AP Poll: Stable Iraq Tops Voter Priorities

If "the world" was concerned about "rouge groups" obtaining nuclear weapons a better approach might have been to secure those nuclear weapons which are at present easily stolen in the former soviet union.

rosborne wrote:

Actually, the reason I asked the question is because you seemed to be objecting to the actions of the US without offering any other preferable solutions.

We seemed to be in semi-agreement on what the problems and consequences were, but you seemed to be suggesting that the terrorist attacks on the US were a logical way to achieve their goals. Or maybe I misunderstood what you were suggesting...

Logical yes, so why ask me for provide alternate schemes on their part?

While I understand pro war arguments, I do object to the war over legality issues, and compelling arguments can be made for abiding by the laws. I also happen to consider the Iraq war counterproductive where reducing terrorism is concerned.

1. Not bothering with Iraq in the first place, the intelligence did not support a credible WMD charge, and whatever the ulterior purposes of the invasion, the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

2. Allowing weapons inspectors to finish up prior to invasion, there was no "imminent threat", but rather plenty of time. This way the war would have been avoided.

3. In the event that Saddam did not cooperate, draw the proceeding out. By keeping the inspections going, while complaining about lacking iraqi cooperation if such was taking place, support for a final resolution legalizing war would eventually have been obtained. Even if France were to veto, (don't think the person who would be making that decision was benefitting from OFF) one would still be able to maintain some semblance of legitimacy.

Einherjar wrote:

If "the world" was concerned about "rouge groups" obtaining nuclear weapons a better approach might have been to secure those nuclear weapons which are at present easily stolen in the former soviet union.

Maybe this is a more effective approach, or maybe not. Maybe we are doing both as best we can. You make some good points, but I'm unconvinced as to the most effective way to promote a more peaceful world future, which is the goal of most (even though not all) combatants.

Our arguments here seem to be more esoteric than realistic at this point. I will have to wish you well for now, and get some sleep.

Best Regards,

Oops, I read these posts out of order, so I guess I'll answer this one before heading off to bed...

Einherjar wrote:

rosborne wrote:

Actually, the reason I asked the question is because you seemed to be objecting to the actions of the US without offering any other preferable solutions.

We seemed to be in semi-agreement on what the problems and consequences were, but you seemed to be suggesting that the terrorist attacks on the US were a logical way to achieve their goals. Or maybe I misunderstood what you were suggesting...

Logical yes, so why ask me for provide alternate schemes on their part?

It's not logical. Terrorist attacks on the US will not get them what they want; a western retreat from influence in their society.

Einherjar wrote:

While I understand pro war arguments, I do object to the war over legality issues, and compelling arguments can be made for abiding by the laws. I also happen to consider the Iraq war counterproductive where reducing terrorism is concerned.

I agree with this in the short term (few years), but I'm not convinced of this in the long term (few decades), because of the strategic reasons I described earlier.

Einherjar wrote:

1. Not bothering with Iraq in the first place, the intelligence did not support a credible WMD charge, and whatever the ulterior purposes of the invasion, the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.

Debatable. It depends on whether or not we think that a westernized Iraq will serve as a stabilizing influence in the Middle East.

Einherjar wrote:

2. Allowing weapons inspectors to finish up prior to invasion, there was no "imminent threat", but rather plenty of time. This way the war would have been avoided.

I continue to believe that the ultimate motive to attack Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's, which also explains why they didn't want to wait. The Bush administration didn't care what the inspectors found, and they probably didn't want to have them confirm no WMD's because they benefitted from an additional (if fictional) reason to invade.

Einherjar wrote:

3. In the event that Saddam did not cooperate, draw the proceeding out. By keeping the inspections going, while complaining about lacking iraqi cooperation if such was taking place, support for a final resolution legalizing war would eventually have been obtained. Even if France were to veto, (don't think the person who would be making that decision was benefitting from OFF) one would still be able to maintain some semblance of legitimacy.

I would have preferred this approach. We would have ended up in Iraq anyway, but it would have been a bit more by "the rules".

But I could be totally wrong about my "strategic" arguments anyway. I don't really know why the Bush administration chose to do things the way it did. I can assume that they thought it was the best means to achieve their ends, given the information they had available to them.

A strategic motivation for their actions is the only thing which makes sense in explaining their actions (without assuming that they went insane, or are totally corrupt, or were totally incompetent).

Their primary concern is presently to radicalise their relatively wide base of support to the extent that a significant portion of the population is prepared to take up arms in the pursuit of their objectives. Grand hero's require grand villains, and the terrorists have landed on the US as their supervillain of choice. An agressive US making unpopular intrusions innto the middle east, coupled with Christian, black and white imagery, negative generalisations of Muslim culture, and outright attacks on Islam from people in the media, will help achive this. If they can then bankrupt the US, or break its will, they will be all set to revolt, andd realise their dream of e new caliphate.

The question comes down to wether one prefer a comunist type doctrine of world revolution, or wether one wishes to strenghten and develop the system in place today. Atempts at a world revolution will be costly, do you really think the Americans are up for it?

Why not Iran then? Closer to nukes, bordering Pakistan (with nukes).

Convincing Musharraf to deliver on his repeated promise to hold elections is important wouldn't you say?

I basically agree with this, but I've come to expect the opposing side to make the "Bush is infallable and speaks nothing but truth" argument.

Risky, Saddam might have cooperated.

