SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 2003
http://www.sff.net/

Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:58:20
============================================================

Article 21740
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:56:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


    I hope they have a vote before the Nov. elections.  In this
country we seem to have the odd habit of trying to hold off difficult
decisions until after the elections are over.  The theory appears to
be that elections are for nasty thirty second ads about who voted
for/against which rider on a bill 4 years ago that wasn't going to
pass anyway.  *Important* issues should be reserved for immediately
after elections so that the electorate will have at least two years to
forget about them before the politicians have to answer for them.

We've been fighting a war more or less continuously with Iraq for 11
years now  --a low-intensity one more often than not, but a war none
the less.  Nevertheless, I find myself thinking that from what I've
seen so far I'm not too confident of the outcome in the long-term, and
quite concerned of the possible by-products. 

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:19:39 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:

>All--
>
>      I am most pleased to note that our Prez has conceded that
>(additional) congressional approval is necessary before initiating a
>war.  At least this proposed war.
>
>     The reason I used the term "additional" is that there are those who
>contend that the anti terrorism legislation of about a year ago gives
>him that authority.  I disagree.
>
>     My own opinion?  Yes, I think military action is justified.  But I
>am not sure where to start or where to stop.


Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21741
From: David M. Silver" 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 02:15:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft wrote:
> All--
> 
>       I am most pleased to note that our Prez has conceded that
> (additional) congressional approval is necessary before initiating a
> war.  At least this proposed war.
> 
>      The reason I used the term "additional" is that there are those who
> contend that the anti terrorism legislation of about a year ago gives
> him that authority.  I disagree.
> 
>      My own opinion?  Yes, I think military action is justified.  But I
> am not sure where to start or where to stop.
> 

I think war is the ultimate act of social aggression, not something you 
engage in for limited purposes, such as feel good exercises or to 
distract the day after you pull out of a place where they just killed 
most of a battalion of Marines you put in to keep the peace somewhere else.

Removing a Hitler, or even a pissant like Noriega, could be a valid 
reason, as well.

Defending your own border, or a border you've committed to defend for 
good reason, is one thing -- whether you call it a police action or 
peacekeeping or war of counterinsurgency not; and I suppose avoiding a 
counter attack that requires your own use of nuclear war to sustain can 
be defended as a proper caution, perhaps even on humanity grounds (as 
Korea was), if the goal isn't conquest of the other nation that you 
propose to counterattack (and conquering communist China wasn't in the 
cards as I understood it then, or later). But a limited response, in 
which you handcuff yourself, such as Viet Nam or the 100-hour Desert 
Storm by not taking it to the enemy's seat of power and dethroning him, 
isn't smart: you lose it, sooner or later, if that's all you do -- or 
you fall into a war of attrition as we did in Viet Nam -- and the 
citizenry won't stand for that long enough, nor should they today, or, 
at best, you have to consider refighting it, as we are now, and 
finishing it, if you let absolute victory slip from your grasp.

If we go to war with Iraq, the goal should be complete unlimited 
conquest. I haven't said anything about using weapons of mass 
destruction, either, I note. Then we're free to throw it away, as we did 
in 1918 when we and our allies failed to occupy Germany long enough to 
make any substantial change in the attitude supporting conquest in that 
country, but let our allies simply take 'reprisals' or 'compensations' 
which led to a desire to repay that defeat that the Nazi used to vault 
into power; or we can make use of it, as we did in 1945, for the 
ultimate purpose, ensuring Hussein and those people ruled and supported 
by Hussein cease to trouble us again by installing a democracy within 
them, e.g., "nation building" done correctly as it was under the 
Marshall Plan, not as part of some mission creep by elements neither 
trained nor qualified nor indeed truly authorized by anyone except 
elements of an eager executive department nor supported sufficiently to 
do it. We should also ensure that anyone who allies the country he rules 
with Hussein gets the same treatment.

Otherwise there's no proper choice to start a war. And tanstaafl.

