Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

You sir are a genius. As a person holding a history degree I enjoyed this very much and will be forwarding to the nay sayers I come across.

Posted by Joel M at August 20, 2002 11:17 AM

Should be required reading in schools -- especially for the University of North Carolina freshman class.

On second thought. . . .how many of the education crowd are even aware of topics like Nazism, World War II, the holocaust, and appeasement?

Posted by Ben Wilson at August 20, 2002 11:24 AM

Another tour de force sir. Of course the same could be said re the Japanes and their Emperor worship and suicide cults. Of course, the one that really gets me is Scowcroft et al claiming that Iraq would "distract" us from the war on terror in Afghanistan. What the hell would he call fighting Germany and Japan at the same time on opposite sides of the world and defeating and occupying them both?

Posted by Lloyd Albanol at August 20, 2002 11:41 AM

Brilliant!

Immediately saved for further distribution.

Posted by Rick at August 20, 2002 11:53 AM

Seeing how "Routers" is not an official news source, could you give us a proper site to this news article, perhaps where we could download it online? Or, am I completely insane, and missed the farcical nature of the article, seeing how you have your own copyright symbol attached afterward?

At any rate, true or not, it's a good read.

Posted by Mike at August 20, 2002 11:56 AM

That's excellent =) I'm going to link it tonight...it reminds me of this as well

http://rightwingnews.com/humor/ww2.php

Posted by John Hawkins at August 20, 2002 11:57 AM

Those arguing for total victory should remember that war only perpetuates the cycle of violence. If we defeat Germany and Japan now, surely we'll have to fight them again in another 20 years.

Posted by Joanne Jacobs at August 20, 2002 12:14 PM

Ah, how the world has changed since Vietnam. Whether that was baptism for anti-American self-doubt and self-flagellation, or simply it's coming out party, is up to debate.

Posted by Matthew Picioccio at August 20, 2002 12:33 PM

Too true, although I wish we had Roosevelt not 'Now watch my drive' W.

Of course to continue the analogy I hope you join me in urging that the United States and other western countries should pump tens of billions of dollars into Iraq, and maintain forces there for 45 years afterwards, turning it into as democratic, prosperous and peaceful country as the Federal Republic become.

Posted by James Ridley at August 20, 2002 12:39 PM

Great! Put it in the greatest hits sidebar. It is a fitting partner to Victor David Hanson' similar treatment of Pearl Harbor: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092701.shtml

As for the schoolkids not knowing about Nazis, of course they know! Nazis vote conservative, listen to talk radio, home school, are less than worshipful of positions taken by the NAACP, etc.

Posted by The Sanity Inspector at August 20, 2002 12:52 PM

Posts like this just piss me off. How the hell am I supposed to get my blog noticed when I can't write anything nearly this great?

When guys like this are around I have *no* hope of ever being a paid writer. None.

*sigh* was a great read though...

Posted by Duffy at August 20, 2002 01:31 PM

Duffy,

For one thing, put a link to your blog in your signature.

Posted by James at August 20, 2002 01:52 PM

Brilliant, Rand! And don't feel bad, Duffy... not sure I could write this well either.

This will get a lead mention in my Thursday Iraqi Round-Up... if I throw it in with today's, you won't get the traffic you deserve. Thursday will also have a Guest Blog from an international inspector just back from Sudan, so it should be a good traffic day. Thanks!

Posted by Joe Katzman at August 20, 2002 02:03 PM

LOL! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Dr. Clausewitz at August 20, 2002 03:04 PM

Mr. Ridley states, "the United States and other western countries should pump tens of billions of dollars into Iraq, and maintain forces there for 45 years afterwards, turning it into as democratic, prosperous and peaceful country as the Federal Republic become."

Is he talking about the same Federal Republic that is objecting to the Czech Republic joining the EU because it maintains decrees relating to the post-WWII treatment of Sudeten Germans?

If we've been so successful in turning them into a peaceful country, why do we still have an expensive army of occupation in place nearly six decades later? To protect them from the warlike Czechs?

Mr. Ridley is 100% correct about the burden we should be prepared to assume should we attack. I hope we do better in Iraq, but I doubt we'll get better to work with than we did last time.

Posted by Richard A. Heddleson at August 20, 2002 03:13 PM

You should get this translated into French and posted to some european sites.

Posted by Shannon Love at August 20, 2002 03:42 PM

Oooohhh, good idea. I'll have to ask Emmanuelle Richards.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 20, 2002 03:53 PM

"...I wish we had Roosevelt not 'Now watch my drive' W."

Would that be the same Roosevelt who sold out the eastern Europeans to Stalin?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 20, 2002 04:55 PM

As Bill Quick pointed out, an Iraqi occupation can pay for itself. If the US makes post-war Iraq its sole Mid-East oil supplier, the proceeds can pay for the occupation (and maybe then some).

This has the side effect of making Saudi Arabia and Iran much less of a US problem and much more of an EU/Japan problem. I'm looking forward to seeing such sophisticates in action.

It can be a trifecta for the US.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 20, 2002 05:41 PM

I thought that US government had stopped recognising Vichy long before 44? Wasn't there all that fuss after Torch over who the Allies should get sneered at by?

Also, the allied forces were referred to as the United Nations from Jan 1 1942 onwards (see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/washconf/washc016.htm ). This was long, long before San Francisco.

During Desert Storm, there were reports of Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to Naval UAVs. Are the French secretly planning to enter this war on the side of the Iraqi's so they can try this too?

Simon Spero // Approaching The 1st Ammendment

Posted by Simon Spero at August 20, 2002 06:40 PM

An Iraqi occupation could pay for itself. If US makes post-war Iraq its sole Mid-East oil supplier, the proceeds can pay for us in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia will shake in their boots. It solves any oil problem we have in the future. Maybe the political game in Washington can stop and we can get on with the real business.

Posted by Ross Bloom at August 20, 2002 07:18 PM

That has to be the best Fisking of Chomskyite / Euro small-sausage attitude I've ever read. Take a bow, Mr. Simberg!

How do critics respond to this, silence? I think that seals their fate, useless idiots.

Posted by Raj at August 20, 2002 07:41 PM

Brilliant!

The only caveat is that this reads more like the New York Times than Reuters.

Posted by David Nieporent at August 20, 2002 08:10 PM

Mr. Simberg,

I am sure Mr. Ridley had Theodore in mind.

Posted by Richard A. Heddleson at August 20, 2002 08:30 PM

>> Maybe the political game in Washington can stop and we can get on with the real business.

Umm, the real business in Washington IS the political game. Iraq is merely a battle in that war.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 20, 2002 09:59 PM

I guess everything is sooooooooooooooooooo clear, simple and morally justified when you are a conservative hawk from the States, sigh.
---
Rand, please tell me if you would have advocated invading China when Chairman Mao acquired The Bomb? Do you guys really regard military invasion as the best strategy regardless of the circumstances, just because it's occasionally worked in the past? Sheesh -- at least those who are sceptical about Iraq don't wildly generalize like you just did (and BTW: much of the scepticism *is* well-intended/open minded, and comes from Republicans as well as "America's friends and allies" abroad).
---
Believe it or not, but we would actually be willing to listen if only the "Iraq Hawks" could be bothered to make a compelling case for a military invasion rather than resort to shallow emotional scaremongering. Read Fareed Zakaria's excellent column in NEWSWEEK ( http://www.msnbc.com/news/789679.asp?0dm=-223K ).
---
Rand -- I have always had a lot of respect for you due to your intelligent contributions in sci.space.policy and as a space entrepreneur, but this time you did not have anything intelligent to say.

Regards,

Marcus Lindroos
Liljendal, Finland

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 20, 2002 10:36 PM

That's a nice set of strawmen, Marcus.

Hollow, ephemeral, strawfilled...ummmmmmm...strawfilled...

[VOICE="Homer Simpson"]

gggghhhhhrrrrrhhhgggg...straw-filled...

[/VOICE]

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 20, 2002 10:41 PM

As much as I enjoyed above article, I just hope it doesn't eventually get exposed as a hoax in one of those myth/legend websites

Posted by Tom Garvey at August 20, 2002 11:37 PM

> That's a nice set of strawmen, Marcus

Why don't you write another satirical piece, set in the early 1960s?

"Administration Split On Vietnam Invasion"

Marcus

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 21, 2002 12:50 AM

As an American living permanantly in Finland, I feel that I am uniquely qualified to respond to Mr. Lindroos' post above.

The response to 9/11 and the following events has been a thundering silence. Except for the initial 'oh what a horibble tragedy' stock responses, there has been absolutely no public debate about what actions are required by the US and Europe to counter this threat. There is only the steady drip, drip, drip of anti-american and anti-isreali commentary from the media. When there is anything at all. All American actions, from Kyoto to the ICC to Iraq, are judged to be arrogant, ignorant, or outright malicous. Without even the slightest attempt to explain or understand the American position.

