Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Josep L. Guallar-Esteve" <jlguallar AT maduixa.net>]

Disclaimer: this is long, very long. It represents my opinions and it
has some analysis. You might agree or not. This is what there's
something called 'discussion list'.


On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 16:01, David R. Matusiak wrote:
> since i don't have tv access, i couldn't see Dubya speak last nite.
> did anyone see it?

I have no TV (horreur! the end of the world!). But I have a radio (a
pre-technological device from some centuries ago. I mean, I cannot ssh
into it...). 

I was listening to NPR and they supplanted "As it Happens (news with
Canadian prespective)" with www.dubya.gov's speach.

> does anyone have an opinion?

Yes :)

> do you want to go to war?

Nope

> do you think it would help anything?

The status quo doesn't help nothing. We need UN acting, G.W. Bush
waiting a little and see how we can sort this out peacefully. 

But, if So-Damn Insane starts building (again) weapons of mass
destruction, some sort of UN-approved coalition (the better with lots of
non-western countries) must take out his facilities.

Remember that this guy started the 10-year long Iran-Iraq war.

Remember that this guy used mustard gas against Iran troops several
times during the Iran-Iraq conflict. 

Remember that this guy used cyanide gas (IIRC) against 20 towns because
they were a minority that dared to oppose his regime. 

Remember that this guy started the Iraq-Kuwait war.

Remember that this guy took all the incubators  and other neonatal
intensive care unit apparatuses from Kuwait hospitals and moved them to
Iraqi hospitals (many of those apparatuses were conencted to babies that
died on the floor of the hospitals. 

Remember that this guy has some ballistic missiles that can be fitted
with either conventional (TNT) or unconventional (biological /
bacteriological nuclear) warheads.

Remember that this guy was found in 1991 3-years shy of having its own
nuclear weapon.

Remember that this guy has been using the oil-for-food money to buy
military supplies and extend his net of "presidential complexes" around
the country.

Remember that UN inspectors, 4 years ago, left Iraq, tired of being
played by So-Damn Insane as a smoke screen, as a way of 'complying' with
the inspections without letting the inspectors inspect the facilities.

> do you think we are being provided sufficient information to 
> debate/decide as a people?

There's never enough information.

> do you think?

uh?   *grin*
 
I think that Iraq regime is evil, it has been evil and it will keep
being evil. Evil in the sense of war-prone, killing-civilians-prone,
war-starting-prone, not-abiding by UN resolutions...

Now, with the current administration having seen that getting out of
international affairs is wrong, they have to come back as a second
thought, with no planning. And they are discovering that dictators and
religious extremists are never a good partner for US foreign policy.

First, US bombed and removed the Taliban regime, and old US ally during
the cold war. 

Now, they are finding that it's once ally against the
revolutionary-religious Iran is the same thing that it has been before,
a bad international player. 

Now, Iraq has us (US and the Western World) as its enemy, as a way of
"run away in a different direction" so the people can be told that all
the problems are there 'cause the West. As the Argentinian Junta did
when they invaded the Falkland islands. 

The problem is now US has tragically learned what many other nations
knew before: terrorism can strike whenever and whatever. And Iraq has
seen this (terrorism activity) as a strategical weapon against its enemy
(us). It is a different kind of weapon. It is called asymmetrical
warfare. 

This problem can be solved with acting with Iraq as it has been done
with Afghanistan, a one-sided attack, or with the Korea/Kuwait method:
UN / coalition of nations solving the problem. 

The first way, the 'Taliban-cracker' method will only work this time as
a temporary measure, in time driving the non-western world against us.
This is a no-no method to use.

The second way, the 'it's not me but all of us', has a good chance of
success, if it is backed with a real stability plan for after the
problem gets solved. This way can use from diplomacy+inspections methods
to total war as in Kuwait. 

Of course this second method needs time and G.W.B. is too impatient in
my opinion. The problem presented and suddenly discovered by the US is
an old problem, there's no magic single bullet, and it might get solved
when the current government is out of office... and this is a tough
thing to do by any political primma donna.


> Stephen Zunes was not convinced by the rhetoric.

I found his rhetoric somewhat changed. I was delighted and relieved to
listen the President talk about "searching for a coalition of nations"
and "to solve this problem, we do not necessarily need to go to war".
This is, IMHO, a big change in his approach to the problem.
 
> from <http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14255>
> "President Bush Fails to Make His Case
> By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus
> October 8, 2002
 
> Given what is at stake, one would have thought that the administration 
> would have made a stronger case for going to war than President George 
> W. Bush did on Monday evening." 

Maybe G.W.B. is realizing that going to war, one-sided, is not going to
solve the problem. Yes, it will solve one symptom  and scratch and itch.
But this is not the way to conduct international policy, at least
outside Texas.

One more thing: the world is not black nor white. It has many shades of
gray. And it's not easy to answer to asymmetrical challenges.



Salut,
Josep
-- 
http://www.ibiblio.org/sinner/
[MaDuiXa PoWeR] http://www.maduixa.net
Linux User # 89976     Linux Machine # 38068