Waaaah!

[Home] [Chat] [Forums] [Search] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Martial Arts Table Talk ]

Posted by Talking Head on February 19, 2003 at 06:53:51:

Before going further, let me say I am no friend of Iraq. But 'no
foreign entanglements' was and is good advice, and the U.S. mostly
followed it for its first 130 years of existence. As it became a
statist power around 1915 it began to form various alliances. The huge
increase in entangling alliances and Big Brotherism happened a bit
later.

I don't think the 1991 war was justified, either. The invasion of
Kuwait is the sort of thing nations do to other smaller and vastly
weaker nations--the Kuwaiti oil princes had plenty of time to have
built Swiss-type defenses, but chose not to. (Part of counting on Big
Brother to protect one is the 'moral hazard' which results.)

And whatever the 1991 justifications were (*), the justifications today
are far, far weaker.

(* Note that in 1990-91 there were vigorous debates in Congress,
including a razor-thin margin approving a quasi-war declaration. No
such debate is happening now. Likewise, the 'Alliance' was unified,
with several Arab countries participating with troops and supplies. No
such alliance today.)

Further, the costs to U.S. taxpayers to occupy and 'rebuild' (say
what?!) Iraq are now estimated to be about $45 billion per year. That's
a lot of money.

* The reason is clear: the juggernauts of the military buildup are
rolling: 5 carrier battle groups now either in the region or arriving
within the next 10 days. More than 100,000 U.S. and British troops
massing in Kuwait, Qatar, and other staging areas.

* The new moon, when moonlight is minimal, is happening around 1 March.
This is the standard military time to attack, and fits with the
cresting of the military buildup. (Carriers and aircraft and troops
should be in place by 25 February, and so the war could start any time
after that.)

* If there is any delay, the optimum time for an attack is lost. And if
the delay extends to early May, the ground temperatures in Iraq make
wearing of chemical gear very problematic. (So say the experts I have
seen interviewed: the rubber suits don't do well in 35 C ambient
temperatures, let alone in 45 C summer temperatures.)

* So the U.S. has effectively already launched the war by expending so
much money ('treasure' in the bull_deleted_-talk of political pundits) in
massing troops and ships in the area. To pull back, as must happen if
no war starts, would make the next mobilization harder to justify.

* Where's Congress? Where's the debate, the declaration of war? Answer:
They're sitting this one out, avoiding the cameras, debating minor
bills. (The debate on USA Patriot II, aka The Reich Protectorate and
Modification of the Bill of Rights Act of 2003, is happening behind
closed doors...to the extend the pork-gobbling Congresscritters are
even getting involved at all.)

All of these issues point to what a cluster_deleted_ this is turning into,
exposing the hypocrisy of the U.S. position that it doesn't start wars
(a claim that can never be made again with a straight face if this war
starts...though some would say this claim has been bogus for the past
40 years). And exposing the hypocrisy of the notion that Congress
debates important issues. And of course the U.N. suffers.

Not all of these things are bad. Which is why I am hoping for a war. A
war that goes badly, a war that results in world opinion turning
sharply against the American aggressor state. A war that causes Iran to
decide to seize some disputed territory (what we gonna do then, homey?).

A war that returns the United States to blissful isolationism.

A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a
suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two
million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be
wished.


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

[Home] [Chat] [Forums] [Search] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Martial Arts Table Talk ]