Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:42:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1451 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > > It won't get to that point.
> > > > I remember Ronald Reagan making a speech about the Empire of Evil (then, the
> > > > USSR), which had WoMD and could try to launch them anytime, so he proposed
> > > > SDI. The thing is, the Soviet Union had *no intention* of starting a war:
> > > > even those hardliners at the Politburo *knew* that MAD was the best defense
> > > > for both sides of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War!
> > > >
> > > > And that's exactly what will grant us security.
> > >
> > > What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no
> > > location to destroy?
> >
> > Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a
> > loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective
> > insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq,
> > which is largely urbanized - Baghdad is a rather large city, as you may know.
>
> Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a
> nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and
> perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to
> denotate one (thus SH having his dirty work done for him).
You can turn that the other way around: even Saddam is clever enough to know
he cannot rely in such a lunatic as OBL. Saddam has managed to keep power
for so long due to a careful choice of allies; he is well aware OBL cannot
be controlled!
And to a lesser degree, Saddam is not prepared to share the stage of events.
> Mike's point is that the enemy is not a nation state, but rather
> _territory-less_ religious fanatics from (and supported by) many states. The
> only way to prevent terrorism is to deal HARSHLY with states who would and do
> support them.
Religious fanatics are not an exclusive of the muslim belief, as you are
much well aware of; and they exist everywhere, not only under dictatorships.
The assumption one state is sponsoring/allowing such fundamentalists to
exist in their territory can not become "casus belli", otherwise every
single state on Earth would become a target (and paradoxally none would have
the legitimacy to attack it!)
You're just entering the fanatics game when you want to destroy the country
that supports them. Do you know they say roughly the same about the US? And
that they too have a point, even though you'll never admit it to be equal in
style to your own?
Sure, there's a big difference between throwing planes into buildings and
selling arms to one's enemy. But both actions have the same effect on the
collective psique, which is not prepared to accept neither.
> The people of Iraq should be asking themselves: Do I *really* support Saddam
> Hussein enough to undertake a war which I am sure to loose at a possibly
> horrific cost? Because the fact is that if SH were to be deposed (internally),
> the case for war against Iraq would be largely defused.
Allow me to draw a parallel:
Does the average Cuban care about Castro, or does he fear what would come
after him? Let's see: the man does enjoy some honest reverence in his land,
but because he's more of a nationalist hero than because of his communist
beliefs. Or do you really think that it was a common belief in communism
that made the cubans unite against the Bay of Pigs landing???
Now transpose to Iraq: the average iraqui is perfectly aware Saddam is a
cruel dictator, so they live their lives in relative distance from politics.
But there are latent nationalistic feelings... so they'd rather defend him
as an *iraqui* dictator than to have a "foreign supported" democratic
leader. It's hard to understand as a line of thinking (for us, who live
under democratic principles already), but it is more than a mere possibility
and it is being conveniently ignored by those who say he'll lose support
upon invasion.
I do agree with you that it would be *a whole lot easier for everyone* if
Saddam were ousted, or even abdicated voluntarily. Even for him it would be
easier! But instead of investing in that option, what we see now is a lot of
khaki in the Kuwaiti desert. (The CIA has been sleeping in working hours... :-)
The question now is: "what comes after Saddam?"
If he is kicked out, it is more than likely to be another military dictator.
If he abdicates, it's the same. So far, no gains for the people.
If war goes ahead, and he loses, two options are possible: military
government by the US, in which case little would change in the relation of
the commonfolk with the government; or a puppet government (1), which would
never be able to grant popular support even if it were truly democratic!
When we know what is prepared to the "after-war", it will probably be easier
to accept it. It will be so even for the iraquis, if they know they can face
more than a rhetoric democracy after the bloody conflict...
Pedro
(1) - even if it weren't one, it would always have that stigma
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) <snip> (...) It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is perpetrated by Muslim fanatics. (...) The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> (...) Now this is a serious thought-- Is the best solution to have the American Flag flying over the streets in Bagdad? In Israel? Have the U.S. take over these countries and say, "Well, now (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to denotate one (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