Quote:

A strategic motivation for their actions is the only thing which makes sense in explaining their actions (without assuming that they went insane, or are totally corrupt, or were totally incompetent).

I agree, but those other hypotheses deserve consideration as well. /cheap shot

Many people in goverrnment (at least US government) seem truely concerned about subway nukes and bioengineered viruses. I wonder how much of the Bush administration's actions are determined by anticipation of these possibilities. And given the information available to them, just how likely are these scenario's? The choice a government makes on how to deal with terrorism would be greatly affected by an accurate assessment of these possibilities. Assuming the Bush administration isn't insane, and does have a good assessment of threats, it really makes you wonder what it is they know.

Hi Ein, you make some very good points. Lots to think about

Einherjar wrote:

Their primary concern is presently to radicalise their relatively wide base of support to the extent that a significant portion of the population is prepared to take up arms in the pursuit of their objectives. Grand hero's require grand villains, and the terrorists have landed on the US as their supervillain of choice. An agressive US making unpopular intrusions innto the middle east, coupled with Christian, black and white imagery, negative generalisations of Muslim culture, and outright attacks on Islam from people in the media, will help achive this. If they can then bankrupt the US, or break its will, they will be all set to revolt, andd realise their dream of e new caliphate.

Hmmm, well, I guess if that's their plan, then attacking the US does make sense. Except that I don't think the plan will work. I'm not convinced that a majority of the middle eastern population wants these things, even if they enflame them against the US. Such a plan would take generations, and by then, the US and the world would have changed. It's like the government trying to sue MicroSoft; by the time the government gets its act together, MicroSoft (and the rest of the business world) is on to bigger things.

Einherjar wrote:

The question comes down to wether one prefer a comunist type doctrine of world revolution, or wether one wishes to strenghten and develop the system in place today. Atempts at a world revolution will be costly, do you really think the Americans are up for it?

I don't think Americans want to take over anything (except for the religious right maybe). I think Americans want to feel safe from hijackings, twin tower destruction, nuclear and biological attack. They also want to be free, have jobs, feed their families and drive their cars.

But I understand your point; we could go about getting these things in different ways.

My impression of the Bush admininstration is that they see things as black and white, and that they are not forthcoming with the intelligence information they use to make their decisions. I have no doubt that my government has access to information which I do not, but if any of this information leads them to war, then I expect enough honesty from them to tell me that they are forced into action for important reasons (not WMD's which don't exist). It is at the level of honesty and communication in which I'm most disappointed in the Bush administration. Without access to the information they have, how can I judge the validity of their actions.

If a "cheap shot" at their sanity is the worst the Bush administration gets for their lack of honesty and heavy handed choices, then they will get off easy

Many people in goverrnment (at least US government) seem truely concerned about subway nukes and bioengineered viruses. I wonder how much of the Bush administration's actions are determined by anticipation of these possibilities. And given the information available to them, just how likely are these scenario's? The choice a government makes on how to deal with terrorism would be greatly affected by an accurate assessment of these possibilities. Assuming the Bush administration isn't insane, and does have a good assessment of threats, it really makes you wonder what it is they know.

If I was a terrorist this is where I'd be getting my WMD's, no sucking up to corrupt dictators who don'e have any quality bioweapons anyway.

Quote:

If I was a terrorist this is where I'd be getting my WMD's, no sucking up to corrupt dictators who don't have any quality bioweapons anyway.

I think the real problem with Bioweapons is their nasty tendancies to turn on their creators after the job is done....

I'm sure the terrorists have thought about how ingomious it would be to be wiped out by their own weapons.... chemical and nuclear and conventional bombs are much safer (to the attacker, that is).

Cycloptichorn

Depends, many bioweapons are designed so as to be distributed by air in the first place, but not returning to the air from sick individuals or corpses on their own acount. They work as very powerfull chemical weapons with a delayed effect for almost any purpouse. No danger of them turning into any global epidemic.

Viral weapons are radically different from chemical weapons. Chemicals can only damage as many organisms as the original volume of chemical. Viruses however, can reproduce, and a very small source can bloom into a very large disaster.

Smallpox is only one example, but the potential of a Global Pandemic fueled by modified viruses, population density within cities and rapid intermixing due to modern air travel, is chilling enough to make it worth almost any effort to prevent such events from occuring. Perhaps it is this fear which motivates governments to take extreme actions? Perhaps this is what they don't want to tell us.

I think the real problem with Bioweapons is their nasty tendancies to turn on their creators after the job is done....

I'm sure the terrorists have thought about how ingomious it would be to be wiped out by their own weapons.... chemical and nuclear and conventional bombs are much safer (to the attacker, that is).

Well, smallpox is one potential bioweapon which would be able to jump hosts. This does as you say raise concerns of a global epidemic (pandemic), which might actually discourage even the terrorists from using them, as pointed out earlier by Cyclopticorn.

That's might, as in could, discourage terrorists.

Einherjar wrote:

That's might, as in could, discourage terrorists.

Maybe, maybe not. Can we agree that such a deterrent is more likely to affect a government, than it is to affect an independent fundamentalist group?

rosborne979 wrote:

Einherjar wrote:

That's might, as in could, discourage terrorists.

Maybe, maybe not. Can we agree that such a deterrent is more likely to affect a government, than it is to affect an independent fundamentalist group?

Certainly

Can we agree that those terrorists that would worry about a pandemic would still be interested in obtaining such biological agents as I have described??

That was my argument all along.

Nice to agree though