OT - Why no war.

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Sergio Servadio, Mar 31, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Bruce Jackson) wrote:

    > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > Allowing Saddam to remain in power another week would lead to disgrace.
    >
    > So we are fighting Sadam to save face?

    That is exactly correct. First and foremost. Secondly it serves as a distractor to keep people from
    noticing the Bush Adminstration's abject failures in domestic issues, and the Republican Party's
    assertion of an extremist right-wing agenda. After all, they're still trying to kill the New Deal
    and to destroy organized labor so that capital has complete control again.

    > > I know you hate to see the Iraqis celebrating their liberation from Saddam's regime. I know it
    > > hurts you to see Iraqi children kissing US soldiers. I know it hurts you to see that the US and
    > > UK leadership was right. I know it hurts you to admit that fewer Iraqi civilians died during the
    > > war than would have died in just a month or two at the hands of Saddam's thugs.
    >
    > I don't think that much of anyone is sorry to see Saddam go. Saddam is/was a bad guy.

    "Bad guy" hardly states the point strongly enough. Saddam Hussein and his cadre were evil, IMHO. But
    then IMHO there are members of the Bush Admistration I think are evil as well.

    > It does scare most of the world that the US seems to believe that it has the right to topple
    > regimes of other countries it dislikes.

    Not regimes it dislikes. Regimes it dislikes who have the ability to affect American "vital
    interests" (read: oil). There are regimes that we stand aside and do nothing about for decades
    (South Africa, for example) despite the evil done there against millions of people. We allow regimes
    that are a *real* threat to the US, regimes that are every bit as repressive and cruel to their
    people, to act with impunity (e.g., North Korea).

    > Now we are in the situation where after rushing into Iraq because the UN arms inspectors couldn't
    > find WMD quickly enough we can not find them very quickly ourselves. While toppling Saddam may be
    > enough of a reason for us to go to war the rest of the world wants to see WMD as justification for
    > the war. If we fail to produce much in the way of WMD world sentiment could again turn against us.
    >

    WMDs may be found by the warehouseful this week, or may not be found for years, or may never be
    found, or may simply never have existed in the first place. Just like Saddam Hussein's boasts to
    have the most powerful army in the world turned out to be delusional, his claims of having
    massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons may have been equally illusory. It would
    fit his personality and the modus operandi of the Iraqi regime, who simply told Hussein what he
    wanted to hear. "Sure, Saddam, we have thousands of barrels of nerve gas in reserve" when dozens
    were more like it. Whether there are significant WMDs remains to be seen- I won't be surprised
    either way, frankly.

    > Of course we have had our hand in the governing of the middle East for a long time. The original
    > generation of kings and sheiks were imposed by the British and closely allied with their business
    > interests. America supported the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein (while he was gassing his own people
    > no less), and still supports the royal family in Kuwait; none of whom are particularily
    > democratic. We have a long history of supporting brutal despots; Saddam's sin was not the way he
    > treated his people, it was his own ambitions were too great and no longer dovetailed with ours.
    >
    > While it was inevetable that Saddam's regime would fail eventually, occupying Iraq may be less of
    > a cake walk than taking it. There could be a lot of Iraqi nationalists and Islamic extremists in
    > numbers too small for military actions but large enough to cause us a lot of headaches through
    > terrorism and suicide bombings in post-Saddam Iraq.

    Nobody likes having their home invaded, and they will resist the invaders even if the dislike the
    regime. I dislike GWB and his Administration intensely (let me put it this way, Rush Limbaugh liked
    Bill Clinton more than I like Shrub), but I'd take up arms to defend my country if it was invaded.

    Attacking Saddam Hussein had the unsurprising effect of increasing his support in and outside of
    Iraq. At least until his regime collapsed. Once he was shown to be weak and defeated, most of his
    support would dissipate. This is also normal.

    > To me there is a real danger that invading (whopps, I mean liberating in Bush-speak) Iraq could
    > result in more terrorism rather than less. Another of the fears that I have is that while we are
    > committed to occupying Iraq some other fanatic could require us to fight a war on two fronts. What
    > if one of the other world power-kegs blows up and North Korea attacks South, China attacks Taiwan,
    > Syria attacks Isreal, or a war erupts between India and Pakistan? We could end up over-commited.

    That is always a risk, and that in part is why the UN and NATO were created. The former to find ways
    to prevent war, the latter as a way to respond to it.

    > The next move is ours. Occupying and rebuilding Iraq could cost $20-30 billion/year and it doesn't
    > look like the Bush budget has allocated anything like that amount for this purpose. Anyone we
    > install will be seen by the Arab community as a puppet government of the US. Our history of
    > choosing leaders in this region has not been so hot. Will we support democracy in Iraq even if
    > they want to elect someone who isn't friendly to the West?

