Re: Energy Independence
JDG wrote: As another example, there is the famous quote from a former Secretary-General of OPEC that the stone age didn't end because the world ran out of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.When the oil age does end, however, I'd be willing to bet that the very last barrels of oil will probably come out of Saudi Arabia - since that's where the cheapest oil in the world comes from. My bet is that we will run out of _oxygen_ before running out of fossil fuels. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Library book sales - huzzah!
Doug wrote: Not a git, maru Ah, wisdom. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Someone Must Tell Them
JDG asked: The survey, of 2,011 international travelers in 16 countries, was conducted by RT Strategies, a Virginia-based polling firm, for the Discover America Partnership, a group launched in September with multimillion-dollar backing from a range of companies that include the InterContinental Hotels Group, Anheuser Busch and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. What is the reputation of RT Strategies? Given the client list, I'd assume that the company has a good reputation in the market and knows what it is doing. OK, and what countries exactly rated higher than the United States on this List? The closes rivals in terms of being unfriendly to travelers were the Mid East and the Indian Subcontinent, in that order. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
JDG wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. And I find the notion of winning gratitude while standing idly by as a megalamoniac dictator terrorizes the population, starts futile wars with his neighbors, and leaves his country impoversihed while completely enriching himself to be even stupider. See, I can mock your position as easily as you can mock mine *g* Would have worked better had that really been my position. :) But I don't think I've ever said anything that can be construed to mean that one can stand by idly while others are being tortured/killed and earn gratitude that way. So hold on to these lines and trot them out when I do make such a silly proposition. :) Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the tarring of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have had a point. But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. You wouldn't be referring to the generally-supposed policy of France, Russia, and China, among others, to work towards the lifting of sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, would you? No I wasn't refering to that at all. If you re-read my lines above, you'd see that I was talking of alternate ways to remove Saddam, and not on the totally different subject of removal of sanctions. On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? If a American Republicans/conservatives were proposing sticking with a policy that had failed for 10+ years, I wonder what your reaction would have been... *shrug* Depends on the issue, the costs and who'd be paying them, how strongly I feel about a subject, and a host of other factors. You'd have to propose a hypothetical situation to find out how I'd react. But one thing I can say for sure, I would react the same way whether the notion was proposed by a Democrat or a Republican. I respond to the idea, not to the proposer. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Doug wrote: AQ wants to prolong the violence because they are aware that Americans have a limited amount of patience; that by prolonging the violence they will force us to leave. I'll disagree with you here. I do not think that AQ wants the US to withdraw. Not right now at any rate. A couple of captured AQ documents clearly indicate that AQ is hoping that the US stays in Iraq for a long time to come. The American presence in Iraq is accomplishing what OBL had hoped the Afghanistan war would do - act as a motivator and radicalise the Muslim youth, and provide a target for the new recruits to practice on. Some analysts and intelligence institutions have already pointed toward a trend wherein jihadis get their 'training' in Iraq and then move to Afghanistan. Also, it is a drain on your economy and OBL is on record about wanting that. He has said as much in a letter about Iraq. Another cache of letters, caught when Zwahiri was killed, showed that AQ is also worried that it doesn't have enough representation in Iraq [estimates about AQ involvement put them at about 5-10% of the Iraqi insurgents/whatever the current term might be]. So if the US withdraws, AQ is not sure that they have enough of a toe-hold to stay on in Iraq. None of this means, of course, that they wouldn't crow to high heaven and proclaim victory the minute a departure is announced. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Finally! I have been reading excerpts but it took me almost the entire day to work my way down to this message. JDG wrote: Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as a result of US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. Well, actually it is more than that. That sentence well describes what was happening earlier. Now we have a civil war. And that is infinitely bloodier than any jockeying-for-position. And as for the blame, John, well, consider this: In 1947, India was partitioned. We asked for the partition, we agreed to it, and it was carried out. But a lot still blame the British for the Partition, and insist that they could have done more, not only to prevent it but also to ensure that it was less violent. Because they were the ones with the power, and they were the ones who could have done it. Now Iraqis didn't ask for the invasion. They didn't ask for an occupation. And they certainly didn't ask for a bungled occupation where no attempts were ever made to see if the secular nature of the Iraqi state could survive Saddam's downfall. They also didn't ask for a govt so enfeebled by a lack of decent police and army that it cannot maintain order within its own borders. All these things were decided by the Coalition. So I am not sure why you think that the responsibility for enabling this sectarian madness shouldn't fall on the Coalition too. In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country together. Yes, I know you think that way. But I don't and I have never advocated that Saddam should have carried on just so Iraq doesn't break up. It is not an 'either-or' situation, John. You don't need a genocidal maniac as a dictator to keep a country together. A strong efficient govt does the trick. Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... Right after you explain why you assume I think that. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:37 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? Sanctions and diplomatic isolation are, typically, the strongest non-military techniques the world has to push for regime change. This is what was attempted with Cuba, South Africa, and North Korea, for example. It is true that, in cases where the US has a great deal of influence (say the Philippines), regime change can be afforded by using influence (in that case the US convinced members of the Philippines military to stand down when Marcos wanted them to stop a regime change via elections). But, I think it is safe to say that outside countries had little leverage with the leadership in Iraq. The best chance for regime change came right after Gulf War I. Hussein had been humiliated; his army had totally collapsed against the US. The US supported uprisings within the country, which were stamped down quickly, efficiently, and mercilessly. What we didn't take into account was the fact that the Republican Guard had been held out of the fighting, was intact, and still strongly loyal. The US and Britain then instituted no-fly zones, in an effort to reduce Hussein's ability to attack the Shiites and the Kurds. AFAIK, it was an unprecedented limitation of the sovereign power within a country, outside of a war of course. As a result of this, the Kurds were able to hold their own in the North, and run that part of Iraq as a semi-autonomous region. I know that regime change was a goal of Bush Sr. and Clinton, but not considered an attainable one, short of invasion. Thus, they focused on the lesser goal of containment, after the attempt at regime change failed. One might argue for a targeted assignation, but that's problematic in three ways. First, while we tend to focus on the leader himself, eliminating that one person doesn't eliminate the dictatorship. The best we could reasonable hope for is that a less talented dictator takes over. Our hopes for a quick regime change in N. Korea were based on Kim Jr. not having the chops of Kim Sr. In all likelihood, he doesn't, but he's in power 12 years later. So, if we magically got rid of Hussein, the next in line (say his brother or Chemical Ali) would not represent a regime change. Second, during both Gulf Wars, we did include command and control as legitimate bombing targets. Neither time did we get Hussein. Even after we control Iraq, it took quite a while to find him. Third, these techniques have been declared illegal in the US, mostly for reasons of self interest. We did try them with Castro, to no avail. Since the Kennedy assignation, we saw that the use of this technique as a means of could risk starting big wars that no-one wants. In particular, no one wanted the USSR to think it's the USA if the chairman of the communist party were to be killed. Given the problems we have with asymmetric war now, I don't think Western governments want to put this on the table. AQ and Bin Laden are different, of course, because they are not a government. And, the US and Britain actually bombed military targets when Hussein stonewalled inspections. The next step after bombing is a military campaign involving boots on the ground. Indeed, I could argue that Iraq between the Gulf Wars could be used as an example of trying everything short of invasion, with no success. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 11/27/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a stunning rate today, and they are, it is because the Coalition enabled such a situation to arise. So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition (not the US, John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis these days? Surely that is only partial responsibility? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Nick Arnett asked: Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition (not the US, John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis these days? Nope. The Coalition, as I mentioned in the mail John quoted, is responsible for enabling the situation to arise. This kind of chaos was by no means the inevitable result and better administration could have warded off a lot of the problems which currently feed off each other. Surely that is only partial responsibility? Yep. Most of the responsibility for the individual acts of violence is shared by those who pull the trigger or plant the IEDs, or decorate a car with explosives, etc. etc. But the fact that such a large number of idiots find it so easy to perpetrate such a large number of crimes daily is very much the responsibility of those who overturned the previous order without knowing how to replace it with a functioning state. The preparation was woeful, the execution appalling, and it needn't have been this way. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage
On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: For years, I've thought that the single biggest perpetrators of bigotry were organizations like the NAACP and Rev. Jessie Jackson (with due respect to his positive accomplishments). You are in the company of a large number of racists in maintaining that thought. Let me know how much peace it brings you. Perhaps that's a leftover of the civil war and slavery era? Perhaps it's a continuing recognition among members of minorities that they have been and continue to be regarded as not-quite-equal. To tell you the truth, we didn't see this coming, Mroszczyk said. I find this very hard to believe considering this: The application itself offers an explanation: We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today. According to Mroszczyk, his group is offering the scholarship to point out how ridiculous it is to have any sort of racially based scholarship. ... to point out ... In other words, to bring attention to, to create a stir, to generate buzz, to raise a ruckus. If he is surprised, it is only at the level of success his plan attained. For him to claim that he didn't expect such a reaction seems disingenuous. I do not believe for a moment that his organization created their scholarship simply to help underprivileged whites. They did it to create exactly the reaction they got. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage
On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Gary Nunn wrote: For years, I've thought that the single biggest perpetrators of bigotry were organizations like the NAACP and Rev. Jessie Jackson (with due respect to his positive accomplishments). You are in the company of a large number of racists in maintaining that thought. Let me know how much peace it brings you. Perhaps that's a leftover of the civil war and slavery era? Perhaps it's a continuing recognition among members of minorities that they have been and continue to be regarded as not-quite-equal. To tell you the truth, we didn't see this coming, Mroszczyk said. I find this very hard to believe considering this: The application itself offers an explanation: We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today. According to Mroszczyk, his group is offering the scholarship to point out how ridiculous it is to have any sort of racially based scholarship. ... to point out ... In other words, to bring attention to, to create a stir, to generate buzz, to raise a ruckus. If he is surprised, it is only at the level of success his plan attained. For him to claim that he didn't expect such a reaction seems disingenuous. I do not believe for a moment that his organization created their scholarship simply to help underprivileged whites. They did it to create exactly the reaction they got. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:37 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them JDG wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. And I find the notion of winning gratitude while standing idly by as a megalamoniac dictator terrorizes the population, starts futile wars with his neighbors, and leaves his country impoversihed while completely enriching himself to be even stupider. See, I can mock your position as easily as you can mock mine *g* Would have worked better had that really been my position. :) But I don't think I've ever said anything that can be construed to mean that one can stand by idly while others are being tortured/killed and earn gratitude that way. So hold on to these lines and trot them out when I do make such a silly proposition. :) But, JDG never said anything that can reasonably be construed to match your characterization given above. So, I think a reasonable reading of this was that both of you can make quick, easy, cartoons of the more complex, nuanced position of the other, but why bother. My understanding of your position was that there were some things that had some reasonable chance to result in regime change that should have been tried before war. I've been racking my brain, thinking of what has been proposed, and cannot come up with anything that was proposed pre-war that was either innovative or had a reasonable basis for plausibility. I'm kinda curious, what were these other possibilities? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: interesting website
Gary Nunn wrote: Not sure what I would classify that website as, but I ran across it this morning, and it's one of my new favorites. It's a collection of links to interesting news stories. http://www.fark.com/ Gary-- Thanks, it is interesting. I tried it for awhile, but am giving up. Too many of the links have cutesy titles which don't clearly state what the story is about. Result: I spent too much time reading low-content articles. ---David Now if you want funny, or dumb, that you can get... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Afghanistan Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Much of the world simply isn't able to provide soldiers as most 1st world countries have been cutting back to basically a defence force, and there have been enough friendly fire incidents in joint task forces in the past to make military forces wary of combining troops. Many other countries provided soldiers, ships and aircraft, including a substantial contingent from the constantly maligned France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 2001_war_in_Afghanistan#Nature_of_the_coalition Yep. I note ISAF still has troops from 34 countries. Unfortunately, there is every indication that the force is too small to accomplish the job - there remains too few troops, and of the troops that are there, too few of them are willing to work in the toughest/most violent areas. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for the contributions that have been provided - but unfortunately, given the nature of the task facing Western Civilization, far more is required, and even the US is not fully stepping up to the plate in that regard, let alone the rest of the world ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Someone Must Tell Them
