Larry Wall & Cults

[Ville Vainio]

Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.

I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
Godwin's law.

 

[jmfbahciv]

[...]
jmf> Would rather he do like Italy? They are letting them go.
jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
bm> Why are those the only two choices? Do you think people turn
bm> into bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?

jmf> Oh, sigh! [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
jmf> it feels better]

I didn't mean to upset you. But sigh indeed.

.. Offtopic in all groups
too.

I don't know where you are so I can't trim newsgroups. I'm in a.f.c.

..Maybe we should get jailed? Who knows _what else_ we might be
up to? Can't be too cautious these days. What color was that alert
now? Better call the authorities.

bm> I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as
bm> much as we fear, yet.

jmf> Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.

Um, I said 'the enemy combatant device' not the people themselves.
There's no doubt that the people themselves are being abused. That's
the whole point of a separate status, no? I thought the 'enemy
combatant' designation was devised to go around both the US law,

Sigh! US law doesn't apply in Afghanistan nor any other country.

...and
the Geneva Convention pertaining to POWs.

What people are not getting treated using the Geneva Convetion
terms?

... As for the _US_ doing it,
yes you are correct, the nation itself isn't doing it. Indeed the
whole reason for the invention of this odd locution was the thought
that the nation would have expected its gov't to at least appear
to stay within certain boundaries. Maybe they needen't have bothered?

... But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice
is between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial
oversight then it will get far worse than we fear. [...]

jmf> WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?

Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207

I'm not going to be able to get out to read that one. Just
mentioning the ACLU gives me the bias that you're listening
with a BS filter. ACLU has gone bonkers in that they've
become completely inconsist these days.

cheers,

BM



jmf> Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you
jmf> think you did.

Let's hear it.

The ACLU types that you're listening to are giving away our
(the US) freedoms to people who don't want us to have them.
IOW, these liberal types are working in concert with these
militants.

<snip...I hate the way your software prefixes these posts>

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.

I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
Godwin's law.

This law doesn't work in a.f.c. newsgroup. It just gets us
started talking about computers and guns and big [rhummm,rhummm]
vehicles.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Morten Reistad]

Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.

I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
Godwin's law.

OK, I'll raise that with a Ghengis Khan and a Pol Pot.

-- mrr

 

[SM Ryan]

# In article <[email protected]>,
# >
# > Grant> shit about international agreements? Bush thinks he's
# > Grant> entitled to declare anybody and everybody an "enemy
# > Grant> combatant" and lock them up in secret forever. Add a
# > Grant> moustache and he'd make a pretty good Stalin.
# >
# >I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
# >Godwin's law.
#
# OK, I'll raise that with a Ghengis Khan and a Pol Pot.

Hence the well known Usenet acronym PKB: Pol Khan Bloody.

 

[Alan Balmer]

I'm not going to be able to get out to read that one. Just
mentioning the ACLU gives me the bias that you're listening
with a BS filter. ACLU has gone bonkers in that they've
become completely inconsist these days.

This particular article isn't even consistent within itself. They try
to make the reader equate "detainees" (most of whom have just been
sent back home) and "secret arrests" which they somehow know all
about. They also complain that "this group is almost entirely Arab,
South Asian, or Muslim ...". Surprise, surprise.

In fact, the article with its list of actions the ACLU has taken
belies its own premise that all these things are happening in secret
without any representation for the "victims."

Years ago, I thought the ACLU was a Good Thing.

 

[Alan Balmer]

Now Congress is shifting towards giving them
more leeway. I sure as hell hope they remember Hoover and his
abuses of power before they suggest putting one guy over it all.

The suggestion has already been made, and President Bush is apparently
going along with it, but refusing to give the position the unlimited
power its proponents want. This gives the disloyal opposition grounds
to claim he's not really serious about terrorism.

 

[Dave Hansen]

I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
Godwin's law.

Godwin's law does not say that when Hitler is invoked, the thread
terminates. Rather it is an indicator the thread has lost all
usefulness. If it ever had any.

Regards,

-=Dave

 

[Chuck Dillon]

How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+ of
Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does that
help avoid
9 qqqq 11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?

If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
nothing to do with Iraq.

However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
avoid another 9/11...
1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing such a
future attach.
2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not developing)
WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no WMD
stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the expertise
to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there are stockpiles.
3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.
4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
will never have to happen.
5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
future planners of Islamic extremist operations.

Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at
least implicit support by a state or very large organization with
resources. If you are one of those pissed off people how are you going
to sell your plan to say Syria?

You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.

Why don't we destroy everything but the U.S., that way we can guarantee
that we'll never have any posibility of a terrqqqqorist attack from
anywhere but from within U.S. I'll leave it to your imagination on how
to extrapolate that to counter terrqqqqorism within U.S.

We could have destroyed Iraq's military in days if we had applied our
full military capabilities without regard to civilian damage and
casualties. We took more American casualties than we had to and we
continue to so that we can minimize civilian risk. We have made no
effort to destroy Iraq, only Hussein's army. The "insurgents" are the
ones blowing up pipelines, other infrastructure and law enforcement
officials. We have people building schools, churches and
infrastructure. You need to find a more accurate news source.

-- ced

 

[Morten Reistad]

[snipped iraqqqqq-rich posting]

If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
nothing to do with Iraq.

However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
avoid another 9/11...
1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing such a
future attach.

Yes, maybe. Iraq was definatly a rouge nation; a mainstay in all the
export documents (You may not export to Libya, Cuba, North Korea,
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and at times Yemen and Sudan). This is
a long-term; non-urgent argument.

2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not developing)
WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no WMD
stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the expertise
to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there are stockpiles.

also valid. A long-term argument, too.

3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.

Dont' you think they already knew that? The main problem is rather
how many iraq's can we handle.

4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
will never have to happen.
5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.

Valid arguments, but this "democracy-building" has been utterly
mishandled. Firstly by an [almost] US-only war, and then by a US
occupation by PHB's.

6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
future planners of Islamic extremist operations.

Are you listening Saudi Arabia?

It may actually have worked with Libya; who consiquosly have changed
sides to want friendly terms with the west, and is making a serious
effort to reform. They also had far more WMD's in the pipeline than
Saddam probably ever had. THAT was a surprise.

Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at
least implicit support by a state or very large organization with
resources. If you are one of those pissed off people how are you going
to sell your plan to say Syria?

You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.

Naivite can take many forms.

This is going to be a long battle, and a lot of the success will
be places at simple logistics. Factors like how much real security
burdons on aviation gives. How much the single victories cost.

We have sort of taken control fo Iraq.

Now, can we handle a North Korea that really goes sour; together
with an al-Quada insurgency in a few african states, plus Sudan,
a few tribal genosides, Turkmenistan gone bad (sliding there fast),
and islamic revolution in Pakistan; or civil war there; plus another
backlash in Afghanistan.

All of these are very real and immediate conserns. I haven't even
touched the Burmas and the Indoneias that seem stable at the moment.

This is why I critisize the go-it-alone policy so harshly. I have
a feeling we haven'ẗ seen the worst yet.

We could have destroyed Iraq's military in days if we had applied our
full military capabilities without regard to civilian damage and
casualties. We took more American casualties than we had to and we
continue to so that we can minimize civilian risk. We have made no
effort to destroy Iraq, only Hussein's army. The "insurgents" are the
ones blowing up pipelines, other infrastructure and law enforcement
officials. We have people building schools, churches and
infrastructure. You need to find a more accurate news source.

It is going to require a solid defense to make Iraq come out right,
and the civil toll in lives is getting large.

-- mrr

 

[Greg Menke]

If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
nothing to do with Iraq.

However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
avoid another 9/11...
1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
such a future attach.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? Thats where
the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. Iraq is chump
change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?

2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not
developing) WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no
WMD stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the
expertise to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there
are stockpiles.

I'm sure there are lots of countries that have the expertise & the
will- how many countries should we invade before that approach starts
looking like a bad idea? I think we should also invade Pakistan right
away- they have working nuclear weapons & real live terrorists, not
just half-baked piles of rusty junk scattered around the country and
half buried under a decade & a half of 3rd world style bureaucratic
corruption & desert sand.

3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they
could have a regime change in about a month's time if they allow
themselves to be in the position of being held accountable for any
future attack.

Don't you mean "if they are ever placed on the Axis Of Evil?"

4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a
base of operations in the center of the region. We probably won't
have to ask for access to bases and airspace in future operations,
which hopefully will never have to happen.

So now we're back to being an imperial power? I thought we were in
Iraq for humanitarian reasons- I guess I didn't get the memo.

5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to practice this sort of thing
before imposing it elsewhere?

6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.