    The Administration has said that yes, it would in the long run but not perhaps in the short run. At
    this time, the plan is to install an American to oversee the occupation and manage the country
    "temporarily." The murder of Khoei, who was strongly affiliated with the Bush and Blair governments,
    suggests that this is not going to be an easy job.

    > > Get over it.
    >
    > A lot of people are gloating right now. The thing is that it ain't over until the fat lady sings.
    > There is a lot of work to do in Iraq and restoring our position in the internaitonal community.
    > Are we going to be as eager to do this hard work as we were to remove Saddam?

    History suggests not.

    > > Mark "proud to be part of the "damned US" Hickey
    >
    > There is the old Bible saying, Pride goes before a fall.
    >
    > > Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
    >
    > Bruce Jackson - Sr. Systems Programmer - DMSP, a M/A/R/C Group company
     


  2. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Sergio SERVADIO <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> >Better be aware that you condemned yourselves to live in disgrace, and fear.
    >
    >While I didn't- and don't support the "coalition" actions in Iraq and disbelieve the misinformation
    >given by the Bush Administration about its motives, the consequences remain to be seen. The murder
    >of Khoei (sp?) is suggestive that any leader thought to be associated with the US and Britain will
    >be less than successful, and it is likely that any "democratic" governent in Iraq is going to be
    >profoundly anti-Western in its outlook for years to come.

    My take on this was that the issues had nothing to do with western influence, but on religious
    issues and him negotiating with a pro-Saddam cleric. I suspect there will be a lot more retribution
    upon Baath party members over the next few months, and that there's little anyone can do to stop it.
    I suspect many of us "civilized folks" on these ng's might be tempted to do likewise if we'd had
    family members tortured to death for little or no reason.

    >I do think that every civilian death and every day in-country in Iraq increases the anger and
    >hatred against us, and decreases US security and safety. The war against terrorism has as yet
    >failed to even remotely comprehend or address the issues underlying anti-American feeling in the
    >Arab and Muslim world, and that failure by this Administration dramatically increases our risk at
    >home and abroad.

    Time will tell. Still, there are signs that the reality of the situation in Iraq is simply too big
    to be spun effectively by the Arab media. I'm hearing of congregants interrupting anti-US, pro-jihad
    rantings of their clerics, telling them they're wrong. That's a new thing. Hopefully Afghanistan and
    Iraq will be to the region what Germany and Japan were to theirs - examples of American largesse
    toward former enemies.

    >> Allowing Saddam to remain in power another week would lead to disgrace.
    >
    >How?

    By allowing him to a) continue to flaunt the 14 UN resolutions b) the terms of the cease fire in
    '91, and c) continue to perpetrate attrocities on his people.

    >> I know you hate to see the Iraqis celebrating their liberation from Saddam's regime. I know it
    >> hurts you to see Iraqi children kissing US soldiers.
    >
    >No trouble with that.
    >
    >> I know it hurts you to see that the US and UK leadership was right.
    >
    >They weren't. They wre just stronger militarily. The war is not over and more importantly the peace
    >is not won.

    I agree it's not over, and that peace (true peace) will be a while coming - but the naysayers who
    claimed there would be hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, that the battle for Baghdad
    would turn into a slaughterhouse, and that the Iraqis would look at us as invaders rather than
    liberators, have certainly been proven wrong.

    >> I know it hurts you to admit that fewer Iraqi civilians died during the war than would have died
    >> in just a month or two at the hands of Saddam's thugs.
    >
    >Remains to be seen, since the bodies haven't yet been counted.

    Read the statistics on the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam. Divide by the number of weeks he's
    been in power. Multiply times three. I'll bet you that number is higher than the civilian body count
    from the war (even though it will no doubt be inflated by those "civilians" who were holding weapons
    when killed).

    >> Get over it.
    >
    >Ditto.

    FWIW, the original post wasn't addressed to you, but Sergio (who I've had very civil and productive
    off-line discussions with since).

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  3. G.Daniels

    G.Daniels Guest

    two thoughts derive from the war: 1)the Iraqi do not need aid for eye doctors and 2)the
    contradictions apparent in the neo-conservative pre-war view that Iraqi are a degraded society of
    repellant dirt bags and the post war view of a liberated people for whom we have shed our blood
    and $$$$$$.
     
  4. Cycling Joe

    Cycling Joe Guest

    this has nothing to do with bicycles.. shut up!

    g.daniels wrote:
    > two thoughts derive from the war: 1)the Iraqi do not need aid for eye doctors and 2)the
    > contradictions apparent in the neo-conservative pre-war view that Iraqi are a degraded society of
    > repellant dirt bags and the post war view of a liberated people for whom we have shed our blood
    > and $$$$$$.
     
