From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 12:52:05 MDT
On 14 Sep 2002 at 7:19, Hermit wrote:
>
> Introduction
>
> His favorite daytime television programs having failed to deliver the
> hard evidence that Joe Dees needed to make a compelling "case to
> action", he is now echoing the latest administration calls for a "new"
> approach to global relations. One based on the perception that some
> people are too "evil" to be permitted to rule. Joe Dees should know
> that all evil is in the eye of the beholder - other than where we have
> an established and accepted law in order to permit the establishment
> of an objective perspective. As I shall show in this essay, we do have
> such law, and it does not support the actions that Joe Dees is
> advocating. In addition, I am going to show that nobody, not least the
> United States, will benefit from the advocated action.
>
You obvously did not read the essay I posted, or else you are so
entrenched in your unfortunate position that you would turn a blind eye
to thise manifest atrocities.
>
> Pragmatic Issues
>
> 1) The Kurds are largely brutish, tribal, religious fanatics who
> strongly support Al Qu'aeda (who are reportedly present in Northern
> Iraq) and who are reportedly instigating attacks from there against
> the regime of Saddam Hussein - and who are presumably dealing with
> like minded groups to develop attacks against the US. Thus "Operation
> Shield" has and is undoubtedly harming the US.
>
Actually, the Kurds have been attempting to establish a democratic
system in the northern no-fly-zone area, and have captured several Al
Quaeda operatives (cf. the essay I posted).
>
> 2) Saddam Hussein is not in control of Northern Iraq because the US is
> protecting the Kurds. Thus the ongoing campaign against Baghdad is
> counterproductive in that it has and is providing a safe haven for
> avowed enemies of the United States. Thus advocacy of continuing or
> extending Operation Shield is arguably harming the US.
>
The position of the Kurds, as outlined in that essay tou REALLY should
read, is one of support for the US tempered with disillusion occasioned
by our nonsupport of their post-Gulf-War revolt.
>
> 3) The US administration was apparently heavily involved in
> facilitating access to biological weapons (for which there are no
> "dual uses") and possibly sponsoring the use of chemical weapons by
> Iraq. The US administration undoubtedly prevented attempts by the
> International community and Congress to address or prevent this. When
> this gets to court, assuming that the US does not simply engage in
> murder - as is currently (and illegally her stated intention) - the US
> involvement will become explicit. Will those political commanders
> currently employed by dubya's administration to "mastermind" Gulf War
> part III, and who were allegedly involved in this process during the
> Reagan and Bush administrations also be arraigned for crimes against
> humanity? Either way, it seems that our hypocrisy is going to become
> embarrassingly apparent. I am not sure how this is going to be "good"
> for the US.
>
Not only will Hermit stoop to blaming the victime (the Kurds), he stoops
to eviscerating those who would rescue them from their victimized
position via a regime change.
>
> 4) The arguments which the US have used for investing the territory
> and overthrowing the governments of other nations is already being
> used by other nations to justify similar action. Thus as predicted, US
> actions and arguments have already had a massively destabilizing
> effect. I am not sure how a more dangerous world is good for the US.
>
What other nations? Unsupported contentions are just that -
unsupported.
>
> 5) As Afghanistan, which is rapidly reverting to the same "rule by
> warlords" (and indeed, the same warlords) which enabled the creation
> of the Taliban in the first place, clearly demonstrates, the US does
> not have the technical capability to instantiate "democracy" or even
> to control the situation in Islamic countries. And her presence in
> such countries is sufficient to generate an ongoing recruiting effect
> for organizations prepared to encourage acts of terror within the US.
> Thus these actions are massively unhelpful to the "war on terror." I
> am not sure how this is good for the US.
>
We do need to do more in Afghanistan (as Kofi Annan stated) to
expand the new Karzai government's control of the countryside. I am
hopeful that we will indeed do so.
>
> 6) As I predicted, and as the quarterly report
> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,791314,00.html) from the
> US Federal Reserve reflects, the US is unable to afford the cost of
> the actions she is already involved in, and this is causing global
> economic catastrophe. Action which further destabilizes the Gulf
> Region could see the cost of oil (which has already doubled to around
> $30 per barrel) rising to around $40 per barrel even without a war.
> This would have the effect of producing negative growth in the US.
> Should Saudi Arabia collapse, even if the US steals the Iraqi oil, the
> cost per barrel would rise to $80 to $90 per barrel. I am not sure how
> this can be good for the US.
