The Drums of War

[barfle]

Hi, Dai Bread. To answer your question about keeping the bulletin board in view while you're writing a reply, there are two ways (I'm assuming you are using MS Internet Explorer for the second method). <P>First, it's already there. If you just scroll down a little, there's a window with the bulletin board showing. There are scroll bars so you can move around it (it defaults to the top of the page, contrary to most people wanting to respond to the LAST post :confused: ).<P>Second, try right clicking on the "Post Reply" icon, then selecting "Open in New Window." Either way should work.<P>------------------------------------------<BR>And now for the politics. I'm not a big fan of the UN, and I'm a flaming US patriot, so some of what I'm about to post may seem a bit unusual, but, as I've noted before, I'm so far from the mainstream that my water isn't polluted. <P>I have yet to see any evidence that Iraq is a threat to the US, or to any country who has asked for our help. We are getting some allies, but many of them seem to simply want to be on the side of power. I really couldn't care less what the UN has to say, but I am interested in what folks in Kuwait, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., have to say about the threat he may pose to them.<P>I'm waiting for Colin Powell to tell me something I don't already know: Sadam Hussein is an SOB, he's a tyrant, he's murdering his own people. None of that is a concern to the United States: when such things happen in Uganda or Rwanda, we usually shake our heads and go "such a shame." That, of course, implies that it's all about the oil. Even if Sadam has "weapons of mass destruction," he doesn't have the ability to deliver them to US territory.<P>I believe that we have our plate plenty full with Afghanisan. North Korea is a potential thorn, but I've also heard that the South Koreans would really appreciate it if we'd just butt out and let them work with the only country they have a border with.

[CindiACB]

Four ex-presidents were swept up by tornados and deposited in Oz. <BR>The wizard greeted them and asked if they had wishes he might grant. <BR>Carter said "I think I could use more courage". "Done", said the wizard.<BR>Reagan said "I need a brain". The wizard said, "Yes, you do. You shall have one".<BR>Bush Sr said "I've been told I need a heart". The wizard agreed and gave him one.<BR>Then Clinton came along and the wizard asked if he wanted anything. "I was just wondering, is Dorothy here?"<BR>And what do you need the wizard asked Bush II? Duh said Bush, “I’ll have to ask Cheney, but I know it was something about the Exes of Evil.”<BR>

[dai bread]

Thanks Barfle! I couldn't find another window, but the right-click idea worked fine. I'm using IE6 in XP, with a 56k dial-up. I'm amazed how well B.R. comes across.<P>A South Korean lass who was staying with us for a while said that the sooner the U.S. troops went home the better. That was a couple of years ago or more. Certainly George's response the the latest blackmail is pretty alarming and I think the whole matter should be left to the Koreans (N&S) to sort out between themselves. <P> Why does it take so long to get a decent strike force organised?<P>The U.S. plate is full to overflowing with Afghanistan. The British couldn't take it, the Soviets couldn't hold it, and both were next door at the time. Bases in Pakistan don't count, because you don't control the country. The British did.<P>And you're right about the Arabs. We do get some comment from them here, but not much. Most of it seems to be along the lines of "You and the British have caused enough trouble here. Let us sort out our own place. We'll ask for help if we need it."<P>I wonder what happened to the music log for the 1st & 2nd of February? I was looking for the details about that delightful version of "When I'm 64" played on the double bass. Or is it low cello?<P>

[EJA]

