Larry Wall & Cults

[Alan J. Flavell]

They're pretty convinced of that already- after all Dubya called this
a crusade from day 1.

I seriously doubt that he understood what the word meant.

 

[Chuck Dillon]

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?

Please try and follow the trend of the thread you respond to. I did
not address whether or not regime change in Iraq was an optimal move.
I'm responding to the question posed, see above for what it was.

Regardless of how we got where we are there are arguably benefits to
the "war on terror". That doesn't mean you should miopically focus on
them as the sole rationale for regime change in Iraq. See the various
U.N Security Counsil resolutions for the primary rationale. Also, see
the reports from Blix et.al. that point out the lack of cooperation on
the part of the Iraqi government.

Afganistan taught that.

Hence my use of the qualifier "underscores".

Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
crazy.

By "we" you are referring to the some 40 nations who have contributed
to the effort right?

-- ced

 

[Greg Menke]

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.

You may or may not be right about the dumbness of language, but thats
not germane. What is important are the conclusions people in the
middle east draw from it.

[...]
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).

What if what if what if. The problem is we're stuck in a hugely
expensive, poorly planned and strategically stupid situation. We
weren't before we invaded.

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.

To be sure.

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.

One problem with the situation was Dubya & Co succeeded in strongly
hinting that disagreement was akin to treason. There was simply no
policital room for debate after 9/11. Bush was well on his way to
sinking into his own incompetence by September 2001- the incompetence
hasn't changed, but he sure got his mandate to Do Something.

Gregm

 

[Chuck Dillon]

SM Ryan wrote:

# 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.

I don't think anything of the kind. I have no evidence that they were
involved. Whether they were or not is not the point. My point is that
removal of the Iraqi regime *underscores* the potential consequences of
actions like 9/11. It underscores it because Iraq was the largest Arab
military power in the region.

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

I very much doubt you really think the above to be true.

-- ced

 

[Alan Balmer]

Taliban is regaining control in Afghanistan after the USA abandonned the
war on terrorism to seek oil profits.

Well, I'll be damned! There actually *was* someone who believed the
recent Al Qaeda propaganda video!

 

[Bulent Murtezaoglu]

[on the 'crusade' faux pas]

GM> You may or may not be right about the dumbness of language,
GM> but thats not germane. What is important are the conclusions
GM> people in the middle east draw from it.

I think the retraction/clarification came out in less than a day if
not in hours. People who'd report this to further their agenda are also
the kind of people who shamelessly lie regardless of who says what
anyway, so I doubt he did any major damage. But of course it couldn't
have helped.

[...]
GM> What if what if what if. The problem is we're stuck in a
GM> hugely expensive, poorly planned and strategically stupid
GM> situation. We weren't before we invaded.

I'll tell you what's worse: if the guys who got you into this
situation aren't duly punished at the polls, we may well see more of
it. Not that the replacement would be any better necessarily (indeed
he might be worse in many ways), but this kind of poor judgement needs
to have political consequences domestically. With the Soviets gone,
the only force that can keep the US gov't in check right now is the
reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that
weren't true and with the US$ getting weaker by about 20-50% against
major currencies in the past 3-4 years, the true cost of these
adventures would have been obvious by now. But then again, what
do I know?)

[...]
GM> One problem with the situation was Dubya & Co succeeded in
GM> strongly hinting that disagreement was akin to treason.

So it seems.

GM> There was simply no policital room for debate after 9/11. [...]

Yeah that's probably why people didn't point and laugh at the officials
who implied the treason bit above. Now, I suppose it will be having the
armed forces stuck in hostile territory that'll be used for this
purpose.

cheers,

BM

 

[Rupert Pigott]

actions like 9/11. It underscores it because Iraq was the largest Arab
military power in the region.

.... 15 years ago maybe, 2 years ago - no fucking way.

 

[Anno Siegel]

[snipped]

This thread is becoming a nuisance in at least some of the groups
it is crossposted to. I suggest taking out at least the comp.lang.
groups.

Anno

 

[Rupert Pigott]

Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:

reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that

I think there is about as much chance of that happening as
there was of Deutsche Bank saying "No" to the Nazis in WWII.
Take a look at the guff that erupted when Deutsche found
some chump change in their back pocket and decided to buy
Banker's Trust (circa 1998-1999).

Cheers,
Rupert

 

[Coby Beck]

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?