>
Ths cost of oil would skyrocket were Iraq to seize Saudi Arabia. The
temporary increase in price that might result from our moving to change
the regime in Iraq is a short-term burden we must be willing to bear for
long-term security and stability.
>
> 7) Meanwhile, considered analysis suggests that we are less secure
> than we were prior to the attacks on the use in 2001. Public opinion
> also reflects this. I am not sure how this reality suggests that
> increasing our enemies would be sensible.
>
Not only do 67% of the US population belive that the Congress has
handles the war on terror well, 75% believe that Bush has, and 84%
believe that the American people have. In addition, 58% of the
American people now support the use of US troops to force a regime
change in Iraq (Gallup poll). To depose that ruthless tyrant from his
throne of power would eliminate our most dangerous enemy in the
region.
>
> 8) Given the evidence already available (e.g.
> [urlhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0601-01.htm]"The Bush 9/11
> Scandal for Dummies "[/url], it appears that there are serious
> questions that require answers. I am not sure that such questions will
> even be asked in a country which remains continuously at war and where
> far too many of its citizens have decided, along with government, that
> they can dispense with historic constitutional protections put there
> for very good reason. I am not sure how this can be good for the US.
>
The US has been largely at peace between the end of the Gulf war and
9/11; it is our enemies who have waged constant warfare against us
during that period, and it is beyond high time that we responded to them
in kind.
>
> 9) Should the United States defeat Iraq and presumably dispose of the
> Ba'thist party, the United States claims to have no answer to how they
> would govern Iraq, or how they would prevent the multiple religious
> and tribal groupings in the region, fully as fanatical as Hermit,
> from causing rapid disintegration without deploying several hundred
> thousand "peace keepers" in the region. As Iraq is already devastated
> by US sponsored sanctions, which if her economy were functioning at
> 1990 levels would take 100 years for them to pay off, it is difficult
> to imagine how this "peace force" would be paid for, and thus it is
> unlikely that it would be effective. I am not sure how this can be
> good for the US.
>
We will find a way. There is a history of civilization and culture in Iraq
(blighted by their present despot) which was not present in Afghanistan;
I predict that the difficulties that hermit envisions will be much less than
he supposes, just as they have been in Afghanistan (hermit's prophecy
quotient is historically sadly lacking). I also predict that people will be
dancing in the Baghdad streets in joy and gratitude for their US-
sponsored liberation from Saddam, just as they did in the Kabul streets
when the yoke of the taliban was removed from their necks.
>
> 10) US actions are believed by most of the world to have been
> demonstrated to be comprised of equal parts of hypocrisy,
> self-interest and naked greed. We are already complicit in the murder
> of millions of Iraqi citizens, and hundreds of thousands of other
> people who identify the US as "them." We are accused of serious war
> crimes in Afghanistan. We stand accused of massively supporting many
> of the most repressive regimes on Earth, not least Israel. Tapes of
> bin Laden accusing the US of massive prejudice against Islam due to
> their actions in Israel are now public, removing the grounds for the
> claim that this had nothing to do with 911. Another war with Iraq will
> undoubtedly result in further deaths. Possibly large numbers of them.
> This cannot reduce the urge by others to "punish" or "take revenge" on
> the US. I am not sure how this can be good for the US.
>
The mistaken and self-salving beliefs of meme-infested fanatics (read
the fine essays The Future of Political Islam by Graham E. Fuller or Al
Quaeda's Fantasy Ideology by Lee Harris) and jealous US beneficiary
weaklings (read the excellent essays Europe: Grow Up On Iraq by
Andrew Sullivan or Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan or The
Lonely Superpower by Samuel P. Huntington) are not to be given
credence or force. The proverbial and dreaded 'rage of the Arab
streets' is quick to manifest, but as fickle as the flight of a butterfly, and
generally abandons losers rather quickly; US resolve, OTOH, is slow to
jell but steadfast and sustaining once it has formed, as it has in this
case.
>
> 11) It is quite clear, that if their political masters do not
> interfere too much (and that is very far from certain), and if
> appropriate support is provided (and the administration is looking for
> a "cheap war" given that our tactical stores are depleted and many of
> our aircraft are in desperate need of replacement or refurbishment due
> to unplanned use - and congressional reluctance to make the necessary
> replacements while it was possible, along with a huge shortage of
> money to do so now), that the US military is capable of overcoming any
> short-term resistance which Iraq is capable of generating. It is not
> clear how this tactical reality can be turned to a strategic purpose.