I have yet, after nearly a year, to have a single Finn express outrage at what happened nor support for our response. No doubt it exists, but no one dares express it. Only one of my American friends, who has lived here for twenty years, has had anyone call them to express their sympathy and support in the MONTHS following 9/11. That was the mother of one of her students, a women she barely knew, who called her WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING to offer her support. That mother was RUSSIAN. Russian, for god's sake.

My wife's great-uncle, who raised her, was a refugee from Viipuri. He fought in the Continuation War and had been to America as a merchant seaman. He liked me immediately for no other reason than I was an American. He thought that was a good thing. I thank God he is not alive today to see the country he fought for become incapable of discerning right from wrong. A country which cannot stand by a fellow liberal democracy which is defending itself, and others, from authoritarian, intolerant fanatics. A country which can even contemplate given safe haven to to the mass murderers of jewish women and children. You, and those who think like you, are not half the man he was.

When someone threatens harm to my children (Finnish citizens, by the way), I do not care WHY they do it. I will fight them. BEFORE they carry out their threat. Uncle Gunnar understood that simple moral calculation. Until you do, you have nothing to contribute. I would recommend a little less 'sophisticated' condenscension and a little more 'simple' self reflection.

P.S. - You should be careful about criticising another country's foreign policies when your own is run by a moral vacuam like Tuomioja.

Posted by Michael Cowell at August 21, 2002 01:55 AM

I agree it is funny, but it certainly isn't original. Almost every conflict since World War II has been couched in 'compare it to Hitler' terms.

Most famously (in the UK) when the British (and French and Israelis -- a coincidence, of course) attacked Egypt in the Suez crisis of 1956, the main rationale given was the British prime minister's obsession that Nasser (who was much more like Saddam than Saddam is like Hitler) was another Hitler. The US disagreed (or perhaps we would now say 'decided to appease dictators'?) and the rest is history.

The lessons of British/Western appeasement policy of the late 1930s continued to be used to justify Korea, Vietnam, the Falkands (Malvinas) and probably a hundred wars I have missed out. I'm not saying that these wars were all wrong, or all right.

What I am saying is that it is risky to invoke parallels between the world war between Hitler and the Allies and any other confict.

A simple example would be the atom bombs on Japan. As were are not allowing shades of gray into this discussion, we can surely make the argument: Saddam's Iraq is like Hirohito's Japan. It was the right thing to drop two atom bombs onto Japan. Therefore it is the right thing to drop two atom bombs onto Iraq. Any other policy is weak, appeasing and forgets the lessons of history.

Posted by Robert Jackson at August 21, 2002 01:56 AM

Mr. Lindroos...your post is hilarious, coming from a citizen of a nation that was an active ally of Nazi Germany during World War Two. Go find some moral high ground slightly higher than snail snot, please.

Posted by David Paglia at August 21, 2002 04:27 AM

Great, Rand -- but what does it have to do with space policy?

{ducking and running away}

Posted by Kevin McGehee at August 21, 2002 05:05 AM

I wish those who keep saying that we need to make a 'compelling case to invade Iraq' would just state what they feel would be a 'compelling case'. Please tell us where you've set the bar we are supposed to jump. Or is it just that you don't want to admit your real position? Say what you think. Quit hiding behind this facade. The United States will never be able to provide sufficient justification for your side to accept an invasion. That IS your real position, isn't it?

Posted by Shannon at August 21, 2002 05:45 AM

There are three reasons to ask the other side to make its argument.

(1) You don't want to take a position that might prove inconvenient later.

(2) You actively oppose their position. This is often combined with a bit of (1).

(3) You actually don't understand.

Wrt the war on Iraq, which of these positions is worth a proponent's time? If someone is truely in (3) now, what's the point?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 07:16 AM

Invading Iraq is not an end in itself. Our president has correctly identified the spectre of stateless terrorism as the danger threatening the world. The terrorists are vicious, but even they must eat and sleep somewhere. Removing Iraq as a threat to ourselves and our allies is important in itself; we also remove a bastion of terror support that will reduce the terrorists ability to acquire WMD, money, and safe havens elsewhere.

We are committed to doing the ugly, unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous duty that becomes the burden of those who achieve greatness. Will we acquire lands? No. Will we create subjects? No. In the end, we will have freed entire nations and given them the right to decide for themselves how they will live - as long as we are given the same consideration in return.

Not much of an imperialist goal, is it? We fight only to live. To keep only what our enemy would take.

Posted by Andy Jones at August 21, 2002 07:50 AM

Actually, there is more truth in this post than most people realize. Churchill was cool, at best, to the idea of invading France. He preferred to concentrate on the Italian front, believing it would allow us to liberate the Balkan States instead of the Russians.

Riyadh delenda est!

Posted by Cato the Youngest at August 21, 2002 07:59 AM

Thought of this piece this morning when CNN had a piece on the threat of rising gas prices if Bush invades Iraq.

Can't imagine the allies saying, "But gas prices will go up! We can't invade!"

We've become a nation of wimps.

Bob

Posted by at August 21, 2002 08:18 AM

> Mr. Lindroos...your post is hilarious, coming
> from a citizen of a nation that was an active
> ally of Nazi Germany during World War

...for the same reason (or is that "excuse"?) why the U.S. apparently did not have too many qualms about supporting/collaborating with fascist regimes during the Cold War.

Marcus

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 21, 2002 08:27 AM

> I wish those who keep saying that we need to
> make a 'compelling case to invade Iraq' would
> just state what they feel would be
> a 'compelling case'. Please tell us where
> you've set the bar we are supposed to jump. Or
> is it just that you don't want to admit your
> real position? Say what you think.

1) If you blame September 11 or the Anthrax scare on Saddam, you need to provide more than the current (barely-) circumstantial evidence. However, I think the "let's oust Saddam!" crowd is making a mistake by linking him to the lone crime which he (most likely) did not commit. I think there are other, more compelling reasons (see points below).

2) Regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's continuing refusal to accept U.N. weapons inspectors would be a *very* good argument for Gulf War II. In that case, persuading the Security Council to authorize another invasion should not prove overly difficult.

3) The U.S. needs to convince Saddam's anxious neighbors that it is seriously committed to building a better, peaceful Iraqi nation after Saddam has been removed from power. This means the NATO countries have to support the new regime both economically and financially, e.g. to prevent the Kurdish problem to escalate out of hand (remember who used to provide military support to Afghan Islamists in the 1980s?). In return for political & military support from other Arab states, the U.S. should wage its war against Saddam in such a way that it minimizes anti-American feelings among ordinary Arabs. A strong American commitment to force both Palestinians *and* Israelis to make some painful concessions in return for peace would obviously help a lot.

4) [This point is none of my business, but I list it anyway]. Domestically, it would be highly desirable if the President forced Congress (and his likely opponents in 2004-) to debate and vote on the issue, and generally have their say before the body bags start arriving. As Vietnam showed, it is harder to win a war when the country does not stand united behind the effort. For this reason, the public also needs to be informed about the likely economic and human cost of attacking Iraq. As conservative columnist George Will recently wrote, "War of the sort being contemplated is not the sort of plunge into uncertainty that a prudent president wants to embark upon alone".

Note that the Bushes had little difficulty drumming up political support at home and tacit approval from other countries for their wars in 1991 and 2001. In fact, I actually *approved of* the Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom (didn't know that, did you?). I thought both operations were justified and largely executed with multilateral skill and finesse. The world probably would be a safer place without Saddam, but you need to dispose of him properly by once again showing "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Marcus

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 21, 2002 09:32 AM

BRINGING BOGUS HISTORY To Transterrestrial Musings

Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when you're tryin' to be so quiet? Well Rand, you must have many contacts among the lumberjacks to get your facts when someone attacks your imagination. But not many people has any respect, anyway they already expect you to just give a check to tax-deductible charity organizations.

Maybe Rand, just maybe, you'll be taken seriously when you start publishing your bogus stuff in History Journals that are PEER-REVIEWED. The guy with the history degree who thinks you are a genious should do the same thing.

As for the American living permanently in Finland; I'm not impressed with your credentials and I would suggest that you LEARN the language before you are anywhere near being "uniquely" qualified in responding to Mr. Lindroos' post above. You say you have yet, after nearly a year, had a single Finn express outrage at what happened nor support for "your" response. First, one should differentiate between what happened on 911 and the "response". I believe most people around the world were shocked at what happened to the WTC. The enormity of the event probably left many people speechless. If you had been fluent in more than ONE language, you might have had a different sensation. But anyway, you walked into a room with your pencil in your hand, and saw somebody naked and said, "Who is that man?" You tried so hard, but you didn't understand. Just what you would say when you got home. But something was happening there and you didn't know what it was. Did you, Mister Cowell?

In the nearly 12 months that has passed since September 11, what is remarkable is how quickly the Bush administration has squandered the immense good will felt by the peoples of the world toward Americans in the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks. Famously, the day after the attacks, Le Monde, the influential Paris daily, carried the headline "We are all Americans." These days, anxiety about what the Bush administration will do next has replaced sympathy as the predominant emotion in most countries around the world.

Canute, Norway

Posted by Canute at August 21, 2002 09:41 AM

Lumberjacks?

Whence the lumberjacks?