I think Iraq provided a tempting combination of circumstances. It was an
easy military target, it saw an easy sell to the American public and the
American congress, it was a valuable target in terms of regional strategies
and it has very lucrative natural resources. All the other justifications
are very transparent propoganda, and the furious debating (was there WMD,
wasn't there) and hand-ringing (should we have, shouldn't we have..) are a
part of the accidental genius of the American media's opinion construction
machine.

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.

There are of course dozens of countries with these kinds of weapons. And I
think it is extremely unlikely that Iraq's WMD programs will now be halted
under US control. And it is equaly unlikely that UN inspectors will be
allowed back in as long as the US or a US backed gov't is in power there.
But of course that is acceptable for a client state.

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

Indeed, it takes more than supporting terrorism. As you pointed out, Saudi
Arabia and its ruling royal family has verified and direct financial and
operational connections to Al Qaeda and related Islamic extremist groups,
yet they are not in any immediate danger of US invasion. Again it is much
more a question specific regional strategies, the "War on Terror" is just
the excuse to sell this violence to those of us "to squemish" to understand
the unpleasant realities of foriegn affairs. ("You can't handle the
truth!")

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.

Wars are never fought for humanitarian reasons. This war, like all others,
is about economic positioning and power. Believing that the US would spend
100's of billions of dollars just to "liberate" the population of a foreign
nation is laughable except for the fact that so many otherwise intelligent
people actually believe it. Reason 4 above is the only one that can hold an
ounce of water.

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



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

Iraq teaches the Islamic world that the US is indeed their biggest enemy and
lends credibility to the lunacy being preached by the likes of Bin Laden and
Al Zawqari.

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

This is just standard American double-speak whereby a unilateral invasion of
a foriegn nation that *has not* attacked them is self-defense, and where the
delibrate targeting of civilians (as in Fallujah) is referred to as
liberation and where guerilla murderers attacking Nicaragua from another
country are "Freedom fighters" and people resisting an illegitimate foreign
occupying power in Iraq are "terrorists."

And where serious journalists swallow their government's line that foreign
affairs is about "good vs. evil" Again it would be laughable except for its
apathetic acceptance and the horrible cost in human terms that the world
pays.

Us, good, them, evil? No, the world is not so simplistic and Good vs Evil
is a false dichotomy. There are very few truly good forces at play, it is
so much more about personal profit and power. And definitley governments do
not generally place Good and Just above economic advantage.

The US invasion of Iraq is like every other unilateral invasion in human
history, it is about money and power.

 

[Patrick Scheible]

I do not agree. Kennedy and Clinton had a lousy foreign-policy
record. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Cuba crisis were all
examples of glorious miscalculations. Ditto Rwanda, Somalia, and
the

Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.

Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.

-- Patrick

 

[Patrick Scheible]

Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the

^^^
Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
voted against the resolution authorizing the war.

Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.

-- Patrick

 

[Alan Balmer]

Not that the replacement would be any better necessarily (indeed
he might be worse in many ways), but this kind of poor judgement needs
to have political consequences domestically.

So, for the sake of Bush getting what you consider his just desserts,
you are willing to have a replacement who would be worse. In the
middle of a war.

People like you frighten me.

 

[Alan Balmer]

^^^
Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
voted against the resolution authorizing the war.

Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.

http://intelligence.house.gov/
http://intelligence.senate.gov/

 

[Alan Balmer]

Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.

Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.

I didn't get the reference to the "Cuba crisis", either. I assume it
refers to the missile crisis (which kept me in Oakland for a week
while the Army decided which country to send us to.) I thought it was
the Cubans and Russians who miscalculated that one.

 

[Greg Menke]

Please try and follow the trend of the thread you respond to. I did
not address whether or not regime change in Iraq was an optimal
move. I'm responding to the question posed, see above for what it was.

Regardless of how we got where we are there are arguably benefits to
the "war on terror". That doesn't mean you should miopically focus on
them as the sole rationale for regime change in Iraq. See the various
U.N Security Counsil resolutions for the primary rationale. Also, see
the reports from Blix et.al. that point out the lack of cooperation on
the part of the Iraqi government.

I still fail to see why invading Iraq has anything to do with "war on
terror". If the goal is to fight terror (laudable), then why are we
not invading the countries that actually sponsor it? Afganistan was
the right step- but who the hell cares if Iraq "obeyed" the
resolutions? Saddam's regime was wasting away on its own. At some
point, someone was going to get lucky and off him- and then the
Islamic fundamentalist state that Iraq seems to want to become would
start up with the west as investors, not invaders.

Hence my use of the qualifier "underscores".

