THIS SHIT HAS GONE TOO FUCKING FAR!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thanks for the correction. In any case, the primary concern is the political damage of nukes or large scale firebombing.

If we used nukes against a military formation in the field, the only political damage would come with whiny extremist liberals at home and in Europe. The Mid-East would be scared stiff of us. Remember that the Arab Street quieted up for a good half-year after we took out the Taliban; their culture is not only medieval in laws but in outlook, and displays of extreme brute power will impress them.

A display of the ultimate device against a suitably military target is likely to cow the entire region. That's probably why so many various leaders in the Mid-East have been obsessed with "the Arab Bomb" even before Israel got nukes, despite not having effective delivery systems to counter the USA. The idea of Pan-Arabism is not new (Remember the old U.A.R.?) and any arab regime with a nuclear device could try to bring about that unification.

I never claimed Saddam wasn't a threat to the region. There are a lot of countries that are threats to their regions *cough* Israel *cough*,

In what way is Israel a threat to the region? They don't maintain any territorial land claims that could be disputed with other sovereign nations except for the Golan Heights, and that just brings them into conflict with Syria and Syria's proxy Lebanon. That's about average for your average regional power.

The entire Palestinian problem is a purely internal one that's been blown out of proportion by superpower meddling during the Cold War, and granted currently exists as a problem, but once solved, the State of Israel cannot qualify as a regional threat. Even now its only one because the Arabs make it one.

Israeli territorial ambitions do not extend beyond the River Jordan.

and we don't take action against them. If America was the righteous Globocop it portrays itself as, I might buy that argument as reason to go to war, but seeing as how we didn't intervene in any of the holocausts, racial/tribal/religious wars, civil wars, apartheid policies of the last few decades, I know that the reason has to be economically motivated.

Yes, it is economically motivated. The region is economically important to us, that's why we're intervening there. I'm not denying that at all - Please, don't think I am. I WANT US TO INTERVENE IN THE MID-EAST BECAUSE IT IS ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT TO US. The first war the USA fought after our war for independence was against the Barbary Pirates - And the reason, of course, was economic.

I'm just contesting with you the point that our intervention in Iraq has the sole goal of exploiting Iraq. That isn't what economics is about at all, and if you think it is you've been reading to much Marxist ideology. We get involved in that region to make it is positive for our business interests as possible. So what? The USA has been doing that since it got started. See Barbary Pirates. Also since we started we've never stayed long term in these countries we set straight.

Our interests are purely, again, for business, and not for the plunder-and-booty affairs of colonial exploitation which the liberals have confused with a merchantile republic's handling of things which get in the way of good economic exchange and business.

If our economic interests are threatened, or if they can be greatly improved, by certain actions, I think either one is indeed a rational reason for War. What's the big deal about that? If you say it's because that's not the way the war is being protrayed - So what? Saddam probably is harboring terrorists; he's certainly had one major Al-Qaeda operative in one of his hospitals. We don't have concrete proof of a firm connection but we may turn it up when we dig around there - And the region will be greatly improved by the replacement of his regime with a democratic one amenable to business. No evil exploitation involved. Probably a bleeding Marshall plan lite.

Hmm. Weird. How would the fall of Iraq lead to the collapse of Iran?

There are other factors acting in Iran already that make it ripe for collapse. Combine those with the example of US troops overthrowing the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and democratic reforms being implemented. We would also have a strong presence along the Iranian border along which to exert pressure, and to aide these groups - not directly but rather covertly - And aide or general support over a direct land border is easier than in any other fashion.

In essence I think we'd be providing moral support with that very strong example, and we would be able to reinforce it with intelligence and some logistical support, perhaps, for anti-Ayatollah groups in Iran to work against the government there; along with radio broadcasts from Iraq and so on.

Also remember in conclusion that the Domino Effect in political theory has some validity; both Indochina and Cambodia fell to communism after South Vietnam. Once democracy triumphs in Iraq there are certain forces in particular other Muslim countries that may allow it to in turn triumph there, and the strongest of these is Iran.

Interesting. I never thought about it from that angle. So instead of simple greed for another man's oil, it's a desire to control a majority of the world's oil so as not to be beholden to OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia. I guess this is the "chess game" Piett was talking about.

No. It's a desire to eliminate terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Note that the loss of the Saudi reserves from the market would indeed increase oil prices - even with Iraq and Iran at full production with modern equipment - Just that with the above, or even just Iraq, we'd be able to handle the blow without massive economic repercussions.

Once Iraq is pumping oil we can go into Saudi Arabia to eliminate the nest of terrorism which is that Wahhabist festering sore without causing excessive strain to the world economy. It will probably involve sanctions to cripple them first however.

So in the long term to effectually fight the war on terrorism, Iraq must be producing oil in large quantities. That's the only way we can prepare to go after the central menace. Essentially Iraq has to go; or at least Saddam does, or else we have to cooperate with him, and taking him out is a far more palpatable option these days.

[Admiral Piett]

And the region will be greatly improved by the replacement of his regime with a democratic one amenable to business. No evil exploitation involved. Probably a bleeding Marshall plan lite.

Oh please,stop with that propaganda about "democratic government" and "Marshal plan".
You are going to place there one of your puppets.You may call it "democratic government" and it would surely be better than Saddam (not that it requires a big effort).But always a puppet.
And in case you have not noticed prosperity does not arise automatically everywhere the americans put their boots.Your beloved Mac Arthur had to ask for food to feed the japanese people with "Send me food, or send me bullets" .Speaking about you being so anxious to rebuild the country...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Thanks for the correction. In any case, the primary concern is the political damage of nukes or large scale firebombing.

