The Cellar - View Single Post

hermit22 · 09-04-2002, 06:24 PM

I think the sickest part of this whole debate (not on this website, but in general) is that hardly anyone is talking about the repercussions of the attack. In order for any form of Bush's 'regime change' to work, a standing military loyal to the new government will be necessary to unite the country's varying factions and force them to accept the rule of the new government, be they democratic or not. Otherwise, we get Afghanistan, where every day we hear another news report saying that the warlords and their lawlessness are taking over the countryside again.

We also need to wonder about the region. Pretty much every major country we have a base in in the region has told us we can't launch any strikes from their soil. This includes Kuwait, whose gold-plated asses we saved last time, and Bahrain, one of the most US-friendly Arab nations. (It was a major shock when Israel's invasion of Palestine last March sparked a riot in front of the US Embassy; in many Arab countries, this is a common event.) So how are these nations going to take our further invasion into their affairs? Is it going to kill any of our credibility in dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict? Is OPEC going to impose an oil embargo (or higher prices) in retaliation?

This is never minding our credibility as a responsible country this attack will erode (don't worry, it's been going down the tubes for years, not only partly because we're the only one on top to pick on). It's very possible that it could unify the EU politically (they're already telling Turkey that they can't join unless they tell us we can't attack Iraq from their soil) and create a more solid bloc. Then there's always the question of whether we want to commit our soldiers' lives to a nation building exercise (which Bush used to claim he was against).

Don't get me wrong - all the talk about WMD is important, and should be considered. But then why isn't Israel showing any sign of concern? I know they're a bit pre-occupied with killing Palestineans (and getting killed in turn), but the Massoud is one of the world's best trained intelligence agencies. (Of course, our national security community knew nothing about 9-11, so maybe training's a moot point).

I think that's the base of my argument against the attack. I've typed enough that I don't quite remember everything I've put thus far.

09-04-2002, 06:24 PM	#9
hermit22 sleep. Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: So Cal. Posts: 257	I think the sickest part of this whole debate (not on this website, but in general) is that hardly anyone is talking about the repercussions of the attack. In order for any form of Bush's 'regime change' to work, a standing military loyal to the new government will be necessary to unite the country's varying factions and force them to accept the rule of the new government, be they democratic or not. Otherwise, we get Afghanistan, where every day we hear another news report saying that the warlords and their lawlessness are taking over the countryside again. We also need to wonder about the region. Pretty much every major country we have a base in in the region has told us we can't launch any strikes from their soil. This includes Kuwait, whose gold-plated asses we saved last time, and Bahrain, one of the most US-friendly Arab nations. (It was a major shock when Israel's invasion of Palestine last March sparked a riot in front of the US Embassy; in many Arab countries, this is a common event.) So how are these nations going to take our further invasion into their affairs? Is it going to kill any of our credibility in dealing with the Israel/Palestine conflict? Is OPEC going to impose an oil embargo (or higher prices) in retaliation? This is never minding our credibility as a responsible country this attack will erode (don't worry, it's been going down the tubes for years, not only partly because we're the only one on top to pick on). It's very possible that it could unify the EU politically (they're already telling Turkey that they can't join unless they tell us we can't attack Iraq from their soil) and create a more solid bloc. Then there's always the question of whether we want to commit our soldiers' lives to a nation building exercise (which Bush used to claim he was against). Don't get me wrong - all the talk about WMD is important, and should be considered. But then why isn't Israel showing any sign of concern? I know they're a bit pre-occupied with killing Palestineans (and getting killed in turn), but the Massoud is one of the world's best trained intelligence agencies. (Of course, our national security community knew nothing about 9-11, so maybe training's a moot point). I think that's the base of my argument against the attack. I've typed enough that I don't quite remember everything I've put thus far. __________________ blippety blah bluh blah blah