David


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21742
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 14:41:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:56:45 -0700, Geo Rule
<georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:

>    I hope they have a vote before the Nov. elections.  In this
>country we seem to have the odd habit of trying to hold off difficult
>decisions until after the elections are over.  The theory appears to
>be that elections are for nasty thirty second ads about who voted
>for/against which rider on a bill 4 years ago that wasn't going to
>pass anyway.  *Important* issues should be reserved for immediately
>after elections so that the electorate will have at least two years to
>forget about them before the politicians have to answer for them.

I think the Repubs are trying to push for a just-before-the-election
vote, hoping to unseat at least some of the Dems who will vote against
military action in Iraq.  I think the Dems, even the ones who will
vote in support of the President, are stalling, afraid that too many
other Dems will vote against, lose their reelections, and thus lose
either the Senate majority (and) or any chance for a Dem gain in the
House.  But I agree with you, Geo.  As much as I like to see Dems in
Congress, I hope they WILL vote before the elections, and let the
chips fall where they may.

>We've been fighting a war more or less continuously with Iraq for 11
>years now  --a low-intensity one more often than not, but a war none
>the less.  Nevertheless, I find myself thinking that from what I've
>seen so far I'm not too confident of the outcome in the long-term, and
>quite concerned of the possible by-products. 

I'm concerned too, but one of the "by-products" of our actions over
the last 11 years, not that they haven't been justified, has been a
tremendous propaganda tool for Iraq to use against us in the Arab
street, where far too many people are more than happy to be provided
another reason to hate America.  With respect to anti-Americanism in
the region, it has got to be better to go in and get it over with,
assuming we do an adequate, doesn't have to be perfect, job of
installing a representative and just government in place of Sadaam.

I just hope the administration, and the American people, are prepared
for a war which extends beyond Iraq's borders, as it may well come to
that.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21743
From: Dee" 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:08:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai--

    I have been out of town and have only caught snippets of the news, so I
am not real sure I have all the details right, but these Buffalo, NY arrests
look encouraging, don't they?
    Apparently, the local Muslim community has given the information to
authorities quite some time ago, and the group was being observed until the
time was right for arrests.  Maybe there are more situations like this that
have not become public knowlege yet.  It cheers me up to think there might
be.

--Dee



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21744
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:59:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Arrgggh!  A power failure just killed a much better version of this post.  
Ah, well, here I go again...

In article <3D844FBB.8040407@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...

> I think war is the ultimate act of social aggression, not something you 
> engage in for limited purposes, such as feel good exercises or to 
> distract the day after you pull out of a place where they just killed 
> most of a battalion of Marines you put in to keep the peace somewhere else.

I agree that these particular reasons are inadequate, but not that war 
should not be limited at all.  Here I rely on, for example, the first 
chapter of ST.  The reason to limit war is if it better achieves the 
proper goal.  Of course, there is sometimes some small disagreement over 
what that is.  ;-)
....
> If we go to war with Iraq, the goal should be complete unlimited 
> conquest.

I could quibble with the consequent, but let's leave quibbles aside and 
focus on the antecedent.  /Should/ we go to war with Iraq?

What principled reason that applies to Iraq (and not to other countries) 
justifies such an action?  The presumed presence of weapons of mass 
destruction by a county in violation of international law and U.N 
resolutions?  No. That its head of state has ordered or been complicit in 
acts of terrorism?  Well, no.  That the country is lead by a brutal 
dictator who enslaves his people?  Surely not.

What /are/ Bush's reasons?  He has not been able to link Iraq to 9/11.  
He has not been able to show much evidence of weapons of mass destruction 
(WMD) in Iraq or any evidence that such weapons if they existed could be 
used against the U.S., as opposed to, say, Israel.  Instead, we are given 
nothing but F.U.D. - fear, uncertainty, and doubt.  /Could/ his reasons 
have something do to with revenge or the fact that Iraq's oil reserves 
are second only to Saudi Arabia or a powerful domestic political lobby 
with emotional commitments to a foreign state?  I must say I find it 
mortifying when Hussein's stooges, aka Iraqi diplomats, can raise such 
questions with such plausibility.  But that is the sad consequence of 
U.S. foreign policy over the last 50 years.

