Should We Bomb Syria and Iran?

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:15:18 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

What are "super notes"? US currency?

Yep. The top end of counterfeit US currency, of such quality that they
could only be made by someone with the resources and cash of a country.

The new multicolor $20 bills are coming out in direct response to such
notes.

In that case, I don't think the Syrians are acting outside their
natural rights. The way I see it, every country has a right to
decide for itself what sorts of written material it shall be legal
to print in that country.

I expect the US govmt forges Syrian documents, from time to time.

If you think the Syrian govmt are in the wrong here, how would you
feel aboutr a govmty that makes it legal to counterfeit computer
encryption schemes -- presumably the principle is the same as
counterfeiting a currancy. If, for example, the EU passed a law
making it legal to circumvent DRM schemes to ensure interoperability
(e.g. so people don't have to pay over the odds for printer
cartridges or DVD players), do you think the USA would be acting
morally if it bombved Europe for doing this? The principle, as I see
it, is the same.

Or, if the Amerrican NSA cracked an encryption scheme used by a
Chinese bank, would China be within its rights to attack the USA?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Dav1936531" wrote in message
...

We (the US) have fallen into an extremely serious credibility trap laid
out by
Saddam.

Occam's razor. It is entirely superfluous to presuppose a prepared
trap by Saddam. This set of conditions would have occurred
regardless of his presence and fate. It is an entirely predictable
consequence of the larger political framework in the Middle East
and the conflicts in Iraqi society. For anything else to happen would
have been near-miraculous.

Indeed; if anybody set any kind of a "credibility trap" to anybody there in
Iraq, then the US admin. Why construct "information" about something for
which there was no firm evidence? Why not clearly and honestly say what it
was all about?

Remove a crazy dictator that was terrorizing everybody - including his
closest relatives, was responsible for three wars, for deaths of hundreds of
thousands (foremost Arabs and Iraqis), for disturbing the peace and
spreading the hatred, for disturbing prosperity and the development of the
whole region, and negative influence on the world economy, and somebody that
is responsible for Iraq - a prosperous country at the time he rose to
power - laying in ruins now. There couldn't have been a better "excuse" for
a war against it, and such an open "confession" couldn't have been misused
by the Arab media either.

In the way the whole matter was "constructed" the US admin damaged its own
reputation as first, and caused itself immense problems. What is that good
for I don't know.

Saddam is probably hiding in some basement; lying awake at night
wondering just when his few remaining followers will realize that
he is more a liability than an asset. In the interest of justice, it is
very
important to arrest him and bring him to court. But as far as security
is considered, it won't make much of a difference. Terrorists do not
need something to fight for, only something to fight against.

In fact - if still alive (which I doubt) - he's not even in "control" of
anything but 15-20 closest body-guards, and few poor people they terrorise
in order to ascertain his safety.

On the contrary, I'm convinced that since May this year Iraq is not any more
a battlefied between the US and British troops and the former Iraqi regime,
but a battlefield in the "War on Terror", where the matters of the "other
side" are massively run by the foreigners - not by Iraqis, and certainly not
by Saddam. Of course, parts of the former security system are still
functioning, and supporting the foreigners with hideouts, weapons, and
supplies. Due to the failure of the US military to really destroy this
system (they, of course, blew all there was on intel and security forces HQs
early during the waar, but started targeting the really operating and
functioning elements of the scurity system only at a much later stage during
the war, in the week before Baghdad fell), this is now therefore likely to
become a longer, costly and very bloody conflict, and the longer it takes
the more problems the USA are about to encounter there. Given the wrong
"excuse" used for starting this conflict, of course, the whole situation is
meanwhile seen by the public under more than a very bad light.

Worst of all, there are now two large battlefields where the fighting is
likely to continue for years: Afghanistan and Iraq. Given how overstretched
the US resources already now are, this is nothing like a pleasant situation,
especially due to the fact that additional emergencies elsewhere are likely
too.

But hell, as the situation in which the US admin has put itself by now is,
there is neitehr a solution for the actual backgrounds of the problems at
hand (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), nor can one put all the 3 millions of
"former" Ba'ath Party members in Iraq in a front of a wall and shoot them in
order to make it impossible they to support the foreign idiots that come to
Iraq - and so end at least the war there.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in message
news
Remove a crazy dictator that was terrorizing everybody - including his
closest relatives, was responsible for three wars, for deaths of
hundreds
of
thousands (foremost Arabs and Iraqis), for disturbing the peace and
spreading the hatred, for disturbing prosperity and the development of
the
whole region, and negative influence on the world economy, and somebody
that
is responsible for Iraq - a prosperous country at the time he rose to
power - laying in ruins now. There couldn't have been a better "excuse"
for
a war against it, and such an open "confession" couldn't have been
misused
by the Arab media either.

