Diotallevi wrote:

Senor Barborito wrote:

Saddam doesn't pose a threat to anybody but Israel and his own people, and Bush shouting about 'weapons of mass destruction' doesn't change the fact that Saddam can't hit any other non-Muslim nation even if our worst fears are true.

Not right now, but give him enough time and that will change. 1.5 million barrels a day of "oil for food" is enough for a decent R&D budget if you're willing to skip the food part and starve the populace (remember all those babies in the Albright quote?). How many years would it take to build a medium range weapon that could threaten Europe? an ICBM? Certainly not forever.

And what exactly is this: all he can hit is Israel business? All NK can do is kill some slopes, but apparently we care about that for some reason.

Of course, a nuclear Iraq would be worse than NK.

That's what all the jokers yammering about "blood for oil" don't get. For most of us, oil = food. I am not a farmer. I get my food from the supermarket. In back of the supermarket, sometimes I see big trucks. I think they have something to do with all the food on the shelves. I know they run on diesel. If the price for diesel spikes, the supermarket's going to pass that spike on to me. No blood for food? Fuck that.

Senor Barborito wrote:

The man (and his even more vicious - if reports are true - sons) needs to be shot and done in - I agree with Bush that far down the line. The Iraqi people are suffering horribly because of his government and are afraid to speak out in even the slightest capacity. I know I have a reputation for being viciously anti-human, but for some reason I found this piece by a reporter who just left Iraq oddly heart-wrenching. Maybe it's because I'm such a free-speech absolutist, or maybe it's because I hate the very concept of wealth-beyond-moderate-comfort, but it gave a view of Iraq I needed to read.
So, yes, I'm for regime change fully. The sooner the better. Assassination? A-OK, as far as I'm concerned. Call in the Mossad for this one if you must. Popular movement? Rock on. Whatever it takes.

We've been trying all those angles for 12 years, and failing miserably. He is a ruthless, tricky motherfucker. He was afraid of being assassinated even before we started thinking about it (because that's how he got to power: he knows how big the payoff is), and he has gotten very good at avoiding assassination. After 12 years of failure, I'm prepared to give up. Furthermore, by fighting a secret, low intensity war against him, we're turning Sun Tzu on his head. We're fighting him where he is strong (in a country he ABSOLUTELY controls) and we are weak (with a handfull of spooks, instead of a half dozen carrier battle groups). We've got official armed services out the ass, ours beat his handily the last time out, and instead of using them, we're going to play spy games with the master of assassins? Why?

Senor Barborito wrote:

]Outright war? I'm certainly not for tearing the country to shit again, and there's every indication that the close-quarters nature of this next time would be far worse for both the residents and for us. We fucking *WON* in Afghanistan, and the reason was because we came as liberators, not an occupation force intent on tearing the natives lives from shit into some new anti-futuristic hyper-shit.

I really don't think this is going to be Stalingrad. Obviously nobody can know what will happen before hand, but I just don't think the Iraqi grunt is going to be motivated enough for that. I'm sure that many of the guys who fought at Stalingrad feared/hated Stalin, but they knew that whatever they'd get from a victorious Hitler would be much worse, so they were highly motivated. Given the number of Iraqis we took captive last time, everybody in that army must know at this point that when you surrender to the Americans, nothing really bad happens to you. I'm sure some of the Special Republican Guard (you know, the force he put together to protect him from a potential coup by the Republican Guard) will be highly motivated, and try to resist in the cities, but they will have zero supply, and zero CCC, so I think they can be dealt with.

Senor Barborito wrote:

They lost at least a 9/11's worth of completely uninvolved non-combatants,

This is not true. I linked you the links back on planet hate. Herrold double counted people all over the place.

Senor Barborito wrote:

but against the background noise of living in that region it was a lot less than anybody could have hoped for.

True enough, sadly.

Senor Barborito wrote:

There is no way to invade Iraq with 200,000 US soldiers and repeat this series of events. If we want to stifle a hotbed for terrorist recruitment standing ready to be made, we need to topple the regime without the populace seeing nothing but American soldiers tearing their homes and families to pieces. Because that's a recipe for millions of fresh-faced suicide bombers.

I don't follow the logic there. It seems to me that terrorism is born of hatred of the US and Israel, hatred that is sponsored by repressive, authoritarian regimes like Iraq's to give the justly angry (at Saddam, NOT us) populace a vent for their frustrations. Assassination/successful coup leads, it seems to me, inexorably, to the "Saddam-lite" scenario, where one of his generals takes over, and not much else changes. Hopefully, he'll quit the WMD programs (and if he doesn't, will we go in?), but he's likely to keep beating the people down, and keep trying to redirect their rage at us. It seems to me that if you care about the people of Iraq, OR if you worry about the conditions that spawn terrorists, then war is actually the best of bad options. Of course, it should be noted that bombs, not bombers are the limiting reagent in suicide attacks. Which means that going to war to create another Saudi Arabia is a very bad idea. It should also be noted that it sounds to me like Powell and the "moderate" wing of the administration are pushing for this outcome, even after a war. It's the frothing at the mouth "hawks" who talk about trying to establish a representative government in Iraq. One of many through-the-looking-glass aspects of this business.

A tangent:
Your comment about suicide bombers suggests you hold what I view to be a common misconception about the roots of terrorism. Namely, that it is the fruit of desperation. This seems reasonable on it's face-- after all, suicide would seem to be the act of a desperate person. But poverty and desperation are abundant in the world, while terrorism seems to be much more focused. It seems to me that the deadly combination that plagues the arab world (and us, through them), is political and social repression combined not with poverty and desperation, but relative comfort. People who are only alive because of years of bitter struggle against want are unlikely to throw that achievement away in a hopeless cause (and that, plainly, is what the Islamists' war against us is). People, on the other hand, who take the essentials of life for granted (thanks to oil-funded state welfare systems, for example), but who are held back from personal, professional or political achievement by their societies, are going to have a lot of pent-up frustrations; frustrations they'll be more likely to take out suicidally acting out some grotesque fantasy (this is not a military campaign they're waging against us, it's a show; a show they're putting on for God) than people who've invested in their own survival, or people who are allowed to fuck who they like, do business how they like, and seek political office if they like. This, I think, is why most of the hijackers were Saudis. AND why Marshall planning Iraq (risky as it is) makes more sense to me than not.

Senor Barborito wrote:

Regime change? Yes. War? No.

What if can only get the first with the second? IF that's true (and it seems to me it is), then I think you're forced to conclude that war now is better than war later, simply because later he might have theater nukes.

Senor Barborito wrote:

Defense contracts? No.

I don't know what this refers to.

I do know that I'll be very interested in what the Iraqi books reveal about the roots of Franco-German "pacifism." (Translation: I suspect the Euros have been selling him shit they weren't supposed to under the sanctions program, and their attempts to shank us at the UN have been both a quid pro quo AND an attempt to cover their own asses.)

Senor Barborito wrote:

Oil booty? No. That's my vote, at least.

On the subject of oil, I should point out that nobody is suggesting we take it from them. We'll BUY it from them at the going rate. And they'll use the profits therefrom to rebuild their country. Iraqis could get rich off us, if things go right, just like the Krauts and the Japs.