Real Life Mandarins

[Zarathustra]

Behind the scenes of this iraqi conflict there are a bunch of mathmeticians working out the best way to handle the situation in iraq. They figure out the payoff of each strategy and how to maximize the payoff. THe situation in iraq for anyone familiar with game theory is a more complicated version of the "Hawk-Dove" game. Politics has more math in it than you think. Mathematicians make our foreign policy. So criticize if you will but remember who makes the real decisions.

 

[Templar]

Just a quick poll in the framework of this thread, two questions, aye or nay:
1) Are you military age in the USA, and registered for selective service? (if you are over 18, a US citizen or resident alien and have not, then yu are a felon)
2) If it comes to a draft, will you evade?

1)Yes, I have registered.
2)No, I won't dodge a draft.

Are the motives for this war really the poor oppressed people of Iraq? Or are they to secure some of the world's richest oil reserves for Bush's oil buddies?

On that note, did you agree with motives for the Persian Gulf War? Anyway, the reasons to go into Iraq are overwhelming. To name the flavor of the week, Iraq may possess weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we're not sure. Let's ask the weapons inspectors... oh, right! Saddam kicked 'em out in '98! Right! Well, what does the CIA say?

The CIA even, has said that Iraq poses no threat to the United States. They simply do not have the means to hurt us.

Just like they predicted the events of 9/11 and told the people of the U.S. about it, then took every means of stopping it, right? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Geez, the CIA just hasn't been the same since the end of the Cold War...
Anyway, we'll never know for sure untill we get the inspectors back in Iraq.

And, Hussein, lunatic that he is, is not stupid.

That's debatable.

...He (Saddam) may or may not have WMD's, we have over ten-thousand WMD's. Saddam knows that our current government is just looking for a reason to turn his peice of real-estate into a parking lot.

Saddam dosn't have to care. That fear of that one missle in the NCB catigory launched at the U.S., or the U.K., or Isreal will keep us in line. You see, it isn't just our problem. Even the countries who are against war have demanded a resoloution.

True, a regime change would benefit the people of Iraq, but somehting tells me that once Saddam is removed, even if the Iraqi people ask, those troops are staying put for a good long time...

...so the new leader won't be murdered by extremists loyal to the old goverment. As for a regime change, in the end the ball is in Saddam's court. Even the way he is he could end all of this, and stay as the leader, if he would let the UN inspectors in.

People protest against war all day long in the US, because they largely believe a war would bring casualties to an impoverished helpless people in some third world country. I'm of the belief that those destitute people, who would be kidnapped, tortured and killed for protesting against their own government, would be much better off after a regime-change, even if there were unfortunate civilian casualties.

I agree. It has been true for centuries, an oppressive king would find himself giving up the ghost if he turned his back on his subjects. Now to the question I posed at the begining of this post: Did you agree with motives for the Persian Gulf War? I asked this because you stated that Bush was instigating a war for Iraq's oil reserves. His father was accused of this before he declared war, but now everyone seems to think the war was just. The truth is no one wants to think of themselves or thier loved ones dying in a distant land so harshly, no matter how right the cause. But war is a nessessary evil. I personally hold on to the hope that this will be resolved peacefully.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

"Just like they predicted the events of 9/11 and told the people of the U.S. about it, then took every means of stopping it, right? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Geez, the CIA just hasn't been the same since the end of the Cold War..."

Don't quote me on this, as I could be wrong, but I think in an effort to provide suspects with more rights, special law enforcement such as the FBI, the CIA, and, errr, the NSA, have been limited in what they can do.

"And, Hussein, lunatic that he is, is not stupid.

That's debatable."

He's sick, that's for sure. He took his son to watch prisoners being tortured. While it's debateable that electric shocks to the testicles would approach the brutality of Kilrathi torture, it shows what sort of man he is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...He (Saddam) may or may not have WMD's, we have over ten-thousand WMD's. Saddam knows that our current government is just looking for a reason to turn his peice of real-estate into a parking lot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Saddam dosn't have to care. That fear of that one missle in the NCB catigory launched at the U.S., or the U.K., or Isreal will keep us in line. You see, it isn't just our problem. Even the countries who are against war have demanded a resoloution."

It's interesting to note that Russia, after being victims of a terrorist act, have done a backflip on their position of staying out of acting on terrorism. With respect, and I'm not having a go at anyone, for some they have to be a victim of a terrorist act to want something done about terrorism.


"...so the new leader won't be murdered by extremists loyal to the old goverment."

True enough. It may be a recent issue of Time magazine or an older one that I have on me, but the support for Saddam in Iraq that is projected is very small.

"But war is a nessessary evil."