Any American president has to justify sending troops abroad and into
combat by referring to the defense of US interests. None of your points
above, except the vague "negative influence on the world economy",
matches that criterion. It is extremely difficult, borderline impossible,
for an US president to argue that he has to send troops abroad on a
moral crusade to save people from evil leaders who are oppressing
them. And for a /Republican/ president, to do so while he has declared
the "War on Terrorism", would be political suicide.

I must admit your commentary surprises me pretty much. Namely, exactly this
was very much possible in 1995 and 1999, just for example: there was no oil
nor WMDs on Kosovo and Serbia...

So, to keep it short, I completely disagree with the theory that "rethoric
about the evil Sadam" would have "not be enough" to get the USA involved
against Iraq. It functioned already several times and it would function once
again, and the US public was "conditioned" on the war with Iraq already
since 10 years, so many would rather expect this nonsence finally to find an
end.

And, I would always prefer it to the "theory of WMDs", which I can't 100%
support by available evidence.

Then, the fact is this: the US admin couldn't show 100% confirmed facts
about the WMDs either before or after the invasion of Iraq. If I'm to ask,
they'll sometimes even find the last remaining caches of the Iraqi WMDs -
so, in 10, 15, or 20 years. But, this will not matter any more. They don't
have them right now - when they need them the most. However, there was
plenty of evidence for Saddam's brutality: one could, just like in 1995, and
in 1999, have shown the photos and videos of these - of which there were
realy plenty. And, once in Iraq one could - just like this was done - have
also shown all the evidence for massacres and atrocities. THAT would have
also be a powerful card in the US hands (which was _never_ really played: in
fact, only very few networks have reported about all the mass graveyards
found there in Iraq so far etc.): in such case one could drag such people
like those from al-Jazeera and say, "we went in for this purpose, and we
found the purpose, you can take a nice and in-depth look..."

The only "unpleasant" remarks one would get in response to such
argumentation would be, "and, why don't we do it somewhere else too?", to
which one could then easily respond, "but we do", and show the evidence.

Not sure about that. Foreign muslim fighters are certainly there,
and those have guerilla warfare or urban terrorism experience
acquired in Afghanistan or Chechnia would have a natural leadership
of any Iraqi recruits, even if the latter have served in the regular army.

Emanuel, I've meanwhile had even a few chats with those that returned back
home - pretty desillusioned, btw. As one of them said - the guy originally
went to Iraq to "fight the US infidels and defend the Iraqi Arabs" - as soon
as they arrived, the local "Mukhbarat" (designating one of the Iraqi secret
services) operationals has put them under their command and were forcing
them to all the time declare they're "fighting for Saddam" etc. He did not
want to fight for Saddam but for Iraqis, so he disliked this, and was pretty
glad to suddenly find out there were "other Arabs fighting Americans" there
too. He joined them and remained with that group for the next few months
before returning back home - once he realized the matter is a lost one, as
not even the Iraqis wanted to support them...

But many Iraqis will regard the USA as the country that has starved
and bombed them regularly since 1991, has now invaded and
occupied the country, and is violating the rights of Arabs and
muslims at every step. I think there are sufficient Iraqi recruits
to keep these organisations running for a long time, even if they
are (and they can hardly be more) only a tiny fraction of the
population.

The "many Iraqis" here are foremost the Ba'athists: as said, one just can't
put all of 3 millions of them in front of a wall. Nevertheless, this does
not mean that there are "many recruits" there any more (to actively
participate in the fighting): on the contrary, from what I hear there are
hardly any.

As for the role of Ba'ath and security force remnants, they will be
there, but not in a dominating role; probably quite small because
discredited in the eyes of muslim radicals or Arab nationalists.
Looking at precedents, it is logical to assume that the Iraqi armed
opposition is hugely varied in its composition, with deep hostility
between different groups; if the USA would leave the country they
would at once start to fight among each other.

The role of the former security system is that it is/was so elaborate, so
huge, and so "secret", that most of it was still not dismantled. In fact,
the bases used right now to fight the US and other troops in Iraq were not
even touched by 13 years of bombardments. That means that there are still
plenty of weapons caches, safe houses, hidden supply depots etc., and that
there are still enough guides, which are being used to support the current
war of terror on the occupators. Regardless of them being completely
discredited in the eyes of the local population, this local population has
learned in the past 40 years not to take them lightly: consequently, they
can also always count with support due to sheer fear they cause.

