectly legal, but simply telling a state to change its laws is not.
States, however, are not given the privilege of conducting foreign affairs. No state can enter into a treaty with another country; contrariwise, when the federal government signs a treaty, all the several states are required to comply with it.
If the Senate were to ratify the UDHR has a binding treaty, the United States would be required, under its terms, to guarantee our citizens rights that we do not believe are appropriate. In particular, article 25 of the UDHR calls for a "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." The United States is not interested in declaring social welfare to be an inalienable right. Furthermore, the federal government of the United States does not have the authority to enter into a treaty that would require the several states to hold social welfare to be an inalienable right. The federal government, then, has wisely decided not to ratify the UDHR or most other human rights treaties and declarations.
Given that the United States introduced the concept of inalienable rights and guaranteed liberties to the world some 226 years ago, it seems that we are entirely qualified to make this judgment.
and sign the test ban treaty...
The United States was the first country to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. The Senate refused to ratify the treaty because of concerns over verification. While it is not legally binding, the United States complies with its terms voluntarily. Remember once again that we in the United States take treaties very, very seriously.
and stop executing prisoners...
The decision of whether to employ the death penalty is exercised both by the federal government and by the several states. In states where the legislature is opposed to the death penalty, it is not permitted. Thirty-eight states have death penalty statutes of various composition, but twelve states do not allow the death penalty to be used at all.
When the situation warrants it, the state and federal governments will punish an offender by death. This is believed by most Americans to be both just and right.
and allow the prisoners at Guatemala fair trails...
The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay (Guatemala? Which cave in Mars have you been in for the past year?) are not US citizens, and were captured during a military action. They are enemy combatants, and so are not entitled to a civilian trial.
Now if you'd like to level a criticism at the US that's actually worth listening to, I'll be happy to hear it. But as long as you keep recycling the same old tired arguments-- I can't believe you blew the dust off of the death penalty argument; that one was a dead horse in the 1970's-- you're not going to impress me, or anybody else, very much.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
According to current news you are still researching and developing new ones. (And like you say about Hussein, how can you prove otherwise)
"and get rid of the rest of the weapons of mass destruction..."
Nope. Two reasons.
First is nonsense and hypocritical. The second is simply because you bully the world. Don't for a moment think that the world would not sleep more easily if Bush didn't have weapons of mass destruction. After all he has as much as stated that he'll attack another country regardless of what the world thinks.
"and sign the UN human rights declaration..."
[snip explanation of legal system]
A country is supposed to be one unifying entity, if the USA is really made up of indipendant banana republics they should stop pretending to be one country and split up, then each state could be held accountable if their humanity is lacking
Given that the United States introduced the concept of inalienable rights and guaranteed liberties to the world some 226 years ago, it seems that we are entirely qualified to make this judgment.
More of that "we are the champions of the universe crap", one of the cities near hear celebrated it's millennial anniversary a few years ago, meaning we had law and rights 800 years before you started chasing the Indians.
When the situation warrants it, the state and federal governments will punish an offender by death. This is believed by most Americans to be both just and right.
Which of course doesn't make it so, and is an interesting hypocrisy "It is wrong to kill and if you do so we will kill you"
"and allow the prisoners at Guantanamo (misprint) fair trails..."
The prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay (are not US citizens,
And as such are at least second rate inferior humans which you treat anyway you see fit.
Is the postulate which has yet to be proven to the world. How would anyone know when they have not been released to their countries or subject to a fair (public) trial. It seems more like they are the prisoners of a dictatorial state.
Now if you'd like to level a criticism at the US that's actually worth listening to, I'll be happy to hear it.
Except they all are, you just don't care about them. Much like a Christian has decided there IS a god, and any discussion can not shake that.
Just like you automatically assume that any decision you make is going to be superior to the rest of the world.
That your humanity hasn't improved since the 1970's doesn't mean it's an irrelevant argument just that it will take a long time for your country to grow up.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Okay, I'll stipulate that it's possible our government is working on biological weapons in secret. It's certainly true that we're working on biological agents, in order to come up with innoculations and whatnot. And it's certainly true that we're working on nonlethal chemical agents for area-denial purposes. So I'll agree that it's possible that we're developing lethal biological weapons.
So what? The United States has never been ordered by the United Nations to disclose our biological weapons programs and submit to disarmament.
First is nonsense and hypocritical.
Saying that our nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent is nonsense and hypocritical? I'm not sure you know what those words mean.
The second is simply because you bully the world.
Nobody has ever even suggested that the United States should be disarmed. How can we be accused of bullying the world when the subject has never even come up?
Don't for a moment think that the world would not sleep more easily if Bush didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
I'm sure people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Chong-il would. And it's "President Bush." Be respectful.
A country is supposed to be one unifying entity, if the USA is really made up of indipendant banana republics...
Hoo boy. If you don't even understand-- understand, hell, you're not even aware of-- how our country works, you're hardly in a position to be critical.
one of the cities near hear celebrated it's millennial anniversary a few years ago, meaning we had law and rights 800 years before you started chasing the Indians
Really? Can you point me to a reference where I can read about your 1,000-year-old bill of rights? Or your 1,000-year-old constitution?
Byblos, Lebanon, is thought to be the oldest continually inhabited city in the world. Few people hold up the Lebanese as paragons of world leadership, however. It doesn't matter how old your culture is. All that matters is whether or not you got it right.
Which of course doesn?t make it so, and is an interesting hypocrisy "It is wrong to kill and if you do so we will kill you"
Yawn. Arguments about capital punishment are so boring. You can find everything you need to know on Google, both pro and con, so I just can't motivate myself to bother addressing this one.
And as such are at least second rate inferior humans which you treat anyway you see fit.
Basically, yeah. I'm glad to see you're catching on.
Of course, our prisoners at Gitmo sleep on beds, get three squares a day, are allowed to pray and do the other things they need to do to comport themselves with dignity, and get all the fresh air and exercise they want. That's how we treat second-rate inferior humans.
During the Gulf War, the prisoners that the Iraqis captured were held in the most inhumane conditions of total darkness in bare cells covered in human waste. The female prisoner was sexually assaulted. All of the prisoners were beaten and otherwise tortured, including with electric shock.
Are we morally superior to the Iraqis who did that? Hell, yeah.
It seems more like they are the prisoners of a dictatorial state.
Riiiight. I think it's wonderful that you live in a place-- wherever it happens to be-- where you enjoy such liberty and affluence that you can look at the United States and think we're a dictatorial state. I thank God that you don't have to live in an actual dictatorial state. If you did, you would be able to recognize one when you see it, of course. But I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
Really, seriously, I'm glad you criticize our country. That means, first of all, that you have been lucky enough in your life to never see anything really bad, and I'm glad for that. It also means that we Americans are right where we want to be: out in front, leading the world. The guy who leads the parade gets hit with all the rotten vegetables, so I consider every snide remark, every criticism to be a badge of honor.
But they're not particularly interesting to listen to. So, as I said before, if you want to have a constructive conversation, let's go. But if this is all you've got, then I'm not particularly interested in participating.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Yes, it doesn't really seem to prevent anyone from stocking up on atoms, like North Korea. And it's hypocritical to that everyeone else should disarm, except oneself. Especially when one hasn't been appointed world leader.
Nobody has ever even suggested that the United States should be disarmed.
Actually, I've heard several politicians suggest that, just never Governments(yet?) - perhaps they suspect it would be a futile argument.
"Don't for a moment think that the world would not sleep more easily if Bush didn't have weapons of mass destruction."
I'm sure people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Chong-il would.
You know full well they don't give a damn, its the millions who have taken to the streets which worry.
And it's "President Bush." Be respectful.
Or? He'll attack my country? He'll have me snatched in the night because that is your right to do to any person on the planet? Is this a troll??? What is he but an incompetent rich kid who had money to burn on advertising campaigns to get him into the White House, and since he has absolutely no political competence or statesmanship he tries to do what the incompetent always do: go to war. If he starts to show some respect to the world he might get some back.
Really? Can you point me to a reference where I can read about your 1,000-year-old bill of rights? Or your 1,000-year-old constitution?
Granted, the oldest local law still in effect is as late as the 14th November 1665. But the point was that you were so proud of a 200 year old document which isn't good enough. Far from it. And generally defend a human point of view grossly lacking.
Yawn. Arguments about capital punishment are so boring. You can find everything you need to know on Google
Decent people can find all the need to know in their hearts.
"And as such are at least second rate inferior humans which you treat anyway you see fit."
Basically, yeah. I'm glad to see you're catching on.
Why do you think people are annoyed?
Of course, our prisoners at Gitmo sleep on beds, get three squares a day, are allowed to pray and do the other things they need to do to comport themselves with dignity, and get all the fresh air and exercise they want.
The people have been cut of from their families, for something they may or may not have done, held without any kind of peer review by a country who doesn't care about others. Yes we know this.
Really, seriously, I'm glad you criticize our country.
I'm not, I'm criticizing individuals and opinions - its quite evident that not all your compatriots believe like you do. (Hell, even some of the people from Enterprise have taken part in anti war demonstrations - where the show fails to be controversial perhaps the actors manage it in their spare time)
That means, first of all, that you have been lucky enough in your life to never see anything really bad, and I'm glad for that.
Well, we follow the Human rights
It also means that we Americans are right where we want to be: out in front, leading the world.
*Bing* You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
The guy who leads the parade gets hit with all the rotten vegetables, so I consider every snide remark, every criticism to be a badge of honor.
The problem with such a defensive rationalization is not only that it sounds remarkably like megalomania but that it provokes only antipathy even among allies. "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". Oops, that's scifi - you have good tastes there, but the politics... oh well.
But then for some people politics is just a game with rules, for others its the dangers in an inhumane world.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
So let me see if I get this straight. You're going to demonstrate that nuclear deterrence doesn't work by picking an example of behavior that isn't deterred, and ignoring the myriad examples of behavior that are deterred. Great debating strategy. Unfortunately, this is not a debating society.
And it's hypocritical to that everyeone else should disarm, except oneself.
We're not demanding that everyone else disarm. We're demanding that Iraq disarm. And it's not just us; the UN Security council is demanding it, too.
You know full well they don't give a damn, its the millions who have taken to the streets which worry.
Millions? I doubt it. The only protest we have accurate attendance estimates for is the San Francisco one; aerial surveys put that number, which was originally estimated by both police and organizers between 200,000 and 300,000, at 65,000 plus or minus ten percent. I would be somewhat surprised if the total number of protesters worldwide added up to one million, and positively stunned if it added up to two.
He'll attack my country? He'll have me snatched in the night because that is your right to do to any person on the planet?