Personally, it's bagpipes that speak musical war to me. <P>As long as everyone is discussing war with Iraq, I might as well put in my 2 cents (always remembering, of course, whose name is at the top of the board ). <P>Everyone recalls how we got in the Gulf War: Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He was also eyeing Saudi Arabia and other oil countries with illusions of creating a second Babylonian empire. Not only did this threaten our oil supply -- which is, for better or worse, the life blood of our economy -- but it created further instability in the most turbulent area of the world, the Middle East. Furthermore, Saddam, for the second time in a decade, threatened -- and later attacked -- our one ally, and the only democracy in that part of the world, Israel. <P>In Operation Desert Storm, the United States defeated Saddam and liberated Kuwait. As part of the surrender agreements, Saddam agreed to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction, cease the development of such weapons, and submit to UN monitoring of his compliance with these demands. He also agreed to a patrolled no-fly zone over part of his country. In the past ten years, he has defied every one of these obligations. During the recent inspections, chemical warheads have been found (and others have been mysteriously not found), and information regarding Iraqi research into LASER enrichment of Uranium has been uncovered. Cooperation with these inspections is deteriorating and Saddam is pulling his “spies” trick once again. The no-fly zone is violated on a daily basis, and planes patrolling it -- with our boys in them -- are frequently targeted. Saddam has made buffoons of the UN by taking advantage of the "oil for food" program. Only the naive believe that the oil bought food. <P>On these grounds alone, the United States is justified in attacking Iraq in order to bring that country into conformity with the obligations it has made to the international community. To say that they are in material breach is an understatement. Still, there's more. <P>On the floor of the Baghdad airport, written with tiles, are the words, "death to America." On the wall are the words, "death to Israel." Saddam isn't terribly religious (his first thought in the morning seems to be, what law of Islam can I break today?), but he is using radical Wahabi Islam to further his objective of an empire. He is a strong supporter of Al Qaeda (probably not just as a cheer leader, either). He encourages terrorism, and supports it financially. For example, every time there is a suicide bombing in Israel, he sends $25,000 to the family of the suicide bomber. Anyone who listens to his rhetoric knows that no love is lost on the United States or its people. He didn’t mourn September 11th ; he celebrated. Was he directly involved? I don’t know, but to those who say that we are out of range of Saddam's weaponry, I say the following: 1) What about our soldiers in Afghanistan, or our allies in Israel? 2) Were you awake and cognizant on September 11th, 2001? Ballistic missiles aren’t the only means to reaching our shores. 3) Ever hear of a suitcase nuke? How about a dirty nuke? 4) Received your small pox vaccination yet? <P>Those are the things that we know. Have you ever stopped to consider that Bush may know things that we don't? In intelligence situations, the information gathered can, in and of itself, compromise the source. Aside from the human issues, once the source is compromised, the information stops flowing. Tremendous care has to be exerted not to reveal too much. Personally, I think Bush has an ace or two up his sleeve. When he plays those cards, the attack will be underway. It is rather presumptuous of us to say, with so little information, that Iraq is or is not the biggest threat. Based on what I know, I would have expected Iran, Syria, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia to be next on the list, but I don't know what Bush knows. (BTW -- the notion that there are "no terrorist states" is ludicrous; all of the above states sponsor terrorists organizations as a matter of course.) <P>What happened on 9/11/01 has to be met with force. We have to stop Wahabi in its tracks, and the way to do that is to stop those states that sponsor it. We can't let them push us around. Remember that the purpose of the Iraq surrender terms was to restrain a megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex. Saddam hasn’t given up. His grandiose schemes are bigger than ever. Ignoring the problem won't work. Chamberlain tried that with the Nazis. Far better it is to nip the bud than to weed out the seedlings.<p>[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: EJA ]

[barfle]

Ethan, I'm waiting with baited breath for Colin Powell to tell me something he knows that I don't as to why we should attack Iraq.<P>Yes, Sadam is being a real thorn in the side of those who would enforce the conditions he agreed to after Desert Storm, but again I ask "what is the threat to the United States?"<P>As to terrorist attacks, why do we think Iraq is any greater threat than the Palestinians, Jordan, Iran, or even North Korea? Remember that most of the hijackers were <I>Saudis</I>, not Iraqis. Suitcase nukes are not the first weapons a nuclear program would send to battle, just like a pentium isn't the first circuit a student would build. If we are hit by a "suitcase" bomb, it won't have been built in Iraq.<P>Slogans like those you quoted from the Baghdad airport are also found in hotels in Tehran. Do you think we will change the minds of the Iraqis and Iranians by force?<P>I fully agree that the attacks of 9/11 must be answered so forcefully that no one ever has the foolishness to try anything like it again. But let's make sure we have the right target. Maybe Colin Powell will convince me that we do, but so far, I still feel we need to concentrate on binladen and al qaeda, and the evidence I've seen says "Afghanistan and Pakistan."