To return to the works of my favorite author, Prof said, "Always leave 
room for your enemy to become your friend".  Now, in politics, we 
sometimes have to interpret "friend" rather loosely.  Hussein may never 
be much of a "friend" - even in the political sense - but how much of his 
room should we take away?  Hussein knows that if he directly attacks the 
U.S. with WMD, he will be destroyed.  His conventional forces are surely 
no threat, to the /U.S./, at least.  However, once a war is begun to 
remove him, what does he have to loose?  Hussein wants most to be 
remembered 1000 years from now as a famous defender of the Islamic world 
- and he will be just as happy to be known as an infamous defender of it.  
Once he is attacked, he has every reason to use whatever WMD he might 
possess, whether on the battlefield or - despite the evidence - directly 
against the U.S.

Do we have a reason that is sufficient to risk smallpox or anthrax on the 
battlefield or at home, along with the "collateral damage" of who knows 
how many innocent Iraqis?  Tell me what it is.  That a U.S. President has 
embarrassingly shot his mouth off about war and we will lose 
"credibility" if we do not?  One of the great strengths of this country 
has been the ability to survive a number of embarrassing Presidents.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21745
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:52 -0700
Subject: Word 2.0 on 5.25" Floppies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


   I can't really imagine that anyone here would still have use for
this, but somehow I can't make myself throw them away without asking.
Legitimate, boughten version, all 7 disks. First come, first serve.
Maybe someone out there has an old laptop that can only run dos/win
3.1.

   Yes, Geo is finally making the break.  All my 5.25" are going in
the trash.  Been years since I even had anything here that could read
them.

   I sighed most heavily over PC Tools.  I still miss those guys.
Beat the crap out of Norton for usability and complete set of stuff in
one package (none of this buy separate pieces crap).  So of course
Norton bought them and put them out of business.

Best. Geo

Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21746
From: David M. Silver" 
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:35:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:
> Arrgggh!  A power failure just killed a much better version of this post.  
> Ah, well, here I go again...
> 
> In article <3D844FBB.8040407@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> 
> 
>>I think war is the ultimate act of social aggression, not something you 
>>engage in for limited purposes, such as feel good exercises or to 
>>distract the day after you pull out of a place where they just killed 
>>most of a battalion of Marines you put in to keep the peace somewhere else.
> 
> 
> I agree that these particular reasons are inadequate, but not that war 
> should not be limited at all.  Here I rely on, for example, the first 
> chapter of ST.  The reason to limit war is if it better achieves the 
> proper goal.  Of course, there is sometimes some small disagreement over 
> what that is.  ;-)
> ...
> 
>>If we go to war with Iraq, the goal should be complete unlimited 
>>conquest.
> 
> 
> I could quibble with the consequent, but let's leave quibbles aside and 
> focus on the antecedent.  /Should/ we go to war with Iraq?


Not my quibble, Gordon. I'm not interested, IRL, which is what we got 
going today, in "if," but only "then."

See, the oft-quoted dictum of Clauswitz. "The aim of war must always be 
the overthrow of the enemy." I don't believe in a limited offensive war. 
And I really don't like limited defensive wars either, if the foregoing 
option exists. What was the name of the gallic tribe that the late JC 
[the Roman one, of course] ensured would never again be a problem by 
chopping off their right hands? They weren't were they? But their 
grandsons served in Augustus' legions. [Along with the grandsons of 
every other gallic tribe that knew of it.]

"If" seems to have been nicely finessed, leaving only "then," by our 
Glorious Leader's handlers. If their "then" isn't consistent with what I 
consider a proper "then," given their claims, then I simply argue there 
shouldn't even be a consideration of "if." -30-

David


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21747
From: postmaster@sff.net
Date: 8 Sep 2002 10:58:21 GMT
Subject: No articles presently in newsgroup.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This newsgroup has no articles yet; however, if
you were to post something, it would.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21748
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 16 Sep 2002 14:41:30 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.