Not "or" anything. Well, how about this: be respectful, or you're being a jerk. How's that?
But the point was that you were so proud of a 200 year old document which isn't good enough. Far from it.
I'm having trouble parsing this paragraph. Are you telling me that I shouldn't be proud that the United States of America was the first nation on Earth to embrace the principle that in order for the people to be free, the government must be restricted? There's a qualitative difference between having a local law that dates back to 1665 and having a government that is founded on the principle that liberties are guaranteed, not implicitly but explicitly in the founding documents that define the system of governance under which we live. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything; did you know that? There's not one sentence in the Bill of Rights of the form, "The people have the right to...." Rather, the Bill of Rights is a bill of restrictions, restrictions placed on the government. "Congress shall make no law." The distinction is important, and you're damn right I'm proud of it.
Decent people can find all the need to know in their hearts.
Exactly.
The people have been cut of from their families, for something they may or may not have done, held without any kind of peer review by a country who doesn't care about others.
Yes, they have. Because they were captured during a battle against forces both of and aligned with the United States. There's no "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to prisoners of war. This isn't a civil courtroom. If you're on the losing side, you're a prisoner, and that's that.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". Oops, that?s scifi ? you have good tastes there, but the politics? oh well.
Um. I'm really having trouble following you here. I don't want you to think I'm getting personal or anything; maybe English isn't your first language, which is absolutely no problem. But I just want to let you know that your message isn't getting through, and that if you're interested in being understood, you might want to think about trying again.
Yes, it's true that with great power comes great responsibility. The United States, for example, is faced with the difficult decision of whether to wage war with Iraq to enforce UNSEC resolutions. Why are we faced with that decision? Because, speaking in generalities, we are the only nation on Earth that can wage that sort of war, and accomplish that sort of goal. We have the best equipped, best trained, best fed, most dedicated, all-volunteer military on the planet. We have the power to make other countries do what we want them to do. Most of the time, we're not interested in exercising that power. But under certain circumstances, when the alternative is even worse, we are willing to wage war in order to do what's right. Knowing when it's time to wage war-- and exact its terrible price-- and when it's not is a responsibility I don't think any of us can truly imagine.
And yet you say-- or, rather, you seem to say; as I said, your message is not exactly clear-- that the notion of great responsibility is science fiction. I'm a bit taken aback by this.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Perhaps your media is downplaying it.
I'm having trouble parsing this paragraph. Are you telling me that I shouldn't be proud that the United States of America was the first nation on Earth to embrace the principle that in order for the people to be free, the government must be restricted?
I don't believe that is true.
There's no "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to prisoners of war. This isn't a civil courtroom. If you're on the losing side, you're a prisoner, and that's that.
Except in most of the rest of the world prisoners have rights too.
I don't want you to think I'm getting personal or anything; maybe English isn't your first language, which is absolutely no problem.
You right, it isn't my first langauge.
But I just want to let you know that your message isn't getting through, and that if you're interested in being understood, you might want to think about trying again.
Thanks, but no thanks - just:
And yet you say-- or, rather, you seem to say; as I said, your message is not exactly clear-- that the notion of great responsibility is science fiction. I'm a bit taken aback by this.
That was not what i ment to say.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Sure, maybe. Prove me wrong. Show me vaguely accurate estimates of attendance at other protests, or give me organizers' estimates and I will divide them by three. (This is, as I mentioned, based on an aerial survey done during the San Francisco protest. The organizers estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 attendees; the aerial survey revealed about 65,000. Since 65,000 times three is 195,000, it seems reasonable to take observed estimates and divide by three to get approximate totals.) If they add up to more than 1 million, I'll be surprised. If they add up to more than two million, I'll be floored.
I don't believe that is true.
Okay. Even the most cursory examination of a history book will clear it up for you.
Except in most of the rest of the world prisoners have rights too.
Don't make the mistake of confusing prisoners or war with prisoners awaiting a criminal trial. They're entirely different.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Considered yourself floored then. I know what the news reported, and no i don't wish to waste my time trying to find documentation for you. (And don't give me that San Francisco nonsense again, that's just one city)
" don't believe that is true."
Okay. Even the most cursory examination of a history book will clear it up for you.
Only if they are written in the US no doubt (ie, the rest of the world don't assign the same overblown important to it as you do)
"Except in most of the rest of the world prisoners have rights too."
Don't make the mistake of confusing prisoners or war with prisoners awaiting a criminal trial. They're entirely different.
You really need to have it spelled out don't you: "PRISONERS OF WAR HAVE RIGHTS" - idiot.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Sure, maybe.
Quite likely given what we hear, you have a tendency to have a rather jingoistic news coverage over there. Anyway, as a final comment to this nonsense i did go ahead and waste some time trying to find a reference (though much like your president you are going to dismiss it:)
Prove me wrong. Show me vaguely accurate estimates of attendance at other protests, or give me organizers' estimates and I will divide them by three.
Sure a some places there were only a few thousand, but in Rome alone there was more than a million:
Yahoo [yahoo.com] reported on what could been seen on European TV and in the streets:
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Ah, yes. Of course. How could I have forgotten the famous US history book conspiracy. You know, the one in which we secretly altered all of the history books in America to paint our own country in a better light. With the help of aliens. The ones who built the pyramids. Silly me.
Answer me honestly: have you even laid eyes on an American history book? Or, for that matter, any book at all on the subject of the history of the United States? Have you read our Declaration of Independence? Have you read our Constitution? Have you ever read-- no, wait. Let's start slowly. Have you ever even heard of The Federalist?
You really need to have it spelled out don't you: "PRISONERS OF WAR HAVE RIGHTS" - idiot.
Yes, prisoners of war have rights. Prisoners of war have a differently, and severely limited, set of rights than individuals who are imprisoned for reasons other than war. Those rights include the right to a bed to sleep on, and the right not to be tortured, and the right not to be sexually assaulted. Those rights were denied American POW's by the Iraqis. They have not, however, been denied the prisoners we're holding at GTMO. Yay us.
Prisoners of war do not, however, have the right to a speedy trial, or any kind of trial at all, for the duration of the hostilities. Operation Enduring Freedom is still underway; we are not required to dispose of POW's until the hostilities are concluded. At which time we will, of course, do the right thing.
As I said before, I really don't mind if you want to bash my country. But I think it would be a good idea on your part if you were to understand just the most basic of facts before doing so. It would make things go more smoothly. At the very least, it would be harder for people such as myself to dismiss your posts out of hand as the ravings of an idiot who wouldn't recognize either liberty or oppression if either of them ran up and kissed him right on the mouth.
Re:Gulf War II - The Wrath of King George (Score:2)
Jesus. You must be really unpleasant to be around.
I'm not about to dismiss anything; I'm going to debunk. There's a difference.
Remember, the only reliable number we have is the count of 65,000 +/- 10% from the San Francisco march. That march was estimated to have between 200,000 and 300,000 attendees by both organizers and police. So it seems like the estimates are off by a factor of about four. Four times 65,000 is 260,000, which is about what the organizers estimated.
(If anybody else has references to reliable attendance numbers, I would appreciate hearing about them. The San Francisco numbers were arrived at by an aerial survey firm who took pictures of the rally at what was reported by organizers as the peak, and counted the people. The survey was verified independently. If anybody has a number other than an estimate, post it.)
Now going by the Reuters story you linked and posted, let's count.
- New York: 250,000 (divided by four equals 62,500)
- Chicago: 3,000 (750)
- Philadephia: 5,000 (1,250)
- France: 300,000 (75,000)
- Berlin: 500,000 (125,000)
- Barcelona: 1,300,000 (325,000)
- Rome: 1,000,000 (250,000)
- Tel Aviv: 600 (150)
- Havana: 5,000 (1,250)
- Japan: 300 (75)
- Australia: "thousands"
- Damascus: "tens of thousands"
- Beirut: 10,000 (2,500)
- Assisi: 1
- Athens: 50,000 (12,500)
- Amman: 5,000 (1,250)
That's it. That's the whole list as given by the Reuters article you posted. The total? 875,226. So maybe the number was higher than one million. If it was-- I have no idea how much of the story this article told-- then I'm mildly surprised. There might be as many as one, or even one and a half million people who went to these protests. But two million? No way. Absolutely no way. The cries of "millions" are nothing short of absurd.(Of course, this begs the question of how many of those people were there protesting the invasion of Iraq to enforce UNSEC resolutions. We will never know how many people were there for that reason, how many were there because they hate Israel, how many were there because they support Palestine, how many were there supporting various communist and socialist groups, how many were there on behalf of the literally hundreds of fringe political groups-- completely unrelated to war or the opposition to war-- that sponsored these events, how many were there because they were nutcases, and how many simply showed up to see what all the fuss was about. Because we'll never know, it's hard to attach any significance at all to these protests. Read this [slashdot.org] for more on this subject.)
Been there, just tonight. (Score:2)
I had a phone conversation with my own father, this very evening, on the same subject.
He was not as insulting as the person who sent you the email, but I think he felt the same way.
My father is mostly of the apolitical sort, so to hear him get all riled up over the issue just impresses upon me how emotional an issue this is for a lot of people.
Re:Been there, just tonight. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Been there, just tonight. (Score:2)
That's a big "Doh!" on my part, but you can't take it back after you hit the submit button.
Re:Been there, just tonight. (Score:1)
Calling the logic police!! (Score:2)
Funny, as I remember it, the people who are opposing Shrub's plan (and its timing) look to be many of the same people who were protesting Saddam's use of gas on his own people back in the days when he was "our friend" against the Iranians.
I will, however, concede that we would all be better off if more protesters Saturday had successfully conveyed our widespread disgust at Saddam, Osama, and the whole assortment of totalitarians and militants (Pakistani military government, this means you!) who are currently setting the tone in much of the muslim world. We have certainly now demonstrated once and for all that we are opposed to what the White House has on the table (and how very many of us there are).
Now it's more then time to start explaining loud and clear what actions we are for.
But, then again, such complex and un-visceral approaches just aren't what the Dittoheads are looking for.
Simple answers for simple minds.
*sigh*
Rustin
Just don't agree with their first premise! (Score:2)
My question to all of these pro-war people is "Why now? Why did Saddam Hussein suddenly become Werewolf #1?" Did I miss something here?
Pass the dopamine (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand it, but then I'm posting here for the same reason y'all are reading this journal, no? :)
Re:Pass the dopamine (Score:1)
This individual probably was hoping to get the Wheaton to do an about-face on his expressed opinion on Iraq, in hopes that he would then use his celebrity to spread the word to others.
[no karma bonus, its a friggin journal...]
blame... (Score:1)
First off... it was 9/11, 911 is a telephone number in the US. And didn't Jeffery Daumer "train" in the US? Should the presidents who were in office while JD was out performing his terror be held accountable? What about when son of sam was "training" or recent snipper shootings?