How am I supposed to take anything *you* say seriously after that?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 09:44 AM

>> 3) The U.S. needs to convince Saddam's anxious neighbors that it is seriously committed to building a better, peaceful Iraqi nation after Saddam has been removed from power.

Why? In some ways, it's enough for them to learn "if you piss off the US, you PERSONALLY will be toast".

The Euros may have other goals. AFTER they've demonstrated sucess, we'll listen to their advice. (There's no shortage of opportunities for them to show the US how it's done, yet they never seem to actually want to do anything. Instead, they sit on the side-lines and lecture.)

>> This means the NATO countries have to support the new regime both economically and financially

No, it doesn't. The NATO countries continue to be irrelevant. Moreover, they've never done this - the US has. And, the US efforts in this case can be self-supporting.

Also, the not-US/UK NATO countries will have their hands full with Saudi Arabia and Iran. (If the US makes Iraq its sole mid-east oil supplier during the occupation, SA/Iran become irrelevant to the US, and far more relevant to Europe and Japan.) It will be interesting to see how they fare.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 09:47 AM

Lumberjacks? Yes, Lumberjacks. GO FIGURE

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief, "There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief. Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth, None of them along the line know what any of it is worth." (R.Z.)

Canute, Norway

Posted by Canute at August 21, 2002 10:05 AM

>> I believe most people around the world were shocked at what happened to the WTC.

Not being Scandahovian, I can't read minds. However, I saw what people SAID and DID after 9/11.

That's how I'm going to judge them.

I do like the notion that you get to interpret silence as consistent with something that support for your position. Why can't other people use the same reasoning?

>> In the nearly 12 months that has passed since September 11, what is remarkable is how quickly the Bush administration has squandered the immense good will felt by the peoples of the world toward Americans in the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks.

Ah yes. Good will. Precisely what could we have DONE that would have (1) actually addressed terrorism and (2) satisfied the "folks of good will"?

Note that (1) excludes sitting around and wondering why they hate us so much, which seems to be the ONLY thing satisfies (2).

The US has had to choose between (1) and (2). If you don't like our choice, well, (2) is under your control.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 10:07 AM

>> 3) The U.S. needs to convince Saddam's anxious
>> neighbors that it is seriously committed to
>> building a better, peaceful Iraqi nation after
>> Saddam has been removed from power.

> Why? In some ways, it's enough for them to
> learn "if you piss off the US, you PERSONALLY
> will be toast".

The likely end result, if you continue doing this long enough, is a vast belt of solidly anti-American regimes that will become (or in some cases continue to be-) covert supporters of terrorism. Just because their military capabilities are far inferior to yours does not mean their more fanatical citizens will be deterred from launching their own personal jihads against the Great Satan. Even if their governments are powerless to oppose the U.S. government. So it is a bad idea to humiliate these people... Look at the history of post-WW I Germany vs. the post-Nazi era. You need to *discredit* Al Qaeda, much like the Nazis were discredited in the eyes of the German people following WW II. You also need to support the creation of tolerant, secular, peaceful capitalist democracies. Islamic demagogues thrive where there is poverty, ignorance, injustice, corruption and oppression.
---
BTW, note that both Timothy McVeight and Osama bin Laden apparently began to fervently hate the U.S. government as a direct result of the Gulf War! *Yes*, both are/were despicable men. *Yes*, I personally think the Americans did a good thing by liberating Kuwait in 1991. But it does show that wars sometimes have strange consequences...
---
There is another good reason for nation-building: leaving Iraq in ruins probably would cause a nasty civil war between Kurds, Turkmens and other nations. A power vacuum would also be excellent news to Al Qaeda and similar groups, who thrive in poor anarchies like Afghanistan and Somalia.

Marcus

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 21, 2002 10:25 AM

marcus,
If you were trying to respond to my question with your points, you must have misunderstood. You seem to be saying that you agree that Hussein should go, but you want us to pass an essay test before we get approval? That we should make a case to the Security Council, but that you feel it would just be a matter of form, and that they would certainly approve?

My question was, what specific proof is required from us? Not vague generalities. What items of proof would be considered sufficient? Because I somehow see that 'bar' of proof as being placed forever out of our reach, no matter what we come up with, it will never be enough.

Canute,
Lumberjacks? and song lyrics? Ooookay.

Posted by Shannon at August 21, 2002 10:28 AM

Marcus wrote:

"You need to *discredit* Al Qaeda, much like the Nazis were discredited in the eyes of the German people following WW II. You also need to support the creation of tolerant, secular, peaceful capitalist democracies. Islamic demagogues thrive where there is poverty, ignorance, injustice, corruption and oppression."

What makes you think that that's not exactly the plan?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 10:43 AM

the idea that we need to convince Iraq's neighbors that invading Iraq will be a good thing is as hard as convincing crack dealers that shutting down one crack house doesn't threaten them. All the neighbors are authoritarian at best, and wahabi (sp?) mongers at worst. They should be afraid of us. Good signs though, Jordan is tacitly approving. If we install a Democratic regime in Iraq, Iran will fall and they will only be the first.

Posted by billhedrick at August 21, 2002 10:45 AM

>> because their military capabilities are far inferior to yours does not mean their more fanatical citizens will be deterred from launching their own personal jihads against the Great Satan. Even if their governments are powerless to oppose the U.S. government.

It's sufficient for US purposes that their governments to be able to control them. In SA's case, not funding them would go a long way towards that goal.

But, let's explore your theory.

You seem to think that there's something that the US can do that will make them happy.

What, EXACTLY, is that something? (We know that it's NOT wealth&education.)

They've said that "push the Jews into the sea" will make them happy.

Note that there's no reason to believe that "an independent Palestinian state" would make them happy.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 10:49 AM

>>Not being Scandahovian, I can't read minds. However, I saw what people SAID and DID after 9/11.

So you're telling us is that you read Danish, Norwegian and Swedish newspapers post 911. You are fluent in more than ONE language?

Yes, Good Will - it's been squandered be the dumbya administration.Steps taken in the last few months by his administration reveal the extent to which unilateralism is in and allies are out in the White House. What has truly unnerved European governments is that the administration has twisted the right of nations to self-defence into the right of Washington to attack countries on the ground that they may pose a future threat to the United States. What the Europeans fear is that this "rogue" notion completely undermines international law, returning the world to the law of the jungle.

As for Iraq; it's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. Most Americans probably don't know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. When Iraq engaged in chemical warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.In 1982, the Reagan Administration took Iraq off its list of countries alleged to sponsor terrorism, making it eligible to receive high-tech items generally denied to those on the list. Conventional military sales began in December of that year. More information on this is now available to those of you who didn't know: http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp

Ironically, Iraq did not use any chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces in the Gulf War - Saddam is a "survivor" and knew of the consequences if he'd actually used them. But USAF and USNavy planes bombed chemical and biological weapons storage facilities with abandon, potentially dooming tens of thousands of American soldiers to lives of prolonged and permanent agony, and an unknown number of Iraqis to a similar fate. Among the symptoms reported by the affected soldiers are memory loss, scarred lungs, chronic fatigue, severe headache, raspy voice, and passing out.Apparently, the Pentagon estimates that nearly 100,000 American soldiers were exposed to sarin gas alone.

After the war, the Bush1 administration tried its best to deny that the "Gulf War Syndrome" had anything to do with the bombings. The suffering of soldiers was not their overriding concern. The top concerns of the administration and the Pentagon were to protect perceived U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East - not the interest of the regular GIs

Canute, Norway

Posted by Canute at August 21, 2002 11:15 AM

I think the piece is hilarious, but in an unintended way. Obviously, you seem to think that by proposing this satire you are showing us all that the dangers of appeasement or some such, and that in the 1940's America seemed to show much more resolve than it has now(and of course it's the fault of the liberals). Of course, there certainly WAS debate within the adminstration about a post-war policy. Obviously there was some debate about whether to bring down the Nazis completely or simply to free France. What you seem to miss is that up until late 1941, there wasn't much debate at all on the point: the public support for war against Germany or Japan was, to put it mildly, well short of overwhelming. You also forget the rather embarassing historical detail that we did not declare war on Germany and Italy until they in fact declared war on us.
Your satirical debate would likely have been a historical fact if they had not done so. At some point the president would have had to make a public case justifying an invasion of France and later Germany.

Posted by at August 21, 2002 11:16 AM

To Canute:

I've never defended our past Middle East policy. I think that much of it was wrongheaded (and continues to be today). That doesn't mean that we should be sitting around, wringing our hands, and asking why they hate us. It means that we need to fix it, which means no longer tolerating corruption, despotism, and the funding of anti-western terror with oil money.

To nameless: I'm not interested in alternate histories. The point was that in 1944, in the timeline in which we (or at least I) actually live, there was support for going after Hitler.

