0
billvon

Odd things in the news

Recommended Posts

First odd thing comes from Pakistan. Apparently there was some shooting by the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and a US aircraft then dropped a bomb on some Pakistani border guards who were hiding in a school.

Aren't they our allies?

Second odd thing is Bush's stand on North Korea.

Capsule summary of North Korea:
-Began a war that killed 50,000 americans and millions of civilians
-North Korea spurned (and indeed tried to destroy) UN efforts at reunification
-War was never 'won', there was a cease-fire
-US sells reactors to Korea in an attempt to get them to stop developing WMD's
-North Korea kicks UN inspectors out, tells the world they are going to build WMD's, and violates old treaties and agreements concerning weapons manufacture

Iraq:
-Began a war that killed around 200 americans and thousands of civilians
-War is not 'won' but Iraq is driven back, and is placed under UN sanctions
-US sells chemical, biological and nuclear weapons parts to Iraq to make money
-Iraq spurns sanctions for a while, then agrees to inspections when threatened
-Iraq complies with UN directives on documenting weapons while complaining bitterly about the US

Anyway, I find it fascinating that, of the two countries above, we are threatening war with Iraq and saying over and over that diplomacy is the way to go with North Korea. Bush keeps saying that Iraq has spurned the UN for 11 years; North Korea has spurned it for 50.

When asked about this, he said "It's important to remember that Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon." If that's the primary reason, North Korea is about to have dozens - and IRBM's that would make them a threat to many neighboring countries. And as Pakistan has been selling them ICBM techonolgy, they will soon be a threat to us as well.

I heard a chilling reason for going to war with Iraq yesterday, an economic one. An attack by Iraq, said Bush, could cripple our economy (not kill thousands, or cause a war, but cripple our economy) and therefore we can spend nearly a hundred billion on a war with Iraq. He seems to be getting closer to an economic justification for war, and if that's the case, there is no better place to go to war - they have the world's second largest oil reserves.

I always thought that oil played a part in any decision to go to war in the middle east, but up until recently, I thought it was a minor part. Now I'm not so sure. If war is necessary to keep our economy strong, surely a war for cheap oil is as easy to justify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

He seems to be getting closer to an economic justification for war, and if that's the case, there is no better place to go to war - they have the world's second largest oil reserves.

Also, your administration is drawing attention away from the internal crisis underway ...



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US gets less than 10% of its oil from Middle-Eastern countries. Europe is most dependent on Middle-eastern oil supply. If OPEC cuts production, the long term ripple effect is an increase in demand (therefore price) on US oil.

Any US interest in middle-east oil is to maintain a supply of oil for Europe and preserve our supply for ourselves. Europe should be kicking in a bit more for a war in Iraq.

I think the WMD argument is a red-herring. We can goto war w/ Iraq because they have no nuclear super-power friends. North Korea has China. Therefore diplomacy is called for. Bush is just waiting for Saddam to give him a clear cause he can sell to the american public and the UN for a war.

Ken
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

North Korea has China. Therefore diplomacy is called for




I don't think that at all. I think it's because diplomacy has been effective in the past therefor we assume it will be in the future. Diplomacy has had LITTLE effect where Iraq is concerned so we have no expectations of it working in the future. Also where N Korea and China are concerned I think we see China as much more of an ally than an adversary. 50 years ago we had NO diplomatic ties with China. We had no other ties either. Today.....China and the US enjoy diplomatic as well as extremely important economic ones. I don't think China has near the "Fear" factor that they had 50 years ago either. Sure, we disagree on LOTS of things......but I don't think anyone believes one is a serious threat to the other. N Korea is pennyless, desperate, and starving. They only have one way to improve there condition. Blackmail the US and S Korea into giving them aid. If they weren't stubborn communist bastards I might even feel sorry for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding to what Clay said, there are no new UN resolutions (AFAIK) concerning North Korea yet. What the US has done by threatening Iraq could be considered as manipulating the otherwise sluggish UN to action. Iraq would build a nuke to either sell it or use it. North Korea seems to be building a nuke to boost it's own internal morale and as an intimidation technique. If I were Bush I wouldn't start a war with Korea just yet over that.

Of course I were Bush I wouldn't start a war at all. But what has happened is looking so much like manipulation now that I'm not sure what to think.

On a side note, check out a book by Bob Woodward called Bush at War. I found it an interesting read. It's somewhat apologetic, but very interesting anyway.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>On a side note, check out a book by Bob Woodward called Bush at
> War. I found it an interesting read. It's somewhat apologetic, but
> very interesting anyway.

Yeah, I have that book. It's next on my list.

>Iraq would build a nuke to either sell it or use it.

