Iraq, War, Peace, etc. Rambling thoughts...

Hi,

You wrote:
> As far the silly suggestions that President
> Bush is only motivated by greed for oil
> wells, look around. The U.S. (led by first
> President Bush) didn't stay in Kuwait or
> take Iraq's oil wells. We're not drilling in
> Alaska's vast oilfields. If oil is the only
> motivation, why haven't we gone for the
> low-hanging fruit rather than starting a war
> with Iraq?

I agree: the primary reason for the war isn't grabbing oil (though they're going to use Iraq's oil to help rebuild the country and offset our costs); the primary reason for the war is keeping the dollar as strong as possible and saving the American economy. Which I think is a darn good reason.

Best,

- Boyd

Hi,

Link below...

Best,

- Boyd


What-if analysis

...and end the threat of Sod Em

here's how NOT to do it...

-Compromise and appease a dictator.

-Continue play his game of cat and mouse, lies
and deception for the next 10 years.

-Use moral reasoning with someone with no morals or conscious.

-Project a divided front so that Sod Em knows all he has to do is stall until the any coalitions falls apart

-Have the false idea that you can leave inspectors in forever. As soon as Sod Em feels the threat is over he'll kick them out again.

The real way to possibly avoid war?

-The world provide a united front who tells him in no uncertain terms that they will remove him (and be willing to follow through) unless he totally and completely disarms all WMD.
No more games.

That's the ONLY negotiations a Sod Em understands.

-He will either give in
-Leave the country
-Or defy and be removed

But I bet he would comply or leave to save his own skin. But if not the problem would be solved and the world would be a better place.

Joe Bob

"Going to war without France is like going deer
hunting without your
accordion." * Donald Rumsfeld

French Military Prowess Revisited

President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld may be upset that the French are
not "assisting" us in this fight, but out here at the tip of the
spear, there is nothing but jubilation at their absence. Last thing we
need is to be carrying the French on our shoulders.

A cursory review of French military history reveals the following:

1 - Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next
2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things,
an Italian.

2 - Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by a female
schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French
Warfare: "French armies are victorious only when not led by a
Frenchman."

3 - Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to
ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

4 - Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

5 - Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant but
still manages to get invaded. Claims a tie on the basis that
eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

6 - War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots
as chapeaux.

7 - The Dutch War - Tied. Dutch farmers and tulip growers are tougher
than they look.

8 - War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian
War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of
French military power.

9 - War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French
their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

10 - American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar
to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English
colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle
Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; " France
only wins when America does most of the fighting."

11 - French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent
was also French.

12 - The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the
First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no
match for the Russian winter, Prussian grenadiers or a British
footwear designer.

13 - The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. For the first, but certainly not
the last time, Germany plays the role of drunk frat boy to France 's
ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

14 - World War I - Invaded, humiliated and on the way to losing,
France is saved by the United States. Winds up a tie for les
francaise. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not
only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein."
Sadly, the American fascination with personal hygiene (a fascination
totally foreign to French women) incites widespread use of condoms by
American soldiers, thus precluding any improvement in the French
bloodline.

15 - World War II - A decisive defeat even by French standards. Hitler
and the German Youth spend Christmas time sleeping soundly through the
winter, then arouse themselves to conquer France in six weeks. Hitler
dances in front of the Eiffel Tower, while the French command staff
retreats to Algeria to institute a crash language program to teach
French privates how to say "I surrender" in German and French generals
to say "We surrender" in German. Conquered French liberated by the
United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst
Wessel Song and some small portion of the German work ethic. De Gaulle
of it all...

16 - First Vietnamese war (in Vietnamese circles, known as "the
scrimmage", or "the exhibition game" where the varsity squad is kept
on the sideline to see how the second string will play) - Lost. French
soldiers, fresh off their four year occupation by the Germans, catch a
terminal case of Dien Bien Flu.

17 - Algerian rebellion - Lost. First time an Arab army has beaten a
Western army since the Crusades, and produces the first rule of modern
Islamic warfare: "We can always beat the French." A nice phrase, but
it lacks something in originality, since it is also the first rule of
warfare for the Italians, Russians, Prussians, Germans, English,
Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, Native Americans and capitalists.

18 - War on Terrorism - Lost. Incensed at not being included in the
original "Axis of Evil," France refuses to participate. When it
becomes clear that this is a "no-kidding war," Jacques Chirac looks at
his cards and immediately surrenders to that old warhorse, Gerhard
Schroeder. For good measure, he also surrenders to five million
illegal immigrants from Algeria.

The moral of the story is - give thanks to God on high that the French
are not helping us!

OUTSTANDING post Joe Bob. Those are my feelings *exactly*

We've appeased Saddam for FAR too long. It's time to take action and thank God we have a President in office now who is willing to do more than blow up a Sudanese aspirin factory (which the U.S. is paying over 10 million dollars in reparations for BTW) and declare victory like Clinton did.

> ...and end the threat of Sod Em

> here's how NOT to do it...

> -Compromise and appease a dictator.

> -Continue play his game of cat and mouse,
> lies
> and deception for the next 10 years.

> -Use moral reasoning with someone with no
> morals or conscious.

> -Project a divided front so that Sod Em
> knows all he has to do is stall until the
> any coalitions falls apart

> -Have the false idea that you can leave
> inspectors in forever. As soon as Sod Em
> feels the threat is over he'll kick them out
> again.