I would like to add that the author missed an opportunity for another modified "big jets on the ground using small knives" but I'm left hanging... was the ground flat?
Re:blame... (Score:2)
Re:blame... (Score:1)
He killed a few people and no one seemed to stop him right away. By using the logic of the letter we need to blame those who allowed him to continue his actions.
How does one train to eat people?
It's much like hot sauces, you sort of have to work up to it. I don't think you can go from Level 5 Vegan* to Man-Eater over night.
* - Level 5 Vegan... doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow... Simpson's reference.
War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I don't agree with you on this issue-- as anybody who's ever looked at my journal knows-- but I respect your opinions.
I'll let you in on the warmongers' dirty little secret: we want peace. The world is a big place, and I'm sure there are some people out there who really do want to see the US go to war just for the entertainment value of watching it on CNN or whatever, but for the most part we right-wing drum-beaters want peace and freedom just as much as anybody.
President Bush doesn't want war. President Bush wants peace, and an end to the threat of attacks on American civilians by international terrorists. I know there are many people out there on the left-- you may or may not be one of them; I don't mean to insinuate, but merely to generalize-- who doubt the president's motives, but I do not. I have spoken to the man on many occasions, both before he became president and after, and I trust him. Is he the smartest man in the world? No. Is he the most eloquent? Of course not. Is he the greatest president this country has ever had? Nope. But he's a good man, and he's a good president, and he deserves our support.
The president believes, and I and many others agree with him, that sometimes war is necessary. We always have a choice, but sometimes events converge in such a way that war is the least unacceptable of a set of unacceptable options. In 1939, war was less unacceptable than the prospect of letting Hitler's** German overrun Europe to unify their Reich, and Tojo's Japan overrun the "Northern Resource Zone" and parts beyond to unify their Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
We are not yet at the point where we have to choose between war and one or more even worse roads. We are drawing nearer, but we are not there yet. There is still the possibility that Iraq may lay down her arms in a South Africa-style unilateral disarmament, such as has been required of her these twelve years. There is still the possibility that the oppressed peoples of Iraq, the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south, might affect an organized revolution to overthrow the Baath government. There is still the possibility that President Hussein might step down and accept exile in a neutral country for himself and his family. There are many paths out of the present conflict that don't involve war.
But these paths are not for us to choose. We cannot force President Hussein to accept exile. We cannot force the Kurds and the Shi'ites to work together in a revolution. We cannot force Iraq to disarm herself. These are things that the leaders or people of Iraq must choose for themselves.
How, then, can we influence their choice? By demonstrating our willingness to go to war if Iraq does not comply. If given the choice between accepting exile and continuing to rule as unopposed president, prime minister, and chairman of the ruling party, which would you choose? What if, on the other hand, the choice were exile or invasion, conquest, and certain death at the hands of a global superpower?
The threat of military action can only be used to peacefully affect policy change to the extent that it is credible. A non-credible threat is as good as no threat at all. If the United States were to lack the political will to deploy its military forces and invade Iraq, then Iraq would have nothing to fear, and no reason to change their policies.
This situation can serve as an object lesson in yet another of life's little ironies. In a situation like this one, where events have yet to converge to a point of criticality, we can still influence the outcome of the conflict not by our actions but by our intentions. The less willing we are to go to war, the more likely we are to be forced to. If, on the other hand, we demonstrate an absolute, resolute willingness to deploy and invade and, when necessary, sacrifice, then the likelihood that we will actually be called upon to do so dwindles.
President Hussein is not a fool; he knows that his armies, underfed, poorly equipped, and demoralized, stand no chance against the combined assault of the US military. He knows that we will bomb his command and control centers, destroy his infrastructure, and overrun his country in a matter of days. He knows this, because he has personally witnessed it. His only hope is that the United States might suffer a crisis of political will, and step back from the brink of war, leaving him free to stall and delay and evade and defy.
Fortunately for us, our nation is not a democracy. The collective will of the people amounts to a hill of beans in uneven years such as this one. We have elected our leaders, men and women who earned the trust and respect of their constituents, at least to a greater extent than the other candidate did. Now we must let them lead us. They are no smarter than we are; they are no wiser. They are ordinary men and women just like us. But they do have the advantage of being better informed. You and I read the newspapers in the morning and watch the evening news and count ourselves well informed. Our leaders immerse themselves in policy from sun-up to sun-down, and make their decisions based on a volume of facts far greater than what we would be willing to absorb. If our leaders say that the brink of war, or even war itself, is the correct path, then we should accept their decision, at least until we have taken the time to be half as informed as they are.
This is not to say that we shouldn't hold marches or protests or sit-ins or rallies. The fact that we are free to do these things is our greatest blessing, and we should exercise those liberties at every opportunity. But before we hold up a "No blood for oil" sign, or join in a catchy chanted slogan, we should do a little research. We should learn about the recent history of Iraq, and the rise to power of the Baath party. We should learn everything we can about President Hussein's aspirations, his hopes and his dreams. We should learn what Iraq is capable of, and what capabilities they have the resources to develop. Based on these facts and others, we should each decide for ourselves whether the course set for us by our leaders is the right one, and only then should we speak up.
--
*The title of this post was borrowed from a famous quote by 19th century military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz. He is notable among military philosophers for getting slightly more ideas right than he got wrong.
**Yes, yes, I know. Godwin's Law. What can I say? The Allied war against the Axis is the canonical example of a just war. No reasonable discussion of modern politics can avoid mentioning it.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:3, Interesting)
I have spoken to the man on many occasions, both before he became president and after, and I trust him.
Who are you? Are you willing to say?
Is he the smartest man in the world? No. Is he the most eloquent? Of course not. Is he the greatest president this country has ever had? Nope. But he's a good man, and he's a good president, and he deserves our support.
I question the man's moral integrity. I have never spoken with him, so I have to go based on what I can learn from my non-classified access to consumer-grade newspapers and sugar packets. But he seems to be a firm believer in cronyism and insider politics. He has faithfully rewarded the rich that made him President. Thinking that tax-cuts are the cure for any problem, be it budget surplus or budget deficit, and then consistently favoring the wealthy in those cuts. His stand on the environment, by which I mean, "his stand against the environment". His choices of appointees to his Cabinet. Ashcroft. Whitman. Rumsfield. His choices of appointees to the federal bench. And then reappointing them after the Senate checks him, so that he can get unqualified candidates through now that the GOP has picked up a few seats. It stinks.
I don't think he's a good president, either. Before 9/11 he had the US withdrawing from damn near every treaty we were a party to. ABM. Kyoto. The modified-kyoto that we wrote. Then 9/11 gives him a clean slate. He unites the world behind our pain. And then, forgetting the talk about nation-building in Afghanistan, once again America loses interest after the bombs stop falling. Can we fault our allies for thinking we'll do the same in our current situation? Which brings us up to Iraq... In one year, he has squandered total international sympathy for the US and support for our "War On Terrorism" by targeting Iraq, which has been a priority of his since his 1999 exploratory committee. He stands opposed to the world on Iraq. He's got Britian and Australia, and Denmark, but look who he doesn't have. France, China, and Russia. Germany. Europe. The Middle-East. The people of Iraq. His own electorate. The people of Britain and Australia. If he can ignore the will of 70% of his people at home, surely he must still be forced to take stock of any situation in which France and Germany are holding hands in opposition to us.
Now let's talk about the war.
President Hussein is not a fool; he knows that his armies, underfed, poorly equipped, and demoralized, stand no chance against the combined assault of the US military. He knows that we will bomb his command and control centers, destroy his infrastructure, and overrun his country in a matter of days.
Nobody seems to think so. Saddam's scorched-earth plan [sfgate.com]. He's not going to sally his troops forth to greet us on an open field of battle. Like you said, he's not a fool. He's not going to fight a war of bullets and bombs, he is going to fight a war of close-up photographs of human misery and civilian loss of life. We're going to be involved in gruesome urban combat, with high US, Iraqi, and civilian casualties. Why? So we can avoid the continued expense of patrolling the no-fly zones? So we can have a friendly face on top of a large Middle Eastern government? So that some of our boys can make a killing selling Iraqi oil? Do you really think this is about America's understanding and compassion for the people of Iraq?
Did Colin Powell make the case that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? Apparently so, as the polls jumped 9 points after he was done. But not everyone thinks the US is dealing honestly. The weapons inspectors themselves [nwsource.com] are contradicting Powell's claims. Is there a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda? We didn't think so six months ago, and I don't think anyone believes us now. Chaulk up another hole in US integrity.
What about the potential of completely destablizing the Middle East? Our sorta-elected officials are advising us that with a war in Iraq, we can expect more terrorist acts, yet that doesn't lead them to the conclusion that without a war in Iraq, there will be less terrorist attacks. And please don't recite that tired old "but if we don't blow up Iraq, the terrorists win!" crap. I happen to think that, when no bombs are being dropped by either side, everyone wins.
I don't agree with your argument that only a credible threat of force can spook Saddam into compliance. In general, I would, but we don't look like a credible threat, we look like goddamned cowboys spoiling for a fight. The Onion's headline [theonion.com], "Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance", seems to capture the feeling quite well.
Fortunately for us, our nation is not a democracy.
No kidding. Though I'm not sure how fortunate we are for it.
There's lots more, but now it's late. I think a very good list is the "Questions that won't be asked about Iraq" [house.gov], courtesy of US Rep. Ron Paul. And Paul Krugman's got an op-ed piece [nytimes.com] in today's Times about the difference in television coverage of Iraq in the US and Europe.
I'll reply if you will.
--schlach
+1 Interesting, +1 Informative, +1 Insightful (Score:2)
I hope you guys will continue.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Let me make one thing clear before we get started, though. This isn't my home turf, and I don't set the rules here, but if you want to have a discussion with me, you're going to need to be at least minimally respectful to the people and institutions that we talk about. The president of the United States, whether you agree with his decisions or like him personally, is the chief executive of our nation. He is referred to as President Bush, or Mr. Bush. His name is not "Dubya." I absolutely respect your right to call him whatever you want, but refusing to be respectful to the office, if not to the man, is a great way to end this discussion real quick.
Now that that's out of the way, on with the show.
I question the man's moral integrity.
I really don't know how to respond to this. You're not correct. Mr. Bush is a man of incredible morality, almost to a fault. His faith in God pervades everything he does, and he believes strongly in the difference between right and wrong.
You disapprove of his appointments. Okay. That comes as no surprise, considering you disapprove-- for reasons that seem circular at times-- of the man himself.