Afganistan taught that. Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
crazy.

You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.

So you're talking about a "preemptive defense"?

Gregm

 

[Chuck Dillon]

Dont' you think they already knew that? The main problem is rather
how many iraq's can we handle.

Apparently not since the Taliban ignored it and it seems the Saudi's
did as well.

4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
will never have to happen.
5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.

Valid arguments, but this "democracy-building" has been utterly
mishandled. Firstly by an [almost] US-only war, and then by a US
occupation by PHB's.

Easy to say and perhaps true. What benchmark does one use to make the
judgment? Can one reasonably expect another administration to do
better? It's easy to criticize something this messy (to say the
least). But unrealistic to expect that there was a significantly
easier road that we failed to see.

Now, can we handle a North Korea that really goes sour; together
with an al-Quada insurgency in a few african states, plus Sudan,
a few tribal genosides, Turkmenistan gone bad (sliding there fast),
and islamic revolution in Pakistan; or civil war there; plus another
backlash in Afghanistan.

All of these are very real and immediate conserns. I haven't even
touched the Burmas and the Indoneias that seem stable at the moment.

This is why I critisize the go-it-alone policy so harshly. I have
a feeling we haven'ẗ seen the worst yet.

I don't see that we've gone it alone at all. Again it is easy to
criticize. I think politically we are better off having our power
tempered by strong nations. It reduces the concerns of all
non-combatants in the west and in the Islamic states. Good cop bad cop
comes to mind.

We may not have seen the worst. Who knows? I cannot see the danger
being significantly reduced until the Islamic mainstream begins to take
ownership of the problem rather than nurturing with unfortunate
rhetoric. And I can't see that happening without a strong incentive.
And I can't imagine a stronger incentive than understanding that we
hold them accountable when extremism from their midsts manifests itself
in the non-Islamic world.

-- ced

 

[SM Ryan]

# However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
# avoid another 9/11...
# 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing such a
# future attach.

Putting that in more mundane terms, if you walk around with loaded shotgun
and gut shoot anyone you think might look funny at you, you will be safer.
Ignores the possibility that the townsfolk might not like your attitude
and arrange an ambush followed by a hanging as needed.

# 2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not developing)
# WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no WMD
# stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the expertise
# to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there are stockpiles.

Leaving Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Korea unmolested. There's a lot of
expertise _and_ material floating around in Russa. A lot of those experts
are now jobless with worthless pensions. If you want to talk about threats,
it would Russians exporting material and experts across their southern border.
That is a threat we can deal with: offer these people worthwhile pensions
to keep their mouths shut. Buy fission materials from Russia. Pay off Russia.
But we don't because that's too expensive.

# 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they could have
# a regime change in about a month's time if they allow themselves to be
# in the position of being held accountable for any future attack.
# Removing the Taliban was a much more ambiguous demonstration of this
# since they had no real military and really weren't an organized state.

With what army do you propose to invade Syria and Iran and Sudan and Korea?
Taliban is regaining control in Afghanistan after the USA abandonned the
war on terrorism to seek oil profits. Iraq is a tar baby. Saddam Hussein
might be permanently out of the picture, but there's no reason yet to think
that if Iraq does somehow become a democracy it will be friendly to the USA.

# 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a base of
# operations in the center of the region. We probably won't have to ask
# for access to bases and airspace in future operations, which hopefully
# will never have to happen.

A soveign Iraq has the right to demand the USA leave. Do you think Iraq
wants to become a target of Al Qaeda the way Saudi Arabia has been simply
for the honor of having USA soldiers in their country?

# 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
# establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.

Why not start with Jordan and Egypt? Those governments are already friendly
to the USA and more suspectible to gentler persuasion than an invading
army. Because they aren't sitting on a sea of oil to make it worthwhile.
The Afghanistan central government is falling apart because the USA abandonned
it and never did the hard work of nation building there.

# 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea" category for
# future planners of Islamic extremist operations.

Again only you and Dick Cheney believe Iraq had anything to do with
terrorism. The real terrorist are back in Afghanistan laughing their
butts off; they are safe today than two years ago because the USA
abandonned the war on terrorism. The only terrorist organisation that
had been operating in Iraq was in the northern fly zone outside of
Saddam's control. These same terrorists are causing so much trouble now.
These same terrorists the USA and Kurds could have dealt with a long
time, except the USA needed to have a terrorist organisation in Iraq
to provide a cause belli.