Why would they do that? Saddam is a smart guy, and he would know that a nuclear weapon's best usage is to intimidate other countries. He knows that, if he ever used it, he would lose the support of every islamic country out there (and he has a lot of support there right now.) He also knows that if he used it against us we would respond in kind, and given that even the threat of conventional force is enough to make him open his palaces to inspections, he is not going to risk that.

>Adding to what Clay said, there are no new UN resolutions (AFAIK)
>concerning North Korea yet.

Well, right, but they have violated some old ones. As they just announced they were withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty a few days ago, the UN hasn't had time to do anything yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Any US interest in middle-east oil is to maintain a supply of oil for
>Europe and preserve our supply for ourselves.

I agree. Up until a few days ago I thought it was a minor interest compared to the other issues, but I think it's a little more significant now.

>Europe should be kicking in a bit more for a war in Iraq.

They are less dependent on oil than we are. The primary reason is that most governments in europe tax fuel like crazy, and thus you have very efficient vehicles and homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, right, but they have violated some old ones




As they have sporadically over the past 50 years....ever hear the story of the US soldiers being hacked to death with machetes and axes in the DMZ? I think that was during the 80's. Maybe 70's....my memory is hazy on the history. I just remember that they were cutting down a tree that was blocking their view of a NK guard tower. We basically did nothing other than a lot of saber rattling in response. I think that sucks...and it made me ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Aren't they our allies?


Yes, when they are not busy supporting Bin Laden or giving away nuclear technology to North Korea.
Maybe your government should sell them more F-16 fighters or something to keep them loyal. I have heard that Ollie North is good at such things.

War is usually an astronomically expensive business, so how would a war on Iraq be good for the economy?
---
PCSS #10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>War is usually an astronomically expensive business, so how would a war on Iraq be good for the economy?

Some one has to build replacement bombs and missles to keep the stockplies high. If a ship gets damaged someone gets paid to fix it.

One of my parents friends runs a trucking business. He just bid on contracts to haul supplies across the county to navy bases. Some trucking company is about to get about a $350000 contract to haul canvas, cots, tents and water bottles from storage to the coast.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't know Bush liked Keynesian economics...

If a war is just a way of throwing money into the economy, isn't there more effective ways of doing that without putting the life of your soldiers at risk and increasing the terrorist activity against the homeland?
---
PCSS #10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>War is usually an astronomically expensive business, so how would a
> war on Iraq be good for the economy?

Wars require higher taxes, and those higher taxes are generally spent on US weapons manufacturers and the like. Moving more money like that generally helps the economy. In any case, his economic justification seemed more along the lines of "if Iraq attacked the US it would cost us billions in terms of destruction of our economy." I don't really buy that, as N Korea is now a much bigger threat. (Remember during his campaign, when he said he wanted to develop a missile defense system so that we could stop attacks by countries like North Korea?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yeah, I have that book. It's next on my list.


Also a fascinating read is The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington.

Quote

Why would they do that? Saddam is a smart guy, and he would know that a nuclear weapon's best usage is to intimidate other countries. He knows that, if he ever used it, he would lose the support of every islamic country out there (and he has a lot of support there right now.) He also knows that if he used it against us we would respond in kind, and given that even the threat of conventional force is enough to make him open his palaces to inspections, he is not going to risk that.



Perhaps, but what makes me worried is that he will sell one or two to Al Qaeda or whatever, probably at the drop of a hat. North Korea is, at least, somewhat more isolated from these terror networks and has less of a chance and less of a mechanism to sell something like this. I don't think anyone here is really qualified to judge on this though, not enough info.

Quote

Well, right, but they have violated some old ones. As they just announced they were withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty a few days ago, the UN hasn't had time to do anything yet.



True. Also, the US is probably a little apprehensive in approaching that entire communist-like region. After the remarkable brutality demonstrated by the North Koreans towards the west (case in point is what Clay said), I'm not surprised.

Frankly, if war can be avoided, it should be. Iraq is being given a chance to comply. The pressure may be somewhat unreasonable, but these are UN resolutions. Diplomacy is being given a chance in North Korea first, as well. I'd prefer this course of action over an attack on NK if I was a US citizen.

Interesting thought: let's say the west ends up attacking Iraq, removing Hussein from power and establishing some kind of a democracy there, for whatever reason. The oil is now controlled by the vultures. But the Iraqi people are living much better now. Has Justice been served?

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

North Korea is, at least, somewhat more isolated from these terror networks and has less of a chance and less of a mechanism to sell something like this




Not really...they have been one of the hold outs of State Sponsored terrorism. It has slacked off some in recent years but still continues. They are also one of the world's worst proliferaters of missle technology. Why would we think they would take any differen't approach with WMD materials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Perhaps, but what makes me worried is that he will sell one or two to
> Al Qaeda or whatever, probably at the drop of a hat.