If you want to argue that there wouldn't have been if he hadn't declared war on us, perhaps, but it's possible to declare war without a formal declaration. Both Saddam and the Sauds did it years ago, but they're clever enough to not do it formally, and thus maintain the illusion, in the case of the latter, that they're our "allies." The American people have finally woken up to the reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 11:34 AM

Mr. Lindroos...your post is hilarious, coming
> from a citizen of a nation that was an active
> ally of Nazi Germany during World War

...for the same reason (or is that "excuse"?) why the U.S. apparently did not have too many qualms about supporting/collaborating with fascist regimes during the Cold War

Marcus...you mean, like Finland was a collaborator for the Soviets? Or do you mean that we provided a volunteer battalion for the SS in Rusia, like Finland did? Keep trying.

Posted by David Paglia at August 21, 2002 11:43 AM

Hmmmm....."Others say, however, that the German people are well educated, and that if the shackles of the brutal regime that currently oppresses them could be thrown off, there are excellent prospects for one that would be friendly to the US and western values in general. Such a government, in a region in which it is so dominant, could provide a healthy example for the populace in some of the other troubled regimes in the area."

Would this be true of Iraq??

Posted by Jack North at August 21, 2002 12:28 PM

"Would this be true of Iraq??"

Many knowledgable people believe that it in fact is. They are better educated than most Middle-eastern countries.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 12:32 PM

>>That doesn't mean that we should be sitting around, wringing our hands, and asking why they hate us. It means that we need to fix it,

Is that why the dumbya administration brought back into the US government some of the most fervent supporters of US-sponsored state-terrorism and Latin-American death squads from the Reagan years in Otto Reich, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte, Elliott Abrams, and Lino Guterriez; men who can now work in a more "killer- friendly" environment?

>>which means no longer tolerating corruption, despotism, and the funding of anti-western terror with oil money.

Is that why the dumbya administration has already leapt to the support of the military dictator of Pakistan and the ex-Stalinist boss of Uzbekistan? Of course, we shouldn't forget the "good" guys in the US-sponsored Northern Alliance, who BTW didn't bother checking out the articles of the Geneva Convention: http://www.msnbc.com/news/795153.asp

Isn't it clear that willingness to serve the "war on terrorism" will override any nasty political leadership qualities?

Isn't it obvious (since 911) that as with Sharon in his escalated crackdown on the West Bank, where it seems he has been given carte blanche by dumbya to smash the Palestinian civil society, and as with Putin's ongoing war in Chechnya, cooperation with the US will mean support for internal violence against dissidents and minorities, forms of state terrorism that will readily be interpreted as part of the "war on terrorism." Just as militarization and war do not conduce to democracy, the effects of mobilization of countries to support the administrations's "war" will damage democracy globally.

Isn't it obvious that the Bin Laden threat flows from U.S. actions, which played a crucial role in building up the Al-Qaeda network, and wrong-headed US-policies which have made an enormous "contribution" to the current state of affairs in the Middle East, and polarized incomes and wealth across the globe?

Isn't it obvious that the cycle of violence will only be broken if the current US government is defeated, removed from office, and replaced by a regime that aims to serve a broader constituency than Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex and the Christian Right.

Canute, Norway

"We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961

Posted by Canute at August 21, 2002 01:08 PM

I must have missed the post in which I defended all of the Administration's actions. I in fact said that some wrongheaded policies continue today. Not to imply, of course, that I agree with all of Canute's nonsense. (e.g., there is no such thing as a "Palestinian civil society" to be crushed, and never will be as long as monsters like Arafat remain in charge.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 01:33 PM

I think Americans demanding the world's never-ending sympathy for September 11th is a little rich if you are British, given we've had around 3000 deaths from terrorism since 1960s, and much of that has been American funded.

Posted by George Stanley at August 21, 2002 02:27 PM

I, for one, am indifferent to the world's sympathy, or lack of it. But I'm also going to ignore them when they try to dissuade us from doing what we deem to be necessary to prevent an encore.

And unlike the EU, which continues to fund Arafat's continuing terror, I don't recall any US government funding of the IRA. (Other than perhaps Ted Kennedy's personal contributions...)

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 02:31 PM

Re: the post

I got news for you: this ain't 1944, Iraq ain't Germany and Saddam ain't Hitler. At the risk of pointing out the glaringly obvious, right now Saddam isn't even occupying 100% of his own country, much less anyone else's.

Posted by R. Mutt at August 21, 2002 03:02 PM

Why should that be a criterion? The issue is what he's capable of and willing to do, not how much territory he controls.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 21, 2002 03:24 PM

is Rand Simberg going to do a part 2?

you could have austria-hungry debating wether to invade Serbia in 1914 to clamp down on terrorist's like the black hand gang, and thugs like principe.

and even feature a debate how it will/will not destabalise Europe.

Posted by ltcaptain at August 21, 2002 03:48 PM

And then there's the reason he doesn't control 100% of his own country -- he seems to have a slight history of seeking to control "anyone else's" countries.

I can't say I'm moved one way or the other by the comments from Marcus and Canute. The snotty "you Americans don't know what you're doing" attitude certainly oesn't do anything to win me over. And if there's a long record of Finland or Norway having a constructive impact on world affairs, I'm unaware of it, so I don't see why Marcus and Canute's arguments merit attention.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at August 21, 2002 03:52 PM

>> In fact, I actually *approved of* the Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom (didn't know that, did you?). I thought both operations were justified and largely executed with multilateral skill and finesse.

Now I'm confused. If you supported those operations, did you also support getting rid of Saddam AT THAT TIME?

If you supported getting rid of Saddam then, what has changed?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 05:06 PM

>> So you're telling us is that you read Danish, Norwegian and Swedish newspapers post 911. You are fluent in more than ONE language?

I'm fluent in "enough" languages, including silent, and there are translators for the rest.

Don't worry - you'll get plenty of chances to tell us how you feel. And we'll remember some of it, so be sure to say what you're happy with the consequences.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 05:14 PM

>> Yes, Good Will - it's been squandered be the dumbya administration.Steps taken in the last few months by his administration reveal the extent to which unilateralism is in and allies are out in the White House.

Since the EU (apart from the UK) is incapable of military action, which potential partners were lost to the US?

I'm still waiting for an answer to what the US could have done that would have been acceptable to the advocates of multilaterism AND done something about terrorism.

>> What has truly unnerved European governments is that the administration has twisted the right of nations to self-defence into the right of Washington to attack countries on the ground that they may pose a future threat to the United States.

Is the US the only country that is obligated to wait until someone else strikes first?

>> What the Europeans fear is that this "rogue" notion completely undermines international law, returning the world to the law of the jungle.

Which international law is that? The international law of the UN?

It's rather embarrassing and unfortunate that certain US presidents have a nasty habit of signing treaties that won't ever be ratified and thus aren't worth the paper they're printed on. But, surely politically sophisticated Europeans could figure that out.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 21, 2002 05:27 PM

Everyone who is against invasion is forgetting something - Bush declared war against terror and those who provide safe haven for terrorists. Ignoring the fact that it is now well established that Iraqi agents met Atta in the Czech Republic - thus demonstrating that Al Queda and Iraq were joined somehow - , Iraq harbors and aids terrorists as it is openly doing in the Palestinian/Israeli dispute. Hence it is on the radar screen.

Europeans who are so high and mighty can stuff the lectures. Europe has backed the PLO in the Israeli situation - economically as well - and have substantial muslum populations to deal with. They are fearful the US will succeed and establish a very strong pro USA sentiment in the middle east which will leave Europe a bit player in the region. This is all about politics. Once the US takes care of Saddam, Iran is probably going to fall on its own, that leaves the Saudis to fight their civil war without US protection for the House of Saud. The PLO will be completely marginalized and without any real benefactors in the region - the US wil dictate a peace. Arabs appreciate and respect power and force. The see the Europeans as weak and puny, and will see the US as strong and forceful.

Europe can't defend itself, can't protect itself (see Bosnia) and creates all sorts of silly treaties that most countries won't sign - yeah the biggies haven't signed the ICC either - or just ignore.

Grow a spine and do some of the heavy lifting for a change and maybe I'll have more than just nice manners compelling me to worry about what the Europeans think.

Europe - we saved the continent in WWII, protected you through the cold war, with the exception of Britain, did the heavy lifting in the first Desert War on our own, and will save you from terrorist regimes just off your shores who are looking for the nastiest weapons available just to prove a point.

We have compelling reason to change the entire dynamic in the middle east, too many people have been dying for no good reason for too long. The poverty in the region is caused by despotic governments who care nothing about their people. The Arab culture once the envy of the world and creater of vast knowledge has turned into a run down slum, which is their choice I guess, but now they want to kill us because they detest our lifestyle and the attraction it has on their people. It is time for their little temper tantrum to end.

Posted by Jim at August 21, 2002 09:11 PM

Hei Herra Canute:

Puhutko sinä Suomea? Tiedatko sinä mikä minä sanon? Ajatelletko koska minä olen Amerikalainen etta minä en oppi toinen kieli? Minun suomeni ei ole niin hyvä, mutta minä voin lue ja kuule. Ja kyllä, minä ymmärrän. Ehkä minä tarvitsen minun sanakirjani joskus mutta minä ymärrän vielä. Minä tiedän mitä ihmistä sanoivat. Ja eivat sanoi. Pehmäpää.

