Pakistan problems

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Hiya Will,

"But I don't really see anything changing as long as you have a quasi-Texan who is in the pockets of the oil barons in charge. "

Have you got your asbestos y-fronts ready?
hehe....

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[jfields 0]

Quote

Despite the smileys, I can smell the ozone in the air. The americans should be waking up just about now...

Yeah! Us damned Americans.
The county where I live (Montgomery County, Maryland, currently known as Sniperville), has an additional tax on gasoline. It wouldn't really bother me if they raised it substantially, as long as the proceeds went toward something decent. Driving a mammoth vehicle with a gas-guzzling engine should cost more. They use more of our resources, put more wear on roads and have more potential for injuring others when they get in accidents. I think people should be able to buy them, but I have no objection to some form of gradual surcharge (via fuel price) being imposed on ownership. On the other side of the equation, tax breaks or something could be added (or raised) to hybrids, electrics, etc.

My wife and I both drive 4-cylinder cars. We get pretty good gas mileage, so because of our choices, a gas tax increase wouldn't be particularly burdensome. However, it would irritate me if it ended up funding a golf course or stadium. They could use it for schools, libraries or recycling and have better long-term results. Or we could use the funds to ship all of our toxic waste to someplace silly, like, say, Finland.

[blewaway5 0]

Okay, here comes my two cents on this whole thing. If we do end up in a war with Iraq it won't be so we can drive bigger cars. It won't be because of the threat of "weapons of mass destruction." I don't even think it'll be over oil. I think it'll be over funky little things called memes. (Stick with me here.)

What's a meme? Memes are a lot like genes. The experts all say that a gene's number one goal is to make more of itself than the other genes. They say that's why we're here, our genetic code was tougher than the other genetic codes so humanity won out in the game of evolution. Well, memes behave the same way, except instead of being physical things, like genes, they are ideas. So basically a meme is an idea that has the goal of spreading itself farther and faster than the other memes so that it is the dominant one that will last when the weaker ones die off.

This particular conflict between America/the West and the Iraq/the Middle East is one big mess of conflicting memes. Maybe it is a case of their ideas, their way of life, vs. ours. Apparently we think theirs has gotten too strong and has become a threat to ours.

Like I said, just my two cents, and I hope you all followed that better than I actually explained it

Truman Sparks for President

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

(This is why I majored in engineering. Pi will always be 3.14159... no mater where you are in the world. There's no getting squishy on that.)

Not in Indiana.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Speedracer: Fusion, at least is 50 years away and probably more like 100.

Always has been, always will be

Quote

What you will be seeing in the next 10 years is a device called a fuel cell, come into wide spread use. A fuel cell produces electricity by chemically breaking apart hydrogen atoms. To learn more go to this page: http://www.fuelcells.org


Automobile manufacters are racing to get a fuel cell powered vehicle to market. The first should hit the show rooms by 2004 maybe as early as 2003. Fuel cells are also being developed for consumer electronics, such has portable phones and laptops.

Yes, you will be driving around in a hydrogen powered automobile in the near future...

What what about the Hindenburg?!!!!

The dispel a popular MYTH, the Hindenburg tragedy would have happened even if the zepplin's flight envelopes where filled with helium (or water for that matter.) By the time the hydrogen was released and burned, the zepplin was already lost. You see, the Hindenburg was painted with a mixture that was based on aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide is the main ingredient for the propellant in the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle. Obviously this substance is volitile and the Hindenburg was painted with it. The covering caught fire, not the flight envelopes.

Negative. The SRBs are primarily ammonium perchlorate held together with a synthetic rubber binder, with a small amount of aluminum METAL powder, not aluminum oxide. And aluminum oxide is far from volatile, its melting point is 2054 degrees C !

Quote

Treated with respect and care, hydrogen can be a safe, plentiful and extremely clean energy source.

Dave

A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.

William Safire's rules of writing...?

[billvon 2,400]

>This particular conflict between America/the West and the Iraq/the
> Middle East is one big mess of conflicting memes. Maybe it is a case
> of their ideas, their way of life, vs. ours. Apparently we think theirs
> has gotten too strong and has become a threat to ours.

Well, if you use the widest possible interpretation of memes (i.e. that any action is a result of several of them) then I'd agree, but I think it's not that helpful a way to look at the problem.

I don't think there's any one reason we're going after Iraq. The top ones that come to mind are:

-fear of more terrorist attacks
-desire to "do something! anything! even if it's wrong!"
-liberation of the opressed masses
-security of our oil supply
-desire to support a popular platform

The question then becomes a) are those purposes worth going to war over (and killing tens of thousands) and b) will they accomplish their goals.

If we _could_ somehow stop terrorism by invading Iraq, it would probably be worth it. Unfortunately, going after Iraq almost certainly will do little to stop terrorism - indeed, a case could be made that it will increase terrorism by making a lot of arabs hate the US very intensely.

We certainly have a desire to "do something! anything!" I have heard no end of people saying "but we've got to do something!" and invading another country is certainly something. Invading Iraq would accomplish the goal of making us feel better; I don't think a sense of accomplishment is sufficient cause to go to war.

