[geeks] POWER5!!!!

[Eric Dittman]

> >> Gosh. He has some of the same weapons the US does and uses them
> >> in war. That must be a first.  It's not like the US has ever used
> >> weapons of mass destruction against civilians.
> 
> >Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have military targets.
> 
> Hiroshima was a city filled with civilians. If you're going
> to argue that a tiny military-related presence there makes it
> a ligit target, then I'm *sure* equivalent things could be
> found to make that argument for the WTC and 9/11.

A tiny military-related presence?  Shipyards are
essential for an island country to have any kind
of long-range war capability.

> However, the wierd bit about Hiroshima is that the bombing
> was originally announced as being against a purely military
> target. They had definately decided, after much debate, to
> hit a military, not a civilian target. I haven't seen a good
> explanation yet as to how that mistake was made.

This had to do with target selection and weather.

> But... back to Iraq. Are you saying that if Saddam only used
> nukes against cities with a military presence (that would
> include every city in the middle east, I believe) then it
> would be ok for him to have them?

Not at all.  I'm saying when we did we did not target
civilians.

> >I think Saddam is pretty likely to use them.  If he nuked
> >Israel, Israel would nuke them, and things would start to
> >escalate pretty quickly.  I think we'd find out then which
> >countries in the Middle East actually had nukes.
> 
> Why would he try to nuke Israel if it would mean instant
> destruction? MAD worked for us.

Why did he launch SCUDs against Israel during the Gulf
War?

> >> We didn't invade Pakistan when they tested their first nuke.
> 
> >No, we didn't, but Pakistan was driven to develop nukes to
> >counter India.  We did discuss the issue diplomatically.
> 
> You could say the same for Iraq countering Israel. (Or the
> US for that matter.) *Everyone* wants nukes. I do not believe
> that Saddam wanting nukes has anything to do with the war plans.

I don't think Israel should have nukes, either.  I can
see them adopting a scorched-earth response if they were
attacked.

> >The embargo and no-fly zone were responses to Saddam's refusal
> >to honor terms of surrender that he agreed to after the Gulf
> >War.
> 
> Right. That was the stupid origins of this horrible situation.
> Ongoing occupation of other countries is a bad situation. We should
> have accomplished whatever we thought needed to be accomplished,
> and then *left*. Also, our abuse of the weapons inspection teams
> (spying on non-WMD issues, to get targets for later attacks) should
> have resulted in that program being terminated immediately.

History has shown that in the long-term, you can't effectively
occupy another country, unless the majority of the people want
you there, and even that's not a sure thing (Northern Ireland,
anyone?).

I think we should have insisted on the removal of Saddam
as a condition of surrender.  We didn't, and that was a
big mistake.

> >> WHILE HE WAS OUR GUY. Why didn't it bother us then? And why is
> >> the General who was in charge of the gassing of the Kurds being
> >> pushed by us to replace Saddam!?!?
> 
> >I think it did bother us then.  The news was reported over
> >here in the US when it was discovered, and there was a bit
> >of an outcry.
> 
> It didn't bother our *government*. Our advice to him at the
> time was to do things like that more quietly.

The government does not always reflect the desires of
the citizens.

> And we're pushing the general who was in charge of those attacks
> as a replacement for Saddam.
> 
> My point is not that the claims against Saddam are *entirely*
> without merit (obviously I think they're mostly without merit,
> but there are some ligit points). My point is that all the
> hype has *NOTHING* to do with why the US is about to attack.

Probably not, but they are justifications after the fact.

> We want his oil. That's all. This is a mugging. Mugging a
> mobster is still a mugging.

But normally a mobster won't go to the police.

> And everyone in the middle east sees this. Which means that
> it's going to fuel Al-Queda for years. Attacking Iraq will
> lead to a massive increase in terrorism.

With an increase in attacks on other suspected terrorist
sites, yes.  I agree there.

> >Unfortunately, that's why we are so buddy-buddy with Saudi
> >Arabia even though a lot of the financing and manpower for
> >the terrorists come from there.  I think it's time to stop
> >being so diplomatic with Saudi Arabia just for their oil.
> 
> They're trying to sever ties with Saudi Arabia, unfortunately
> I think the idea is to install a puppet government in Iraq
> so we have a controllable alternative to the Saudis.

The Saudi princes are friendly to the US, but then again
the majority of the Saudi citizens aren't happy about that,
either.  Saudi Arabia is a revolution waiting to happen.

> Which is exactly how the Shah was originaly placed into power
> in Iran, thus leading to the Islamic Revolution. Maybe some
> day we'll stop meddling in the middle east. 

I think we should pull out of the ME completely.  Let's clean
up ourselves first.

> Oddly enough, Bush is handling the Iranian situation really 
> well. Which is to say - leave them alone. They're *incredibly*
> close to throwing the clerics out of power and evolving into
> a real democracy, but any US meddling would be disasterous.
> Bush has steered clear, which is great.

Agreed.  There is a large movement by the younger citizens of
Iran to better relations with the US, and a move to a more
moderate form of government.  Pushing them will only keep the
clerics in power longer.
-- 
Eric Dittman
dittman at dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/