That is, of course, an option, but our best estimates put him 2-5 years from being able to build a bomb at all. Plus he has to build many more than one if he wants to both use them as a barganing chip _and_ make money from selling them. He may be a future threat in this regard; he is not now.

>North Korea is, at least, somewhat more isolated from these terror
> networks and has less of a chance and less of a mechanism to sell
> something like this.

?? Bush himself named them to the axis of terror and suggested they supported terrorism. They already _have_ a few nukes. Having 2 bombs, and building 10 more, means you have bombs to spare to sell to terrorists.

>Interesting thought: let's say the west ends up attacking Iraq,
> removing Hussein from power and establishing some kind of a
> democracy there, for whatever reason. The oil is now controlled by
> the vultures. But the Iraqi people are living much better now. Has
> Justice been served?

"the Iraqi people living much better" is a pretty far stretch. Under who? A Kurdish warlord? Hussein's son? (who is much, much worse than he is) An oil company congolmerate?

For how the Iraqis will live, take a look at how the Afghanis live now. For most of them, there hasn't been much change - most areas of Afghanistan are still ruled by local warlords. Sure, you need 3 men instead of 1 to testify against a woman accused of adultery before you can stone her to death, but for the most part, the Afghanis haven't seen much change.

In any case, justice generally contains the premise that the ends do not justify the means. If we arrested 20 Venezuelan terrorists, and had good information that they were guilty, then we might consider a trial and subsequent execution justice. If an Iraqi warplane flew over the prison (say, in Virginia) and bombed it, I don't think the general public would think justice had been done - even if the result is the same (i.e. they're all dead.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

-Iraq spurns sanctions for a while, then agrees to inspections when threatened
-Iraq complies with UN directives on documenting weapons while complaining bitterly about the US

Anyway, I find it fascinating that, of the two countries above, we are threatening war with Iraq and saying over and over that diplomacy is the way to go with North Korea.



Exactly. "Iraq spurns sanctions for a while, then agrees to inspections when threatened " This is why. The UN tried diplomacy for years. It didn't work. Threats worked.

Diplomacy? - 1969 - Iraq signs nuke non-proliferation treaty. Then, in 1976, the Osiraq "research" reactor, was purchased from France. It was unusually large and was therefore capable of irradiating uranium specimens to produce significant quantities of plutonium. Diplomacy and agreements failed.

I think that if you are sitting on the oil reserves that Iraq is sitting on, you don't need nuclear power, do you? No peaceful need for nukes there.

In 1981, Israeli jets hammered the Osiraq facility. Iraqi diplomats state that there is no Iraqi nuke program. Then Iraq changed to uranium instead of plutonium because they could enrich it without easily traceable foreign purchases.

The nuke program was successfully hidden from the IAEA inspection teams until it was revealed by an Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected to U.S. forces after the war.

Why use threat of war instead of diplomacy? Diplomacy has proved worse than useless. It is used to stall the UN while their plans go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.

"U.S. military officials deny reports that the United States bombed a Pakistani border unit."

"A Pentagon official said Pakistani forces were warned extensively before a U.S. plane dropped a 500-pound bomb on the building."

So the argument is now that they really bombed an Afghanistan building, where the guy was holed up? If so, they must have had pretty bad aim, as the Pakistanis seem to have arrested him afterwards, presumably alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is, of course, an option, but our best estimates put him 2-5 years from being able to build a bomb at all. Plus he has to build many more than one if he wants to both use them as a barganing chip _and_ make money from selling them. He may be a future threat in this regard; he is not now.



Perhaps it is better to make sure that he will not now, before it is too late? This does not mean war, just enforcing resolutions. Tough call, glad I'm not the one making it.

Quote

Bush himself named them to the axis of terror and suggested they supported terrorism. They already _have_ a few nukes. Having 2 bombs, and building 10 more, means you have bombs to spare to sell to terrorists.



I meant that perhaps there is secret information that implies that NK is not a problem in the regard of dissemination of nukes. I just don't know, I was just voicing it as a possibility. It all seems like a very deep bog.

Quote

"the Iraqi people living much better" is a pretty far stretch. Under who? A Kurdish warlord? Hussein's son? (who is much, much worse than he is) An oil company congolmerate?

For how the Iraqis will live, take a look at how the Afghanis live now. For most of them, there hasn't been much change - most areas of Afghanistan are still ruled by local warlords. Sure, you need 3 men instead of 1 to testify against a woman accused of adultery before you can stone her to death, but for the most part, the Afghanis haven't seen much change.