And terror about the innocent people of your country is well beyond nessecary, no matter what your ethnic, political or religious background or goal is. I stand by the theory that in World War Two, Germany was not the target. The Nazis were. Same principle here. American soldiers would not, I believe, kill Iraqis unless they were soldiers and they were waving guns about.

 

[Ender]

The motives for Gulf War I were pretty clear. Oil and profit. Don't talk about the poor suffering people of Kuwait, they live under an absolute monarchy which tortures dissenters. If we want to do a regime change lets start there, or in Saudi Arabia- hell Bin Ladin and most of the hijackers came from there. Actually, this Tuesday I will be participating in a planned regime change right here in the USA. How many of you will be? (election day)

As for the inspectors being kicked out. Bull, check the link.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html
But if we can't trust the corporate media who can we trust?

I would now like to address the queston of whether or not Al Queda members are hiding in Iraq. Well, if they're in Iraq they are sure as hell hiding. A popular Islamic uprising ala Iran is the thing Saddam fears more than the US. We all know what he does to threats to his power.

In a recent development, Saudi Arabia has just denied the US the use of it's airspace and bases within it's borders for an attack on Iraq. Meaning if we use those bases, or that airspace, we will be going to ar with the country that has within it's control, Mecca and Medina. If you can't see where that would lead you really need to open your eyes. In short it would be a united Islamic jihad againtst the West- exactly what that Bin-Ladin nutball (whom we have not caught, nor confirmed his death-the man has to get dyalalis once a month for gods sak! how hard can he be to catch?) would want.

I really don't giva a shit if Hussein launches one of the two Scuds he has that were not destroyed by UNSCOM at Israel. Israel has violated a hell of a lot more Security Council resolutions than Iraq. Plus I figure if a scud hits a settlement in the west bank, then it's just karma. It's not their land, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I too am registered for selectve service, and I wouldn't run. But I haven't decided if I would go t jail or go to the service yet. But If I go to jail, there will be a lot of friends going with me. (over 100,000 at last count.)

 

[Templar]

As for the inspectors being kicked out. Bull, check the link.

I did.

Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

What's your point? If we had inspectors in Iraq, we would know if Iraq had NBC weapons.

I really don't giva a shit if Hussein launches one of the two Scuds he has that were not destroyed by UNSCOM at Israel. Israel has violated a hell of a lot more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

It isn't a country we are talking about here. We are talking about innocent civilans who are going to die because members of thier country are shit-heads who instigated a fight with a madman. It's easy to hide the issue behind a country's rap sheet but in the final analysis it is a country's people who pay for it's leaders decisions.

The motives for Gulf War I were pretty clear. Oil...

...yes...

and profit.

No. The U.S. did not get declare war on Iraq in '92 because of the, quote, "poor suffering people of Kuwait". In fact, during the invasion in August '91 Saddam asked how the U.S. felt about the invasion and we responded: "We have no opinion on your invasion of Kuwait". The Bush Sr. administration later renegged on this in '92, but I belive that was said only to avoid being seen as indecisive (fat lot of good it did). We invaded because Iraq was gearing up for another war with Saudi Arabia and we didn't like the idea of 50% of the world's oil resources being held by a mad-man who didn't really like the west and wasn't willing to share. Profit? Ha! We lost money on that war, mainly due to the prolonged air-war. Bush didn't feel it would be prudent to start a ground offensive untill late in the war. He was na ga dait .

In a recent development, Saudi Arabia has just denied the US the use of it's airspace and bases within it's borders for an attack on Iraq. Meaning if we use those bases, or that airspace, we will be going to ar with the country that has within it's control, Mecca and Medina. If you can't see where that would lead you really need to open your eyes. In short it would be a united Islamic jihad againtst the West- exactly what that Bin-Ladin nutball (whom we have not caught, nor confirmed his death-the man has to get dyalalis once a month for gods sak! how hard can he be to catch?) would want.

We don't need Saudi this go around. Turkey and/or Isreal would do just fine. We needed Saudi Arabia last time as it was the only country to border both Iraq and Kuwait. As for Bin Laden, he's got contacts in every country in and out of the Middle East. Hell, if he wanted to, he could hide out with the Russian Mafia (if he was smart, he would have ran with money).

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Here's a little (and dirty) joke directed at those who are anti Bush. And hey, you may think he's war wacky, and if you wanted my opinion I'd say I might have to agree with ya. Here's the joke.

"When Rockabilly Clinton won the election, the whole place went ape shit and they ended up partying for four days of them going beserk. When the celebrations finally end, Bill goes home to his lovely wife Hillary, whi is wearing a completely transperent dress. Waiting to be celebrated upon. And he looked, and he looked again. She'd shaved the moot! So Bill asks 'Honey, what's happening?' Hillary says 'Read my lips! No more Bush!'"