But you keep proposing that Iraq is also underscoring the same point.
What it means to me is that the US will attack the weakest, easiest
opponent- but not really take over. Instead we'll fool around trying
to be civilized- not much deterrent value there.

If the goal is really to change regimes, then you go in heavy, crack
skulls & massacre as required and then occupy for decades like the
Soviets had to do in the Balkans. THAT would make the impression you
seem to want. If we're unwilling to be the butchers we appropriately
condemn others for being, then we shouldn't be playing games invading
and occupying other countries.

Iraq is a frigging joke- the most powerful military in the world has
every spare soldier both regular and reserves, occupying essentially a
3rd world country, yet is subject to "no go zones" and is forced to
allow organized resistance to simply walk home & start fighting again?
This is a textbook case of how to take on a superpower and win, taught
directly to the people we're trying to fight.

By "we" you are referring to the some 40 nations who have contributed
to the effort right?

Each nation with their couple hundred or fewer people? Don't make me
laugh. This one is the US and the UK and whatever bits & pieces we
could muscle out of all the countries that owe favors. Last time
around we had an actual coalition this one is pretty much only PR.

Gregm

 

[Brian Boutel]

Greg Menke wrote:

Each nation with their couple hundred or fewer people? Don't make me
laugh. This one is the US and the UK and whatever bits & pieces we
could muscle out of all the countries that owe favors. Last time
around we had an actual coalition this one is pretty much only PR.

And, of course, very few countries sent troops to be part of the
invasion force. Many others, like ours, are there in
non-combatant roles to help repair the damage the invaders caused.


--brian


--
Brian Boutel
Wellington New Zealand


Note the NOSPAM

 

[jmfbahciv]

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?

I don't know. Ask Kerry. He's been saying that everything George
Bush did was wrong; this has to include dealing with the Taliban
in Afghanistan.

.. 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?

Nope. Transforming attitudes is the goal. If the only justification
of dealing with a mess is revenge, then you do not believe that
mess prevention is a valid reason. I happen to think that mess
prevention is the best approach. We have different styles.

.. 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?

I have problems with these actions, too. BAcking off is the
very last thing we should be doing with people who think in
the militants' style.

.. 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.

Nope. Not carpet bomb. Carpet bombing a city will not work. This
has to be up close and personal.

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.

Iraq hasn't even had time to start. Nobody can tell if we've
blown it in Iraq. That country is filled with entrepeneur
potential. So far, that potential is getting spent on weapons
procurements and discharges. The trick for success will be
to herd the potential into non-self-destructive enterprises.
That is where we have made a mistake. That guy that was
put in charge favored foreign, not local, enterprises AIUI.
I interpretated this favortism as an effort to appease
France and Germany...I'm not sure about Russia.

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.

This should give you a clue. If Saddam was cash poor what do
you think he would do to acquire more cash. After 1990, Saddam
seems to have into transferring all of Iraq's wealth into his
foreign bank accounts or cold hard American cash.

.. 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.

That was a UN effort.

Are you really advocating that we invade, depose, occupy, torture and
kill all for foreign policy convience?

It's called national security and, if that is what it takes,
yes. In this case, diplomacy didn't work; sanctions didn't work;
containment didn't work [please ignore this, Rupert]; isolated
bombing of borders didn't work; cease fires after getting the
shit beat of him didn't work. Other than completely
wiping the country and its contents off the map which is a
physical impossibility, invasion is about the only option
left.

.. And what in the world makes
you think the Iraqi economy is going to be self-sufficient anytime in
the next 5 years?

Who says I think it's only going to take 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.

Why are you assuming that I think all of this effort is going
to be free?

.. GOP fantasy-land.

The "violations" of the cease-fire were the equivalent of kids
throwing rocks at passing airplanes. Big deal.

This is where your logic flaw lies. It was a big deal. Others
interpreted this as weakness of Western resolve.

.. 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.

It would not have been cheaper. Not at all.

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

Afghanistan was revenge. This is mess prevention and has nothing
to do with revenge.

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

Go ahead and count the bodies. I'm amazed it is so low.

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

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[jmfbahciv]

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.

This style of language had more to do with born-again Christians
dropping into preacher-speak when talking to more than zero
people.

<snip>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[jmfbahciv]

This thread is becoming a nuisance in at least some of the groups
it is crossposted to. I suggest taking out at least the comp.lang.
groups.

I'll start taking them out but I have no idea where people are.
So, if you're not in a.f.c. and want to read what I write, go there.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.