[SPORK] Something I REALLY want John Hall to Try To Understand

Jeff Bone jbone@deepfile.com
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:01:27 -0600


--Apple-Mail-6--476072858
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 10:35 US/Central, Gordon Mohr wrote:

> Elias said that he agrees "Iraq needs a better leader", and "The=20
> global/world
> community has an obligation to end atrocities when/where they occur."
> =A0
> What's the plan for ending the Baathist atrocities in Iraq, that does=20=

> not
> involve military action?

I don't think that he said that the ultimate solution (ahem) must be=20
other than military action.  Elias, correct me if I'm wrong.

FWIW, I *disagree* with Elias that "the global / world community has an=20=

obligation to end atrocities when / where they occur."  We may find it=20=

convenient or desirable to do so, but I don't believe we have any such=20=

obligation purely on "moral" grounds.

> =A0Geege said something similar, along the lines of "everyone supports=20=

> regime
> change, just not through war."
> =A0
> How do you get regime change against an entrenched brutal mob without=20=

> war?

I don't have particular answers for you, but I'd say you're suffering=20
from an imagination deficiency on this one.

Again, you're stuck on a point that I think is tangential and rather=20
unimportant:  the *first* question isn't "war or no war," it's "this=20
war, this way, at this time --- or not."  You're failing to acknowledge=20=

the difference, assuming that the necessity for war (if that's=20
admitted) implies the necessity for this war, this way, at this time. =20=

That's just not "coherent," Gordon.

> Patiently waiting for anyone to propose an alternative to war which
> could plausibly end the Baathist reign of terror and murder. Hell,
> rather than the silence so far, I'd even appreciate any implausible
> proposals for unseating the Baath regime.

Okay, here's two:  at any point in the last 20 years we could've gotten=20=

serious about covertly backing any number of resistance efforts inside=20=

Iraq.  We've got a lot of experience in "helping" coups happen.  We=20
came very close to doing so on numerous occasions, but did not --- for=20=

very suspect reasons.  (You might  want to bone up on your Iraqi=20
history;  start with the book I mentioned in a previous post, "War Plan=20=

Iraq.")  Aside from that, we could've pursued any number of unilateral=20=

covert operations to take out key Ba'ath officials --- but we didn't do=20=

that because we have a "no assasination" policy and, somehow, invasion=20=

and occupation is "better."

In general, the U.S. policy vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein over the last 20=20
years could easily be characterized as "better the devil you know..."

jb

--Apple-Mail-6--476072858
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1



On Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003, at 10:35 US/Central, Gordon Mohr wrote:


<excerpt><smaller>Elias said that he agrees "Iraq needs a better
leader", and "</smaller>The global/world

community has an obligation to end atrocities when/where they occur."

=A0

<smaller>What's the plan for ending the Baathist atrocities in Iraq,
that does not</smaller>

<smaller>involve military action?</smaller>

</excerpt>

I don't think that he said that the ultimate solution (ahem) must be
other than military action.  Elias, correct me if I'm wrong.


FWIW, I *disagree* with Elias that "the global / world community has
an obligation to end atrocities when / where they occur."  We may find
it convenient or desirable to do so, but I don't believe we have any
such obligation purely on "moral" grounds.


<excerpt>=A0<smaller>Geege said something similar, along the lines of
"everyone supports regime</smaller>

<smaller>change, just not through war."</smaller>

=A0

<smaller>How do you get regime change against an entrenched brutal mob
without war?</smaller>

</excerpt>

I don't have particular answers for you, but I'd say you're suffering
from an imagination deficiency on this one.


Again, you're stuck on a point that I think is tangential and rather
unimportant:  the *first* question isn't "war or no war," it's "this
war, this way, at this time --- or not."  You're failing to
acknowledge the difference, assuming that the necessity for war (if
that's admitted) implies the necessity for this war, this way, at this
time.  That's just not "coherent," Gordon.


<excerpt><smaller>Patiently waiting for anyone to propose an
alternative to war which</smaller>

<smaller>could plausibly end the Baathist reign of terror and murder.
Hell,</smaller>

<smaller>rather than the silence so far, I'd even appreciate any
implausible</smaller>

<smaller>proposals for unseating the Baath regime.</smaller>

</excerpt>

Okay, here's two:  at any point in the last 20 years we could've
gotten serious about covertly backing any number of resistance efforts
inside Iraq.  We've got a lot of experience in "helping" coups happen.=20=

We came very close to doing so on numerous occasions, but did not ---
for very suspect reasons.  (You might  want to bone up on your Iraqi
history;  start with the book I mentioned in a previous post, "War
Plan Iraq.")  Aside from that, we could've pursued any number of
unilateral covert operations to take out key Ba'ath officials --- but
we didn't do that because we have a "no assasination" policy and,
somehow, invasion and occupation is "better."


In general, the U.S. policy vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein over the last 20
years could easily be characterized as "better the devil you know..." =20=



jb


--Apple-Mail-6--476072858--