You disapprove of his economic policies. The unwise investment surge of the early and mid-1990's has led to a terrible economic downturn for our country. In order to get out of it, we have to encourage investment and growth. How do we do that? By lowering taxes. Seventy percent of Americans own stock, either directly or through managed investment accounts. Every one of those Americans will benefit from the elimination of the tax on dividend income. Yes, we have a budget deficit. Mr. Bush was pretty naive when he first came into office on matters economic, and he was mistaken to think that the projected budget surplus could come to pass when the stock market was tumbling and real earnings were dropping steadily. But the rules of the game are well established. During times of economic unsteadiness, cut taxes and run up a deficit. The economy will recover and grow, and revenues will surge to make up the difference. It's a sound plan.
Before 9/11 he had the US withdrawing from damn near every treaty we were a party to.
I think you're talking about three issues here: ABM, ICC, and Kyoto.
The time for ABM has come and gone. Passed in 1972 between the US and the USSR, the purpose of ABM was to prevent an escalation in the superpower arms race. If we built anti-ballistic missile systems, the USSR would have responded in kind, and we would have been forced to look at ways to defeat their ABM systems, and the race would have been on. It would have been bad for everybody.
But the world has changed. The danger now of an attack by a rogue state is greater than a mass escalation in an arms race between superpowers. Ballistic missile defense is an important initiative; it will only take one three-stage Taepo Dong 2 missile armed with a 20 kiloton nuclear warhead arcing in over the pole toward Washington to ruin our whole day, and it would only take one madman to make it happen.
As for the ICC, the position of the United States is that the International Criminal Court is a fine idea built around noble goals, but the proposed implementation of it is deeply flawed. The Rome Statute gives the ICC's prosecutorial system a degree of power that is incompatible with our idea of checks and balances. The ICC considers itself to have jurisdiction over states not party to the establishing treaty, which violates-- or, more accurately, sidesteps-- our idea of national sovereignty.
As for Kyoto... meh. My personal opinion is that Kyoto was based on pseudo-science that may or may not have been accurate. I believe that the Earth is a much larger and more complex system than we give it credit for being, and that while reducing gas emissions certainly couldn't be thought to pose any environmental harm, it does pose a well documented economic harm. In light of the fact that the science is still unclear, it's possible that signing the Kyoto Protocol might have committed the US to a serious economic yoke-- and at such a time as this, when we can't afford it-- for no reason at all. My position is, let's learn more, then make an educated decision about what our goals should be.
And then, forgetting the talk about nation-building in Afghanistan, once again America loses interest after the bombs stop falling.
Um. The Bush administration essentially dragged the various Afghan opposition factions to Bonn in November, 2001. At that meeting, the factions agreed to a framework for a transitional government, the Afghan Interim Authority, led by Hamid Karzai. Just two weeks ago, President Karzai announced that he is committed to holding free elections next year. The US has been an active part of nation-building in Afghanistan. Maybe you're unaware of this because it's no longer headline news?
Can we fault our allies for thinking we'll do the same in our current situation?
But we're already actively engaged in nation-building with the various Iraqi opposition factions. Last week we held a meeting in Ankara, and just yesterday we organized a meeting in Seloubi. The process isn't going as smoothly as it did in Bonn; the initial American proposal of an interim US military government has been rejected by one of the main Shiite factions, but the process goes on. Again, this may be new information to you, because it's not on the front page of your newspaper or the lead story at the top of the hour on CNN.
He stands opposed to the world on Iraq. He's got Britian and Australia, and Denmark, but look who he doesn't have.
The list is actually a bit longer. In alphabetical order, they are: Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and the UK. That's 21 nations, not counting the United States, including most of Europe.
If he can ignore the will of 70% of his people at home, surely he must still be forced to take stock of any situation in which France and Germany are holding hands in opposition to us.
Your statistics are wildly inaccurate, but that's hardly even worth discussion. The nations comprising the Coalition are not democracies. They are republics. The people of these nations elect our leaders to make the hard decisions for us. That's what they're doing. Nobody ever wants war, but sometimes it's necessary, and the people of these countries should be proud that their elected leaders are brave enough to make a difficult decision in the face of such vocal opposition.
Oh, by the way. It's not like France and Germany have a history of holding hands when the chips are down or anything. Am I the only one who remembers North Africa?
He's not going to sally his troops forth to greet us on an open field of battle.
I think you might want to consider reading up a bit on Iraq's military situation. The I, II, and V Corps are stationed along the Kurdistan "border," from Kirkuk to Mosul. The III and IV Corps are in the south, at Qala Salih and Mamoon. The only troops stationed in Baghdad proper are the four brigades of the Special Republican Guard, consisting of no more than about 13,000 men. The first brigade is dedicated to security; most of those troops will be incapacitated or killed during the initial bombing attacks on military and government facilities in Baghdad. (The seventh battalion is headquartered very near an elementary school, in Al-Amiriyeh, so that will pose a particular challenge, but JDAM-equipped ordinance will be able to destroy that facility with a very high degree of precision.) The second brigade is tasked with defending the various presidential residences, and the third brigade is equipped to attack opposing forces. The fourth (armored) brigade consists of a mere 705 men and 47 officers, and will be decimated by LANTIRN attacks during the first hours of the war.
The US battle plan calls for decapitating the Iraqi regular army and Republican Guard, pinning down those divisions away from the capital, decimating the Special Republican Guard from the air, and then mopping up. The likelihood of protracted urban combat is really pretty low.
The weapons inspectors themselves are contradicting Powell's claims.
That's not really an accurate statement. What UNMOVIC said is merely that they have been able to find no evidence of WMD programs. We know that; the Iraqis have been making a concerted effort to hide them. Now, with credible but unconfirmed intelligence that Iraq has transported the bulk of their WMD equipment through Syria to Lebanon, it seems doubtful that UNMOVIC can ever succeed in finding damning evidence.
This is precisely what Secretary Powell was talking about when he said that inspectors are not detectives. UNSCOM's, and later UNMOVIC's, charge was to verify that Iraq was proactively and voluntarily disarming. This is not happening.
What about the potential of completely destablizing the Middle East?
Are you asserting that the Middle East is stable now? Remember, Mr. Hussein's ambition is to drive his restored million-man army south through Kuwait (i.e., "province 19") and Saudi Arabia to unify the entire peninsula under a Baath government. Having a dictator who is motivated and capable as your next door neighbor is not a situation that I would characterize as "stable."
Our sorta-elected officials are advising us that with a war in Iraq, we can expect more terrorist acts, yet that doesn't lead them to the conclusion that without a war in Iraq, there will be less terrorist attacks.
That's because that isn't true.
I happen to think that, when no bombs are being dropped by either side, everyone wins.
Except for the people of Iraq, of course. You remember, the ones who are being starved, imprisoned, tortured, and summarily executed?
I don't agree with your argument that only a credible threat of force can spook Saddam into compliance.
Why not? It's working already. U2 over-flights of Iraq started yesterday, after months of strident and resolute Iraqi refusals. Why? Because they see five US aircraft carrier battle groups just outside their borders.
I think a very good list is the "Questions that won't be asked about Iraq", courtesy of US Rep. Ron Paul.
I'm sorry, but some of Congressman Paul's points are simply wrong, and the rest are absurd. "Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our 'allies,' the Kurds?" Well, Congressman, no. It's not true. The northeastern part of Iraq, between an imaginary line drawn from Mosul to Kirkuk and the Turkish and Iranian borders, comprised of the larger parts of the provinces of Dohuk, Erbil, and Suleimaniyah, is under spotty Kurdish control. There are Ansar al Islam camps scattered through the provinces of Ninevah (on the Turkish border), southwestern Erbil, and Ta'mim. "Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?" The fact that Iraq would find it difficult to strike the United States directly does not mean they pose no threat, Congressman. See, we have these things called "allies...." "Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?" Perhaps because men of conscience can be found in all the various strata of society, Congressman. And the doozy: "What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?" By this reasoning, everyone from Scotland to Greece should be speaking German today.
I value the Congressman's opinions, I really do. I have to ask myself whether he's ever cracked a history book, though.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Not really, no.
I think this is when I completely stopped respecting your point of view.
When I started stopping respecting your point of view was when I noticed you only reply to certain comments in the various messages on this thread. When people ask the tough questions, like,
"Do you really think this is about America's understanding and compassion for the people of Iraq?" (mine [slashdot.org])
Or "What I do know is, a lot of people are going to die. A lot of innocent people. It also bothers me that we are setting a new precedent by going in and pre-emptively striking. We're going to throw the first punch. That is very troubling. Maybe it would be better if we wait until he made the first move." (here [slashdot.org])
Two perfectly valid concerns that, in your rush to reply to every anti-war comment on this thread you didn't feel the need to address. Understandable, you've been busy [slashdot.org]. 24 comments and two new journal entries within the last 8 hours. Many of them fairly lengthy. Very impressive. So a couple of logical questions follow:
I'm not really interested in arguing with a committee.
Oh, by the way, respect is something you earn or lose. Dubya has not earned my respect. And you demanding I respect him as a condition for gracing us with your point-of-view (from your history [slashdot.org], I think your threats of shutting-up are hollow) has lost you my respect.
Sorry about the mess, Wil. I don't think there's anything more to be gained from this. All the interesting parts are in the things he didn't respond to. Like whether he sincerely believes that we're doing this out of the goodness of our militaristic hearts, and if so, why now? Why turn a blind eye to Saddam's eggregious offenses for so long? Why make him our boy? Why continue to ignore the atrocities committed in other lands, by other dictators that we lend support? What about the thousands we'll kill as we liberate them? Why do we need to fabricate "evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda if the motivating issue is the oppression of the people? Are we going to make unilateral first-strike regime-change the policy against governments that America thinks are oppressing their people? If the goals of the Alliance of the Obsessed are so noble, why are they alone? All questions that are hard to answer, if you assume that ours is a struggle for the Iraqi people.
Hawks who beat the drums of war do not do so for peace and compassion. Peace and compassion never needed drums.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:3, Interesting)
Might as well get this over with, just pro forma.
When people ask the tough questions, like, "Do you really think this is about America's understanding and compassion for the people of Iraq?" (mine)
I ignored that question because it was obviously rhetorical. The answer is "no." The coming war is not about compassion or understanding. It's about removing a recalcitrant dictator from power.
Or "What I do know is, a lot of people are going to die. A lot of innocent people. It also bothers me that we are setting a new precedent by going in and pre-emptively striking. We're going to throw the first punch. That is very troubling. Maybe it would be better if we wait until he made the first move." (here)
Iraq did make the first move. Iraq made the first move on August 2, 1990. Everything-- everything-- that has happened since then has been a direct consequence of that act of aggression.