 

[Excelsis]

What makes anyone think that inspectors will be either allowed in or effective in Iraq. We're dealing with a guy that has visions of an Iraqi empire and will do anything to make those dreams come true. He hates the United States more than any other country.

I am amazed at how quickly after 9/11 people have forgotten the lesson. The Lesson is "They are coming HERE" Terror will no longer remain relegated to the Middle-East. These fanatics will be coming to the US and other Western countries again. Their only goal is death and destruction.

A regime change in Iraq is just another step in the war on terror. Maybe, just maybe, the people of Iraq will be grateful to have a Murderous dictator removed from power. I haven't heard any Afghanistans complain about the loss of the Taliban. Do you think Saddam will be making food drops on our people before a battle? No but the US and other western countries will make food drops before we hit Iraq just like in Afghanistan. Countries with a stable democratic regime do not harbour terrorists. Our war is not with the people of Iraq, but with one madman. If there is any pain and suffering caused it will be because he refuses to step down in peace. All these "Anti-war" protestors should be protesting Saddam not stepping down on his own. Then there would be no war, plain and simple. But in any case we will be sending a clear message, terror will not be tolerated.

Let me sum up with this: You don't negotiate with a roach. You squash him before he multiplies.

 

[Mad Hatter]

Originally posted by Ender
I really don't giva a shit if Hussein launches one of the two Scuds he has that were not destroyed by UNSCOM at Israel. Israel has violated a hell of a lot more Security Council resolutions than Iraq. Plus I figure if a scud hits a settlement in the west bank, then it's just karma. It's not their land, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

So I understand from what you're saying that the 3000 New Yorkers who lost their lives in 9/11 deserved what they got, right?

I mean, the US has also violated various UN resolutions. It has thousands of WMDs in stock, and most of all, the US has conquered land from Native Americans back in the 18th and 19th centurys.
How the hell can you say such idiotic things?

Pardon me, Ender, but you're being just plain stupid.

 

[junior]

The whole "We're doing it for the oil" argument reminds me of something I read recently.
Prior to our walking into Afghanistan and throwing the Taliban out, the argument for why we allowed them to stay in power was, "Because of the pipeline!" A proposed pipeline across Afghanistan that one US oil company wanted to build was supposedly the entire reason that we 'permitted' the Taliban to remain in power (and in fairness, iirc, the Taliban claimed that they would like to see the pipeline built).
Then 9/11 came, terrorists rammed a couple of full passenger jets into the WTC, dropped another one on the Pentagon, and tried to locate the President with a third one. We went into Afghanistan a few months later, and removed the Taliban from power.
Why?
"Because of the pipeline!"

There was a short newspiece on this illustrating how the people who had advanced the pipeline argument shifted their arguments within a matter of days so that while the specific action changed 180 degrees, the reason was still the pipeline.
So the next time the President does ANYTHING AT ALL, remember that its because of the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline that an American energy company would like to build.

 

[Ender]

"Pardon me, Ender, but you're being just plain stupid."

I like the "pardon me part."

You're right, how can I ever bring the imperialist history of the United States into a debate about current foriegn policy?

"I haven't heard any Afghanistans complain about the loss of the Taliban."

You haven't been listening then.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/afghan-women-2k2.htm (but hye, they don't have to wear burqas, right?)
http://hrw.org/press/2002/11/herat1105.htm ( <sings> It's all just a little bit of history repeating)
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/06/afghancabinet.htm (another victory for democracy)

Did the 3,000 New yorkers who died deserve it. Well, not the janitors, the average John Q Public going into work, or the emergency personel. Don't ask me to mourn any corporate raiders who advanced themselves at the expense of thousands of people. I know it's cruel, it's harsh, but that's life. If you don't care about a starving indonesian kid who's making sneakers, then don't expect me to care about a corporate criminal.

My point, Templar is that the media is distorting fact to make the public more receptive to the idea of a war.


Additionally, I would like to add that the last count put the number of demonstrators in DC at over 300,000. There were several hundred busses from the NY area. There were around a hundred times the number of people killed in 9/11 there. Three times the number of people allowed to make up Germany's army under the treaty of Versailles, around 4 or 5 times the number of names on the Vietnam Memorial, 7 or 8 times the number killed in Korea. In fact the only US war where the dead outnumbered us there was WWII (one that actually needed to be fought) (405,399 dead, give or take).

My grandafthers did not get shot at in the Pacific theater so that a child of their lineage would have to get shot at in the Middle East.