Pompous ass. Sure, everybody was shocked. But they seem to more shocked that the U.S. is doing something about it. The remarkable thing is not that Bush squndered European goodwill, it is how quickly European elites rushed to smother their citizens' natural sympathy with lies, innuendo and half-truths. But what truly appalls me is how hardly anyone will stand up against them. Your posts are riddled with baseless assumptions and prejudice (like all Americans only speak one language). Your history is very selective and heavily 'interpreted' ( I have been reading and studying history since, well, since I could read. I have forgotten more about it than you will ever even know.) Mr. Lindroos is at least trying to make some intelligent points, even if I disagree. You, on the other hand, do nothing but emit a semi-intellectual smog of half baked psuedo-fact. "Isn't it obvious?" Anyone who starts a sentence in that manner is shutting out all debate and counter argument. The premise is stated and not allowed to be questioned.

I have heard what you, and they, have said. I have understood it, weighed it in the balance, and found it wanting. America is acting unilaterally for the simple reason that our multilateral 'friends' are more eager to harm us than help us. If we become a 'rogue hyperpower', you can lay the blame on your own doorstep.

Posted by Michael Cowell at August 21, 2002 11:34 PM

Jim,

It's not well establised that Iraqi agents met with Atta in Prague. The last report I saw, on June 19th in the Washington Times (not known for its wishy-washy liberalism), said that the US intelligence community had seen 'no evidence' that such a meeting did not take place. This does not mean it did not take place, but it's certainly not 'well establised'.

Posted by MJ Turner at August 22, 2002 07:57 AM

There's no evidence that I can write in English either. In the post above, I meant 'no evidence that such a meeting did take place'.

Posted by MJ Turner at August 22, 2002 08:00 AM

>>Puhutko sinä Suomea?

I motsetning til deg herr Cowell, pretenderer ikke undertegnede av å kunne finsk. Hvorfor sa du ikke bare "Puhun vain vähän suomea"?

>>Tiedatko sinä mikä minä sanon? Ajatelletko koska minä olen Amerikalainen etta minä en oppi toinen kieli? Minun suomeni ei ole niin hyvä, mutta minä voin lue ja kuule. Ja kyllä, minä ymmärrän. Ehkä minä tarvitsen minun sanakirjani joskus mutta minä ymärrän vielä. Minä tiedän mitä ihmistä sanoivat. Ja eivat sanoi. Pehmäpää.

Well, what you are telling us is that you just understand and speak a BIT finnish and that you are not very good at it - how revealing. It's hard Mr. Cowell to understand the beliefs, attitudes, values, and world view of a people without understanding FULLY their language and the nuances of how that language is used.

Mr. Cowell, in your initial post you wrote: "I have yet, after nearly a year, to have a single Finn express outrage at what happened nor support for our response. No doubt it exists, but no one dares express it". Based on the assertion that your Finnish language skills are not very sophisticated, one can either conclude that you don't really know what's happening or that you're mostly interacting with similar minded american expatriotes who also share with you the joy of reading the National Review and watching the O'Reilly Factor on the FOX News Channel

>>Pompous ass.
Isn't it silly that a "uniquely qualified" man resorts to the A** word. Is that something you've learned from Bill O'Reilly?

>>Sure, everybody was shocked. But they seem to more shocked that the U.S. is doing something about it.

Yes, the shock of 911 was nearly universal. However, as I've said earlier, the administration has squandered the initial Good Will directed towards america from all over the world. Regardless of the spin that your right-wing cheerleaders are putting out, dumbya's foreign policy is dangerous and the rest of the world has caught on. This doesn't mean we're anti-American. we're just anti-Bush.(he he)

It's interesting to note that polling by your own Council on Foreign Relations is showing America's image problem is truly global - not just isolated to the Middle East. Negative attitudes about U.S. policy are also pervasive in front-line states in the phony "war" on terrorism and among your closest allies. The dumbya administration is using 911 and the "war on terrorism" to carry out its foreign and domestic agenda on a truly impressive scale, and so far without much impediment at home or abroad. What is notable about their agenda is that it flies in the face of all of the requirements for peace, global democracy, economic equity and justice, ecological and environmental protection, and global stability. It represents the choice of an overpowerful country's elite, determined to consolidate their economic and political advantage in the short run, at whatever cost to global society.

>>I have been reading and studying history since, well, since I could read. I have forgotten more about it than you will ever even know.)

So you are also telling us that you're not very good in history?

Posted by Canute at August 22, 2002 08:00 AM

>>>> So you're telling us is that you read Danish, Norwegian and Swedish newspapers post 911. You are fluent in more than ONE language?

>>I'm fluent in "enough" languages, including silent, and there are translators for the rest.

"Enough" you say, but does that mean you understand what's being said in the printed press in the above mentioned countries? A thorough knowledge of a language provides the real key to the understanding of any foreign culture. There is nothing wrong with using translation, provided you understand that you are not getting the whole thing.

Posted by Canute at August 22, 2002 08:13 AM

First lumberjacks, now O'Reilly. Sorry, Canute, but it's not worth wading through all the ad hominem attacks and non-sequiturs to see if you have anything intelligent to say.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2002 08:52 AM

MJ-

Yes, it has been recently established and the White House, which had really downplayed it - as you referenced in your post - has acknowledged it. I am trying to find the source, but it is recent - not loudly proclaimed because if the meeting in Prague is verified it takes away the argument that Iraq and Al Queda aren't linked and therefore Sadaam at least has clean hands on 9/11. The major print media which has decreed they don't like an Iraq invasion aren't going to proclaim it in their papers.

I will look for the place where I saw it and place the reference if I can. I don't believe it was the Washington Times, though it might have been. It may have also been NRO or DebkaFile. I am reading so much on what is going on that I sometimes fail to note where I am reading!

Posted by Jim at August 22, 2002 09:47 AM

>Why don't you write another satirical piece, set in the early 1960s?

>"Administration Split On Vietnam Invasion"

>Marcus

What invasion?! Marcus seems not have noticed:
the USA _never invaded_ North Vietnam - the aggressor country - during that war. Instead, we practiced gradual "escalation" - something maybe fit for diplomacy, but not a way to win wars.

The lesson of Vietnam - and of the first Gulf War - and of WWII and the preceding appeasement - is exactly the same: _there's no substitute for victory_.

It is very unwise to wound a ferocious beast and then step back. Do not *escalate*, do not *pressure*, do not *sanction*: go for the jugular, ASAP; eradicate the enemy before he even knows what hit him.
Create a clear precedent, it will save future fighting.

Accomplished facts speak louder than words. Whatever people say *now*, decisive victory will make us many friends later: one could hardly
find a pro-Nazi in Europe after May 8, 1945.

Posted by jjustwwondering at August 22, 2002 11:40 AM

"...one could hardly find a pro-Nazi in Europe after May 8, 1945."

And of course, the ranks of the French resistance swelled immeasurably in the summer of 1944...

There is one place that it's still possible to find lots of pro-Nazi types today, though--in the Middle East, where Mein Kampf has become a best seller.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2002 11:46 AM

>dumbya's foreign policy is dangerous and the >rest of the world has caught on. This doesn't >mean we're anti-American. we're just anti-Bush.
>(he he)
>Posted by Canute at August 22, 2002 08:00 AM

You, Canute, and whoever you call "we",
are not the world.

The Bush team's foreign policy since 9/11
has been a brilliant success.

The USA has (among other things)
# prevented, so far, new attacks;
# gained two major new allies - both nuclear powers - Russia and Pakistan (both of them more hostile than friendly before);
# made great progress in *rapprochement* with India (in spite of the renewed alliance with Pakistan!).
# improved relations with China;
# reinforced the special relationship with Britain;
# dumped the fetters of the ABM treaty without
any serious international friction;
# kept oil prices at an acceptable level
# established a new and far better new order
of things in the liberated Afghanistan.
# safeguarded Israel's right to self-defense while
still keeping the status of the only possible arbiter in Palestine.
And much more.

As for public opinion in France, Germany and
places like Finland, it has
apparently reverted, with the passage of time, to pre-9/11 level of anti-Amricanism. Couldn't be helped, but can be easily endured.

Posted by jjustwwondering at August 22, 2002 12:50 PM

>> A thorough knowledge of a language provides the real key to the understanding of any foreign culture.

(1) Yet one can understand enough without speaking a word of the language.

(2) I trust that Canute doesn't think that he understands US culture.

I note that there are fewer Finns than there are ex-cast members of Hee Haw. Why should I take the former more seriously than the latter?

Of course, I'm still waiting for what the US should have done. You're quite willing to complain that we're not listening, but you've yet to demonstrate that you have anything worth listening to.

Maybe someone would like to warm up with why ignoring the Euros hurt the US. (Yes, the UK was a great help. The rest of you couldn't have done anything if you'd wanted to, so your refusal has no consequence.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 22, 2002 02:23 PM

Canute, Marcus, ect: Here's a good one...name me ONE massacre or dictatorship that Europeans have ended UNAIDED BY THE US in this century. As I have said, y'all would do better at claiming the moral high ground if you had any high ground to claim. Until then, think of this: we'd probably care more about your opinions if European aid or assent was actually something we really NEEDED, or if knee-jerk anti-Americanism was something we haven't all grown to expect as ground-state from the Channel to the Urals. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, maybe it's YOU who should be asking what you have done to make US angry...