> Strategy has to involve more than "eliminate Hussein." Yet, so far as
> we are aware, that is all the guidance received to date from the US
> administration. As far as we can tell the thinking appears to be to
> leave men on the ground indefinitely, attempting to hold an hostile
> country under control. As any experienced commander - or military
> historian - can tell you, this is a recipe for being bled to death by
> rat and mice bites. Unless US military equipment and lives are regarded
> as disposable, I am sure that this would not be good for the US.
>
The US is currently resupplying its arsenals, and your claim that a post-
Hussein Iraq would be hostile territory holds no more credence than
your same mistaken claim concerning Afghanistan. I envisage the Iraqi
people as being extremely grateful to their US liberators for being
relieved of their crushing burden of brutality and fear.
> Legal
>
> 1) When somebody asserts "pre-emption" the evidence has to be
> overwhelming lest the pre-emptor become the aggressor. This is why the
> grand Charter of the UN does not permit preemption. The UN, and many
> other nations, including Iraq's neighbors, along with most of the
> reputedly competent security analysis organizations (e.g. Jane’s,
> Rand, FAS, BAAS, IAS) have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence
> that Iraq poses a threat to her neighbors, never mind to the US. There
> is also no believable evidence of intent. Saddam Hussein is fully
> aware that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or possibly even Iran, with no help
> from the US, could overrun Iraq today, and there is little he could do
> to prevent it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has presented
> history or speech, that indicates that Saddam Hussein has ever held
> anything other than regional aspirations. And those are utterly
> irrelevant in the Middle East of today. Even the UK is not seeking to
> present evidence that Iraq poses any credible threat to her or the
> US, but is instead arguing, as does Joe Dees, that Saddam Hussein
> should not be allowed to govern, because he is a very nasty man and he
> might acquire some nasty weaponry somewhere, somehow, which might
> make him dangerous. This may be true. And certainly, he might be
> tempted to wield a blow against those threatening him if this ever
> were to happen. But a concatenation of "ifs" is not evidence of danger
> and the world is full of nasty people. Besides, the reality is that he
> is fully aware that such an attempt would not have much effect (even
> if some WMD equipped nation opened the doors to their arsenals to him,
> no weapon systems he is likely to be able to deploy would have more
> than a symbolic effect in the greater scale of things) and it would
> almost certainly result in the destruction of Iraq, himself and his
> aspirations.
>
We have clear and telling evidence that he has long been attempting to
gain nuclear capability (cf Bush's UN speech), and the achievement of
such a capacity would disastrously tip the power balance in the Mideast
region. In a post-9/11 world, where a small group of agents or terrorists
can quickly cause massive devastation by deploying WMD's, pre-
emption is the only reasonable alternative to appeasement and
capitualtion in the face of terror or the threat of it that it seems possible
to evolve (cf: Henry Kissinger's excellent essay on the topic). And if
Saddam Hussein wishes to make an indelible saladinic mark in the
annals of history, he may indeed be willing to sacrifice his life to do so
(he has historically shown no compunctions concerning the sacrifice of
Iraqis); plus, he is prone to cataclysmic miscalculation. To allow him to
achieve a nuclear capacity is a risk that cost-benefit analysis entails we
dare not take.
>
> 2) It should be noted that the Grand Charter has the same weight in
> the US law as US law itself (as do all other treaties signed by the
> US)- and thus action, which contravenes the charter of the UN, is
> unconstitutional. When such action is performed or advocated by those
> who have sworn to defend the constitution, this constitutes treason.
> Seeing as Joe Dees continuously raises his stint as a junior
> technician in the US military, is it fair to presume that he took an
> oath to defend the constitution? If this is the case, it might also be
> worth asking why he is continuously engaging in advocating treason
> while simultaneously accusing others of insisting that the US behave
> lawfully of un-American or even anti-American behavior? Of course, the
> same question should be asked of dubya.
>
The US has historically assumed those peacekeeping and aggression-
deterring tasks that the rest of the world was unable or unwilling to take
on, and usually at their request. The UN has been asked to save itself
from irrelevancy; we shall see whether it possesses the backbone and
resolve to do so. Hermit wasn't too enthusiastic about our saving the
Bosnians from the Serbs, either, when Europe lacked the will to clean
up its own back yard.