If we used nukes against a military formation in the field, the only political damage would come with whiny extremist liberals at home and in Europe. The Mid-East would be scared stiff of us. Remember that the Arab Street quieted up for a good half-year after we took out the Taliban; their culture is not only medieval in laws but in outlook, and displays of extreme brute power will impress them.

I find that hard to justify. The bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still looked on with scorn 58 years later. Just because you personally wouldn't have a problem with it is not evidence that only "whiny extremist liberals" would.

A display of the ultimate device against a suitably military target is likely to cow the entire region. That's probably why so many various leaders in the Mid-East have been obsessed with "the Arab Bomb" even before Israel got nukes, despite not having effective delivery systems to counter the USA. The idea of Pan-Arabism is not new (Remember the old U.A.R.?) and any arab regime with a nuclear device could try to bring about that unification.

Nuclear technology has been around a long time. Frankly, I don't know why we even bother trying to stamp out nuclear programs. Even if we put down Iraq now, someone else will develop them later. It's just delaying the inevitable.

I never claimed Saddam wasn't a threat to the region. There are a lot of countries that are threats to their regions *cough* Israel *cough*,

In what way is Israel a threat to the region? They don't maintain any territorial land claims that could be disputed with other sovereign nations except for the Golan Heights, and that just brings them into conflict with Syria and Syria's proxy Lebanon. That's about average for your average regional power.
The entire Palestinian problem is a purely internal one that's been blown out of proportion by superpower meddling during the Cold War, and granted currently exists as a problem, but once solved, the State of Israel cannot qualify as a regional threat. Even now its only one because the Arabs make it one.
Israeli territorial ambitions do not extend beyond the River Jordan.

Although I disagree, I'd like to keep this debate on the subject of Iraq.

and we don't take action against them. If America was the righteous Globocop it portrays itself as, I might buy that argument as reason to go to war, but seeing as how we didn't intervene in any of the holocausts, racial/tribal/religious wars, civil wars, apartheid policies of the last few decades, I know that the reason has to be economically motivated.

Yes, it is economically motivated. The region is economically important to us, that's why we're intervening there. I'm not denying that at all - Please, don't think I am. I WANT US TO INTERVENE IN THE MID-EAST BECAUSE IT IS ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT TO US. The first war the USA fought after our war for independence was against the Barbary Pirates - And the reason, of course, was economic.

I'm just contesting with you the point that our intervention in Iraq has the sole goal of exploiting Iraq. That isn't what economics is about at all, and if you think it is you've been reading to much Marxist ideology. We get involved in that region to make it is positive for our business interests as possible. So what? The USA has been doing that since it got started. See Barbary Pirates. Also since we started we've never stayed long term in these countries we set straight.

You may not see a problem with this, but I do. Don't get me wrong, I think international trade is great, particularly for something as vital as oil, but I just don't put a higher price on how much I have to pay at the pump than the lives of hundreds or thousands of our sons and daughters and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The benefit isn't worth the cost.

As for the second point, that we don't stay long term, that is precisely another of my gripes. We dispose of an unfavorable despotic regime to serve our economic interests, then we leave, and 10 or so years later, surprise surprise, another, possibly even worse despotic regime has taken its place. What makes it worse is the propaganda machine makes all sorts of promises about installing democracy, paving streets, setting up schools, etc. and then we don't do any of it unless the media's watching. Case in point, have you heard anything about us following through on all those flowery promises we made about Afghanistan? I haven't, in fact I haven't heard anything at all about the current state of Afghanistan since we toppled the Taliban. All we did was set up a puppet in Kabul that's friendly to us, without any checks and balances to make sure they are as friendly to their own people, and left the rest of the country in turmoil. What the hell kind of irresponsible, amoral bullshit is that?

Our interests are purely, again, for business, and not for the plunder-and-booty affairs of colonial exploitation which the liberals have confused with a merchantile republic's handling of things which get in the way of good economic exchange and business.

Don't put words in my mouth, Marina. Never once did I use the word "exploitation" or even imply that I was a Marxist (I'm not, by the way).

I know what our interests are, and I know what the benefits are. I also know the costs and our shitty record of leaving places in shambles when we leave, and I just don't think it's 1) worth it, and 2) morally responsible as members of the global community to just go around like fucking Tony Soprano, gunning down anyone who gets in the way of our economic interests.

If our economic interests are threatened, or if they can be greatly improved, by certain actions, I think either one is indeed a rational reason for War. What's the big deal about that? If you say it's because that's not the way the war is being protrayed - So what? Saddam probably is harboring terrorists; he's certainly had one major Al-Qaeda operative in one of his hospitals. We don't have concrete proof of a firm connection but we may turn it up when we dig around there - And the region will be greatly improved by the replacement of his regime with a democratic one amenable to business. No evil exploitation involved. Probably a bleeding Marshall plan lite.

If you think Iraq is going to end up with a stable democratic regime and everything will just be peachy keen, I've some swampland in Texas to sell you. And if the best link between Saddam and terrorism you can come up with is that, once upon a time, some Al Qaeda operative stayed in a hospital in Iraq, that just confirms that there is no connection.

Hmm. Weird. How would the fall of Iraq lead to the collapse of Iran?

There are other factors acting in Iran already that make it ripe for collapse. Combine those with the example of US troops overthrowing the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and democratic reforms being implemented. We would also have a strong presence along the Iranian border along which to exert pressure, and to aide these groups - not directly but rather covertly - And aide or general support over a direct land border is easier than in any other fashion.

In essence I think we'd be providing moral support with that very strong example, and we would be able to reinforce it with intelligence and some logistical support, perhaps, for anti-Ayatollah groups in Iran to work against the government there; along with radio broadcasts from Iraq and so on.