[EJA]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barfle:<BR><STRONG>Ethan, I'm waiting with baited breath for Colin Powell to tell me something he knows that I don't as to why we should attack Iraq.<P>Yes, Sadam is being a real thorn in the side of those who would enforce the conditions he agreed to after Desert Storm, but again I ask "what is the threat to the United States?"</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The threat? It's called terrorism. Saddam supports it financially and overtly, and harbors its perpitrators. Furthermore, he is endangering our supply of oil. If he gets his fingers on the spigot, our economy is going to tank like it never has before. (Meanwhile, back at the ranch, sensationalists refuse to let us do anything to cut our dependence on foreign oil while simultaneously demanding that we do so.) <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> <STRONG><BR>As to terrorist attacks, why do we think Iraq is any greater threat than the Palestinians, Jordan, Iran, or even North Korea? Remember that most of the hijackers were <I>Saudis</I>, not Iraqis. Suitcase nukes are not the first weapons a nuclear program would send to battle, just like a pentium isn't the first circuit a student would build. If we are hit by a "suitcase" bomb, it won't have been built in Iraq.<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>First point I agree with to a point(although Jordan is probably among the least likely to do us harm), but let me reiterate that we, the public, do not have the information that our military leaders have, and so we are in a very poor position to second-guess them. Second point -- well and good if you really think that Saddam is still working on his first nuclear weapon. <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><STRONG><BR>Slogans like those you quoted from the Baghdad airport are also found in hotels in Tehran. <BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Iraq will make a nice base from which to attack Iran, don't you think? We even know some of the country already. . . <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><STRONG><BR>Do you think we will change the minds of the Iraqis and Iranians by force?<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Remind me again how we changed the Nazi's minds? The Japanese warlords' minds? The Barbary Pirates' minds? Santa Anna's mind? The redcoats' minds? It generally takes powder and lead to change the minds of fanatics (in form as well as function). <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><STRONG><BR>I fully agree that the attacks of 9/11 must be answered so forcefully that no one ever has the foolishness to try anything like it again. But let's make sure we have the right target. Maybe Colin Powell will convince me that we do, but so far, I still feel we need to concentrate on binladen and al qaeda, and the evidence I've seen says "Afghanistan and Pakistan."</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What Saddam has that Bin Laden does not have is a whole industrialized country at his disposal to do his bidding. What these two men have in common is that neither of them is sane.

[barfle]

Ethan, I understand that you believe Sadam is harboring and supporting terrorists, but where is the evidence? Just because you believe he can, does that mean he is?<P>As far as his endangering our supply of oil, which supply would that be? We are not presently importing much if any oil legally from Iraq. If he is a threat to Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Yemeni oil fields, where is the concern from the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and Yemenis?<P>Second guessing our leaders is one of the joys, no, <B>responsibilities</B> of living in a free country. If they are keeping secrets from me that might cause the death of my son or anyone else's son, then I certainly have a right to second guess. There is NO evidence that Iraq has tested a nuclear weapon, so, yes, if they are working on one, it's their first one.<P>Our military victories did not change any of our enemies' minds as to which side was right, and whether or not the US was sub-human or not. I don't see evidence that we should do to Iraq what we did to Germany, Italy, and Germany in the '40s. Those countries allied and attacked other countries. Iraq has not done anything of the sort for a decade. <P>A major part of the reason those former Axis countries are our allies now is due to the reconstruction we provided after the war. It was NOT because we proved we were stronger than they were, it is because we proved we were humanitarians, too.<P>bin laden (I refuse to even capitalize that monster's name) had a very strong financial base, although we have been doing our best to erode that. There is evidence that he is being supported by the Saudis (not proven to me). Iraq may have the finances of a third world country under sanctions, but that doesn't mean he has the financial wherewithall (or even the desire) to pull off a major attack on the US or its allies.<P>I'm really interested in what Powell has to say tonight, though.

[barfle]

dai bread, to further explain how to see what you are replying to, just below the "Add Reply" button is a sub-window that shows the BBB. It's not very big, and has scroll bars so you can move around in the bulletin board.<P>You can even click links in that sub-window and it'll take you to that spot, which is helpful when you've got a multiple page thread!

[brickroot]

I believe that war and violence is never justified.

[BenMurphy6]

guess we should just sit down with ol' saddam and talk it out, huh?<P>violence is sometimes justified. world war 2 was one of the few wars that absolutely had to be fought. a lot of what's going on now could have been avoided by having a little bit of foresight 12 years ago but now i think we're past the point of no return.

[brickroot]

It's hard to swallow and it's completely against the grain...when the idea was first suggested to me I didn't even consider it for a few years but I believe that it is the truest path. I do not believe in a point of no return for humans, there is good in all humans and it is never our place to give up on them- not even the foulest of them.