To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21749
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:55:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 11:08:38 -0500, "Dee" <ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org>
wrote:

>    I have been out of town and have only caught snippets of the news, so I
>am not real sure I have all the details right, but these Buffalo, NY arrests
>look encouraging, don't they?
>    Apparently, the local Muslim community has given the information to
>authorities quite some time ago, and the group was being observed until the
>time was right for arrests.  Maybe there are more situations like this that
>have not become public knowlege yet.  It cheers me up to think there might
>be.

I certainly think it's encouraging too.  And pardon me if I'm just
eleaborating on your point (as I think I am).  It's not because of
these particular guys so much.  Yeah, it's good to get them, but there
are so many more.  But, taking these guys will probably lead us to at
least some of the others.  And maybe, just maybe, more of the good,
innoscent, patriotic American Muslims will realize they can make a
difference.  Maybe many of them already are, and we just don't know it
yet.  I hope so.

Here's the address of an article which ran in our local paper, which
may make you feel better too.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/4045890.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21750
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:20:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:59:37 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>I could quibble with the consequent, but let's leave quibbles aside and 
>focus on the antecedent.  /Should/ we go to war with Iraq?
>
>What principled reason that applies to Iraq (and not to other countries) 
>justifies such an action?  The presumed presence of weapons of mass 
>destruction by a county in violation of international law and U.N 
>resolutions?  No. That its head of state has ordered or been complicit in 
>acts of terrorism?  Well, no.  That the country is lead by a brutal 
>dictator who enslaves his people?  Surely not.

Very clever to take each offense and ask, aren't there other nations
guilty of the same thing?  But can you think of ANY other nation
guilty of ALL of those?  And more besides?  It is a case where the
whole is more than the sum of the parts, not that the sum isn't bad
enough.  Or in other words, put them all together and they DO indeed
spell "mother," but not in the way one traditionally thinks.

>What /are/ Bush's reasons?  He has not been able to link Iraq to 9/11.  

I don't know how you can be so sure of that.  But in any case the
issue is terrorism "of global reach", not just 9/11.

>He has not been able to show much evidence of weapons of mass destruction 
>(WMD) in Iraq or any evidence that such weapons if they existed could be 
>used against the U.S., as opposed to, say, Israel. <snip>

Depends what you call "WMD" and what you call "much."  If you mean
nuclear weapons, you should just say so.  Chemicals and biological
agents are relatively cheap and easy to deploy, even at great
distance.  But by all means, let's wait until he has "the bomb" too.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

There's probably no point in discussing the value of defending an
ally.  You don't appear to think there is any.

Heck, I'm not 100% sure we should invade Iraq, right now.  All I can
say is, if we're going to have to fight him eventually, and it
wouldn't take an attack on Israel--last time it was Kuwait--I'd rather
do it sooner than later.  Whether Pres. Bush's reasons are the right
ones is irrelevant.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21751
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:23:26 GMT
Subject: Re: for Jai (and any other interested Parties)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 14:25:14 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:

>This is a link to a section of a larger story on faith post 9/11:
>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/112/story_11238_5.html#antisem
>
>The story "The Real Spiritual Impact of 9/11" starts at:
>http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=story/112/story_11238_1.html&b
>oardID=45096

Thanks, 'Rita!  A very interesting series.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21752
From: Gordon Sollars" 
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:09:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote
> Very clever to take each offense and ask, aren't there other nations
> guilty of the same thing?  But can you think of ANY other nation
> guilty of ALL of those?  And more besides?  It is a case where the
> whole is more than the sum of the parts, not that the sum isn't bad
> enough.  Or in other words, put them all together and they DO indeed
> spell "mother," but not in the way one traditionally thinks.

North Korea might qualify - I am not up to speed with U.N. resolutions
regarding that country.

I take it your position is that any country that meets these three
conditions should be preemptively attacked, if possible?  If so, why wasn't
such an attack a major issue, say, two years ago?  Or five years ago?  I
think the reasons have more to do with election politics and oil than any
other factors.  And, I would like to be shown that I am wrong.

Further, I am curious if it is your position that the U.S. should have
attacked the Soviet Union in , say, the early '50s?

