Xah Lee's Unixism

[Morten Reistad]

In article <ci4gs0$23p$1 at grandcanyon.binc.net>,
Chuck Dillon  <spam at nimblegen.com> wrote:
>Antony Sequeira wrote:
>
>> Chuck Dillon wrote:

[snipped iraqqqqq-rich posting]

>> 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.

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. 

>> 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.

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

-- mrr