Also remember in conclusion that the Domino Effect in political theory has some validity; both Indochina and Cambodia fell to communism after South Vietnam. Once democracy triumphs in Iraq there are certain forces in particular other Muslim countries that may allow it to in turn triumph there, and the strongest of these is Iran.

Hmm. We'll see. If what you're saying is true, it seems like Iran is going to collapse internally anyway.

Interesting. I never thought about it from that angle. So instead of simple greed for another man's oil, it's a desire to control a majority of the world's oil so as not to be beholden to OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia. I guess this is the "chess game" Piett was talking about.

No. It's a desire to eliminate terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Note that the loss of the Saudi reserves from the market would indeed increase oil prices - even with Iraq and Iran at full production with modern equipment - Just that with the above, or even just Iraq, we'd be able to handle the blow without massive economic repercussions.

Once Iraq is pumping oil we can go into Saudi Arabia to eliminate the nest of terrorism which is that Wahhabist festering sore without causing excessive strain to the world economy. It will probably involve sanctions to cripple them first however.

So in the long term to effectually fight the war on terrorism, Iraq must be producing oil in large quantities. That's the only way we can prepare to go after the central menace. Essentially Iraq has to go; or at least Saddam does, or else we have to cooperate with him, and taking him out is a far more palpatable option these days.

That's what I meant. We can't do any of those things while beholden to Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

[Admiral Piett]

"I find that hard to justify. The bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still looked on with scorn 58 years later. Just because you personally wouldn't have a problem with it is not evidence that only "whiny extremist liberals" would."

Actually it depends on her definition of "whiny extremist liberals"...

"Nuclear technology has been around a long time. Frankly, I don't know why we even bother trying to stamp out nuclear programs. Even if we put down Iraq now, someone else will develop them later. It's just delaying the inevitable."

It has already happened.Pakistan is in the nuclear club.They have India as primary threat but nothing would prevent them from trying the "bomber in the container trick".And before yelling to me that Pakistan does not have any reason to do that,please explain me why Iraq should do it instead.

"You may not see a problem with this, but I do. Don't get me wrong, I think international trade is great, particularly for something as vital as oil, but I just don't put a higher price on how much I have to pay at the pump than the lives of hundreds or thousands of our sons and daughters and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The benefit isn't worth the cost."

Things are more complicated than that.That oil could be used to finance terrorism for example.So in theory it may not be a simple oil vs blood debate.

"What makes it worse is the propaganda machine makes all sorts of promises about installing democracy, paving streets, setting up schools, etc. and then we don't do any of it unless the media's watching. Case in point, have you heard anything about us following through on all those flowery promises we made about Afghanistan? I haven't, in fact I haven't heard anything at all about the current state of Afghanistan since we toppled the Taliban. All we did was set up a puppet in Kabul that's friendly to us, without any checks and balances to make sure they are as friendly to their own people, and left the rest of the country in turmoil. What the hell kind of irresponsible, amoral bullshit is that?"

It is a dilemma:occupying the country would mean risking to face a guerrilla.But no occupation means anarchy,which means no pacification,no democratization and no prosperity.Guess what has been the US solution?

"I know what our interests are, and I know what the benefits are. I also know the costs and our shitty record of leaving places in shambles when we leave, and I just don't think it's 1) worth it, and 2) morally responsible as members of the global community to just go around like fucking Tony Soprano, gunning down anyone who gets in the way of our economic interests."

Well to be correct you do not leave the places worse as you found them.You merely leave them as they are or with small improvements.The few exceptions,such as Japan,have been exaggerated by the US propaganda,essentially taking much of the credit that should go to japanese people.I do not want to downplay the role played by american help,which was critical in some instances, but frankly I am getting tired of the "we are so good at rebuilding countries" (often used as justification for "let's bomb them") bullshit.Living in one of those countries you supposedly rebuilt maybe I have a slighty better perspective about the matter.
And as far as Tony Soprano goes I am awaiting for when you will start to negotiate trade disputes with the EU keeping TACTOMs flying in circle over the europarliament

"And if the best link between Saddam and terrorism you can come up with is that, once upon a time, some Al Qaeda operative stayed in a hospital in Iraq, that just confirms that there is no connection."

The sad part is that probably there are not more Al Quaeda operatives in Iraq than in any other arab and probably even european country.You may get more terrorists bombing London probably.Osama and Saddam would probably try to kill each other if they could (two cocks in the same hen-roost as we say in the our country) .

"Also remember in conclusion that the Domino Effect in political theory has some validity; both Indochina and Cambodia fell to communism after South Vietnam."

Destabilizing the area you may well get your domino effects.Unfortunately the fundies will probably benefit from it more than the democratic forces,weak in the majority of those muslim countries.

"I guess this is the "chess game" Piett was talking about."

I love that political/military/economic game.Until I realize that people are going to die in it.Then it is not so funny.

"Once Iraq is pumping oil we can go into Saudi Arabia to eliminate the nest of terrorism which is that Wahhabist festering sore without causing excessive strain to the world economy. It will probably involve sanctions to cripple them first however."

Notice the uncle's Sam was not worried by Wahabism when it was so useful to destabilize the soviet muslim satellites...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

"I find that hard to justify. The bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still looked on with scorn 58 years later. Just because you personally wouldn't have a problem with it is not evidence that only "whiny extremist liberals" would."

Actually it depends on her definition of "whiny extremist liberals"...

I'm not so sure. Any reasonable definition would exclude the middle of the political spectrum that most people occupy, and I doubt most people would be nonchalant about a nuclear strike as Marina apparently is.

"Nuclear technology has been around a long time. Frankly, I don't know why we even bother trying to stamp out nuclear programs. Even if we put down Iraq now, someone else will develop them later. It's just delaying the inevitable."