> The real way to possibly avoid war?

> -The world provide a united front who tells
> him in no uncertain terms that they will
> remove him (and be willing to follow
> through) unless he totally and completely
> disarms all WMD.
> No more games.

> That's the ONLY negotiations a Sod Em
> understands.

> -He will either give in
> -Leave the country
> -Or defy and be removed

> But I bet he would comply or leave to save
> his own skin. But if not the problem would
> be solved and the world would be a better
> place.

> Joe Bob

they work both ways.

What is a "pre-emptive strike"? It's when someone has not attacked you yet - but you fear that they will. So you attack them first instead.

The planned war against Iraq is a pre-emptive war. Iraq has not attacked any other country since the last Gulf war (and I personally don't think they have the means to attack anyone either at the moment). But - due to fear - we are proposing to attack them first.

As I said, this works both ways. If you've been reading the news, you'll notice that North Korea has also now threatened a "pre-emptive strike" against the USA, if it fears the US will attack it. That means North Korea is using the same reasoning the USA is using in order to possibly strike the USA first. This is all the more worrying because North Korea has an estimated one or two nuclear weapons, and it has missiles which are capable of delivering these nukes to the continental USA (as well as most of the rest of the world).

The USA hasn't replied (to my knowledge) to North Korea's threat of a pre-emptive strike. How can it? After all, North Korea is using the same logic that the USA is using in the Middle East. They fear the USA may attack, so they say that they have the right to a "pre-emptive strike" and to attack the USA first.

As I said, it works both ways. If you accept the validity of pre-emptive strikes on others, then you should also accept a possible pre-emptive strike against yourself. The same logic used by the USA to initiate a war against Iraq, could be used by North Korea to send a nuclear weapon into any major US city.

If pre-emptive strikes become the norm, then I think we will live in a much more dangerous world.

- Dien Rice

Hi,

As I said in my post, above, the war isn't about fear or oil, it's about the petro-dollar VS the petro-Euro.

One thing the world is learning from all this is, if you want to be treated with respect, get nukes and be willing (or crazy enough) to use them. Hopefully the human race will survive long enough to become civilized.

Hope this helps,

- Boyd

Dien, you're absolutely right:-)

Course pre-emptive strikes are OK if they are carried out by the good guys aren't they? Or have I got that wrong?

Or maybe they're OK if they're against a country which MAY have WMDs and may or may not use them if they have them, and NOT OK if they're against countries who DO have WMDs and who openly boast that they WILL use them.

Yeah, that must be it.

Gee, it's kinda confusing isn't it? Maybe I'll head off down the library to see if I can find the rule book on pre-emptive strikes. Wasn't that Hitler chappy into pre-emptive strikes...?

Cheers

p

> they work both ways.

> What is a "pre-emptive strike"?
> It's when someone has not attacked you yet -
> but you fear that they will. So you attack
> them first instead.

> The planned war against Iraq is a
> pre-emptive war. Iraq has not attacked any
> other country since the last Gulf war (and I
> personally don't think they have the means
> to attack anyone either at the moment). But
> - due to fear - we are proposing to attack
> them first.

> As I said, this works both ways. If you've
> been reading the news, you'll notice that
> North Korea has also now threatened a
> "pre-emptive strike" against the
> USA, if it fears the US will attack it. That
> means North Korea is using the same
> reasoning the USA is using in order to
> possibly strike the USA first. This is all
> the more worrying because North Korea has an
> estimated one or two nuclear weapons, and it
> has missiles which are capable of delivering
> these nukes to the continental USA (as well
> as most of the rest of the world).

> The USA hasn't replied (to my knowledge) to
> North Korea's threat of a pre-emptive
> strike. How can it? After all, North Korea
> is using the same logic that the USA is
> using in the Middle East. They fear the USA
> may attack, so they say that they have the
> right to a "pre-emptive strike"
> and to attack the USA first.

> As I said, it works both ways. If you accept
> the validity of pre-emptive strikes on
> others, then you should also accept a
> possible pre-emptive strike against
> yourself. The same logic used by the USA to
> initiate a war against Iraq, could be used
> by North Korea to send a nuclear weapon into
> any major US city.

> If pre-emptive strikes become the norm, then
> I think we will live in a much more
> dangerous world.

> - Dien Rice

Korea's ranting and carrying on reminds me of Wag The Dog...

There's a scene where DeNiro says to DENY the spy plane (or whatever it was that didn't actually exist). Doing so would make the media concentrate on the denial and not on what was actually going on.

Korea threatening nuclear strikes and carrying on like an idiot while nothing has been said to them - as far as I am aware - is like that part of Wag The Dog. Create interest in one thing... possibly to distract from something else.

Also. Korea just wants attention.

As for pre-emtive strike et al. I would hardly think Korea's situation bares any resemblence to Iraq - 12 years with 17+ resolutions and a severe lack of co-operation while simultaneously killing its own citizens after creating a huge environmental catastrophe by blowing up over 100 oil wells.

Korea is open about its weapons - look, we are building nuclear weapons. Iraq says we have nothing bad then rockets which exceed ranges are found as well as mustard gas (which, I believe was outlawed last century). Hmmm.

No comparison IMO.

Michael Ross