# Before you respond saying that it increases the number of potential
# terrorists that might carry out an attack, that may or may not be so.
# But for such an attack to be carried out requires organization and
# resources not just a bunch of pissed off people. It would require at

The organisation was being dismantled. But now that the USA has abandonned
the war on terrorism for the quagmire in Iraq, terrorists are reorganising.
Ask Australians about their embassy remodelling.

# You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
# question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
# self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.

Iraq was never a threat to the USA. Al Qaeda is, and the USA has
abandonned the quest to end it or capture Osama bin Laden.

 

[SM Ryan]

# It may actually have worked with Libya; who consiquosly have changed
# sides to want friendly terms with the west, and is making a serious
# effort to reform. They also had far more WMD's in the pipeline than
# Saddam probably ever had. THAT was a surprise.

Libya has been changing for a long time. As Qaddify ages and hears the
flutterring wings of the Angel of Death, he has evolved from fiery
revolutionary sending out terrorists from the safety of his bunker,
to a fledging statesman organising a peaceful and orderly Africa. Libya's
biological and chemical warfare research was too expensive with too
little return, so it was being shut down anyway due to finances. He wants
all embargos ended, trade fully resumed, his people happy enough to
stop trying to kill him, and to go down in history books as a great
leader.

It's been going along for a long time. I doubt it was less about fear
of an attack, and more about political opportunism in both Libya and
the USA.

 

[jmfbahciv]

This particular article isn't even consistent within itself. They try
to make the reader equate "detainees" (most of whom have just been
sent back home) and "secret arrests" which they somehow know all
about. They also complain that "this group is almost entirely Arab,
South Asian, or Muslim ...". Surprise, surprise.

In fact, the article with its list of actions the ACLU has taken
belies its own premise that all these things are happening in secret
without any representation for the "victims."

Yea. They seem to have taken logic lessons from Kerry.

Years ago, I thought the ACLU was a Good Thing.

I agreed with a few things they did; I disagreed with a lot more.
However, I recognized that they were a good check on the
balances. But their latest choices (not only the secret
detainee thing..there were others but I can't recall details)
have had me wondering about how do they come up with their
choices? It's almost as if they cast lots to choose the
case and then flip a coin to see which side they'll defend.
Perhaps our pet lawyer^Wex-lawyer can explain this legal
logic.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

The suggestion has already been made, and President Bush is apparently
going along with it, but refusing to give the position the unlimited
power its proponents want. This gives the disloyal opposition grounds
to claim he's not really serious about terrorism.

Reporting this has been terrible in this corner of the map. I also
had understood that somebody was insisting that the position be
outside the cabinet. I don't like this because it will ensure
a long-term head who will gradually get corrupt as Hooever did.
I also understand that making this a cabinet position will
"politicize" it but there isn't as much chance for having 100%
corruption.

I also need a lesson on policizing. Can't have a head of the
CIA be an ex-Congresscritter because that would politicize the
department. But the CIA has been hogtied with politicizations
since Nixon.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[jmfbahciv]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia?

No. It would have been the stupidest thing to do. Invasion
of Islam's holiest place would have ensure that this mess
turned into a 100% religious war.

.. Thats where
the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from.

IIRC, Hitler came from Austria. So we should have only
invaded Austria to gain control of Africa and Europe?

.. Iraq is chump
change on that account-

It's an ideal place. It's located right in the middle of
all potential trouble makers; its people are more educated
than the other countries' populations so getting them
self-supporting doesn't need a cold start. The country
was already an enemy who had violated terms of cease fire
over and over and over and over and over and over ...
again.

.. heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?

Yes. It's a good plan and the cheapest.
<snip>

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

# In article <[email protected]>,
# Ville Vainio <[email protected]> wrote:

# >I'll raise you a Hitler, in a (probably vain) attempt to invoke the
# >Godwin's law.
#
# OK, I'll raise that with a Ghengis Khan and a Pol Pot.

Hence the well known Usenet acronym PKB: Pol Khan Bloody.

I never saw that. Is it new?

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Greg Menke]

No. It would have been the stupidest thing to do. Invasion
of Islam's holiest place would have ensure that this mess
turned into a 100% religious war.

