Xah Lee's Unixism

[Greg Menke]

Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:
> >
> >>Antony Sequeira wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Chuck Dillon wrote:
> >>>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.
> > 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.

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.

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


> > 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?
> 

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