Before you post some blindingly general statement, do a little homework. Mmmmkay?

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Ender
My grandafthers did not get shot at in the Pacific theater so that a child of their lineage would have to get shot at in the Middle East.

I've been keeping out of the discussion of the war because I'm not completely sure where I stand, and I very much doubt this discussion will actually go anywhere... However, the fact that you've decided to call on the efforts of your Grandparents to make your point is somewhat sad. I'm sure that there are some people who fought in the Second World War who do support attacks on [Insert Pretty Much any Random Country You Want Here]. I'm also sure there are those who don't. The fact that you used a sensationalistic generalization that's also an appeal to authority (which really isn't even really an authority on the issues at hand, unless you're arguing against war in general, which you don't appear to be) doesn't help your argument.

Also, that wasn't very good wording, as someone would really have to be a bastard to go to war specifically so someone would shoot at his grandchildren...

 

[Ender]

As opposed to many members of Congress, who are grandparents themselves who seem perfectly at ease sending someone elses grandchildren to war.

Anything else, perhaps not related to exited utterances?

 

[Templar]

Did the 3,000 New yorkers who died deserve it. Well, not the janitors, the average John Q Public going into work, or the emergency personel. Don't ask me to mourn any corporate raiders who advanced themselves at the expense of thousands of people.

Pardon me as well, but when did god give you the almighty power to judge the souls of the dead?

What makes anyone think that inspectors will be either allowed in or effective in Iraq.

I think it's at least worth a try. Why jump into a war at the cost of american lives when we can possibly neutralize the threat diplomaticly?

Funny joke, Tanaka.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Ender
As opposed to many members of Congress, who are grandparents themselves who seem perfectly at ease sending someone elses grandchildren to war.

Anything else, perhaps not related to exited utterances?

Wow, that doesn't explain why you have the right to speak for those who fought in the second world war... I would quite seriously like to see you support the fact that your grandfathers were specifically fighting so you would never get shot at in the middle east, because I find it quite unlikely...

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Templar
Funny joke, Tanaka. [/B]

Thanks. It's not actually mine. A guy by the name of Kevin 'Bloody' Wilson said it once. He's a sick, deranged, politically incorewct animal, who's less offensive songs include one on how a kid did not get what he wanted from Santa, a family of Abboriginies who move in next door to former yaughtsman Allen Bond, and a variaty of others that, odds are, Angel would keelhaul the owners of.
I'll have a squiz at the other comments after I finish this letter I'm writing. I just wanted to get that out of my system now.

 

[Mad Hatter]

Originally posted by Ender
"Pardon me, Ender, but you're being just plain stupid."

I like the "pardon me part."

You're right, how can I ever bring the imperialist history of the United States into a debate about current foriegn policy?

You don't seem to have much problem bringing 60 year old history into this debate, so what's another 100 years matter?

Originally posted by Ender
Did the 3,000 New yorkers who died deserve it. Well, not the janitors, the average John Q Public going into work, or the emergency personel. Don't ask me to mourn any corporate raiders who advanced themselves at the expense of thousands of people.

You should listen to yourself and hear just how stupid you sound.
Those planes didn't crash into the WTC because of your so-called "corporate raiders", but becuase they were American. That was their only "crime". Terror doesn't distinguish between it's victims.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

I've been reading through some of the comments here, and there was something I was wondering. Does anyone else feel like we're in The Price of Freedom, or is it just me?

 

[Excelsis]

Originally posted by Mad Hatter
You should listen to yourself and hear just how stupid you sound.
Those planes didn't crash into the WTC because of your so-called "corporate raiders", but becuase they were American. That was their only "crime". Terror doesn't distinguish between it's victims. [/B]

Not everyone that died on 9/11 was an American. Terror doesn't distinguish between nations either. As for "corporate raiders", since when is trying to get ahead an evil thing. Does everyone want to make minimum wage for the rest of their lives?

 

[Ender]

I like how you have to make this about my (admittedly pretty dumb) decision to bring ancestors military service into this, rather than on any of the links I have posted. I suppose it's much easier to go after someones words when they let themself get riled than to go after the facts, and links they post when their mind is clear.

Bait and switch. Bread and circuses.

I have posted links, does anyone have feedback?

 

[junior]

Ender, go find a copy of 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', read it, and come back. Maybe then I'll think about paying some attention to anything further you have to say on this issue.
Your posts quite frankly strike me as naive, uninspired, and in the exact same flavor as the Afghanistan pipeline garbage that I mentioned earlier.
There are times when its appropriate to go to war, and not all of those times start with a surprise attack on our outlying holdings.