SPORK: About 'peace' people being supporters of SH.
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:49:53 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of JS
> > No, only that costs were a relevant factor.
> i beg to differ. the only 'risk' you mentioned specifically was a
> financial one. and you turned it into a 'net' benefit by saying that
> be paid back -- with interest! -- by oil money. clearly, you see this
> "a" (if not "the") motivator.
The financial cost of the war has been much in the news.
I thought I'd made it clear that I regarded many other alleged costs as
benefits (humiliating the French, demonstrating the irrelevance of the
UN Security Council.
Nor did I say we would be paid back by oil money. I simply mentioned
the effects, which could have been argued to go the other way.
> pre-emptively striking against us?
The certainty of destruction?
> but you did!
No, I didn't. I said something else but you didn't understand it.
> > The other point is that the future can't be predicted with
> and yet you predict the likelihood of our success at 100%.
Depends on what we are talking about. You ought to pay better attention
to distinctions. The effect of a given individual in 20 years? That is
a hard one. The result of a military conflict between the US Army and
Saddam? That is an easy one.
> as they were in our favor in the vietnam war. as they were in the
> ussr's favor in the afghanistan war. as they were in britain's favor
> during the revolutionary war. etc etc etc.
If you want to talk about this you really ought to know something about
it first. To begin with you might note that the USSR failed in
Afghanistan while we succeeded with lightning speed. You might also
note the differences between effective external support, terrain, and
even the intention of waging decisive war.
> > You really ought to check your facts better. Saddam achieved power
> > 1979 concurrent with the fall of the Shah. From 1979 to 1990 is 11
> > years.
> sorry -- you're right. it was 30-odd years:
1990 - 1979 = 11. I'd say your math was slipping, but that would be
introducing facts not in evidence.
> > As for looking the other way for 12 years, that is a PRO war
> > of the UN.
> your words from a previous post which started this bit of this thread
> really should be more careful about what you trim!):
> > Mr. Bone was making the point that non-intervention did not make one
> > morally liable. I heavily sympathize with the point in the
> > Such a person isn't morally liable, _for the crime_. In concrete
> > personal terms I'd consider non-intervention to be an act of moral
> > cowardice at the very least.
> you see, we didn't just not intervene. we aided, abetted and profited
> from beforehand and *then* we didn't intervene.
At the behest of the UN, Russia, France, etc.
Again, that is a pro-War pro-US pro-Bush'43 argument.
> > Helping them keep out the USSR wasn't, morally, sufficient?
> clearly not.
Seems clearly sufficient to me. You did, of course, actually read the
> it was clear
> even before the ussr withdrew that without aid and reconstruction, the
> tribes of afghanistan would continue to fight among themselves.
It was clear 100 years ago that those tribes would fight among
themselves. It is a home grown problem.
> > Consider the destruction of the Taliban and the current Iraqi war
> > 'blowback' from 9/11.
> not sure what you mean by that.
It was clear. Try reading it again.
> and so have we, over an even longer period of time.