Posted by David Paglia at August 22, 2002 02:30 PM

You probably mean in the last century. This one's not old enough to have had very many (though unfortunately, not zero).

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 22, 2002 03:01 PM

Absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You sir as they say today "are the man."

Posted by J Ratliff at August 22, 2002 07:19 PM

You're right, Rand. Sorry.

Posted by David Paglia at August 22, 2002 08:23 PM

This article by Kenneth Adelman:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60906,00.html

makes, IMO, an excellent case for the impending
attack.

Posted by jjustwwondering at August 22, 2002 10:41 PM

>Mr. Lindroos...your post is hilarious, coming
>> from a citizen of a nation that was an active
>> ally of Nazi Germany during World War

> ...for the same reason (or is that "excuse"?)
> why the U.S. apparently did not have too many
> qualms about supporting/collaborating with
> fascist regimes during the Cold War

> Marcus...you mean, like Finland was a
> collaborator for the Soviets? Or do you mean
> that we provided a volunteer battalion for the
> SS in Rusia, like Finland did? Keep trying.

Provided a "volunteer battalion"? No problem, mate. There is no shortage of fascists in Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World who received lots of direct and indirect assistance from the good old U.S. of A. during the Cold War.
---
Mind you: my point is not that the United States itself is an evil, fascist country. But why are your dealings with totalitarian regimes any different from ours??

Marcus Lindroos
Liljendal, Finland

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 23, 2002 10:46 AM

> You seem to be saying that you agree that
> Hussein should go, but you want us to pass an
> essay test before we get approval? That we
> should make a case to the Security Council, but
> that you feel it would just be a matter of
> form, and that they would certainly approve?

> My question was, what specific proof is
> required from us?

You want specific proof? How about Saddam refusing to allow U.N. inspectors unimpeded access to weapons facilities in Iraq? Give him a final ultimatum and explain to him that another "no" means Gulf War II/certain personal destruction... Should be a total no-brainer, but if he somehow refuses, you have won the argument.
---
Let's talk about the U.S. home front. It seems you regard any debate about the wisdom (or cost-) of attacking Saddam as a waste of time?

Marcus

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 23, 2002 11:12 AM

>>First lumberjacks, now O'Reilly. Sorry, Canute, but it's not worth wading through all the ad hominem attacks and non-sequiturs to see if you have anything intelligent to say.

Regarding the lumberjacks: "Because something is happening here, but you don't know what it is"; do you Rand? I took the liberty to rearrange some of the lyrics from "Ballad of a Thin Man" in response to your incomplete reply to Mr. Lindroos' post (surely, you yourself set a high standard around here, don't you?):

>>>>That's a nice set of strawmen, Marcus.
>>>>Hollow, ephemeral, >>>>strawfilled...ummmmmmm...strawfilled...
>>>>[VOICE="Homer Simpson"]
>>>>gggghhhhhrrrrrhhhgggg...straw-filled...
>>>>[/VOICE]

---------------------------------
Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones
---------------------------------

>>What invasion?! Marcus seems not have noticed: the USA _never invaded_ North Vietnam - the agressor country - during that war. Instead, we practiced gradual "escalation" - something maybe fit for diplomacy, but not a way to win wars.

Yes, you didnt invade North Vietnam, but not content with the destruction being wrought upon Southeast Asia, the U.S. began a massive covert bombing campaign against Cambodia, resulting in famine, economic chaos, and a staggeringly high death toll. The direct American genocide of the Cambodian people lasted from 1969 to 1973. After that the Khmer Rouge, covertly supported by the U.S. government, continued the genocide. Estimated civilian deaths: 2,000,000/2,500,000 people from U.S. Air Force carpet-bombing and the Khmer Rouge combined. So, will Rand admit that this was a "wrongheaded" (to put it mildly) policy and that many (not few) US-wrongheaded policies continue today?

------------------------------------------------
"Until we go through it ourselves, until our people cower in the shelters of New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere while the buildings collapse overhead and burst into flames, and dead bodies hurtle about and, when it is over for the day or the night, emerge in the rubble to find some of their dear ones mangled, their homes gone, their hospitals, churches, schools demolished ? only after that gruesome experience will we realize what we are inflicting on the people of Indochina..."

William L. Shirer, author, 1973
------------------------------------------------

>>The snotty "you Americans don't know what you're doing" attitude certainly oesn't do anything to win me over.

There's no secret in Europe, that a swathe of the current political, policy and journalistic elite of America has conceived a severe dislike of Europe and Europeans. In the more extreme news outlets such as the National Review and the Rupert Murdoch controlled FOX News Channel, ANGRY Americans like Victor Hanson and Rand Simberg rants away about the "amoral" Europeans; the "euroweenies" - bla blah blah. Hey people; why all the anger, where's the humour?

The charming capability to laugh at themselves is a characteristic the British have and you the Americans seem to lack (You know, the guys whose language you speak and who according to the ill-informed neoconservatives in Washington supports your obsession with Saddam).

Just try to imagine anything like:

1. "Mad dogs and Americans go out in the midday sun"? or
2. "No sex, please, we're Americans" ? or
3. "Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the Streets of Los Angeles" ?

Substitute Englishmen for Americans in 1. and you have a song, written by Noel Coward.

Insert British instead of Americans in 2. and you have an English theatre play and film.

Change Los Angeles into London in 3. and you have a song, written by Ralph McTell and performed by Roger Whittaker.

Replace American arrogance with the courage to point humour at yourself, your national customs, even at your own country and you have a more likeable character trait.

Posted by Canute at August 23, 2002 11:15 AM

"How about Saddam refusing to allow U.N. inspectors unimpeded access to weapons facilities in Iraq?"

If that's all you need, we should have taken him out years ago. He's *never* allowed that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 23, 2002 11:16 AM

> Now I'm confused. If you supported those
> operations, did you also support getting rid of
> Saddam AT THAT TIME?

> If you supported getting rid of Saddam then,
> what has changed?

Nothing (*now* you are confused:-). Actually, I agreed with the Bush Administration that Saddam must be forced to leave Iraq. I also agree with the assertion (by Powell, Schwarzkopf & co.) that removing Saddam from power was too dangerous in 1991. Saddam has been a nuisance ever since, but a relatively minor one. E.g. he has not attacked Kuwait, Iran or other countries.
---
Right *now*, I think a major war in the Persian Gulf probably would create more problems than solutions. But a lot depends on how it's done. From an American perspective, the cost in terms of U.S. casualties during and after the war as well as the political cost must be acceptable. But right now, the President seems to admit the U.S. is not ready yet.

Marcus

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 23, 2002 11:24 AM

>> It seems you regard any debate about the wisdom (or cost-) of attacking Saddam as a waste of time?

Yes, because the debate won't make any difference. It won't change anyone's position.

>> Nothing (*now* you are confused:-). Actually, I agreed with the Bush Administration that Saddam must be forced to leave Iraq.

Then why do you want a debate?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 23, 2002 11:52 AM

>> The charming capability to laugh at themselves is a characteristic the British have and you the Americans seem to lack

Yet, for some reason all of the examples involve the English making fun of each other. Unless Canute wants to claim that Euros are Americans, those examples aren't particularly relevant. (Yes, I can say things about me and mine that you can't say without pissing me off.)

Moreover, we laugh at each other all the time.

Say something funny about us, and we'll laugh.

Say something stupid or insulting, and we won't.

As they say "why are you getting mad, it's just a joke" is the defense of someone who wasn't making a joke but is unwilling to take responsibility when called to task.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 23, 2002 12:13 PM

The country who made Homer Simpson a national icon lacks the ability to laugh at itself?

Posted by Brian at August 23, 2002 01:23 PM

Canute,

RE your Cambodian claims, what are you quoting??

To begin w/, you might want to consider the North Vietnamese invasion (some would call it use) of Cambodia. Where do you think the Ho Chi Minh trail was? Hint: It WASN'T in South Vietnam.

So, Cambodia fails to stop the North Vietnamese from using its country as a means of fighting the war in South Vietnam. Sorta like, I dunno, the Germans using Poland to supply its forces in the Soviet Union. But a US effort to interdict that supply line, THAT's illegal.

Then, there's this claim that the US triggered the famine and economic chaos. Uhm, exactly, which famine is this? Remember, based on your own writings, this occurred BEFORE the KRs take over. So, when did this famine occur? Citation, please?

Then, there's this fascinating claim that we covertly supported the KRs DURING THEIR GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES (presumably, you mean '74-'76 or so). Uhm, a little proof, please?

And, finally, the remarkably intellectually dishonest citation of a single figure w/ the amazing tag line: "2,000,000/2,500,000 people from U.S. Air Force carpet-bombing and the Khmer Rouge combined." Okay, put up or shut up: Which portion was which? What's the break-down? Who did what?