  5. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    [email protected] (g.daniels) wrote:

    >the contradictions apparent in the neo-conservative pre-war view that Iraqi are a degraded society
    >of repellant dirt bags and the post war view of a liberated people for whom we have shed our blood
    >and $$$$$$.

    Show me one quote where anyone in the US administration ever intimated that the Iraqi PEOPLE were
    anything but victims of Saddam's regime.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  6. In rec.bicycles.tech Bruce Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:

    > There are worse dictators out there and larger human rights abuses. It is interesting that we
    > ignore all of the ones where there are is no oil or other strategic interests. We know for a fact
    > that N. Korea has WMD but we opt for diplomacy there while we invade Iraq.

    There's a Catch-22: One can't go after all human rights abusers at once. When one finally does go
    after one militarily, one gets accused of bullying, and there is much hand-wringing and worring over
    what will cause another country to be invaded. Meanwhile, some of the other critics decry the fact
    that there are other human rights abusers out there who haven't been attacked.

    OK.

    Should the US go instantly after every county where some dictator is violating human rights and
    threatening local countries? I don't think so.

    Should the US never respond militarily to armed threats? I think there are levels where it
    should respond.

    (You can put in UN, UK, NATO, United Europe, or Vatican City in for "US" in the above questions. I
    think the answers still stand: A nation, or bloc, should not go to war over small matters; but it
    should be prepared to go to war if the matter is large enough.)

    Now, there is certainly room for debate in this case (and in just about every war) over whether the
    reasons *are* important enough (and I'm not discussing that in this post). But saying "hey, there
    are other people who ought to be attacked if you're bothering to attack this one" isn't valid.

    mike

    --
    Mike Fischbein [email protected] Any opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of any other
    entity. They may not even be mine.
     
  7. In rec.bicycles.tech Bruce Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Now we are in the situation where after rushing into Iraq because the UN arms inspectors
    > couldn't find WMD quickly enough we can not find them very quickly ourselves.

    The UN inspectors are *not* suppose to be detectives. They aren't supposed to have to search for
    weapons; they're supposed to be witnesses that governments are living up to their commitments or
    statements.

    That's the way it worked in other countries that went through disarmament inspections. Yes, Iraq
    was different in that they only agreed to the UN conditions to stop the 1991 coalition from
    continuing past Kuwait; the other countries were volunteers (e.g., ex-SSRs that wanted to get rid
    of Soviet arms).

    The UN inspectors don't have the staff or other resources to try to track down the proscribed
    weapons without the cooperation of the local government. In Iraq, it was obvious that cooperation
    was not forthcoming -- even slight amounts of cooperation only happened when divisions were already
    massing on the border. The UN provided more than a decade for Iraq to live up to the agreements they
    made. Saddam and his regime didn't do that; it was obvious that they wouldn't do that unless under
    the direct threat of military force.

    The UN inspectors aren't supposed to be searching for WMD; they're supposed to be led to them.

    mike

    --
    Mike Fischbein [email protected] Any opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of any other
    entity. They may not even be mine.
     
  8. Michael Fischbein <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > There's a Catch-22: One can't go after all human rights abusers at once. When one finally does go
    > after one militarily, one gets accused of bullying, and there is much hand-wringing and worring
    > over what will cause another country to be invaded. Meanwhile, some of the other critics decry the
    > fact that there are other human rights abusers out there who haven't been attacked.

    Let's put it this way. The best predictor of who we support in other countries always seems to
    follow the money. When it is in our (or our corporations) financial best interest to oppose a
    certain despot we do, when it is expedient to support a certain despot we support them. In this case
    human rights is being used as a justification. I'd also point out that we supported some very
    unsavory characters in the past whenever we felt it was in our best interest to. The rest of the
    world is not blind and they have noted our duplicity.

    > Should the US go instantly after every county where some dictator is violating human rights and
    > threatening local countries? I don't think so.

    We should apply pressure which we sometimes do. The problem here is that sometimes we see a lot of
    profits and ignore blatent abuses. We happily traded with China even though they brutally invaded
    Tibet. Our companies wanted a piece of the China market so we conveniently ignored their
    transgression. When Iraq invaded Kuwait we feared Hussein getting control over too much of the
    world's oil so we sent the calvary in.

    > Should the US never respond militarily to armed threats? I think there are levels where it should
    > respond.

    Iraq is an armed threat? We soundly defeated them a dozen years ago in desert storm and their
    military is hardly a shadow of what it used to be.

    > (You can put in UN, UK, NATO, United Europe, or Vatican City in for "US" in the above questions. I
    > think the answers still stand: A nation, or bloc, should not go to war over small matters; but it
    > should be prepared to go to war if the matter is large enough.)

    I do think that it is a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power now. That is a good thing
    that has come from the war. As a nation we do need to look out for our own best interests. The
    stated goal of the war was to battle terrorism. There is the very real possibility that the war will
    end up making us more vulnerable to terrorism rather than safer. Even our own CIA director voiced
    this opinion.