> >What /are/ Bush's reasons?  He has not been able to link Iraq to 9/11.
>
> I don't know how you can be so sure of that.  But in any case the
> issue is terrorism "of global reach", not just 9/11.

"All I know is what I read in the papers."  If you have special sources of
information, please share them.  As I suggested in my post, I am tired of
nothing but F.U.D. from the Bush Administration.  In what ways is Iraq's
"global reach" the most troublesome of all the possibilities?

> >He has not been able to show much evidence of weapons of mass destruction
> >(WMD) in Iraq or any evidence that such weapons if they existed could be
> >used against the U.S., as opposed to, say, Israel. <snip>
>
> Depends what you call "WMD" and what you call "much."  If you mean
> nuclear weapons, you should just say so.

I use the term "WMD" for convenience, as is common is such discussions.

 > Chemicals and biological
> agents are relatively cheap and easy to deploy, even at great
> distance.

This could have been done anytime in the past 20 years.  Indeed, it has been
done through the U.S. mail - but not by Iraq.

>  But by all means, let's wait until he has "the bomb" too.
> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

It seems to make sense to, say, France, Germany, Russia, and China.  But
perhaps all these countries have irrational leaders who prefer to be the
targets of WMD, while only the clear-thinking members of the Bush Marketing
Team... I mean Administration... see the real dangers?

> There's probably no point in discussing the value of defending an
> ally.  You don't appear to think there is any.

In general, there isn't.  I believe in trade with all nations and alliances
with none.  This policy is not perfect (no policy is), but it does not take
great genius to implement - a required quality obviously missing from past
U.S. foreign policy: support for the Shah of Iran, support for Iraq(!) over
Iran, etc.

> Heck, I'm not 100% sure we should invade Iraq, right now.

And I am not 100% sure that we should not.

> All I can
> say is, if we're going to have to fight him eventually, and it
> wouldn't take an attack on Israel--last time it was Kuwait--I'd rather
> do it sooner than later.  Whether Pres. Bush's reasons are the right
> ones is irrelevant.

Indeed, if we're going to "have to" fight Iraq, then no one's reasons mean a
damn.  But reasons are useful in understanding why someone thinks we "have
to".

--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21753
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 20:40:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:09:31 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>
>Further, I am curious if it is your position that the U.S. should have
>attacked the Soviet Union in , say, the early '50s?
>

   Hrmph.  Better to ask should we have attacked in '48 or early '49
(i.e. before they achieved nuclear capability themselves). And for me
I would lean "yes".  I think if the American people, who hadn't worn
out their "they are our valued allies" good feelings from the war,
felt about the U.S.S.R. in 1948 they way they do after 11 years of
pissing around with Saddam, the political answer could have very well
been "hell, yes".  Certainly Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would have
answered in the affirmative, and quite loudly.



Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21754
From: postmaster@sff.net
Date: 8 Sep 2002 10:58:21 GMT
Subject: No articles presently in newsgroup.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This newsgroup has no articles yet; however, if
you were to post something, it would.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21755
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 18 Sep 2002 05:58:33 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.

To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21756
From: Eli Hestermann 
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 04:21:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I'm ignoring the main debate to inject my bit of realpolitik view here:

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> I take it your position is that any country that meets these three
> conditions should be preemptively attacked, if possible?  If so, why wasn't
> such an attack a major issue, say, two years ago?  Or five years ago?  I
> think the reasons have more to do with election politics and oil than any
> other factors.  And, I would like to be shown that I am wrong.

I think it does have to do with the U.S. election cycle, if not election
politics.  Two or five years ago we had a different administration.  When the
weapons inspection resolutions weren't being complied with would've been the
logical time to address this, but beyond a few airstrikes and some heated
rhetoric, no action was taken.