Suffice to say, you've certainly shot your credibility in the foot in MY book. Go back to Noam.

Posted by Dean at August 23, 2002 01:28 PM

>>Yet, for some reason all of the examples involve the English making fun of each other

Well, the simple reason being that the British and the Americans speak the same language. I didn't think of the posibility that you may understand post-modern Norwegian humour and that you are used to "translators" to "get the picture".

>>Unless Canute wants to claim that Euros are Americans those examples aren't particularly relevant.

Ooops, don't you reveal an embarrassing lack of insight; does such an entity exist, such as a "Euro-nation", and does an identical "Euro-humour" exist throughout Europe - you tell me!

>>Say something stupid or insulting, and we won't.

"....meaning any criticism from outside the US, directed against US-policies, domestic as well as foreign, and at our beloved POTUS who BTW is not a simple cheat, is an insult (Arrgh*#*%&)"

Posted by Canute at August 23, 2002 01:41 PM

>The direct American genocide of the Cambodian people lasted from 1969 to 1973. After that the Khmer Rouge, covertly supported by the U.S. government, continued the genocide.

This, Dr. Goebbels, is a perfect, undiluted,
unmitigated lie, not worth discussing - especially as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic...

Posted by jjustwwondering at August 23, 2002 02:11 PM

Actually, jjustwondering, I think it is remarkably appropriate. What we have here is the true face of at least some of the anti-war crowd. They claim that they are interested in honest debate, they claim that they are interested in "helping the US understand things." But scratch at least some of them, and what do you find underneath? The Cold War equivalent of the Holocaust denier.

By their actions shall ye know them. It gives me a pretty good idea of what at least one of the anti-war crowd is really about.

And, yes, that IS incredibly relevant.

Posted by Dean at August 23, 2002 02:22 PM

>> Well, the simple reason being that the British and the Americans speak the same language.

Most Canadians and Austrialians speak English too. Are they English, American, both? (They, and I, think that the answer is "neither".)

>> >>Unless Canute wants to claim that Euros are Americans those examples aren't particularly relevant.

>> Ooops, don't you reveal an embarrassing lack of insight; does such an entity exist, such as a "Euro-nation", and does an identical "Euro-humour" exist throughout Europe - you tell me!

When there are relevant differences, I'll distingush them. (Most Americans are members of multiple groups. Canute's Euro's are so limited - each is only associated with his fatherland.)

>> >>Say something stupid or insulting, and we won't.

>> "....meaning any criticism from outside the US

Not at all, but you can't know unless you try.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 23, 2002 03:24 PM

>>So, Cambodia fails to stop the North Vietnamese from using its country as a means of fighting the war in South Vietnam. Sorta like, I dunno, the Germans using Poland to supply its forces in the Soviet Union. But a US effort to interdict that supply line, THAT's illegal

So you are saying the US presence in SEA from the 1950s to 1975 was legal?

>>Then, there's this claim that the US triggered the famine and economic chaos. Uhm, exactly, which famine is this? Remember, based on your own writings, this occurred BEFORE the KRs take over. So, when did this famine occur? Citation, please?

Here are just a few a few citations:
------------------------------------------------

"The bombing and flood of refugees led to the collapse of the agricultural system and induced a famine in which hundreds of thousands died from starvation. In fact, many of the deaths after 1975 that are attributed to the Khmer Rouge were actually caused by starvation from the famine induced by U.S. bombing before 1975."

from HOW U.S. SHAPED CAMBODIA
http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/Cambodia.html

------------------------------------------------

"Sihanouk was overthrown with the connivance of the CIA, which had long resented his independent if quirky spirit. But as in Vietnam with the CIA coup against Ngo Dinh Diem, the U.S. could not come up with a viable Cambodian ruler to suit its purposes. Sihanouk was replaced by an inept Lon Nol, a U.S. puppet who could not hold power. The legacy of U.S. policy, including the 600,000 dead and many more maimed and homeless as a result of the bombing, created the conditions for the Khmer Rouge's seizure of power in 1975. Over the next four years, Pol Pot's leadership left one out of five Cambodians dead?

Cambodia's Anguish: Made in the USA
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/97_columns/070897.htm
------------------------------------------------

>>And, finally, the remarkably intellectually dishonest citation of a single figure w/ the amazing tag line: "2,000,000/2,500,000 people from U.S. Air Force carpet-bombing and the Khmer Rouge combined.? Okay, put up or shut up: Which portion was which? What's the break-down? Who did what?

Check out:

Democide in Cambodia
http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_cambodia.html

Statistics Of Cambodian Democide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM

Death By American Bombing And Other Democide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM

Cambodia - Crimes of war
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/cambodia.html

Cambodia: Recommended Reading
http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/reading.htm

The numbers that I used are not unreasonable. It's quite clear that the US-air campaign in Cambodia was the main reason that the Khmer Rouge was able to seize absolute power in the mid 1970s. If you add the number of people killed directly by the B-52s and the KR, you'll get at least 2 000 000 dead. Even though the first number (let's be modest and say: not many more than about 100 000 deaths was directly caused by the US-bombing) is a relatively small fraction of the total number of people killed, it's still a substantial amount of killings - or perhaps it was only - using the standard DoD-term - Collateral damage?

Earlier, I did misspeak about US covert support of the Khmer Rouge in such a way as to indicate that the support was in the period that the KR was in control of Pnom Pen. What I meant to say was that by January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support ($85 million from 1980 to 1986) was unintentionally revealed six years later by the US government. Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist 1979, when the Viatnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Camodia's UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the cold war, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam (?), and as part of its new alliance with China.

>>Suffice to say, you've certainly shot your credibility in the foot in my book.

Why should I care about who and what's in your "book"

"I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are"

George H.W. Bush, 1988

Posted by Canute at August 23, 2002 05:43 PM

Dean: my general opinion of Cold War peaceniks
and appeaseniks is similar to yours; what's more,
I believe they came close to doing us all in.
Their modern counterparts are IMO less harmful; to the extent that they may be setting the tone, e.g., in parts of continental Europe, it merely makes those parts irrelevant. History
has sidelined them.

Be that as it may, I make a point of dealing with any posting, or any other text, on
its own merits - never mind what kind of
person may have generated it,
and with what intention. People are complicated, inconsistent, and capable of change. A person or an idea can't be usefully reduced to a party tag.

My interest is in the substance of the discussion,
not personalities of the participants.
In this case, the logical thread was defined by
Rand's witty spoof. Marcus has (quite reasonably
from his point of view) countered by offering a substitution: the Vietnam war for WWII; a botched
war for a victorious one. Would Rand's argument
still hold? This is a valid thought experiment.

But Marcus' implicit argument, however logical, was based on a faulty recollection of *facts*: the Vietnam war teaches the *same* lesson as WWII, or for that matter the Gulf War, or the recent Afghan war.

The invasion of Normandy has *worked*; the
*non-invasion* of North Vietnam has *failed*. Decisive action often wins wars, protracted escalation and sanctions almost never do.
This is the logic of that argument.

As for the out-of-the-blue accusation of the USA of "genocide" - it merely served to divert attention by an outrageous slander. Logically, it's irrelevant, a red herring.

Posted by jjustwwondering at August 23, 2002 07:11 PM

Canute has an interesting imagination. He seems to believe in many fictional concepts. Like "Gulf War Syndrome" and "Palestinian Civil Society." I don't think he's in a position to be calling anybody else dumb.

Posted by David Nieporent at August 24, 2002 03:18 AM

I don't have any problem accepting responsibility for what the US has done. Yes, there are times that we've done the wrong thing.

Of course, it's only fair for Canute to take responsibility for the consequences of inaction.

Maybe he'll try to shift the blame to some of his fellow Euros. Or, maybe he'll claim that incapacity excuses inaction.

Would it be impolite to point to the eggs that were broken when the Euros actually did things?

Note that I'm still waiting to hear what the Canutes or Euros have to say that is worth listening to. I'm also waiting to hear what they think that the US should have done.

I am, of course, still hopeful that Canute and the Euros will have their chance with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 25, 2002 08:45 PM

> the logical thread was defined by
> Rand's witty spoof. Marcus has (quite reasonably
> from his point of view) countered by offering a
> substitution: the Vietnam war for WWII; a
> botched war for a victorious one. Would Rand's
> argument still hold? This is a valid thought
> experiment.

> But Marcus' implicit argument, however logical,
> was based on a faulty recollection of *facts*:
> the Vietnam war teaches the *same* lesson as
> WWII, or for that matter the Gulf War, or the
> recent Afghan war.

> The invasion of Normandy has *worked*; the
> *non-invasion* of North Vietnam has *failed*.
> Decisive action often wins wars, protracted
> escalation and sanctions almost never do.
> This is the logic of that argument.