    > Now, there is certainly room for debate in this case (and in just about every war) over
    > whether the reasons *are* important enough (and I'm not discussing that in this post). But
    > saying "hey, there are other people who ought to be attacked if you're bothering to attack
    > this one" isn't valid.

    Of course it is valid. If I got a ticket for going 5 MPH over the speed limit while many other
    motorists were traveling 15 MPH over I'd ask why I was singled out.

    Considering that we refuse to give Geneva Convention rights to our prisioners in Guantanamo bay and
    our own government can now imprision American citizens indefinitely without charges or even access
    to lawyers I'd say that we ourselves are not exactly paragons of virtue in the human rights
    department. Again our concern over human rights is only aroused when it can be used as a pretext to
    protect our financial interests.

    Bruce
    --
    Bruce Jackson - Sr Systems Programmer - DMSP, a M/A/R/C Group company
     
  9. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Michael Fischbein <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In rec.bicycles.tech Bruce Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Now we are in the situation where after rushing into Iraq because the UN arms inspectors
    >> couldn't find WMD quickly enough we can not find them very quickly ourselves.
    >
    >The UN inspectors are *not* suppose to be detectives. They aren't supposed to have to search for
    >weapons; they're supposed to be witnesses that governments are living up to their commitments or
    >statements.
    <snip>
    >The UN inspectors aren't supposed to be searching for WMD; they're supposed to be led to them.

    I'm always amazed at the number of people who simply don't realize this. It's the very basis for the
    war, yet many who seem to have very strong opinions think the inspection process was supposed to be
    nothing more than a glorified Easter egg hunt.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  10. G.Daniels

    G.Daniels Guest

    Cycling Joe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > this has nothing to do with bicycles.. shut up!
    >
    war and peace have everything to do with all of us-from the saftey of the sport in europe, to the
    bike industrie's vitality, to the safety of your children. and as to the quote(s)- bush and company
    would not "liberate" the dirt bags who worship a rock in the desert if this so-called "libertion"
    was not in BC's favor in the polls. and BC is not about to say that we should bleed for dirt bags in
    Iraq are they? Nope. but please notice that the BC darwinists proclaiming dog eat dog here in the US
    suddenly change stripes overseas in a massive orgy of military might vs a 12th century army then
    arrange for tax $$$ to head into USA Corp's hand's using overseas labor while research and

    begging??? forget the liberation, it's TV coverage and political force- not your safety, or the
    safety of people in general. believe that bs and you buy the bridge dude. yo, breathe some coal dust
    on your next ride to the store for franks? Quote what? the wretched of the earth are in Mississippi.
     
  11. G.Daniels

    G.Daniels Guest

    War is out at Bike .Tech? everyone shut up? bored? war is relevant. for example: before asymphonic
    concert say at Lincoln Center. Would one expect to hear conversation about war or hear a statement
    that "WAR is GOOD"? Not likely. But today with a war on and one won by rolling over the opposition,
    the "war is good" is possible even at Lincoln Center. Media people hunt down people who say things
    like "war is good." It's the headless chicken quote. Find a poultry expert supporting unlimited coal
    burning and get him to say there are no headless chickens when we all know that once upon a time….
    Now, look in the mirror at that blue l967 Suburban coming up from behind with the oversize tires IN
    THE BIKE LANE!!!! The one with the"I KILL CATS WITH MY AK" sticker on the back. "WAR IS GOOD" The
    Suburban will not be found in the Lincoln Center's parking area. Maybe at "TESTi'S LAST STOP TAVERN"

    "WAR IS GOOD" There are people reading this(ID from the "2001" opening) who believe "War is Good" of
    dewdew "War is good BECAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most immortally "WAR IS GOOD BECAUSE WAR STIMULATES THE
    GROWTH(sic)OF TECHNOLOGY' wow!! we got color TV und radar Take the "WAR IS GOOD" TEST:

    Assemble gruesome photos, a large hole filled with dead jews or arabs, graphic artists paintings of
    WWII, a favorite-the marine coming ashore a Bougainville getting his arm blown off and not knowing
    it just yet.Once upon there were coffee table books in this genre. Look at these wonderful moments
    bringing us radar then look at the mirror and say ‘war is good' war is good'

    The crew at TESTi'S,and Earth Idiots hiking trails, camping, cycling are compatible more or less
    but during times of stress…."war is good" and the cyclists pedaling on the road's edge are ? well
    ura for clean air right? then ura against coal, oil, SUV texans and god knows what else-Budweiser?
    In these circles(?) 2+2 does not equal 5 or 6 but often doesn't equal anything yet becomes a symbol
    to die for... We may be the enemy.keep one on the mirror. and your hands on the and watch the
    hunters. closely.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...