I can't take the "liberate the masses" thing seriously. We claim that whenever it's convenient. When it's not convenient we don't. Heck, we helped Hussein out with military intelligence as he was gassing his own citizens.

Invading Iraq is, without question, a key to control of Middle Eastern oil. Their proven reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's. Again, I don't think it's worth a war - indeed, spending the same money on energy efficiency would do far more to make us independent of foreign oil, and no americans would die in the process.

Everybody wants to support a popular platform, and thus most politicians will support a war. I think that very idea is wrong - we do not elect representatives to make popular decisions, we elect them to make the right decisions. We are not a true democracy, and one of the advantages of _not_ being a true democracy is that cooler heads can prevail in times of national crisis. I hope that happens in this case.

[blewaway5 0]

I see what you're saying, and to be truthful, I have to pretty much agree. My little soap box speech on memes was a couple of things, limited definitely being one of them, but I think it may have stemmed from the same position as your thoughts. The idea of full blown war with Iraq seems to me a little preposterous. The argument for memes being a cause is me grasping for a reason that makes a little sense, but really memes are kind of debatable in and of themselves. I mean, how do you prove that an idea is actively trying to spread itself? I think it is an argument that makes sense (the one for the existence of memes), but I may have been stretching a bit to use them as an argument.

Anyway, if we do end up attacking Iraq I think you listed what I would consider the top several reasons. I think I'd probably put oil and the desire of the masses here to do something as the top two reasons, and nowadays I'm not sure which one would be number one. At the bottom of it all, though, I DO keep hearing a lot of reasons that I think are just stroking the collective cock of American society. I mean, one, I agree with you that there is no way attacking and defeating Iraq will reduce terrorism, and also, as far as liberating the masses in Iraq goes, we have to put someone in the place of Saddam if we kill him. The only people I've heard about in Iraq that are strong enough to take his place aren't exactly a step up. I guess this slightly rambling post is simply me saying I think we should think a lot harder before we go after Iraq.

Oh, and one interesting thing that's only slightly related, did you know that in the mid east this is a true fact: for every one US soldier there are 5 "military contractors" which the government uses to do things the government can't legally do. Yep, we've got mercs fighting for us.

Truman Sparks for President

[billvon 2,400]

>I think there are a SHITLOAD of American and British pilots that
> would disagree with you.

How many missions over Iraq have we flown? How many bombs have we dropped? And how many of our planes have been shot down?

Against us, they are defenseless. We can bomb them at will; they can't strike back. I have no doubt they will get in the occasional lucky shot, but it will be luck and not evidence of any sort of significant defense.

[billvon 2,400]

>Occupying Iraq will afford the West a real opportunity to
> constructively engage Islamic states and diminish the power of
> potential launching pads of mass destruction against the U.S. such
> as Iran and Syria.

I think that would work about as well as an Arab invasion of Nova Scotia to get the US to "constructively engage" with the Arab world.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

At last count, a very anti-American (and pro-Taliban) party has won in at least one of four provinces in Pakistan.

The party ran on the need to expel foreign forces from Pakistani soil which is a basic tenent of the Wahabi Sunni religion. This not necessarily anti-American. It is against Musharraf's policy of allowing foreign troops into Pakistan. The province you talk about being pro-Taliban was pro-Taliban before 9/11 and contributed to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the early 90's. It is really no great surprise.

Quote

It's one thing to invade Iraq, an essentially defenseless country.

Iraq still has the 6th or 7th largest military in the world. They are not by anyone's definition 'defenseless'.

Quote

It's quite another to invade a country that has both ICBM's and nuclear weapons.

Pakistan has no ICBM's. They are considered a regional threat, not a global power.

Quote

especially since we've sold them half a billion dollars worth of weapons, including Harpoon anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles.

I think you are mixing this up with a recent sale of Harpoon missiles to Oman not Pakistan. We have sold Pakistan equipment to help them better patrol their border with Afghanistan like Apaches and electronics equipment.

Quote

As I've said before, we're going to have to learn diplomacy at some point.

Aaaah, yes, let's talk to Iraq about our problems some more. It's gotten us so very far in the last decade hasn't it. And the UN has been really helpful too. With Russia, China, and France economically tied to Iraq and Iraq owing them huge sums of money I'm sure they will support all of our initiatives just like they have in the past.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Pakistan has no ICBM's. They are considered a regional threat, not
>a global power.

Sorry, terminology error. IRBM's, 1000 mile range.

>I think you are mixing this up with a recent sale of Harpoon missiles
> to Oman not Pakistan.

From CNN:

"The U.S. government has authorized the sale of about $400 million in military equipment to Pakistan, including aircraft and Harpoon missiles, Human Rights Watch said. So far, Washington hasn't joined in the criticism of Pakistan's elections." (10/11/02)

>>As I've said before, we're going to have to learn diplomacy at some point.

>Aaaah, yes, let's talk to Iraq about our problems some more. It's
> gotten us so very far in the last decade hasn't it. And the UN has
> been really helpful too.