Who are you?
I guard my pseudonymity jealously.
Who else posts using this username?
No one.
What exactly do you do for a living?
If I told you that, you would know who I am, and I wish to keep my identity off the table for now.
Like whether he sincerely believes that we're doing this out of the goodness of our militaristic hearts, and if so, why now?
I covered that one. No, this is not about humanitarianism.
Why turn a blind eye to Saddam's eggregious offenses for so long?
Who's been turning a blind eye? The United States has been pursuing the Iraqi government through diplomatic and military channels for more than twelve years now, through seventeen UN resolutions.
Why make him our boy?
I didn't understand this one. Could you rephrase it please, or elaborate?
Why continue to ignore the atrocities committed in other lands, by other dictators that we lend support?
Humanitarian issues are a key factor in deciding questions of foreign policy. US doctrine has never embraced humanitarianism as a justification for going to war. We tried it in Somalia, and the results were unacceptable. We are not going to war with Iraq merely over the abuses of power committed by the Baath regime.
I've already written at great length about this, but let me give you the short version. We have many reasons for pushing this war: enforcement of UN resolutions going back to 687 in 1991; elimination of a potential source of WMD's to terrorists; overthrow of an evil tyrant; strategic concerns over the stability of the Arabian peninsula; establishment of a pro-US republic in Iraq; elimination of an expansionist regime dedicated to the conquest of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states. The list goes on.
None of these reasons, by itself, would be sufficient to go to war. Which is why questions like, "Do you really think this is about America's understanding and compassion for the people of Iraq?" miss the point spectacularly. But considered as a whole, the prospect of a short-term war with clearly defined goals is less unacceptable than the alternative.
What about the thousands we'll kill as we liberate them?
We expect to kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers; we anticipate casualties of around 50-60% in the regular army, numbers somewhat higher than that in the Republican Guard, and near total casualties in the Special Republican Guard. One of our key objectives, of course, will be the elimination of the Baath-controlled Iraqi military. Any soldier who doesn't want to face injury or death is free to lay down his arms and surrender. I'm not sure if the Iraqi soldiers are aware of this, but unlike the Iraqi military intelligence directorate, we do not rape or torture prisoners of war.
Before the Gulf War, estimates from the anti-war camp ranged on the order of 100,000 civilian deaths. Do you know how many Iraqi civilians lost their lives during the Gulf War? The Iraqi government, well known for grossly inflating loss estimates in an effort to influence world opinion, only claims 2,278 civilian deaths. (Don't be fooled, incidentally, by reports of casualties. The word "casualty" refers to anyone either killed or injured as a result of a military action. Estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties range around 35,000, but the vast majority of those people were not killed.)
Our war is not against the Iraqi people. It is against their leaders. Minimizing injury and death to civilians is of course our military's highest priority; we don't use unbelievably expensive precision munition because we like to watch the videos afterward; we do it so we can bomb a Special Republican Guard battalion headquarters without damaging the elementary school down the block.
But ultimately, the decision of how many civilians will die in the war lies squarely on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein himself. If he steps down, we can hold that number at a nice, clean zero. If he continues to balk at the demands of the US and the UN, then every civilian death that results from a war will be his fault.
Remember, Mr. Hussein is not above using human shields. Remember the bombing of the Amariyah shelter on February 13, 1991? We-- the world, I mean, including the US-- were horrified to learn that the building hit by our bombs was not a military intelligence facility, but a civilian air-raid shelter housing hundreds of people. That one event was sufficient to cause a drastic change in the way we were conducting the air war; after that sortie, our aircraft were re-tasked to front-line military targets in Kuwait and southeastern Iraq, leaving Baghdad virtually untouched.
Guess what we discovered later, upon the defection of one of Iraq's military intelligence officials? That building was not only a civilian air-raid shelter. It was also a military intelligence facility.
The idea of killing civilians is abhorent to us. It is obviously not quite so unappealing to Saddam Hussein. Which of us is evil?
Why do we need to fabricate "evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda if the motivating issue is the oppression of the people?
Fabricate? That's a pretty strong accusation. I hope you've got evidence to back that up.
We believe there is a connection-- an informal, nebulous connection-- between al Qaeda and Ansar al Islam. We believe that Ansar al Islam has provided aid and comfort to members of al Qaeda. We believe that Ansar al Islam also has ties to Iraqi military intelligence. We may be wrong about any of those things, but we don't think we are.
Are we going to make unilateral first-strike regime-change the policy against governments that America thinks are oppressing their people?
We're going to make unilateral first-strike regime-change the policy against governments that invade their neighbors, start a war, make unprovoked attacks against others of their neighbors, get soundly defeated on the field of battle, sign a cease-fire accepting terms of disarmament, and spend twelve years defying the will of the Allies and the international community in an effort to rebuild their military in preparation for another sally. Yes.
If the goals of the Alliance of the Obsessed are so noble, why are they alone?
Why are the 22 nations in the coalition alone? That seems like a strange question to ask.
Hawks who beat the drums of war do not do so for peace and compassion. Peace and compassion never needed drums.
Cute slogan. I'm not sure that the peoples of the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the former Yugoslav nations would agree with you.
Now that I've answered your questions, let me ask you one. Why did you ignore my responses to your points on ABM, ICC, Kyoto, Afghanistan, the Iraqi opposition, the membership of the coalition, the proposed battle plan, UNMOVIC, regional stability, the credible threat of force, and Congressman Paul's list? I'm not demanding a concession or anything like that; I'm just curious. Did you find my responses unsatisfactory? Why the sudden change in focus from specific issues of fact to generalizations?
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Because I believe you have an agenda to promote, and I have no interest in arguing with someone who is not discussing the issue out of concern with the ultimate rightness of the outcome but out of self-interest.
Your reluctance to provide any information about yourself, coupled with your acknowledgement that disclosing your job description would reveal your identity, makes me think that you do indeed make your living by promoting a war agenda. When I realized that you had spent 8 hours posting on slashdot, I concluded that
- a. you were multiple people,
- b. you could count the time spent publishing on slashdot as work, or
- c. you have some severe anti-social tendencies (go get some fresh air).
I don't believe it's 'C', and possibilities 'A' and 'B' leave me with no desire to continue this discussion. It feels too much like arguing with Microsoft astroturfers. And I lost any interest in continuing with you when you said something that sounded very much like you were endorsing a war with the entire Middle East, which indicated to me that, while you (and/or your researchers) may have a very good grasp on factual information, you are quite out of touch with diplomatic, social, and human perspectives. We could eventually agree on all of the same facts, and argue forever about what actions are to be taken following those facts. I believe that killing is wrong. You do not. You may like to see it as "bad", "necessary", or "the lesser of evils", but you don't see it as wrong. I see a man who dodged military service by virtue of being his father's son playing far too recklessly with the lives of others. If we cannot agree that that is hypocritical and immoral, and if you cannot understand why I would not need any further reason to lose all respect for a man (though he provides many more), then we have nothing further to discuss.So take this back to the group: You still cannot satisfy people of true moral integrity that this justifies the need for war. This is what I meant when I said that peace and compassion never needed drums. You don't need propaganda devices to trick someone into believing in the virtues of peace and compassion; they are born knowing them. Drums are only necessary to convince people to subvert their own feelings, to convince them that peace and compassion are being served by a "necessary" war. Hence the constant comparisons of Saddam to Hitler, thereby equivocating a unilateral preemptive first-strike regime change against a dictator who has been largely supported by our government in the past, who is certainly not unique in that respect, and who no longer poses a threat to his neighbors; with the greatest villian the world has ever known, whose goal was world domination and the mass-murder of entire peoples. It sickens me to even hear that comparison, yet it is offered as a daily litany for mass-consumption. It has been repeated so many times that it has sunk in to the point where it is no longer questioned, just fading into the background of the beating of drums.
This is why the Administration needs to tie Saddam to bin Laden. The Hitler message has not proven effective; how about someone who has attacked us more recently? Revenge has always been an acceptable justification for war. But we don't believe that they are collaborators. We hear, on the same tape that Colin Powell asserts is the proof of the link, bin Laden decrying Saddam's corrupt socialist government, but stressing that his followers must defend Iraq against the greater evil - us. The best link we can come up with is that both of them hate us. I hate to say it, but if that's the only criteria, then an increasing number of people in the world are joining the link with every day we beat the drums.
I've written more than I set out to. I hope I've been helpful. You can assimilate my moral arguments against war into your future diatribes. Wow, 19 comments [slashdot.org] in the last 3 hours. I can almost feel the beat.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to address a few specific points.
Your reluctance to provide any information about yourself, coupled with your acknowledgement that disclosing your job description would reveal your identity, makes me think that you do indeed make your living by promoting a war agenda.
You are welcome to think whatever you like. Consider for a moment the possibility, however, that I am a dot-com multi-millionaire who has retired to a life of leisure and spends his time pursuing his hobbies, including policy and politics. It's not true, exactly, but it should at least serve to remind you that you don't know nearly as much about me as you think you do.
That said, if you'd rather argue about me than about the facts, go right ahead.
I believe that killing is wrong. You do not.
Of course I do. I believe that sometimes there are worse alternatives than killing.
I see a man who dodged military service by virtue of being his father's son playing far too recklessly with the lives of others.
I see a man who made mistakes in his youth, but who is trying to make the best decisions he can now. And I don't mean to be blunt, but I dare say I've looked more closely than you have.
You still cannot satisfy people of true moral integrity that this justifies the need for war.
I respectfully submit that you are not speaking for all people of true moral integrity. If you prefer to think that all those of integrity oppose the war and that all those who support it are not of true moral integrity, that's fine. It's not correct, but it's fine.
It sickens me to even hear that comparison, yet it is offered as a daily litany for mass-consumption.
I'm sorry you feel that way. The comparison between Saddam Hussein and Hitler is sound.
This is why the Administration needs to tie Saddam to bin Laden.
Actually, the administration doesn't need to tie Mr. Hussein to Osama bin Laden at all. If there is a link, and we believe there is, then that simply adds fuel to the fire. But if you prefer, we can simply ignore any evidence either for or against a connection between Iraq, Ansar al Islam, and al Qaeda, and simply deal with the issue of the 1991 cease-fire, and Iraq's requirement for voluntary disarmament. The fact that Iraq has ignored this requirement is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to threaten military action. Coupled with the other Iraq issues, the case for regime change-- voluntary if possible, by force if necessary-- is compelling.
Yes, even to "people of true moral integrity."
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Fitting that your self-description mirrors your arguments. I think I know enough about you. For whatever reason, you spend most of your time on Slashdot, trolling high-profile journals like Wil's attempting to huckleberry fresh readers to your journal and your slick "War is the Moral Solution" pitch. You can't win this argument, and it doesn't even look like you're trying anymore.