It has already happened.Pakistan is in the nuclear club.They have India as primary threat but nothing would prevent them from trying the "bomber in the container trick".And before yelling to me that Pakistan does not have any reason to do that,please explain me why Iraq should do it instead.

Pakistan has a lot more reason to do that than Iraq. If I had to guess the next major global hotspot, I'd put Kashmir at or near the top.

"You may not see a problem with this, but I do. Don't get me wrong, I think international trade is great, particularly for something as vital as oil, but I just don't put a higher price on how much I have to pay at the pump than the lives of hundreds or thousands of our sons and daughters and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The benefit isn't worth the cost."

Things are more complicated than that.That oil could be used to finance terrorism for example.So in theory it may not be a simple oil vs blood debate.

This is the kind of guilty until proven innocent mindset I'm talking about. You have to do more than say Iraq's money "could be used to finance terrorism" to justify attacking a country. My roomate's paycheck could be used to finance terrorism, maybe I should make a citizen's arrest until he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't connected to "terrorists" (which of course can be defined to include almost any violent criminal or organization with anti-U.S. sentiments). Until the unwarranted assumption that Iraq is connected to terrorism is justified, it will remain a simple oil vs. blood debate.

"What makes it worse is the propaganda machine makes all sorts of promises about installing democracy, paving streets, setting up schools, etc. and then we don't do any of it unless the media's watching. Case in point, have you heard anything about us following through on all those flowery promises we made about Afghanistan? I haven't, in fact I haven't heard anything at all about the current state of Afghanistan since we toppled the Taliban. All we did was set up a puppet in Kabul that's friendly to us, without any checks and balances to make sure they are as friendly to their own people, and left the rest of the country in turmoil. What the hell kind of irresponsible, amoral bullshit is that?"

It is a dilemma:occupying the country would mean risking to face a guerrilla.But no occupation means anarchy,which means no pacification,no democratization and no prosperity.Guess what has been the US solution?

Or you can spend a little money and effort to set up schools and set up a real democratic government, not just a puppet dictator. As to the second point, there are plenty of countries that live without democracy and prosperity, but we don't invade them. That sort of uplifting is the job of the international community, not the U.S., with its greed, broken promises, and Tony Soprano attitude.

"I know what our interests are, and I know what the benefits are. I also know the costs and our shitty record of leaving places in shambles when we leave, and I just don't think it's 1) worth it, and 2) morally responsible as members of the global community to just go around like fucking Tony Soprano, gunning down anyone who gets in the way of our economic interests."

Well to be correct you do not leave the places worse as you found them.You merely leave them as they are or with small improvements.

Small token improvements to appease the media until it finds something more interesting to cover. Hardly worth the loss of life.

The few exceptions,such as Japan,have been exaggerated by the US propaganda,essentially taking much of the credit that should go to japanese people.I do not want to downplay the role played by american help,which was critical in some instances, but frankly I am getting tired of the "we are so good at rebuilding countries" (often used as justification for "let's bomb them") bullshit.Living in one of those countries you supposedly rebuilt maybe I have a slighty better perspective about the matter.
And as far as Tony Soprano goes I am awaiting for when you will start to negotiate trade disputes with the EU keeping TACTOMs flying in circle over the europarliament

No kidding. This attitude toward international politics the U.S. uses has got to stop, or its enemies will keep getting angrier and more numerous.

"And if the best link between Saddam and terrorism you can come up with is that, once upon a time, some Al Qaeda operative stayed in a hospital in Iraq, that just confirms that there is no connection."

The sad part is that probably there are not more Al Quaeda operatives in Iraq than in any other arab and probably even european country.You may get more terrorists bombing London probably.Osama and Saddam would probably try to kill each other if they could (two cocks in the same hen-roost as we say in the our country) .

So you conceed that no connection to terrorism has been established with Iraq?

"Also remember in conclusion that the Domino Effect in political theory has some validity; both Indochina and Cambodia fell to communism after South Vietnam."

Destabilizing the area you may well get your domino effects.Unfortunately the fundies will probably benefit from it more than the democratic forces,weak in the majority of those muslim countries.

That's what's happened before. I don't know why Marina things the opposite will happen this time.

"I guess this is the "chess game" Piett was talking about."

I love that political/military/economic game.Until I realize that people are going to die in it.Then it is not so funny.

No kidding. It's fun when it's fiction, but people need to drop this Tom Clancy attitude toward geopolitics and empathasize with the real people that will suffer and die out there, and only endorse a war if it's really and truly worth it (ie. stopping Hitler and nazism). Of course, I'm attributing compassion for unkown people to the average person, and that's not realistic.

"Once Iraq is pumping oil we can go into Saudi Arabia to eliminate the nest of terrorism which is that Wahhabist festering sore without causing excessive strain to the world economy. It will probably involve sanctions to cripple them first however."

Notice the uncle's Sam was not worried by Wahabism when it was so useful to destabilize the soviet muslim satellites...

And the very same people were called "freedom fighters" then, instead of "terrorists".

[HemlockGrey]

And the very same people were called "freedom fighters" then, instead of "terrorists".

Bzzzz! Thank you for playing!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh please,stop with that propaganda about "democratic government" and "Marshal plan".
You are going to place there one of your puppets.You may call it "democratic government" and it would surely be better than Saddam (not that it requires a big effort).But always a puppet.

What is your definition of a puppet, and why is being an American puppet, if you have a functioning democracy, a bad thing? Some countries do not have sufficient strength to resist the will of the reigning superpower. So they gain the most prosperity by following it.

And in case you have not noticed prosperity does not arise automatically everywhere the americans put their boots.Your beloved Mac Arthur had to ask for food to feed the japanese people with "Send me food, or send me bullets" .Speaking about you being so anxious to rebuild the country...

