Xah Lee's Unixism

[jmfbahciv at aol.com]

In article <m3sm9lvwnv.fsf at europa.pienet>,
   Greg Menke <gregm-news at toadmail.com> wrote:
>
>jmfbahciv at aol.com writes:
>
>> In article <m3pt4qc57f.fsf at europa.pienet>,
>>    Greg Menke <gregm-news at toadmail.com> 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? 
>> 
>> 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?

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.
>
> 
>> > .. 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?
>
>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.
>
> 
>> > .. 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.
>
>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.

>
>
>> > .. 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.
>
>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.