Xah Lee's Unixism

[Coby Beck]

"Greg Menke" <gregm-news at toadmail.com> wrote in message
news:m3pt4qc57f.fsf at europa.pienet...
> Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:
>
> > 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?

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.

> > 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.

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.

> > 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?"

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!")

> > 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.

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.

> > 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.

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.

> > 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"?

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.

-- 
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")