Xah Lee's Unixism

Greg Menke gregm-news at toadmail.com
Mon Sep 13 21:57:24 CEST 2004


Chuck Dillon <spam at nimblegen.com> writes:

> Antony Sequeira wrote:
> 
> > Chuck Dillon wrote:
> > How is that related to Saqqddam Hussqqqqqain being a jackass and us
> > spending 100 or whatever billions on removing him and having 1000+
> > of Americans + unknown number of Iraqqqqqis getting killed. How does
> > that help avoid
> > 9 qqqq  11 or are you confused between Iraqqqqqis and Saudqqqqis ?
> 
> If you reread the post that you responded to you will see it has
> nothing to do with Iraq.
> 
> However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
> avoid another 9/11...
> 	1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
> such a future attach.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia?  Thats where
the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from.  Iraq is chump
change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
better target on this basis.  Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?


> 	2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not
> developing) WMD that might be used in such an attack.  We've found no
> WMD stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the
> expertise to produce WMD in the future.  We still don't know if there
> are stockpiles.

I'm sure there are lots of countries that have the expertise & the
will- how many countries should we invade before that approach starts
looking like a bad idea?  I think we should also invade Pakistan right
away- they have working nuclear weapons & real live terrorists, not
just half-baked piles of rusty junk scattered around the country and
half buried under a decade & a half of 3rd world style bureaucratic
corruption & desert sand.


> 	3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they
> could have a regime change in about a month's time if they allow
> themselves to be in the position of being held accountable for any
> future attack.

Don't you mean "if they are ever placed on the Axis Of Evil?"


> 	4) Look at a map of the middle east.  It provides us with a
> base of operations in the center of the region.  We probably won't
> have to ask for access to bases and airspace in future operations,
> which hopefully will never have to happen.

So now we're back to being an imperial power?  I thought we were in
Iraq for humanitarian reasons- I guess I didn't get the memo.


> 	5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
> establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to practice this sort of thing
before imposing it elsewhere?


> 	6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
> category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.

Afganistan taught that.  Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
crazy.

> 
> You are being naive.  Complain as loud as you like but there is no
> question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
> self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
> 

So you're talking about a "preemptive defense"?  

Gregm



More information about the Python-list mailing list