Those sanctions were to prevent Saddam from building nuclear weapons and reducing his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Has he developed any nuclear weapons? Has he used his chemical or biological weapons against a foreign country? Given all that, in what way has our lack of invasion to this point failed?

At best he is succeeding at being a pain in the ass. I think every country has that right - we certainly seem to.

>With Russia, China, and France economically tied to Iraq and Iraq
> owing them huge sums of money I'm sure they will support all of
> our initiatives just like they have in the past.

I think they will, if we bother to discuss it with them and our plan is reasonable. I think all of them would be against the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, for example, even if we use the rationale (similar to what we used in World War II) that their use would save countless american lives.

Our best next step is to go to the UN and present what we want to do. It will no doubt be debated. We may actually have to alter our plan - our current proposal allows us to kidnap any Iraqi citizen we choose and hold him or her indefinitely during inspections, and other countries might balk at that due to the bad precedent it sets.

Once we agree on a plan, we help the UN implement it. It will no doubt involve tougher inspections, and will likely involve backing up the inspections with force. If we can see what we need to see without killing anyone, both sides win. If Hussein resists (which is likely) then we have a war on our hands. But that war will come because he attacked UN inspectors, not because the US decided to invade yet another Middle Eastern country. And that difference, while not very significant in terms of outcome, will be a huge difference to other countries.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

"The U.S. government has authorized the sale of about $400 million in military equipment to Pakistan, including aircraft and Harpoon missiles, Human Rights Watch said. So far, Washington hasn't joined in the criticism of Pakistan's elections."

The sources I read mentioned helicopters and electronics equipment to patrol the border. The sources were from the US government not Human Rights Watch.

Quote

Those sanctions were to prevent Saddam from building nuclear weapons and reducing his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Has he developed any nuclear weapons? Has he used his chemical or biological weapons against a foreign country?

No not a foreign country but he used them against the Kurds. The Northern no-fly zone is what is preventing further chemical attacks against the Kurds.

Quote

Has he developed any nuclear weapons?

That is a good question. It is one that the weapons inspectors are supposed to answer. Satellite imagery seems to indicate that he is well on his way to developing them. If Hussein will comply completely with the plan set up after the Gulf War we can find out, but he never has.

Quote

Our best next step is to go to the UN and present what we want to do.

That is being done and they can't agree on anything.

Quote

But that war will come because he attacked UN inspectors

Are you suggesting that we send in a group of men to be attacked by Iraq so that we can justify a war? Are you volunteering for this mission? Do we have to let him attack us in order to be justified? If we needlessly throw away a few lives away in order to prove that Hussein is aggressive, not willing to cooperate, and a psychopath (things we already know) will that make everyone feel better about going to war with them? Maybe the French will volunteer for this mission and we can kill two birds with one stone.

Quote

our current proposal allows us to kidnap any Iraqi citizen we choose and hold him or her indefinitely during inspections, and other countries might balk at that due to the bad precedent it sets.

It absolutely does not allow us to "kidnap" anyone. We can detain people while the inspection is occuring. If you'll remember how the inspectors were harrassed and interfered with during the last inspections you will understand why this is in the proposal.

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

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

Could it be that our president & his supporters are oil men, and have a vested interest in keeping thingsasthey are?

Doh!

[billvon 2,400]

>No not a foreign country but he used them against the Kurds. The
> Northern no-fly zone is what is preventing further chemical attacks
> against the Kurds.

While I agree, it is odd that we supported him to the tune of millions of dollars of cash while he was gassing the kurds, and now bomb him to prevent him from doing the same. Given that I can't take our 'moral imperative' to save the helpless Kurds very seriously.

>If Hussein will comply completely with the plan set up after the Gulf
> War we can find out, but he never has.

Agreed, although I think we will need to alter them slightly (allow greater inspections of 'palace' areas.)

>Are you suggesting that we send in a group of men to be attacked
> by Iraq so that we can justify a war?

No; I am suggesting they go in and do their job, which is to see if he has removed his weapons of mass destruction. If they do so, and he has, then we feel safer and no Arabs (or Americans) are killed. Solving the situation in such a manner is the best possible outcome.

While doing so, they may be attacked. We should provide sufficient defenses to ensure their safety. There is, of course, a chance they will get killed anyway. Every cop in the US faces the same decision - should I go in to a dangerous part of town where they hate cops so I can do my job? Even if I know I might get shot? Most cops answer yes to that question. Inspectors will face the same sort of decision. I regard the ones who do decide to go as the best kind of heroes - people willing to risk their lives not to kill others, but for the best possible chance at peace.


>>our current proposal allows us to kidnap any Iraqi citizen we choose
>> and hold him or her indefinitely during inspections, and other
>> countries might balk at that due to the bad precedent it sets.

>It absolutely does not allow us to "kidnap" anyone.

From LATimes:

"The U.S. draft goes further, insisting that inspectors may take people and their families out of the country for interviews, which Iraqi officials view as an invitation to defect."

Taking people and their families out of a country for an indeterminite time for 'questioning' (which is the same reason given for the indefinite detentions of US citizens and legal aliens with terrorist connections) is about as close to kidnapping as you can come. What would you call indefinite removal of people and their families from the US by, say, China?