We sent MacArthur food, though, not bullets - And look at Japan today. That is an example of the spirit of America, ultimately.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"I find that hard to justify. The bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still looked on with scorn 58 years later. Just because you personally wouldn't have a problem with it is not evidence that only "whiny extremist liberals" would."

Actually it depends on her definition of "whiny extremist liberals"...

Most Americans don't look with scorn on the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I doubt the average Russian, Chinese, Korean, Philippino, Thai, Indochinan, Indonesian, et all, scorns the attacks on those cities much either. That's a significant fraction of the world's populace.

The people who'd really throw a fit at us using a nuke if we'd suffered WMD attacks beforehand are the same ones who've already protested, and have protested for other lunatic causes. I believe they've been in the news recently. They're the "extreme left".

It has already happened.Pakistan is in the nuclear club.They have India as primary threat but nothing would prevent them from trying the "bomber in the container trick".And before yelling to me that Pakistan does not have any reason to do that,please explain me why Iraq should do it instead.

It wouldn't work. Honestly the danger is from the WMDs Saddam already possesses - Biologicals and chemicals - Than from nuclear devices, which you cannot smuggle. The danger from nukes is really that he can threaten the vast number of Americans working and living in the Mid-East in our allied countries there.

It is a dilemma:occupying the country would mean risking to face a guerrilla.But no occupation means anarchy,which means no pacification,no democratization and no prosperity.Guess what has been the US solution?

Even in Afghanistan things are improving, though. See this article, for example:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 3lingv.asp

But obviously the situation is still problematic, and for an absolute settlement of affairs in a nation where regime change occurs we must have a brief period of occupation. Guerilla warfare is unlikely if the various sides can be balanced and the populace quickly supplied with necessities and then improving conveniences, which is far from impossible.

Destabilizing the area you may well get your domino effects.Unfortunately the fundies will probably benefit from it more than the democratic forces,weak in the majority of those muslim countries.

I don't think the majority of the regimes in the mid-east are in danger, largely because they already pander to the fundamentalist element to a sufficient level that it is contained by permeation.

I love that political/military/economic game.Until I realize that people are going to die in it.Then it is not so funny.

That's just part of the game. We're pursuing Rational War here; the main question is if our enemies are doing the same thing or not.

Notice the uncle's Sam was not worried by Wahabism when it was so useful to destabilize the soviet muslim satellites...

Not all of the populace of Afghanistan is Wahhabist by far - in fact it is a rather recent arrival there - And, at any rate, Wahhabism only appeared as a clear threat on some peoples' radar screens quite recently. Even now the administration may not have recognized it, though I hope that evaluation is incorrected. If they haven't, the world is in serious danger. Both Wahhabism and Salafism represent unstable elements that cannot be allowed to continue to exist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not so sure. Any reasonable definition would exclude the middle of the political spectrum that most people occupy, and I doubt most people would be nonchalant about a nuclear strike as Marina apparently is.

Nuclear War is an entirely survivable event. Nuclear War is a form of conflict in which victory is possible. The question entirely rests on proper planning and maximization of resources towards certain ends before the conflict begins. Nuclear War is the ultimate form of Industrial War.

Pakistan has a lot more reason to do that than Iraq. If I had to guess the next major global hotspot, I'd put Kashmir at or near the top.

Kashmir is already a global coldspot. Nuclear weapons keep it from getting hot.

This is the kind of guilty until proven innocent mindset I'm talking about. You have to do more than say Iraq's money "could be used to finance terrorism" to justify attacking a country. My roomate's paycheck could be used to finance terrorism, maybe I should make a citizen's arrest until he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't connected to "terrorists" (which of course can be defined to include almost any violent criminal or organization with anti-U.S. sentiments). Until the unwarranted assumption that Iraq is connected to terrorism is justified, it will remain a simple oil vs. blood debate.

Evidence exists. Certain Southeast Asian terrorist organizations have been training their operatives in Iraq; the source for that is with the RTA.

Or you can spend a little money and effort to set up schools and set up a real democratic government, not just a puppet dictator. As to the second point, there are plenty of countries that live without democracy and prosperity, but we don't invade them. That sort of uplifting is the job of the international community, not the U.S., with its greed, broken promises, and Tony Soprano attitude.

It's the job of all countries to look after their own interests. We're just kind enough that when possible - while looking after our own interests - we generally try to improve the lot of people we liberate from a local despot. Not always but often. It's good for business.

As for a Tony Soprano attitude: News for you. That's how business works. All business. Tony Soprano is just a businessman working with no laws to constrain him. The USA is just a country of businessmen. There are worse sorts of countries, and really nothing better. The EU supports the Arabs over the Israelis purely for business reasons. The Israelis are lucky we have an idealistic streak, which is really quite, quite rare.

No kidding. This attitude toward international politics the U.S. uses has got to stop, or its enemies will keep getting angrier and more numerous.

Who do you think you are deluding? It's the attitude everyone has, except with an idealistic streak, even! We're nicer about it than you collection of continentals are by far. Everyone looks out for their own interests like we do. We just have more power to use to do it with!

So you conceed that no connection to terrorism has been established with Iraq?

There are connections with terrorism in Iraq.

That's what's happened before. I don't know why Marina things the opposite will happen this time.

For starters, there's an active democracy movement in Iran, which has been very vigorous in protests and is very vigorous in them at this moment, including protests against the reigning and ineffectual government and ruling clique.

There are also democratic reforms occuring particularly in Bahrain at the behest of the current ruler.