"often..." Are you suggesting the United States would have won the Vietnam War (which involved guerillas receiving support from the USSR and China) if it had occupied the communist North?
Note that the USSR failed to defeat the Afghan rebels under largely comparable circumstances. Maybe the Vietcong could have been defeated in the North as well as South of Vietnam if the U.S. had attacked China and the U.S.S.R. as well... Aggression always works, right?? On the other hand, the alarmist "domino theory" predictions (=all of southeast Asia will turn red if we don't help Saigon) were subsequently proven wrong.
---
The key issue here is whether the *cost* of attacking this particular Arab dictator is too high or not. Note that Ronald Reagan apparently did not regard Muammar Khaddafi as a sufficiently large threat to remove him from power, despite the fact more than 300 U.S. soldiers and Western civilians were killed by Libyan-sponsored terrorists during the 1980s. Yet, it seems Khaddafi has been kept in check by other means.
---
The deadly thing about Saddam is supposed to be his biochemical arsenal, and other weapons of mass destruction. Yet, I note the U.S. did not automatically attack the People's Republic of China just because "the dangerously unstable" Chairman Mao acquired the Bomb.
---
Rand seems to suggest it is "self-evident" that attacking Saddam would be the best option, regardless of what the rest of the Arab world thinks or what the future status of (post-Saddam) Iraq might be. I don't think there is any conclusive historical evidence that invading foreign countries *always* ends up being the best strategy in the end.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 26, 2002 05:47 AM

>> "You need to *discredit* Al Qaeda, much like
>> the Nazis were discredited in the eyes of the
>> German people following WW II. You also need
>> to support the creation of tolerant, secular,
>> peaceful capitalist democracies. Islamic
>> demagogues thrive where there is poverty,
>> ignorance, injustice, corruption and
>> oppression."

> What makes you think that that's not exactly
> the plan?

Historically, the U.S. has not been willing to hold on to long term interests in the Arab world. There was the 1982(?) terror bombing in Lebanon which prompted Reagan to withdraw U.S. forces. The U.S. also lost interest in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew all troops from the country.
---
The new policy would also represent a fairly dramatic departure from traditional U.S. Cold War/post Cold War policy, which is to back virtually _any_ Third World dictator as long as it serves American interests. The most recent example is Pervez Musharraf, whose Pakistan has been promoted back to the status of an allied nation following Sept.11. Now, I am not a moralist so I can understand the "realpolitik" reasons for it (note that [e.g.] the French have no qualms about this either). But as September 11 proved, the consequences of backing Islamic "freedom fighters" or Arab dictators during the Cold War may come back to haunt you later on. But I am also a realist: the oppressive regimes in Egypt, Algeria and Pakistan may well be preferable to the Islamic theocracies that might emerge if the West stopped backing these regimes. So what do you do?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 26, 2002 06:50 AM

Marcus,

After the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong WERE broken. The VC organization throughout South Vietnam was devastated by the combination of massive casualties and the number of units/agents in place who blew their covers to support what was expected to be a national uprising.

In the wake of the Tet Offensive, virtually all offensive actions were undertaken by North Vietnamese Main Force units, i.e., NVA forces that were dispatched southward. Note that, subsequently, the North Vietnamese went TO the negotiating table (and caved) precisely in reaction to the mining of Haiphong Harbor, the Xmas bombings of Hanoi (which, after the depletion of the NVA's SAM-2 stocks, were pretty much unopposed) and the destruction of many NVA units ('69 US attacks and the '72 Easter Offensive by the NVA).

As for the domino theory, you might want to take a look at what regional observer, Lee Kwan Yew, has had to say about the Vietnam War. In his opinon (as a nat'l leader in the region at the time), the Vietnam War bought time for local states to develop more robust polities, and provided the wherewithal (i.e., money) to establish firmer economies. Both were instrumental in denying the local Communist parties fertile soil to take root in.

Posted by Dean at August 26, 2002 06:58 AM

> As Bill Quick pointed out, an Iraqi occupation
> can pay for itself. If the US makes post-war
> Iraq its sole Mid-East oil supplier, the
> proceeds can pay for the occupation (and maybe
> then some).

So your plan is to turn Iraq into a U.S. colony then?

> This has the side effect of making Saudi Arabia
> and Iran much less of a US problem and much
> more of an EU/Japan problem. I'm looking
> forward to seeing such sophisticates in action.

The fact that we don't maintain troops near "the holy places" of Islam or condone every single policy pursued by Israel would seem to be points in our favor? Really, why mess around with the *ssholes in the Middle East? A bunch of fanatical, backward fundamentalists all.
---
Really, Iran and the Saudis will sell to anybody as long as the price is right. And fossil fuels will become gradually less important in the coming decades anyway.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 26, 2002 06:59 AM

> It's sufficient for US purposes that their
> governments to be able to control them. In SA's
> case, not funding them would go a long way
> towards that goal.

I disagree. On our shores, ETA and IRA have existed for decades despite the preventive efforts of the Spanish and British governments, respectively. The French also failed to beat the Algerians into submission 40 years ago. I don't think the Russians will manage to defeat the Chechen rebels either.
---
The scary thing about September 11 was that it probably wasn't a very expensive operation at all. True -- you need skilled, ruthless and highly coordinated people to do it. But large-scale, expensive training camps etc. probably are not required.

> But, let's explore your theory.

> You seem to think that there's something that
> the US can do that will make them happy.

> What, EXACTLY, is that something? (We know that
> it's NOT wealth&education.)

> They've said that "push the Jews into the sea"
> will make them happy.

> Note that there's no reason to believe that "an
> independent Palestinian state" would make them
> happy.

In any case, there is near-universal agreement (even in Israel) that the current occupation will not be sustainable in the long run. If the Jews deserve their own nation, why not the Palestinians as well?
---
I think the Palestinians would listen to reason if a) they receive their own nation, b) the West provides peacekeeping forces as well as extensive financial support to rebuild the country & the local economy, c) the Yanks and EU withold all payments if the Palestinians don't do as they are told.
---
If you say this would never work, aren't the American "chicken hawks" proposing to do (b) and (c) in "liberated" Iraq?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 26, 2002 07:59 AM

Marcus says:

"'often...' Are you suggesting the United States would have won the Vietnam War (which involved guerillas receiving support from the USSR and China) if it had occupied the communist North?
Note that the USSR failed to defeat the Afghan rebels under largely comparable circumstances. Maybe the Vietcong could have been defeated in the North as well as South of Vietnam if the U.S. had attacked China and the U.S.S.R. as well... Aggression always works, right??"

What we were doing in Vietnam was not "aggression," at least not in intent. We were fighting agression. And yes, the USSR failed in Afghanistan, but the circumstances were hardly "similar."

We are capable of making a distinction between imposing a totalitarian regime, and fighting to defeat one. Many Europeans, apparently, are not.

As to why we didn't go after Mao, I never claimed that having or acquiring weapons of mass destruction was a *sufficient* reason to go after a dictator. There are other factors in the calculus (e.g., what is his ultimate intent, and what are the prospects for success).

And no, the plan is not to turn Iraq, or any other Middle Eastern nation, into a "US colony." It is to turn it into a nation that can select its own leaders, and leaders that do things in the nation's interest, rather than their own. Such regimes are rare commodities in the Middle East right now. Hopefully, when all is done, they'll be the rule.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2002 08:04 AM

>> "'often...' Are you suggesting the United
>> States would have won the Vietnam War (which
>> involved guerillas receiving support from the
>> USSR and China) if it had occupied the
>> communist North?

> What we were doing in Vietnam was
> not "aggression," at least not in intent. We
> were fighting agression.
[...]
> We are capable of making a distinction between
> imposing a totalitarian regime, and fighting to
> defeat one. Many Europeans, apparently, are not.

I dunno. What about fighting to *preserve* a post-colonial totalitarian regime? Was South Vietnam really a democratic role model? It seems the South Vietnamese were fairly "divided" on the subject.

> And yes, the USSR failed in Afghanistan, but
> the circumstances were hardly "similar."

Indeed! A bit like France in'44 vs. Iraq in 2002 perhaps?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at August 26, 2002 08:16 AM

South Vietnam was not a paragon of democracy, but it had the Stalinist regime to the north, supported by Mao's China and the Soviet Union, beat six ways from Sunday. To call it "totalitarian" is to render the word meaningless (which is perhaps your intent).

And there is indeed much more similarity between Iraq (and the Middle East in general) and 1944 Europe than the between American experience in Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The only significant difference between the Nazis in Europe and the current sand Nazis (Mein Kampf is the new best seller over there...) is the level of competence of the former. Germany had an industrial base, and good generalship (when they weren't overruled by their madman of a leader). The Arabs have...oil. They both have a messianic ideology, they both would destroy the Jews if they could, and they both want to subjugate the world, and impose their beliefs on it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2002 08:47 AM

>> It's sufficient for US purposes that their
>> governments to be able to control them. In
>> SA's case, not funding them would go a long
>> way towards that goal.

> I disagree. On our shores, ETA and IRA

Islamic terrorism isn't domestic in the US.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 26, 2002 09:01 AM

>> In any case, there is near-universal agreement (even in Israel) that the current occupation will not be sustainable in the long run.

The end of the occupation merely means that Israel has figured out another way to survive. The new means need not have anything to do with Palestinian desires.

Note that the Israelis still have the "it's ours, we won it fair and square" option. (Other than the US, who has any leve