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JDG asked: The survey, of 2,011 international travelers in 16 countries, was conducted by RT Strategies, a Virginia-based polling firm, for the Discover America Partnership, a group launched in September with multimillion-dollar backing from a range of companies that include the InterContinental Hotels Group, Anheuser Busch and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. What is the reputation of RT Strategies? Given the client list, I'd assume that the company has a good reputation in the market and knows what it is doing. OK, and what countries exactly rated higher than the United States on this List? The closes rivals in terms of being unfriendly to travelers were the Mid East and the Indian Subcontinent, in that order. Well, neither The Middle East nor the Indian Subcontinent is a country.Does The Middle East refer to Israel? Jordan? and Turkey? or how 'bouts Syria? Iraq? or Iran? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The single most effective thing we can do to reduce the threat of terrorism is to leave Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. We can't change our energy requirements overnight, but the energy policy of the Bush administration has led us in exactly the opposite direction that we need to go. We either start finding alternatives and promote conservation now or we face a tremendous shock some time in the future when prices skyrocket. Its my understanding that Bush has actually rather aggressively supported research into alternative energy. What's yours stay the course? Ah, the classic partisan buzz phrase. Pardon me? Wasn't that _the_ administration policy up until about a month and a half ago? Month and a half ago being the operative words. You accused me of proposing an already-abandoned policy... and I'm sure you recognize the partisan overtones to that. Anyhow, I'd discuss my policy, but I haven't been elected President of the United States, so why should I? Quite the cop out considering you're the one who originally asked the question, but I can understand your reluctance to reply here where anything you propose is likely subject to attack from several directions. Of course that's the case just about anywhere you go these days, isn't it. It was also a friendly dig at a fellow list-member. I won't pretend that I have the answers to Iraq - if I did, I suppose that I probably wouldn't be here. In general, though, I see two broad policy options in regards to Iraq. On one hand, there is a set proposals of the variety that if we were to just leave Iraq, the ensuing vacuum would just simply force the Iraqis to sort out their problems, because America (et al.) wouldn't be around to bail them out any more.On the other hand, there is a set of proposals of the variety that Coalition forces can play a positive role in controlling sectarian violence. In general, while I find the first set of proposals tempting, I find them to also be ultimately unconvincing.I just don't think that there is much support for the notion that a security vacuum would force Iraqis to sort things out. I also look at what happened in vacuum situations in places like Somalia, Congo, etc. and think that disintegration could be a very real possibility.There is also the specter of the substantial evidence that Osama bin Laden was greatly emboldened by our loss of will and withdrawal from Somalia, and that similarly withdrawing in disagrace from a disintegrating Iraq would have an even greater effect. I also think that there is substantial evidence that Coalition forces can play a positive role. There have been many reports that the deployment of Coalition forces to an area reduces sectarian violence in that area. The overwhelming problem seems to be that nearly four years later, we're still trying to do this thing on the cheap, and we just don't have enough troops. So, what sort of policy options does that lend us to? In the short term, there may perhaps be some beneficial changes in tactics that could be effected - such as perhaps greater integration of Coalition and Iraq forces. In the medium term, I think that we should be increasing the pay of our soldiers substantially in order to boost recruitment, certainly I think that soldiers' pay should be growing at a faster rate than pay for other federal employees not in danger zones. I also would consider looking at perhaps seeing what forces could perhaps be raised by substantially underwriting some kind of UN, African Union, or League of Arab States peacekeeping force.Lastly, I would also be reminding, at every opportunity, that while not all of our Allies may have wanted to get into Iraq, they do all stand to lose almost as much as we do if the Iraqi enterprise were to fail I can't say that these are answers to our problems, but I think that they are starts ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
Ritu wrote: I'll disagree with you here. I do not think that AQ wants the US to withdraw. Not right now at any rate. A couple of captured AQ documents clearly indicate that AQ is hoping that the US stays in Iraq for a long time to come. The American presence in Iraq is accomplishing what OBL had hoped the Afghanistan war would do - act as a motivator and radicalise the Muslim youth, and provide a target for the new recruits to practice on. Some analysts and intelligence institutions have already pointed toward a trend wherein jihadis get their 'training' in Iraq and then move to Afghanistan. Also, it is a drain on your economy and OBL is on record about wanting that. He has said as much in a letter about Iraq. Another cache of letters, caught when Zwahiri was killed, showed that AQ is also worried that it doesn't have enough representation in Iraq [estimates about AQ involvement put them at about 5-10% of the Iraqi insurgents/whatever the current term might be]. So if the US withdraws, AQ is not sure that they have enough of a toe-hold to stay on in Iraq. None of this means, of course, that they wouldn't crow to high heaven and proclaim victory the minute a departure is announced. I'll agree with the above with the caveat that anyone that knows the U.S. at all knows that the public has little patience for failure. The machinations of the Bush administration which, while it is abysmal at nation building, is rather proficient at deception and manipulation of the public (a la Rove), have prolonged the acceptance of the conflict somewhat. Now that public opinion has turned sharply against the war, it's only a matter of time before we leave. There is one other reason AQ doesn't want us to leave; they're Sunnis and aren't particularly interested in another Shi'a state in the region. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