No kidding. It's fun when it's fiction, but people need to drop this Tom Clancy attitude toward geopolitics and empathasize with the real people that will suffer and die out there, and only endorse a war if it's really and truly worth it (ie. stopping Hitler and nazism). Of course, I'm attributing compassion for unkown people to the average person, and that's not realistic.

You're being naive. This is the way things always have worked and always will work. Ever since the first Sumerian city states fought each other; ever since the first great kingdoms of the mid-east exchanged missives and emissaries, then on to Sun-Tzu, and right up to Machiavelli and then Clausewitz.

Politics and War are utterly linked. War proceeds rationally from politics. The interests of the State in the political realm invariably lead to conflict with other States at some time or another. There is nothing odd or wrong about this. It has in fact brought about many benefits for humanity; this is our brutal forge of Innovation.

And the very same people were called "freedom fighters" then, instead of "terrorists".

No. The Freedom Fighters you think of became the Northern Alliance.

[Stuart Mackey]

Remember that any army is recruted fom the people. If any government gets to the point where it feels it must use its army against its people then the government risks
1}The army refuses to obey orders and stays in barracks
2}The army assists the people in deposing the government.

This sort of senario is not about nutters in wako or other small minority outfits that noone gives a stuff about, but about the alieination of the clear majority of a nations citizens to such a degree that elections are not enough to give statifaction. In such situations no government can rely on its army simply because it is, by its very nature, representitive of the people.If a government does aleinate its people or brutalise them , then look at what happned in Eastern Europe in 1990-91.
No citizen can fight the government, but no government can win against its own population.

Sometimes that sort of thing happens, sometimes not. It certainly didn't in Chile, for instance. Anyway, the point is that it's the military that determines whether dictatorships are overthrown, not the general populace, and the military often becomes drunk with their newfound power as national leaders and simply sets up a new dictatorship.

A lot comes down to culture in this instanse. With America's republican/democratic tradition I find it most unlikly that the millitary would take power itself, especially when they look at the condition of those millitary that have taken political power. But one thing I am quite certain about, the US will stay democratic and any moves towards dictatorship/supression etc will be stopped, as they have in the past.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just for the record, the majority of the Chilean populace no longer supported Salvadore Allende's government by the time it was overthrown by Augusto Pinochet.

[Sea Skimmer]

Notice the uncle's Sam was not worried by Wahabism when it was so useful to destabilize the soviet muslim satellites...[/quote]
And the very same people were called "freedom fighters" then, instead of "terrorists".[/quote]

Actually the vast majority of the very same people who where called freedom fighters in the 1980's are now called the Northern Alliance. The people we call terrorists where mostly refuges in Pakistan till the early 90's.

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh please,stop with that propaganda about "democratic government" and "Marshal plan".
You are going to place there one of your puppets.You may call it "democratic government" and it would surely be better than Saddam (not that it requires a big effort).But always a puppet.

What is your definition of a puppet, and why is being an American puppet, if you have a functioning democracy, a bad thing? Some countries do not have sufficient strength to resist the will of the reigning superpower. So they gain the most prosperity by following it.

So why was America not happy as a British puppet, Marina?
Did it ever occur to you that people prefer to make their own choice in life, as do nations? I suspect that is why New Zealand has been disliked in some quaters in America, because we are independent and have our nuclear free policy, and we dont kowtow to Uncle Sam.
I can only conclude from the above statement that you must think that democracy is a bad thing if it intrudes on American policy.

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh please,stop with that propaganda about "democratic government" and "Marshal plan".
You are going to place there one of your puppets.You may call it "democratic government" and it would surely be better than Saddam (not that it requires a big effort).But always a puppet.

What is your definition of a puppet, and why is being an American puppet, if you have a functioning democracy, a bad thing? Some countries do not have sufficient strength to resist the will of the reigning superpower. So they gain the most prosperity by following it.

So why was America not happy as a British puppet, Marina?
Did it ever occur to you that people prefer to make their own choice in life, as do nations? I suspect that is why New Zealand has been disliked in some quaters in America, because we are independent and have our nuclear free policy, and we dont kowtow to Uncle Sam.
I can only conclude from the above statement that you must think that democracy is a bad thing if it intrudes on American policy.

When exactly was America a British puppet and a functional democracy?

[Stuart Mackey]

What is your definition of a puppet, and why is being an American puppet, if you have a functioning democracy, a bad thing? Some countries do not have sufficient strength to resist the will of the reigning superpower. So they gain the most prosperity by following it.

So why was America not happy as a British puppet, Marina?
Did it ever occur to you that people prefer to make their own choice in life, as do nations? I suspect that is why New Zealand has been disliked in some quaters in America, because we are independent and have our nuclear free policy, and we dont kowtow to Uncle Sam.
I can only conclude from the above statement that you must think that democracy is a bad thing if it intrudes on American policy.

When exactly was America a British puppet and a functional democracy?

Please look at that with a sense of history
How can you have independence and be a puppet? Think about it, What reasons led to Americas independence movement and why do you think any nation would tolerate being puppet now?

[Admiral Piett]

"Some countries do not have sufficient strength to resist the will of the reigning superpower. So they gain the most prosperity by following it."

Exactly,puppet.Better than Saddam but puppet neverthless.If you think that the surronding countries are going to die of envy to get the same government you cannot be more wrong.


"We sent MacArthur food, though, not bullets - And look at Japan today. That is an example of the spirit of America, ultimately."

No,that is an example of the spirit of Japan .
THEY rebuilt their own country.Mac Arthur had to ask in that way because no one was so anxious to help Japan as you depict it.No food was sent in the first six months of the occupation BTW.
If you think that you can duplicate what happened in Japan or Turkey at whim you cannot be more wrong.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No,that is an example of the spirit of Japan.
THEY rebuilt their own country.Mac Arthur had to ask in that way because no one was so anxious to help Japan as you depict it.No food was sent in the first six months of the occupation BTW.
If you think that you can duplicate what happened in Japan or Turkey at whim you cannot be more wrong.