I hardly call 21 posts [slashdot.org] in 4 hours a life of "leisure". I don't think everyone who is pro-war stands to benefit from his view. Just Dubya, Dick, the Cabinet, the GOP, and the shareholders. I'm sure you fall in there somewhere.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I'm not sure what your personal agenda is to try to debase Twirlips stance. I'm responding to this from the point of view in which I heartily respect what he writes, even though I do not agree with a lot of it.
I can assure you that he is in fact one person. I have a great deal of experience in author analysis, and being able to pick up on subtle difference in writing style is a knack I have. Whether or not the ideas that he presents are his, and his alone, I would not think so. They are consistent, but the authoring is the same.
I'm not sure how you think you can call him a troll, and I'm not sure how you can label this as an argument either. No where in this were you arguing, except in your initial post. Then you realized (my suspicion) that you were arguing with someone with vastly more information and opinion on the subject than you, so you attempted to debunk him. Are you sure you aren't into politics?
So, what I'm going to interject here, is the notion that you felt the only way to win was to convert the argument into an attack on his personal character, and an attempt to expose hidden personal agendas. Proclaiming that he cannot win the argument is correct in some senses, because there is no argument.
He presented his case for the readers in a well thought out manner (though he has had much rehearsal), dealing with factual data and presenting it in a very deliverable and easy to understand post. You respond avoiding any questions or issues presenting, only calling him out to identify himself so that you can understand some personal agenda he has.
This is completely wrong, and it makes you look like a fool. You started an argument, then realized you were out classed, and tried to salvage some dignity. I'm sorry to say, but you really should go back to harassing pro-Microsoft posters, because you really fail at rational debate.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I'm anti-war, he's pro-War. He's active in trying to convince other people that they should be pro-War as well. And by "active", I think you know what I'm talking about. If he is truly just one person, then slashdot is his full-time job and a half.
I'm not sure how you think you can call him a troll
Not a "troll", "trolling" [reference.com]. "To patrol an area in search of something."
Then you realized (my suspicion) that you were arguing with someone with vastly more information and opinion on the subject than you, so you attempted to debunk him.
Ignoring your jibe, Twirlip is certainly a worthy orator, and his knowledge of fact and history is excellent. Mine's not too bad, either, but I will concede that point to him. But the use of information in debate should be to support one's argument, not to shield oneself from one's opponent. There's no real response when he says things like [slashdot.org] I have read several expert military opinions about the likely prospects of protracted urban combat. If he has an expert opinion, then I'll certainly take it into account, but then he'd have to disclose who he is. If he does not have an expert opinion on the subject, then I really see no value added to his argument. There's nothing for me to respond to.
So after his first response, I didn't know whether or not I wanted to reply. He echoed most of my presentation of fact, and just disagreed with my conclusions. He thought that Bush made the right move by withdrawing from so many treaties. He called Kyoto 'pseudo-science', which is not a break from the right-wing, but is certainly a break from the scientific community. I've certainly heard Kyoto's science dismissed by more people without scientific backgrounds than I have from people with them. So all in all, not a very interesting discussion, just a place for two people to shout back and forth. When I started digging around on the thread, and saw his response to someone's question about "cratering the whole region", I lost my interest in debate with him.
While looking around the thread, I noticed that almost half the posts were his. Anywhere someone questioned the war effort, he responded with a very long, detailed reply. So I checked his info page, and noticed that he was at least one incredibly prolific author. This immediately made me question his motive, and the value of spending my time arguing with someone who might have ulterior reasons to be pro-war. (I have much less time to devote to slashdot discussions than Twirlip.) So, since I promised to reply if he would, I pointed out why I wasn't interested in arguing. As I stated in another post [slashdot.org], that was intended to be my last reply, as was the next one, and the next one. Every time I decided to quit, I thought of something more that I wanted to say. By the very end, I realized that the discussion had gotten way too serious, and I wanted to create a little bit of levity. If that made me look like a fool, rather than a vainglorious egotist, then I succeeded. Just don't laugh at me, laugh with me.
There, I have now justified my entire presence in that argument to some guy, I guess because you weren't some prick who didn't have the balls to post using his username. Now, at the risk of getting back into this thread that I thought I'd actually ended, let me point out that nowhere in Twirlip's posts does he make a convincing argument for war. Yes, there are reasons. There were reasons to be in Veitnam. But they are not compelling over the human costs of war, and this is why a pro-war argument only resonates with a few wealthy men that have been able to become isolated from the people that have to live with their decisions. This is not a popular war, in this country or in any other. About 32% think that we should go it alone if need be, about 63% think military action is required if the UN will support it, and the rest don't want war at all. Now those numbers were right after Colin Powell's speech, they might have come down since then with the Blix report. We can't even get Canada to back us, and 60+ US cities have authored resolutions against going to war with Iraq. Twirlip does not make a convincing case, no matter how well he sells his facts. But he will never accept that, and I will never accept his argument, either, and discussing further with someone after you reach that realization that both of you are disagreeing, not because of a lack of information, but because of a fundamental difference in interpretation of that information, there isn't much to be gained but some form of mental masturbation. Regardless of his agenda, or lack thereof. This is why I tried to break off the discussion.
Now, that being said, I'm sorry that Twirlip and I got into an argument as our first contact. (Actually, our first contact was when he threw me out of his journal for referring to Bush as 'Dubya'. I think that kind of pissed me off.) If he is only one person, and he doesn't make his living by publishing pro-war arguments, then I can't fault him for much more than being too willing to kill people. Perhaps there is common ground that we won't find as our only contact is on a topic in which we strenuously disagree.
I'm going to go read through his journal entry where he sic'd the dogs on me...
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
You spent more time challenging his personal character than his stance of being pro-War. He's into politics, and writes about them as much as his life allows. Whether it's for a job, or not, it doesn't matter. Don't you remember Signal 11? The amount of posts that guy made puts Twirlip to shame, and most of Sig11s posts were even longer.
Not a "troll", "trolling". "To patrol an area in search of something."
My apologies, I misread this then.
Ignoring your jibe, Twirlip is certainly a worthy orator, and his knowledge of fact and history is excellent. Mine's not too bad, either, but I will concede that point to him. But the use of information in debate should be to support one's argument, not to shield oneself from one's opponent.
It honestly wasn't a jibe, it was just a plain statement. The issue at hand is that you did not proffer any reasonable responses past the initial post, instead side-stepped the issue and were focusing the argument towards him, instead of the war. As you put it, the information should not shield oneself from ones opponent, yet you ignored his comments and his requests for you to use respectful titles for the parties involved. This does not bode well for you, and if you were attempting a serious debate/argument/discussion, makes you look sadly ill equiped and immature. Just from an outside point of view. I read Twirlips journals because they are thought provoking, challenge what I think is correct, and admire his ability to clearly state his stance and back it up. You don't have that reputation, and from this thread, it looks as if that isn't your style. Again, just an observation. I'm not labeling you, or putting you down, just observing.
I have read several expert military opinions about the likely prospects of protracted urban combat. If he has an expert opinion, then I'll certainly take it into account, but then he'd have to disclose who he is. If he does not have an expert opinion on the subject, then I really see no value added to his argument. There's nothing for me to respond to.
If he offers citations of known people backing what he says, does this not validate his argument? You also made no request for him to provide source references, just for him to identify himself.
So after his first response, I didn't know whether or not I wanted to reply. He echoed most of my presentation of fact, and just disagreed with my conclusions. He thought that Bush made the right move by withdrawing from so many treaties.
ICC, I'll definitely agree with. ABM I really don't care. The Cold War is over.
He called Kyoto 'pseudo-science', which is not a break from the right-wing, but is certainly a break from the scientific community. I've certainly heard Kyoto's science dismissed by more people without scientific backgrounds than I have from people with them.
I have a scientific background, and the Kyoto treaty is pseudo science. Most people don't have scientific backgrounds, so obviously more people without scientific backgrounds dismiss it. That was a statistics joke, by the way. The point is, the Kyoto treaty wasn't going to do much other than cause more red tape to cut through. I don't blame anybody for backing out of that treaty.
So all in all, not a very interesting discussion, just a place for two people to shout back and forth. When I started digging around on the thread, and saw his response to someone's question about "cratering the whole region", I lost my interest in debate with him.
This is fine, and you can use that as a reason to not want to discuss it any further and simply recede but you didn't do that. As you stated, you always thought of one more thing you'd like to say. He answered your questions without fail, and you dodged his questions and challenged his anonymity. Doesn't quite seem fair.
There, I have now justified my entire presence in that argument to some guy, I guess because you weren't some prick who didn't have the balls to post using his username. Now, at the risk of getting back into this thread that I thought I'd actually ended, let me point out that nowhere in Twirlip's posts does he make a convincing argument for war.
I study sociology and psychology on Slashdot, not politics. I have no desire to discuss politics, what so ever. I do find it helpful that you did defend your stance because your reaction does not speak flatteringly of your character. From an analytical point, Twirlip posts almost consistently about political issues revolving around the war. Most of what he writes is rehearsed, and largely standardized. My guess is most of it is sent without any degree of thought, just answering the same questions repeatedly, to different people. If it's what he enjoys, that's great. It's probably healthier than what I spend my time doing on here.
The anti-War and pro-War camps are arguing over the shade of a gray line. Each is just convinced the other side is less right than themselves. As for Twirlip disallowing you access in his journal, it's his house, you don't get to shit on his rug. Regardless what you do in your home. His place, he sets the rules. If he says, "You will say Mr. Bush or President Bush" than you say it, or you lose rights to post in his journal. This is not a personal issue, nor is it a matter to become upset about. It's just the rules, live by them or live outside their jurisdiction.
As for his journal, he asked for help understanding where he went wrong. I'm just too much of a loud mouth to keep quiet. Look for the subject, "How not to argue"
And I resent being called a dog
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Just for the record, so did I. The word "troll" has come to have a very specific meaning on Slashdot; imagine my surprise to learn that schlach is one of the few people who actually uses the word according to its original meaning.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
=p
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Game, set, match: Twirlip
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I just realized that both of us were starting to take him way too seriously, so I tried to back off and inject a little humor. His "apology" to Wil was galling in its condescension, and I figured it was time to move on. Christ all of my last three posts were intended to be my last post, I just kept finding something else that he said that I wanted to respond to. This one was designed to be impossible to have a reply. =)
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I've noticed those who wave the antiwar banners with the most enthusiasm are often the same folk who believe in taxing the rich out of existence, and other such evidence of limited realworld experience. In short, people who don't yet have anything to lose.