>
> 3) Like any other accused, Saddam Hussein should be considered as
> innocent until proven guilty and while in office is protected from
> prosecution, by international agreement. The only exception to this is
> for "crimes against humanity" which might be brought against him in
> the new court established for this purpose, which the US, for
> understandable if not good reasons is attempting to emasculate - just
> as they have emasculated dozens of other international treaties. The
> action being taken by the US in an attempt to protect US and Israeli
> nationals from prosecution could be used by Saddam Hussein to avoid
> prosecution.
>
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal of the
first order; he is, for one thing, the only leader alive to have commanded
the use of chemical weapons against civilian women and children.
>
> 4) If we were to accept the arguments which the US (and Joe Dees
> acting as dubya's second poodle) have attempted to use against Iraq as
> having any validity, they could easily be used to justify any action
> against any other nation (in contravention of the Grand Charter). As
> such, unless it can be shown that politicians with no oversight have
> miraculously become trustworthy, the world will become a more
> dangerous place. I am quite sure this will not be good for the US -
> which currently appears to have the best politicians that money can
> buy.
>
The Saddam regime possesses or is close to possessing two key
prerequisites that other nations do not simultaneously possess: motive
and opportunity. He is driven by hatred and a personal sense of fateful
grandeur, and he is actively developing the means to indelibly etch his
name in the annals of history forevermore. We simply cannot allow him
to achieve such a cataclysmic ambition.
>
> Summation
>
> Yes the US has suffered grievous harms. Not least those self-imposed
> and most certainly many triggered by the perception held of her by
> much of the remainder of the world. While it is true that not all of
> that perspective is accurate, much of it is. For example, the US has
> repeatedly proven herself an untrustworthy aid source, a very
> unreliable partner and a very ill-behaved debtor. And this invites
> retribution from the innumerable people and groups who perceive
> themselves as having been harmed or prejudiced by her actions. I would
> argue that this is a far more visible, insidious and much greater
> danger than those which the action which Joe Dees advocates is
> intended to forefend.
>
And you would argue in biased error. The US, or any other country, is
not perfect, or even in principle perfectible, but it has been the greatest
force for freedom, security and prosperity in the world for a long, long
time. The fact that its actions have not always been perfect (an
unrealizable ideal, anyway) is no reason for it to allow an implacable,
hate-filled and miscalculation-prone despot to develop the nuclear
means to do it massive harm. In fact, the two are not even related - in
other words, it does not follow.
>
> For these reasons and all those itemized above, ranging from the
> purely pragmatic to the preeminent legal, it is clear that serious
> issues remain to be addressed within the United States, and in her
> relationships with other nations, before attempting to deal with one
> of many tin-pot dictators - including if he is in that category, or
> even in some more "special class", with Saddam Hussein.
>
There is scant time to waste before dealing with Saddam becomes
incalculably more costly than it presently is. We wasted such time with
Bin Laden, with disastrous results; having painfully learned that lesson
at the cost of 3000 lives, we will not again repeat such a horrific
mistake.
>
> It should also be clear that precipitate action is not in the best
> interests of the United States and that those advocating such actions,
> while they may imagine that they have her best interests at heart are
> doing her no favors.
>
Those who are doing the US no favors are those who counsel doing
nothing while Saddam Hussein gains nuclear capability.
>
> Hermit
>
> [hr]Full Copyright Statement
> Copyright (C) The Church of Virus (2002). All Rights Reserved.
> http://www.churchofvirus.com
>
> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
> others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
> or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
> distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
> provided that this Copyright Notice is included as an inseparable
> component of all such copies and derivative works, and that the terms
> of this copyright statement shall be binding on derivative works.
> However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as
> by removing the copyright notice or references to the Church of Virus,
> except as needed for the purpose of developing further Church of Virus
> documents or as required to translate it into languages other than
> English, in which case the procedures for copyrights defined by the
> Church of Virus from time to time must be followed. The limited
> permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the
> Church of Virus or its successors or assigns. This document and the
> information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and the
> Church of Virus disclaims all warranties, express or implied,
> including but not limited to any warranty that the use of the
> information herein will not infringe any rights or any implied
> warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. You
> are specifically warned that study of documents produced by the Church
> of Virus may lead to a permanent change in your attitudes or behavior
> as a result of exposure to the memeplexii and component memes embedded
> in such documents.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26568>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:58 MDT