[BenMurphy6]

brickroot: go to google.com and search for all news regarding saddam hussein over the past 2 decades and decide for yourself if there is good in him. look especially for documents regarding the treatment of his own citizens. <P>but, just to make sure, i think we should send jesse jackson over to baghdad to check on the situation

[dai bread]

Hi Barfle. Thanks again for the info. Serves me right for not bothering with the bottom of the page. Though I prefer the new window- the original bb stays full size and I can just sideline the new window to see the old one.<P>To any one who wants to compare Saddam to Hitler: <BR>Germany in 1933 was a much more cohesive and well-organised industrial country than any in the M.E., then or now. What we now know as The West had let its forces run down after WW1, with the result that no-one was in any shape to resist Nazi expansion, a fact proved by the rapid capitulation of the whole of continental Europe in 1939 and 1940. The U.S. had a strong pro-German lobby and wasn't interested. I'm not sure what U.S. military strength was. I do know that a massive war effort was put into action in 1942, so I suspect the U.S. wasn't all that strong either.<P>The time to have stopped Hitler in his tracks was when he took over Austria, which he did quite early in his career- 1936 I think. Nobody could do it. The time to have stopped the Japanese warlords was when they invaded Manchuria in 1931! In my opinion, Saddam was stopped when he was kicked out of Kuwait. Shenannigans since then are entirely due to failure to demand unconditional surrender and to occupy the country as was done to Germany and Japan.<P>Have you noticed that nobody mentions Uday? By all the accounts I've read, he's worse than his father ever was, and I am certain he's got contingency plans worked out.<P>The problem with believing our leaders is that we don't trust them. I believe voter turnout in the U.S. is below 50%, but I'm open to correction there from the locals.<BR>Here, in surveys of trustworthiness, politicians rate with used car salesmen at the bottom.<P>Suitcase nukes: surely all you need is 2 suitcases, 2 sub-critical masses of fissle material, and 2 suicide bombers? <P>I don't agree that 9/11 needs to be answered by force. It needs to be answered with a strong and unstoppable determination to root out terrorism wherever it may be found , and by whatever means are necessary. As I said in an earlier post, this requires stolid police work and financial strangulation, to which I will now add, a steely resolve to finish the job, no matter how long it takes.<P>Sorry Brickroot. Violence is necessary at times. "If thine enemy smite thee, turn the other cheek", but there are only 2 cheeks, and even Jesus used violence on occasion. Certainly you avoid violence if you can, but Teddy Rooosevelt had it right when he said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick".<P>I'm going to stick my neck out here, and say that McArthur did the right thing in Japan. He left the old governing organisations and their people virtually intact. I know some modern authors think he shouldn't have, but I've always thought that was how he took the Japanese people with him, so that he could leave 5 years later without having the place fall apart. Perhaps the rapid departure helped too. I believe the U.S. forces in Okinawa aren't all that popular after all the years they've been there.<P>There must be some piece of music that fits this post, but I can't think of one. B.R. is playing some weird Mozart.

[dai bread]

Of course, I'd just finished that post when it occurred to me that opera is full of political music. Most notable is "Tosca" of course, but "Fidelio" and "Aida" aren't far behind. Then there's "Nabucco" which is more or less a war opera seeing it features the capture and enslavement of Hebrews. I'm sure operatenor can think of more. Giuseppe Verdi is renowned in Italy for his politics almost as much as his music.

[barfle]

Prince Igor (the best STORY I've seen so far in an opera) has (political) good guys and (political) bad guys as well, with prisoners of war being stuck in a foreign land.

[dai bread]

The only time I ever heard "Prince Igor" I was pleasantly at how easy it was to listen to and how much meat the music had. I had borrowed it from the library, and haven't seen it anywhere else.

[barfle]

dai, I have a copy on laser disk. I actually bought it because of the Polovetsian Dances, and was pleasantly surprised by the rest of the performance. I'm pretty sure it's by the Royal Opera and performed at Covent Garden.

[dai bread]

Thanks barfle. I think I'll skip the laser disk though, if only because I haven't got a player. But I like the theatre of the mind. In some cases it's essential, as in "Das Rheingold", which I think is impossible to stage satisfactorily. It could be done on film, either animated (ouch!) or with modern computer graphics, but the suspension of disbelief required for a live performance is just too great. Shall go hunting I think and call in at the local classical shop. If they haven't got "Prince Igor", they'll get it. I had to get Sullivan's cello concerto that way. No-one had ever heard of it, and the attendant tried to sell me "Pineapple Poll!"

[brickroot]

Jesus used violence in defense? You mean the time when he was led away by Roman soldiers to be killed? Or when they whipped him? Or when they crucified him? Or when they cut him open? Hmm...I don't recall Jesus using violence even then. And that seems like more than two cheeks to me, whatever you meant by that.<P>I also seem to remember something about loving your enemies. I guess you can show love by killing them.

[dai bread]

How about the moneychangers, Brickroot?