They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya called this
a crusade from day 1. I thought this war was about threats, not
superstition. You wingers keep changing it around. In what way would
invading and occupying a country that supplies, trains, funds the
terrorists who performed 9/11 be the supidest thing? Isn't the
stupidest thing really invading a country that neither trained nor
harbored 9/11 terrorists or even had much of any weapons suitable for
attacking a neighbor country? If we invaded Iraq simply because its
<easier>, and then back off from laying waste to whatever we want
whenever we want inside the country, then we're not really sending a
convincing message are we? And then, if we choose to get tough and
carpet bomb any city with insurgent activity, then we become the evil
country that we're accused of being. This is one of the faces of
quagmire & we're stuck in it.

Kicking around the weak kids does not impress another bully enough to
leave you alone, you have to beat him up. We started doing so in
Afganistan, then blew it in Iraq.

IIRC, Hitler came from Austria. So we should have only
invaded Austria to gain control of Africa and Europe?

But Hitler was a real threat to his neighbors and was occupying other
countries. Saddam could hardly feed his own troops much less invade
anybody. 10 years ago was different, I'm not vastly fond of Dubya
Sr., but I think he did the right things in Iraq; he was a better
president than his son in all respects.

It's an ideal place. It's located right in the middle of
all potential trouble makers; its people are more educated
than the other countries' populations so getting them
self-supporting doesn't need a cold start. The country
was already an enemy who had violated terms of cease fire
over and over and over and over and over and over ...
again.

Are you really advocating that we invade, depose, occupy, torture and
kill all for foreign policy convience? And what in the world makes
you think the Iraqi economy is going to be self-sufficient anytime in
the next 5 years? Their economy was a top to bottom disaster, a new
one isn't "started", its grown. You'll be happy pumping untold
billions of dollars into their economy over there as long as you don't
have to pay for it with taxes over here. GOP fantasy-land.

The "violations" of the cease-fire were the equivalent of kids
throwing rocks at passing airplanes. Big deal. Saddam's luck was
going to run out at some point- and keeping the lid on him was VASTLY
cheaper than taking over his country.

Well, you've gotten your legally entitled revenge- I hope you like it.

Yes. It's a good plan and the cheapest.

So you're feeling pretty good about the bodycount these days. How
many dead US soldiers and Iraqiis will slake your bloodlust?

I will look forward to your spirited defense of any country in the
world invading another simply because they can & feel like it.

Gregm

 

[Bulent Murtezaoglu]

Soo, another lisper cannot resist the temptation.
[...]
GM> They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya
GM> called this a crusade from day 1. [...]

In all fairness I think that was plain dumbness in use of langauge.
He didn't mean a crusade in the historic sense. Even if he thinks it,
that was nothing more than an unfortunate choice of words. I am 99%
sure of this as I vividly remeber my jaw dropping when I saw him say
it in the window to the left of the one I was reading this very
newsgroup in. The men in that family are not good public speakers
and they seem to have trouble expressing themselves to reporters.
I see no malice in that.

[...]
GM> I'm not vastly fond of Dubya Sr., but I think he did the right
GM> things in Iraq; he was a better president than his son in all
GM> respects.

He was, but the Iraq thing wasn't done right back then either. Of
course it is easy to say this with hindsight, but saving a shiekdom
and a kingdom while ending up in a position where you cross your
fingers that Saddam supresses uprisings w/o too much visible carnage
is not a good outcome. Maintaining a state of embargo against, as it
turned out, the people of Iraq indefinitely was not a good option
either.

It is one of those cases where it's pretty clear that any obvious
option is not good, but it is not clear what the right thing to do is.
Had it been possible to leave the region alone after (or indeed
during) WW-I, some reasonably stable state of affairs might have
emerged. Actually, this is not unlike the Balkans. There, oil was
not in the equation but once Tito was gone, things that should have
happened between the Balkan wars and maybe 1950's ended up happening
in the 90s with much bloodshed and no clean ending (think Kosovo).

Presumably the people who get elected to positions of power are called
leaders because they are supposed to have better ideas and visions on
these things than us geeks do. That has clearly not been the case so
far.

9/11 seems to have gotten rid of any chance of sane action by the US in
the region, anyway. So basically the problem is no longer how the
civilized and reasonably free world will exert its influence in the
middle east, but how the world can try to influence the lone superpower
so it doesn't do too much damage to itself and the rest of the world.
Now that, I suspect, could have been prevented had the influential
people in the states (be it the press, the congress, whatever) showed
some backbone.

cheers,

BM