I meant it to be a hypothetical situation. It is not very likely from past performance of the nations involved. Some people may say that we have shown Afghanistan the door, but they did not walk through it. My opinion is leaning towards your view. Where is the promised rebuilding of Kabul?

Quote

In any case, justice generally contains the premise that the ends do not justify the means. If we arrested 20 Venezuelan terrorists, and had good information that they were guilty, then we might consider a trial and subsequent execution justice. If an Iraqi warplane flew over the prison (say, in Virginia) and bombed it, I don't think the general public would think justice had been done - even if the result is the same (i.e. they're all dead.)


The public probably would not even consider the question of justice being done, they would be far more concerned about the warplane flying over home turf.

Still, if (and it's a big if) this coalition invades Baghdad and institutes a democracy there, in 200 years the exact reasons for this may not be important.

This is not my opinion. I do not believe that the end justifies the means. But I find this to be an interesting case where the distinction is not black and white, at least to me.

-- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo
Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So the argument is now that they really bombed an Afghanistan building, where the guy was holed up? If so, they must have had pretty bad aim, as the Pakistanis seem to have arrested him afterwards, presumably alive




Bill....I can tell you from experience that even the people on the ground there don't know everything that happened. Just some things I might suspect are.....they say the "Warned the Pakistani forces extensively." My guess= Some Pakistani troops were wounded in the strike. However...they weren't the target. Yeah...they captured the guy...if he was inside the building nothing says that he had to have been killed. I know two people that were standing about 35 meters from a 500Lb impact site. In the OPEN desert. One is dead.....the other was wounded by shrapnel but suffered NO life threatening injuries. Shrapnel is a funny thing like that. Bad Aim? That 500Lb that killed Jay was "supposed" to be dropped 9 KM North of where it landed. I have personally given "2 Clicks North of your last bombs" to F-16's. Some of those guys just suck.....[:/]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I can tell you from experience that even the people on the ground
> there don't know everything that happened.

That's certainly true in this case. Tyler, the official US military spokesperson, called the aircraft a Harrier, but Pentagon officials called it an F-16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can tell you from experience that even the people on the ground there don't know everything that happened



In combat NO ONE ever knows everything that happened. You don't understand how that is possible until you have been placed in charge of knowing everything that is happening. It is an impossible task.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with your assessment. War with iraq appears on both sides of your equation. You don't need war to spend money on upgrading or increasing stocks of weapons. IMNSHO spending money on defense industries has a limited monetary supply effect anyway, esp with the balanced-budget mindedness of the current political people. Running up taxes is anathema to these guys, so it's unlikely to me that tax - and - spend is part of their argument.

It is true that moving more money around in the economy can improve some situations, but this is called lowering the Fed Rate and is the job of the Federal Reserve, not the Chiefs of Staff / Rumsfeld / Bush. I understand that the Fed Rate has currently bottomed out, and that many economists expect the fed rate to stay unchanged or even increase this year. http://www.forbes.com/markets/currencies/newswire/2003/01/02/rtr835780.html

I don't think you need talk about money supply to explain why war with Iraq could be good for the economy in the long run...imagine if some of the money made from selling currently embargoed Iraqi oil to the world would be spent on American goods, like Britney Spears, GE warplane parts, cars, computers (after embargoes lifted, etc). Iraq right now is a huge untapped market that is untapped for political reasons. The argument goes that you would see a Pareto improvement by opening trade, and the only way Bush feels he can open trade is by replacing the current Iraqi gov't ... putting the war in there ruins the Pareto argument but Bush probably thinks it's a good idea anyway

Summary:
benefits:
increased demand for american goods
increased supply of raw materials for american industry (ie oil)
costs:
handful of american / westerners lives
war costs

Of course, this is just the economic side...there are big political issues going on here too. "Good for the economy" could just be some bogus spin by Bushie...

Nathaniel
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As they have sporadically over the past 50 years....ever hear the story of the US soldiers being hacked to death with machetes and axes in the DMZ? I think that was during the 80's. Maybe 70's....my memory is hazy on the history. I just remember that they were cutting down a tree that was blocking their view of a NK guard tower. We basically did nothing other than a lot of saber rattling in response. I think that sucks...and it made me ashamed.
_________________
it was the 1970's, I was in the Army then and remember that incident. You're right, we didn't do anything over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>handful of american / westerners lives

The last Gulf war directly took over 200 Allied lives, untold thousands of Iraqi and many allied are still feeling the effects in GWS. The cost of a single human life is a high price to pay for most things, for oil or to start the stalled ecconomy the cost is too high imho.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0