And so, we're back on the "hearts & minds" topic: unless the Iraqis can be
ascertained that the the US troops will not left them alone to tackle with
their former butchers (something the USA so far COMPLETELY failed to make
clear to the Iraqi public) - which remind them every night that they are
still very much present - there will be no widespread open support for
foreign actions inside Iraq.

Then, the actual mistake of the White House's strategy in this one was that
it fought the IIIPGW the way it thought it should have fought the IIPGW,
and - as we've seen so many times in the past - this just can't function.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

Simon Robbins wrote in message
...

And your "what is necessary" will likely earn yourself and your
descendants
a hundred years of justifiable hatred and payback by people who
largely
couldn't give a damn at present. Any idea that the entire Muslim
world is
ready to pick up arms against America at the first chance is simply a
product of your Department of Homeland Insecurity. We're still
talking
about a tiny minority that view us all with anything more than a mild
suspicion.


Isn't 1% of 1.6 billion people is still larger than the Russian and
Chinese Armies. Unlike the coddled Europeans, I'm under no illusion
that it is possible to have the people with whom you are at war like
you. I see no benefit to listening to the people that always complain
as if their complaints could just as easily have been compliments were
the facts different. When the Arabs say they are shocked that the US
seems to favor Israel over them, when they launch car bombs every 30
minutes, I have to wonder why anyone listens to their hallucinations.

The Wahhabis/Salafis know this is a fight to the death, that won't
change simply because we hope it is not. When I see massive
demonstrations by "peaceful Muslims" protesting the hijacking of Islam,
I will reconsider my suspicion of all of them. When I see them respect
Christian human rights I might consider them civilized. When I see them
protest slavery in various Muslim states I might consider they have an
interest in justice and humane treatment. It matters not at all if
their dysfunctional condition is due to their religion, their ignorance,
their tribalism, or their delusion. When they use "civilians" to
attack, that's reason enough to consider their civilians as soldiers.
When they come after my country, I could care less if they are offended.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

Rob van Riel wrote in message
om...
"tscottme" wrote in message
...
perfect for them. Oh well they aren't living 500 years in the past
by
accident.

You do realise you're talking about a nation that is building its own
jet powered fighters, don't you. If that's their version of 1500 AD,
I'd really like to see how advanced they'll be when they catch up with
the rest of the world chronologically.


Too bad Iran is actively trying to get nukes and spreading terrorism
in
the meantime.

Good idea, trying to get their own nukes, as there are several nuclear
tipped nations making nasty threats against them. We'll talk about the
terrorism bit after you dig up some some reliable (that is, in this
case, not US government sponsored) evidence of that.


Maybe we can reach an agreement with the mullahs where
the Iranians only attack Europeans while Americans go back to
ignoring
the world.

I can't recall hearing any mullah screaming for my blood recently. Or
that of Americans, for that matter.
On the other hand, I've heard plenty of Americans screaming for
theirs. I'm sure there's a conclusion in those observations, but I'll
ignore it for now.

Rob

Do you know anyone that disputes Iranian support for Hizbollah? You
remember Hizbollah, the organization that had killed more Americans than
any other terrorist group prior to Sept 11.

Simply being ignorant of the rantings of the Iranian mullahs is not
exactly the same as they not making the threats.


--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

phil hunt wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:15:18 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

What are "super notes"? US currency?

Yep. The top end of counterfeit US currency, of such quality that
they
could only be made by someone with the resources and cash of a
country.

The new multicolor $20 bills are coming out in direct response to
such
notes.

In that case, I don't think the Syrians are acting outside their
natural rights. The way I see it, every country has a right to
decide for itself what sorts of written material it shall be legal
to print in that country.


Proving that you will excuse any action by non-Americans and criticize
any American action. You didn't know what super notes were but in a
couple of hours you've rationalized sophisticated counterfeiting. Thank
G-d they don't embrace bestiality, officially.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

Alan Minyard wrote in message
...

Condemning an entire race because of the misdeeds of a few is a recipe
for disaster.

Al Minyard

When they use civilians as soldiers, I consider their civilians as
soldiers. When their leaders push *all* Muslims to action, I suspect
all Muslims until proven loyal. If they think this unfair, they should
stop. When I see massive marches of "peaceful" Muslims taking back
their religion from the Wahhabis/Salafis I'll narrow my suspicions.
Many of the politically correct czars have no guilt in suspecting
Christians after a couple of anti-abortion murders strike, yet they
aren't sure that thousands dead from Islamists is reason to suspect
them.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

Alan Minyard wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:16:18 -0500, "tscottme"
wrote:

There are numerous examples of Israel pulling back or helping the
"palestinians" only to have that be taken as a sign of weakness and
increased terrorism followed. For Pete's sake the Israelis equipped
the
PA police, they pulled out of Lebanon behind UN mandated lines, left
the
West Bank until attacks forced them to return.