And did you see where some, ah, idealists went forth to Iraq to become human shields? Ya think maybe their personal karma is gonna get modded "-1, redundant" ?!
"No one goes directly from idealism to realism. There's a cynical stage inbetween." -- Sir Fred Hoyle (IIRC)
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
The man may not have earned your respect, but the office/position has earned and demands your respect. Whether or not you "like" George W Bush has no bearing on the need to respect the office.
Like it or not, he is OUR president.
FYI: I did not vote for him, nor do I agree with 99% of what he stands for or has done, but the simple fact is: he is OUR president and the office deserves OUR respect.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
You've got a point, but in my opinion it's not a very good one. Taking one sentence out of context and saying that it could be used to describe the good guys or the bad guys doesn't really contribute any meaningful insight, in my opinion. President Bush is not standing up in front of the country and saying, "The Lord has commanded us to wage holy war against the non-Christian infidels." Bin Laden is. See the incredibly important and, in my opinion, blindingly obvious difference?
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Sometimes war is the right thing to do. Sometimes it isn't. I am not categorically opposed to war. I'm not even categorically opposed to unilateral descisions of this nature, but I am opposed when I don't think our president is the right president to fight the war.
If the Patriot act hadn't been passed, I might be for the war. If there weren't so many people like the one who sent the mail above who feel that any dissenters were horrible people, perhaps even less than human, I might be more prone to think the war was a good idea. As it is, people like the one who sent the email above feel perfectly justified in doing so by the words and actions of our leaders.
Those are domestic issues to be sure. But they say a lot about the moral quality of our leaders. I don't think our leaders are up to the task of deciding whether we should fight this war, or up to the task of figuring out what to do when it ends.
I firmly believe that for Bush, the war on Iraq is a way to distract people from things that are seriously wrong here, not because he feel that Iraq represents any imminent threat or danger to us. Distract from wrong things here that are his doing. He is not up to fighting this war. None of our leaders are.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I hardly think that's a fair accusation. There are just as many people on the left-- the anti-war side of the argument-- who feel just as strongly about those who disagree with them. People all over the world are painting signs that equate our president-- my president-- with Hitler. I do not blame them for this, especially; while individuals can be wise and insightful, people as a group are ignorant and foolish. My point is simply that there are idiots on both side of the table.
I don't think our leaders are up to the task of deciding whether we should fight this war, or up to the task of figuring out what to do when it ends.
On what do you base that judgment? As I said, I have a personal relationship with President Bush and most of the member of his staff, so my opinion may well be inadequately informed. Will you share with me whatever it is that led you to this conclusion?
I firmly believe that for Bush, the war on Iraq is a way to distract people from things that are seriously wrong here, not because he feel that Iraq represents any imminent threat or danger to us.
I'm sorry to have to tell you that you are mistaken on that point. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but in this case you've got it very wrong.
He is not up to fighting this war. None of our leaders are.
Then who is?
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
After this discussion, I feel better-informed and have far fewer doubts. Funny how the two went hand in hand.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Come check out my journal some time. As much as is possible, I try to keep it heavy on facts and analysis and light on grandstanding or chest-thumping.
A little chest-thumping, however, is good for the constitution.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Anyway, I feel much more enlightened than I did before. Thanks!
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I base it on the words of Ashcroft, who ominously declared that people had better watch what they say.
I'm not positive, but I think you're thinking of Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, who on September 26, 2001, was asked, "As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?" Mr. Fleischer replied, "I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why-- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party-- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
On September 28, two days later, Mr. Fleischer elaborated.It was clear, both from the context of the initial briefing and the subsequent briefing two days later, that what Mr. Fleischer meant was that at a time like that people needed to stop and think for a second before they say something awful. He didn't mean that Mr. Maher shouldn't have been able to speak his mind-- he actually explicitly denied that on the 28th-- but rather that Mr. Maher should have been more careful in the way that the said what he said. His remarks offended a lot of people, and Mr. Maher could have avoided that if he had simply watched what he was saying.
So the statement, in context, wasn't the least bit ominious. It has been widely observed, however, that the situation is a bit ironic. In chastising Bill Maher for something he said that made a lot of people angry, Ari Fleischer said something that, when it was later reported without the full context, made a lot of people angry. I guess Mr. Fleischer should have taken his own advice, to a certain extent.
I base it on the harassment we see at airports in the place of real security.
Well, I'm not sure what you would like to see changed, but in my experiences the employees of the TSA have been doing a very professional job. Sure, there have been instances of improper searches; that's unfortunate, but it's to be expected during a period of transition like this one. Fortunately, though, those instances have been the exception rather than the rule.
If you have some ideas on how we could implement "real security" in our airports instead of "harassment," why don't you share them?
I based it on the total absence of any real focus on Enron, Worldcom, or the other corporate disasters.
What would you like to see done about those events?
Especially since Enron was aided and abetted by several members of Bush's administration.
That's a very serious accusation. I suppose you've got facts to go with it?
Listen, I'm just trying to keep the discussion constructive here. If you say that security in our airports is inadequate, suggest something that could be done to improve it. If you say that Enron and Worldcom need more attention, be specific and explain how. And if you want to lobby around accusations of criminal, or at least improper, activity, be prepared to back them up. That's all.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
As for security in airports, the searches they do only raise the bar for an attacker very slightly, and it's a huge hassle.
I would assert that they raise the bar for an attacker very much. When I fly, I get my fingernail clippers and safety razor cartridges confiscated. By the time I get on the plane, I am thoroughly disarmed. This is a good thing, and worth every gram of hassle.
The real weapon is intimidation. As long as a small group of people can intimidate a large group of people into inaction, the large group has lost.
But such intimidation is not possible without weapons. Remove the weapons, and the small group is just an annoyance.
One of the best forms of security they could have at airports is handing out an instructional booklet on dealing with hijackers to everybody who passes through the gate. A real instructional booklet that doesn't admonish people to wait for some authority to save them.
Let's assume for the moment that we're talking about a potentially nonlethal situation, one where the hijacker(s) just want to put the plane down someplace and get off. (If we were talking about a 9/11-style attack, the whole point would be moot. Nobody's getting out alive in that situation.) A bunch of untrained, uncoordinated civilians would just make things worse. If the hijackers have a weapon, they're going to use it, and some civilians are going to get hurt or killed. If the hijackers have a bomb, they're going to use it, and all the civilians are going to get hurt or killed.
I'd be in favor of putting a fire team of trained Rangers in plain clothes aboard every commercial aircraft before I would support encouraging civilians to act.
As for the corporate scandals, I would like to see life sentences for the top officers of corporations that have defrauded investors of more than $1 billion.
That sort of flies in the face of the established legal system. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we need to think long and hard about whether that's actually proportionate to the crime that's been committed. We give serial killers life sentences. Are corporate thieves really in the same class?
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Okay, I'll agree with that. But is a life sentence really proportionate? How would you feel if the responsible parties were given 15-20 year sentences instead? Would that just be completely unacceptable to you?
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Most of the time, peace can be achieved without force. That's a good thing. Sometimes, though, force is necessary. That's a bad thing, but it's even worse to turn one's back on that situation. The 20th century taught us that when the free nations of the world turn our backs on tyranny, millions of people die.
I believe that war is never necessary. History has shown us multiple times that it is not.
Um. What? How can history show us that war is never necessary? Quite the contrary; history has shown us that sometimes, because of the aspirations of evil men or a breakdown in diplomacy between parties with conflicting interests, war is absolutely necessary.
Pretend you are the Prime Minister of England. It's September 1, 1939. Germany and the USSR have just invaded Poland. How do you respond?
Pretend you are FDR. It's December 7, 1941. The Empire of Japan has just executed a sneak attack on the US Pacific fleet. What do you do?
Pretend you are the President of the Republic of Korea. It's June 25, 1950. The army of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has just invaded your country. What do you do?
Pretend you are the Emir of Kuwait. It's August 2, 1990. Three hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers have just marched into your country and informed your people that they are now residents of Iraq's 19th province. How do you resolve your problem?
I do not ask these questions rhetorically. I ask them quite honestly. If you know of a way to resolve critical international conflicts other than through the application of military force, I'd love to hear it.
It is very possible we're doing somthing which third worlds are annoyed by, and we're completely oblivious to it.
We absolutely are doing something that Saddam Hussein is annoyed by. We are quashing his aspirations of rebuilding his army and conquering Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf states. He is quite annoyed by this.
But we haven't given him a chance to explain anything.
Twelve years. Twelve years of chances.
There is a more efficiant, quicker, nonviolent solution.
What is it?
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
I'm sure he does. So what? Does that make him any less insane, and less dangerous? In fact, I'd argue that it makes him more dangerous, because he believes he's right.
Could an argument not be made that he asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait when he informed the US embassador of the time, of his intentions to invade?
That's an old argument, and the story is actually much more complex. In the days before the invasion, Egyptian President Mubarak, at the secret request of the US State Department, went to Baghdad and asked Mr. Hussein if he intended to invade Iraq. Hussein said no, that he expected that Kuwait would soon back down and there would be no need for military action. When Mubarak asked for clarification, Hussein said that the would absolutely not, under any circumstances, send his army into Kuwait.
As soon as he got the chance, Mr. Mubarak passed the news back to the State Department. When Ambassador Glaspie spoke to Mr. Hussein, she knew what Mr. Hussein had said to Mr. Mubarak. She asked Hussein, why are your forces amassed on the Kuwaiti border? Hussein then launched into a complex and meandering discussion of the relationship between Iraq, his territorial claim to Kuwait, Iran, and the Shatt al Arab river. Finally he asked, what is the United States' opinion on this?
Ambassador Glaspie replied, we have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.
She did exactly the right thing. The US believed, through the report of President Mubarak, that Hussein had no intention of going to war. The buildup along the border had all the earmarks of territorial saber-rattling. The US didn't want, at that time, to get involved over a seemingly insignificant territorial dispute in the Gulf, so Ambassador Glaspie stayed cautiously neutral.
In retrospect, if we had supported Kuwait, Hussein may or may not have changed his plans. But knowing what we knew-- or, rather, believing what we believed-- we did exactly the right thing.
I always felt this was the basis of his hatred for the West; he fulfilled his side of the bargain and fought the Iranians but when it came to everyone else fulfilling their part of the bargain, we renegaded on the deal.
Saddam Hussein's motivations have never interested me very much. He's a criminal, a bully, and a madman.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
Then what are you advocating? How would you suggest we solve the Iraqi problem-- i.e., get Iraq to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm-- without war or the threat of war?
You use force to drive them out. This force could be something such as tear gas.
An army equipped to withstand a chemical weapon attack will not be bothered by pepper spray. Non-lethal weapons are great, to the extent that they work. As yet, we have been unable to develop a non-lethal weapon that is as effective against a tank as a single depleted-uranium shell upside the turret.