At 08:39 AM Tuesday 11/28/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:37 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? Sanctions and diplomatic isolation are, typically, the strongest non-military techniques the world has to push for regime change. This is what was attempted with Cuba, South Africa, and North Korea, for example. It is true that, in cases where the US has a great deal of influence (say the Philippines), regime change can be afforded by using influence (in that case the US convinced members of the Philippines military to stand down when Marcos wanted them to stop a regime change via elections). But, I think it is safe to say that outside countries had little leverage with the leadership in Iraq. The best chance for regime change came right after Gulf War I. Hussein had been humiliated; his army had totally collapsed against the US. The US supported uprisings within the country, which were stamped down quickly, efficiently, and mercilessly. What we didn't take into account was the fact that the Republican Guard had been held out of the fighting, was intact, and still strongly loyal. The US and Britain then instituted no-fly zones, in an effort to reduce Hussein's ability to attack the Shiites and the Kurds. AFAIK, it was an unprecedented limitation of the sovereign power within a country, outside of a war of course. As a result of this, the Kurds were able to hold their own in the North, and run that part of Iraq as a semi-autonomous region. I know that regime change was a goal of Bush Sr. and Clinton, but not considered an attainable one, short of invasion. Thus, they focused on the lesser goal of containment, after the attempt at regime change failed. One might argue for a targeted assignation, We send him a[nother] mistress? but that's problematic in three ways. First, while we tend to focus on the leader himself, eliminating that one person doesn't eliminate the dictatorship. The best we could reasonable hope for is that a less talented dictator takes over. Our hopes for a quick regime change in N. Korea were based on Kim Jr. not having the chops of Kim Sr. In all likelihood, he doesn't, but he's in power 12 years later. So, if we magically got rid of Hussein, the next in line (say his brother or Chemical Ali) would not represent a regime change. Second, during both Gulf Wars, we did include command and control as legitimate bombing targets. Neither time did we get Hussein. Even after we control Iraq, it took quite a while to find him. Third, these techniques have been declared illegal in the US, mostly for reasons of self interest. We did try them with Castro, to no avail. Since the Kennedy assignation, Marilyn? Or another one? we saw that the use of this technique as a means of could risk starting big wars that no-one wants. In particular, no one wanted the USSR to think it's the USA if the chairman of the communist party were to be killed. Given the problems we have with asymmetric war now, I don't think Western governments want to put this on the table. AQ and Bin Laden are different, of course, because they are not a government. And, the US and Britain actually bombed military targets when Hussein stonewalled inspections. The next step after bombing is a military campaign involving boots on the ground. Indeed, I could argue that Iraq between the Gulf Wars could be used as an example of trying everything short of invasion, with no success. Dan M. Aren't Spell Checkers Fun Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: Someone Must Tell Them
At 10:24 AM Tuesday 11/28/2006, Ritu wrote: Nick Arnett asked: Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition (not the US, John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis these days? Nope. The Coalition, as I mentioned in the mail John quoted, is responsible for enabling the situation to arise. This kind of chaos was by no means the inevitable result and better administration could have warded off a lot of the problems which currently feed off each other. Surely that is only partial responsibility? Yep. Most of the responsibility for the individual acts of violence is shared by those who pull the trigger or plant the IEDs, Sorry to have nothing to contribute tonight but nitpicks, but someone on TV yesterday mumbled that term so badly that at first it sounded like IUDs . . . Both Associated With Bangs Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Afghanistan Re: Someone Must Tell Them
On 29/11/2006, at 3:54 PM, jdiebremse wrote: Unfortunately, there is every indication that the force is too small to accomplish the job - there remains too few troops, and of the troops that are there, too few of them are willing to work in the toughest/ most violent areas. Yes, precisely. Upsetting. It needed to be done properly, and it wasn't because of the Iraq distraction. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for the contributions that have been provided - but unfortunately, given the nature of the task facing Western Civilization, far more is required, and even the US is not fully stepping up to the plate in that regard, let alone the rest of the world I'm not even sure what the task facing Western Civilization means. You're talking another language. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Risk perception and prioritisation synchronicity
i touched on the issue of proportional response - Time seems to be leading with that theme this issue. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/26/cover.story.tm/index.html Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