Israel is only further along the same path the US has just started on
fighting terrorism.

There already is a palestinian state, it's called Jordan. The
Hashemites should pick up their toys and return to the Arabian
peninsula.

Israel is not a proponent of peace. They, like the Palestinians, seek
the utter destruction of their "enemies". The settlements in
Palestinian territory illustrate this. "Let he who is without sin cast
the first stone".

Al Minyard

Is that why Israel left Lebanon, behind a UN approved border, equipped
the Palestinian Authority, due to Oslo, and fenced and remained out of
Gaza because they are seeking to destroy the people that murder them?
Israel offered a very large proportion of the land the "palestinians"
demanded and the response was not a counter-offer, not an argument, but
another war. Why the "palestinians" haven't been expelled to Jordan
where they belong is funny. Jordan is 70+ percent of Palestine, it's
populated by 60+ percent "palestinians" and the Hashemites are an
occupying Arabian tribe, yet they only want the land of the Jews. Look
at the map of Palestine that Arafat's group wants, it's all of the area,
except for Jordan, since Jordan kicked their ass and doesn't wilt to
charges of "bias".

You don't know what you are talking about and assume that issuing equal
blame for both sides makes you sound fair and impartial.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
Isn't 1% of 1.6 billion people is still larger than the Russian and
Chinese Armies.

1% would equate to 16 million Muslims craving the chance to pick up arms
against Americans. Where are they? 16 million people should be creating
hell on a much larger scale than we're seeing today if that were the case.

The Wahhabis/Salafis know this is a fight to the death, that won't
change simply because we hope it is not. When I see massive
demonstrations by "peaceful Muslims" protesting the hijacking of Islam,
I will reconsider my suspicion of all of them.

If an extremist Christian group started killing people, would you expect to
see massive demonstrations of conventional Christians protesting? If the
media and popular culture actively demonised all Christians because of the
extremist policies of a few would you expect them not to take offence? How
many people really ever protest anything? It's always going to be easier to
organise an anti-American/Abortion/War/Cabbage protest than an anti- one.
It's the nature of humanity. Those in the majority mainstream seem to feel
the cause is diluted enough not to bother.

When I see them respect
Christian human rights I might consider them civilized.

There are few Muslim countries where Christianity is not tolerated, and many
where they exist side by side. Ironically those with the extremist views
seem to be our closest allies.

When I see them
protest slavery in various Muslim states I might consider they have an
interest in justice and humane treatment.

There are plenty of places on the planet where justice and humane treatment
are severely lacking, and Islamic religion is a not a deciding factor. Some
we choose to go to war against, others we make favored trading partners.
When we start considering liberty and justice over commerce and dollars then
we can lecture on that one.

It matters not at all if
their dysfunctional condition is due to their religion, their ignorance,
their tribalism, or their delusion. When they use "civilians" to
attack, that's reason enough to consider their civilians as soldiers.
When they come after my country, I could care less if they are offended.

I spent occasional periods of my forces-brat childhood being told to remain
in the house while my father checked under the car before starting the
engine with the door open, yet never did I believe that all the Irish were
out to get us. Yet you use the term "they" to tar a billion people with the
sins of their worst.

Si

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:21 -0500, tscottme wrote:
phil hunt wrote in message
...

In that case, I don't think the Syrians are acting outside their
natural rights. The way I see it, every country has a right to
decide for itself what sorts of written material it shall be legal
to print in that country.

Proving that you will excuse any action by non-Americans and criticize
any American action.

I suggest you go back and read my post again, since you obviously
didn't understand it. I was making an argument that countries have a
right to do (within pretty broad limits) what they like in their own
countries; my argument applies equally to Syria, the USA, and every
other couintry in the world. Are you too stupid to understand that?
Or os it just that anything that you disagree with brings up the
automatic knee-jerk response, "Anit-American"?

You didn't know what super notes were but in a
couple of hours you've rationalized sophisticated counterfeiting.

Are you saying counterfeiting is inherently wrong, then?

Thank
G-d they don't embrace bestiality, officially.

If they did, it would be their own business. I'd have no problem
with a country making sex acts between humans and animals legal;
indeed in the country I live in, some such acts are legal.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).