I'm sure Saddam would prefer non-violence, but we have to be the ones that start it.
I'm sure he would prefer non-violence, too. I'm sure he would prefer any course of action that lets him stay in power, continue to oppress his people, continue to manufacture and amass weapons of mass destruction, and continue to rebuild his army.
Again, I ask: if you know how to stop those things without war or the threat of war, please tell me.
Re:War as an extension of policy by other means* (Score:2)
He wants chemical, biological, and ultimately nuclear weapons.
He wouldn't want an army for nothing.
Oh, that. He wants an army so he can invade Kuwait and seize its oil fields, then invade Saudi Arabia and seize its oil fields, then mop up the rest of the Gulf states and seize their oil fields.
I'm not entirely sure why you're acting as if this is a mystery.
More specific, yes, but not better. For those who don't want to click the link, it consists of a list of measures that the authors believe can disarm Iraq. They are sadly mistaken, and, worse, they've missed the point completely.
Iraq fought a war. They started it, they fought it, and they lost. They lost so badly that they had no choice but to accept the Coalition's cease-fire agreement. The terms of that agreement called for the immediate, voluntary, unilateral disarmament of Iraq.
Immediate. Voluntary. Unilateral. Those three words are important. We're not talking about long-delayed, reluctant, imposed disarmament. That wasn't the deal.
The measures suggested in the linked article will do nothing to force Iraq to give up its arms. As long as Saddam Hussein has a choice, he will choose to defy the will of the Coalition and the UN. The measures described will do nothing more than make it slightly more inconvenient for him to do so, while costing whomever has to enact those measures a fortune.
Right now, Saddam Hussein has a good choice open to him: continue to defy and delay, but periodically concede just enough to be thought by those opposed to war to be cooperating. This way, Mr. Hussein gets to continue to build up his WMD stockpiles and rebuild his armies in preparation for his next act of aggression, while the world sits idly by and watches it happen.
The correct course of action is for us-- the free nations of the world-- to remove his choices one by one until he is left with only three: disarm, according to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement; step down and leave Iraq; or suffer the effects of a full-scale invasion by Coalition forces.
How much more reasonable can we be than this? If he disarms, he can stay in power. If he isn't willing to disarm, he and his family can leave Iraq and live out their lives in comfort, albeit in obscurity, elsewhere in the world. If Mr. Hussein rejects both of those options and chooses instead to go to war, then he truly is a madman, and we'll be doing a great good by depriving him of power.
Anti-war protestsers are bad? (Score:1)
I have nothing against Arabs, or any other ethnic group (except the French, but that's a whole nother issue), and I think this whole war deal is only now necessary because our fraudulent Chimpanzee in Chief rattled the cage of an aging, powerless old tinpot dictator to deflect attention from his failures with the economy and this "war on terror". But now that he's gone and roused the rabble, we are in a position where we HAVE to take care of it, I feel. So, all the anti-war campaigns are in the right vein, but we're past that point thanks to our moron in the Oval Office.
Personally, he's more of a disgrace to the Presidency than the right could have ever made Clinton out to be. What I wouldn't give to get Clinton back...
I don't know what to think... (Score:2)
What I do know is, a lot of people are going to die. A lot of innocent people. It also bothers me that we are setting a new precedent by going in and pre-emptively striking. We're going to throw the first punch. That is very troubling. Maybe it would be better if we wait until he made the first move.
Unfortunately, the first move could be devistating to a lot of people. But if we start a precedence of striking first, it's going to get a lot of other countries that are already nervous about us even more antsy. Look at North Korea.
Then again, it's getting to the point where everyone is going to have a nuke and someday someone won't be afraid to use it. And if that starts, what hell awaits us?
Whatever the case, currently we have Saddam's back against the wall. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the U.S. and it's military might in the area, he would have never let the inspectors back into the country.
Besides, what ever happened to finding bin Laden? And what about that Omar guy? And what happened to rebuilding Afghanistan?
As you can tell, I'm a confused puppy.
Re:I don't know what to think... (Score:2)
Most of the relevant information is not classified. My suggestion to you would be to take one of two paths: either avoid the news media entirely and look only for primary sources, or consult as many media outlets as possible. Whenever a reporter summarizes a story, bias is going to creep in, even if it's inadvertent. Read the Washington Post, but also read the Jerusalem Post.
If you want to know the official position of the United States government, there's no better source than the State Department web site, www.state.gov [state.gov]. I would actually suggest that you start by reading a document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," which is available here [whitehouse.gov]. From there you can move on to the State Department's Iraq page [state.gov], in particular their background note [state.gov]. From this document you can learn things like this:That's a good start. From there, you should start reading everything you can find, but always look for the primary source. The information you want is out there, available. If you're willing to take the time, there's really no reason any of us should have to make an uninformed decision.
Besides, what ever happened to finding bin Laden?
There are two schools of thought on that. The first is that he is no longer in Afghanistan. Opinions on where he fled to differ. The other is that he was killed in a bombing attack on the Tora Bora mountains.
Actually, there's also a third school of thought. Bin Laden is thought to suffer from an affliction called Marfan Syndrome, which affects the way the body produces connective and structural tissues. People who suffer from Marfan usually die of a perforated aorta; the walls of their blood vessels are simply not strong enough, and the aorta, being the largest artery in the body, gives out first. A person who suffers from Marfan could literally drop dead at any moment. There are those who believe that bin Laden may have suffered this fate already.
And what about that Omar guy?
Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, has not been seen since late 2001. It is generally believed that he also died during Operation Enduring Freedom, although this is impossible to prove. We'll just have to wait and see whether he turns up.
Interestingly, a statement attributed to Mullah Omar was released just yesterday, but the jury is still very much out on the subject of its authenticity. The statement didn't say much; it mostly amounted to a set of vitriolic threats against the Afghan people who collaborate with the Americans.
And what happened to rebuilding Afghanistan?
Well, we ousted the Taliban, got the Afghan opposition groups to meet in Bonn in November, 2001, to form the Afghan Interim Authority, and got them to appoint Hamid Karzai to the position of president. In a loya jirga last summer, the Afghan people extended Karzai's interim government to 2004. Over the past year, more than two million refugees have returned to Afghanistan. Roads have been built, schools have been opened-- and for the first time since the rise of the Taliban, girls are attending school-- and in December, Afghanistan and six of its neighbors signed the "Kabul Declaration on Good Neighborly Relations." Just last week, President Karzai announced his commitment to hold free and open elections next year to end the Interim Authority and to establish a federal republic in Afghanistan. I'd say that effort is going quite nicely.
As you can tell, I'm a confused puppy.
That's understandable. But don't be fooled into thinking just because you're not hearing about something on CNN every hour that nothing is happening.
Re:I don't know what to think... (Score:2)
Re:I don't know what to think... (Score:2)
I don't know where that theory went; it may have been retracted, or it may still be a point of debate in the intelligence community. But I think the point is that we'll never know for sure whether the tape was made by Osama bin Laden.
Interesting that there is no video footage of him since 9/11 though.
There is, actually. We have him on videotape talking about the 9/11 attacks, and praising the hijackers, and just generally being an asshole about the whole thing.
Re:I don't know what to think... (Score:2)
Re:I don't know what to think... (Score:2)
Well, the first and most important thing to keep in mind is that Afghanistan and Iraq are two very different places. When it came to Afghanistan, we were able to build a consensus plan with the various opposition groups. Mr. Karzai comes from the majority Pashtun ethnic group, and from the highly respected Populzai clan. There wasn't much conflict over whether Mr. Karzai would make a good leader for the Afghan Interim Authority.
Iraq is a different animal entirely. The Kurds and the Shiites have serious problems with the Sunnis, not to mention with each other. The Kurds would rather form an independent state of Kurdistan-- which the neighboring Turks strongly oppose-- while the Shiites would rather become part of Iran, and the Sunnis would generally be happy to join Hashemite Jordan. It's a very complex situation.
So the plans are entirely different. In Afghanistan, we forged an interim authority and then, for the most part, backed away to let them handle their own affairs. In Iraq, we're planning on running the country as a protectorate for a period of about two years, first under a military governor-general, and then possibly under a civilian authority. We're doing this to ensure that Iraq doesn't break up in to smaller, warring, pseudo-autonomous states after the Baath government falls.
So I would caution you not to set your expectations for a post-Baathist Iraq by the post-Taliban Afghanistan.
That said, here are some good sources on Afghanistan.
The UN's Afghanistan site is a good source for background information [un.org].
The State Department's Afghanistan site has some good information [state.gov] on US efforts there.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has an Afghanistan web site [irinnews.org] as well.
The Times of Central Asia [times.kg], in addition to being a great source of info with a regional perspective, has a site [times.kg] focused on the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
And if you want up-to-the-minute news, you can always search for "Afghanistan" on Google News. It's a good idea to read two or three articles on each news item, so you can see how the different newspapers present each story.
OK, wow, glad I read that one (Score:2)
Get a clue, PLEASE! (Score:2)
Anyway, on to the letter:
Somebody needs to inform this moron that Arabs are Semites, too. What are "Christian" attitudes, anyway? Killing Arabs? Holy cow, it's the Crusades all over again!Re:Get a clue, PLEASE! (Score:2)
Ummm, (Score:2)
Ummm... shut your hole you drunken donut. Just because a person doesn't happen to think we need to or should attack Iraq doesn't make them:
1) anti-American, or
2) anti-Semitic (what the hell is that?)
Funny, no one in the US seems to have been bothered by Saddam's rule and the plight of the Iraqi people in the last 12 years... why now is it such an important thing? Why now are Americans "concerned" with the treatment of Iraqis or Kurds?
Re:Ummm, (Score:2)
Anti-semitic means basically "against jews". Something I think Wil is probably not.
I also don't agree with this whole war buissness. I'm with Germany and France on this one. War should be a last resort, and if there's a window for peaceful means of resolving this conflict, then by all means.
I'm not sure what the actual goal is behind "the war" and if there are hidden agenda's on the U.S.A side of things. Is this war really about oil? I know Saddam is a bad boy, and that the people in Iraq would rather see him go, but still, he's in charge there, and (although it isn't proven yet), he could be sitting on a whole pile of pretty nasty stuff.
Still, the country is a mess. Really. Sure, the food-for-oil deal has helped somewhat, but the 1991 gulf war did hurt Iraq a LOT. Another war will cause more pain and suffering.
Another war will send Iraq down the proverbial toilet for sure, with or without Saddam.
(Oh and excuse my poor grammar in places, since I'm not a native english speaker.)
He sounds... (Score:2)