Ahh.. But we did send food in the end. We could have just killed them all, you know. Nobody would have cared then. Several Asian countries wouldn't care right now if we launched our entire nuclear arsenal at Japan this very instant. We could have certainly thinned them out if they revolted until they submitted.

The fact that we were merciful enough to expend resources on rebuilding their country is a testament to the mercy of the American nation. No European nation would have done the same, nor any other nation on the globe. I suspect Louis XIV's devastation of the Palatinate would have been the model for the victors without our moderation.

Hell. It nearly was anyway - Some Americans wanted it that way for Germany, see Henry Morgenthau and the Morgenthau Plan. Certainly it was Wilson's influence that prevented harsher terms are Versailles, for good or for bad.

Our history is not one of obscene demands in conquest.

I agree that what happened in Turkey cannot be easily duplicated - And that's why what happened in Japan must be duplicated!

Not on a whim, but with extensive use of money and resources, judicious handling of an occupying force, managing of various factions against each other (which will compensate for the lack of a central authority to submit to us), careful planning of the constitution to institute, and rule with the iron fist within the velvet glove to deal with dissent and terror in the new state.

I do not expect it to be easy, but I expect it to be possible, and possible with a sufficient liklihood of success as to be something that ought be attempted.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Please look at that with a sense of history
How can you have independence and be a puppet? Think about it, What reasons led to Americas independence movement and why do you think any nation would tolerate being puppet now?

Stuart, just what are you saying? Puppetry is a rather lame phrase for this anyway - Proxy is a more appropriate term. A minor country that looks after a Great Power's regional interests and gets something out of it, while receiving guiding influence from that Great Power.

Let's review the differences between that and the American colonies. Firstly, there is no direct management of internal affairs from the Great Power over the minor one (which would be the case in Iraq after our occupational forces were withdrawn). Secondly, taxation of the proxy does not occur from the Great Power (It will never occur in Iraq. In fact, we will be taxing ourselves to give money to the Iraqis, the reverse of what caused the thirteen colonies to revolt). Thirdly, the interests of a proxy are represented by their ambassador to the Great Power and more often than not by special interest groups in the USA, focusing on her as a specific Great Power. The colonies had no organized system of representation, and certainly no formal one (ambassadors).

Finally, once the occupation ceases, Iraq will return to being a fully sovereign country - indeed it was the entire time, just with certain sovereign rights usurped briefly by a foreign power - and having the last resort of all sovereign powers to resist coercion, and various other means of negotiation, however unequal the relationship.

I suppose you can call it an "Informal Empire", but in no way would the situation of Iraq equate with that of the thirteen colonies, and it is effectively beneficial to the Iraqi people. They still get to determine their own destiny, within their own national borders, after all. That's what counts.

Particular nations tolerate being puppets, of course, because the benefits for them outweigh the consequences of resistance. The decision of the government and the populace is on a case-by-case basis, and the effect of nationalism on such an informal status is badly overrated.

Heck, considering that if we follow the MacArthurian model precisely there will be a functional Iraqi government even during the occupation, just that it will be subservient to the military government, I seriously question the possibility of any sort of resistance forming if the various groups are properly balanced against each other.

[Stuart Mackey]

Please look at that with a sense of history
How can you have independence and be a puppet? Think about it, What reasons led to Americas independence movement and why do you think any nation would tolerate being puppet now?

Stuart, just what are you saying? Puppetry is a rather lame phrase for this anyway - Proxy is a more appropriate term. A minor country that looks after a Great Power's regional interests and gets something out of it, while receiving guiding influence from that Great Power.

Puppetry, proxy are all but semantics, for a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Let's review the differences between that and the American colonies. Firstly, there is no direct management of internal affairs from the Great Power over the minor one (which would be the case in Iraq after our occupational forces were withdrawn). Secondly, taxation of the proxy does not occur from the Great Power (It will never occur in Iraq. In fact, we will be taxing ourselves to give money to the Iraqis, the reverse of what caused the thirteen colonies to revolt). Thirdly, the interests of a proxy are represented by their ambassador to the Great Power and more often than not by special interest groups in the USA, focusing on her as a specific Great Power. The colonies had no organized system of representation, and certainly no formal one (ambassadors).

Finally, once the occupation ceases, Iraq will return to being a fully sovereign country - indeed it was the entire time, just with certain sovereign rights usurped briefly by a foreign power - and having the last resort of all sovereign powers to resist coercion, and various other means of negotiation, however unequal the relationship.

I suppose you can call it an "Informal Empire", but in no way would the situation of Iraq equate with that of the thirteen colonies, and it is effectively beneficial to the Iraqi people. They still get to determine their own destiny, within their own national borders, after all. That's what counts.

Particular nations tolerate being puppets, of course, because the benefits for them outweigh the consequences of resistance. The decision of the government and the populace is on a case-by-case basis, and the effect of nationalism on such an informal status is badly overrated.

Heck, considering that if we follow the MacArthurian model precisely there will be a functional Iraqi government even during the occupation, just that it will be subservient to the military government, I seriously question the possibility of any sort of resistance forming if the various groups are properly balanced against each other.

Perhaps you would prefer suzerainty? Taxation, teapartys are irrelivant, Marina, for they will know where they stand, and it will not be as a independent nation, for they will be subserviant to America, as America was ultimatly subserviant to the British Crown. You can dress it up how you want but a vassel state, a puppet that kowtows is what you want, nothing more. You may institute democracy, but no more than Macarthur instituted it in Japan. And dont think their will not be resistanse of some kind, because you cannot change a culture just by defeating a army, and that is something that covers a lot of the islamic world.
There is no doubt that Saddam must go, but if America wants to fight Iraq, have the smarts to actually thinkbefore you leap. I havent seen much thinking eminating from America on this issue, especially as far as the Iraq issue goes.

