Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:13:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1464 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
<snip>
> > 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.
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 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.
The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but merely deposing Saddam.
Unfortunatley, it will take war to accomplish this.
> 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.
No, there is a *huge* difference. Guns don't kill people; people do. Arms are
not inherently evil; in fact they can serve a very positive purpose-- self
defense. I don't accept that there is a "mea culpa" for weapons sales, unless
perhaps we are talking about WoMD. But that is another debate:-)
>
> > 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???
Castro is a good example. When he had missles pointed at us, he became an
extreme threat to the US. Though we failed to depose him with our debacle at
the Bay of Pigs, he has turned out to be, although repressive to his people,
harmless as a destabilizer of world security. So if he is what the Cubans
want, then so be it. Democracy in Cuba will have to wait for his death by
natural causes.
> 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.
If Saddam were merely a cruel dictator that the Iraqis were able to tolerate,
then there wouldn't be a problem. But the trouble is that he is a militant
bent upon distabilizing world security. People like this should NEVER have
access to WoMD because they cannot be trusted. He is a liar and should be
removed.
>
> 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... :-)
As I mentioned before, how *else* to depose him? Perhaps what the world needs
*is* a Rainbow Six unit (Clancy novel _Rainbow Six_, a very plausible answer to
terrorism). This situation would be a perfect application:-)
>
> 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.
But *at least* this dictator wouldn't be a distabilizer to world peace (or else
*he'd* be assisted out;-)
> 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!
We can only hope. At least Iraq has enough oil that, if the money were to
actually go to help improving the lives of her citizens, then *dramatic*
results would occur. And it's hard to argue with success.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) Historical circumstance. In the past others undertook the majority of what can now be called terrorist actions; in the future, others (non-muslim, that is) will; it's a never ending and unavoidable cycle. More: it is not dependent on religions (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) I'd "venture" 99% of the terrorism the UK has suffered has been perpetrated people who'd call themselves "Christians". However, Christianity is not what drives them. – it’s greed, nationalism and to a lesser extent some form of political (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) 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! (...) (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
|
|
|
|