[Admiral Piett]

Actually the vast majority of the very same people who where called freedom fighters in the 1980's are now called the Northern Alliance. The people we call terrorists where mostly refuges in Pakistan till the early 90's.

With some exceptions such as Bin Laden & Co.It does not change the fact that the USA closed an eye in front of the islamist groups that were useful and often directly supported them.

[Stuart Mackey]

Actually the vast majority of the very same people who where called freedom fighters in the 1980's are now called the Northern Alliance. The people we call terrorists where mostly refuges in Pakistan till the early 90's.

With some exceptions such as Bin Laden & Co.It does not change the fact that the USA closed an eye in front of the islamist groups that were useful and often directly supported them.

And lets not forget the Indonesian regimes...

[Admiral Piett]

"Not on a whim, but with extensive use of money and resources, judicious handling of an occupying force, managing of various factions against each other (which will compensate for the lack of a central authority to submit to us), careful planning of the constitution to institute, and rule with the iron fist within the velvet glove to deal with dissent and terror in the new state."

Marina,where are these resources going to come from? The economy is stagnating and Bush is cutting taxes (albeit at a symbolical level) and increaing the defense budget.Plus,maybe you have forgotten it,war is an expensive businness.
There is no way the administration is going to spare taxpayer's money beyond the minimum necessary.Even if the country will not suffer heavy damage from your conquest campaign,which is somewhat doubtful, the amount of destruction left by the last Gulf War will make bringing back the country to pre1991 standard a non trivial task.

"I do not expect it to be easy, but I expect it to be possible, and possible with a sufficient liklihood of success as to be something that ought be attempted."

It may well be possible in theory,but it is not going to happen.At the best you will rebuild the country to pre 1991 levels (which will require a not small effort) and will install a military governor/local equivalent of Karzai.
At the worst you can screw up the "managing of various factions against each other" thing or the "rule with the iron fist within the velvet glove to deal with dissent and terror in the new state" part with nasty results.Note that the situation is more complicated than in Japan from this point of view.

If you think that the average muslim (apart from some iranians and few else) would like to live under such a government you must have watched too much US TV.And there is no way you can duplicate the japanese economic success,so forget about that.

[Admiral Piett]

"It wouldn't work. Honestly the danger is from the WMDs Saddam already possesses - Biologicals and chemicals -"

Really? He does not have more delivery means for chemicals than a nuke.And terrorists do not need Iraq to get their hands on poison gas.
Those fanatics in Japan clearly demonstrated that.It may be also more practical manufacturing it locally (it eliminates a lot of storage and transport problems).You can manufacture mustard gas nearly in the your backyard,btw.

"Than from nuclear devices, which you cannot smuggle."

Really? Everyone on the pro war faction that I have heard so far subscribe the thesis that he is going to send you a nuclear tipped container as soon as possible.

"Even in Afghanistan things are improving, though. See this article, for example:
But obviously the situation is still problematic, and for an absolute settlement of affairs in a nation where regime change occurs we must have a brief period of occupation. Guerilla warfare is unlikely if the various sides can be balanced and the populace quickly supplied with necessities and then improving conveniences, which is far from impossible."

I hopeed you had something better than that.It merely states that humanitarian organizations are converging on Kabul. Which is the logical thing,since it is one of the few zones under control.
Without military occupation,which is not going to happen,the rest of the country will be ruled by warlords and the situation there cannot be improved.
Besides it does not mention the enourmous US help,does it?

"That's just part of the game. We're pursuing Rational War here; the main question is if our enemies are doing the same thing or not."

What hell is rational war? Having goals? Well even Bin Laden has them.

[The Dark]

"Some countries do not have sufficient strength to resist the will of the reigning superpower. So they gain the most prosperity by following it."

Exactly,puppet.Better than Saddam but puppet neverthless.If you think that the surronding countries are going to die of envy to get the same government you cannot be more wrong.


"We sent MacArthur food, though, not bullets - And look at Japan today. That is an example of the spirit of America, ultimately."

No,that is an example of the spirit of Japan .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we wrote their Constitution. Their entire form of government is based on a blend of traditional Japanese forms and American desires. While what they have made of it is entirely to their own credit, they themselves did not choose that form, and while it's not a "spirit of America," America did have a large influence on the Japan of today.

[Admiral Piett]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we wrote their Constitution. Their entire form of government is based on a blend of traditional Japanese forms and American desires. While what they have made of it is entirely to their own credit, they themselves did not choose that form, and while it's not a "spirit of America," America did have a large influence on the Japan of today.

Yes Mac Arthur has (well not Mac Arthur personally but in anyway) wrote their constitution.The constitution itself is however a piece of paper.When we go to see more concrete things,such as the land reform (which was an australian idea if I recall correctly in anyway),the Zaibatsu reform, etc the judgement is mixed.
The USA has played an important role but the japanese are the creators of their own economic and democratic success.It is not guaranteed that it can be duplicated elsewhere,because the factors involved are not the same.
If ever evidence point in the opposite direction.
The american unwillingness to invest significant amount resources (money, assistance etc) on rebuilding countries has been recently demonstrated in multiple occasions,from Jugoslavia to Afghanistan.And it is not guaranteed that the societies involved have the capability to sustain a true capitalistic economy and a democratic government.
Thus it is probably that at the best the Iraquis will get a pre 1991 economical prosperity and a Karzai style government.
Hardly enough to generate a democratic domino in the surrounding countries.