This is not necessarily intended as a criticism of the Clinton administration,
because the world has changed in other ways since then as well.  Following last
September's terrorist attacks, there's much more support, both domestically and
internationally, for dealing with "rogue" nations.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@tmlp.com
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21757
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:14:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <85tfoukopvfo72js7odt2dk8setf7ub4n2@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:09:31 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> >Further, I am curious if it is your position that the U.S. should have
> >attacked the Soviet Union in , say, the early '50s?
> >
> 
>    Hrmph.  Better to ask should we have attacked in '48 or early '49
> (i.e. before they achieved nuclear capability themselves). And for me
> I would lean "yes".

So, then, should the U.S. preemptively attack any country that is working 
on, or thought to be working on, nuclear weapons?  What about countries 
that already have them, such as Pakistan, or have them but will not admit 
it, such as Israel?

> I think if the American people, who hadn't worn
> out their "they are our valued allies" good feelings from the war,
> felt about the U.S.S.R. in 1948 they way they do after 11 years of
> pissing around with Saddam, the political answer could have very well
> been "hell, yes".  Certainly Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would have
> answered in the affirmative, and quite loudly.

Perhaps because our weapons would have been directed at Moscow and not 
their capitals.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21758
From: Dee" 
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:33:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d874ea3.37873924@news.sff.net...
> I certainly think it's encouraging too.  And pardon me if I'm just
> eleaborating on your point (as I think I am).

    Yes, yoou are, and no pardon required.

> It's not because of
> these particular guys so much.  Yeah, it's good to get them, but there
> are so many more.  But, taking these guys will probably lead us to at
> least some of the others.  And maybe, just maybe, more of the good,
> innoscent, patriotic American Muslims will realize they can make a
> difference.  Maybe many of them already are, and we just don't know it
> yet.  I hope so.

    Agreed, the real encouragement is not this particular batch of arrests
nearly as much as it is that we are seeing news of American Muslims who are
taking a stand.  Maybe it has been happening all along, and held close for
security reasons, but it is a good time to get some news of it.  And as you
say, maybe it will encourage others.

> Here's the address of an article which ran in our local paper, which
> may make you feel better too.
> http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/4045890.htm

    Thanks, lovely article.  This kind of item is good news to all
Americans, Muslim and non-Muslim.  I wish it had been picked up by the
naational news.

    I heard and Afghani quoted the other day as saying that, terrible as
9/11/01 was for the US, it was, in a strange sad way, good news for
Afghanistan.  Not the wanton destruction, but getting the US involved, and
getting the Taliban out of power.  I hope that it is the beginning of real
change for them, but it is too early for me to count on it.  I suppose a lot
depends on where the people really want their country to go.  But I hope.

--Dee



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21759
From: Dee" 
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:35:15 -0500
Subject: Re: for Jai (and any other interested Parties)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d8756de.39980704@news.sff.net...
> Thanks, 'Rita!  A very interesting series.

    Yes it is, and I should have thanked 'Rita much earlier.  Definitely too
much to take in in just one or two sessions.  I expect to go back to this
site for a number of readings.

--Dee



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21760
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:37:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:14:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>
>So, then, should the U.S. preemptively attack any country that is working 
>on, or thought to be working on, nuclear weapons?  What about countries 
>that already have them, such as Pakistan, or have them but will not admit 
>it, such as Israel?
>

    No.  I've never seriously considered nuking France. (emphasis in
that sentence on "seriously").

>> I think if the American people, who hadn't worn
>> out their "they are our valued allies" good feelings from the war,
>> felt about the U.S.S.R. in 1948 they way they do after 11 years of
>> pissing around with Saddam, the political answer could have very well
>> been "hell, yes".  Certainly Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would have
>> answered in the affirmative, and quite loudly.
>
>Perhaps because our weapons would have been directed at Moscow and not 
>their capitals.

     Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I'm not so sure one or more of them
wouldn't have traded their capital in ruins for freedom for the rest
of their country.

Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21761
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:52:18 -0700
Subject: The Resolution on Iraq
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


    Here ya go, Gordon  --this will serve as a discussion document as
to why some of us think that it might very well be time to finish the
war begun in 1990.

++++
WHITE HOUSE DISCUSSION DRAFT
       9/19/02
       
       Joint Resolution
       To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq.
       
       Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and
thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and
international peace and security, stated the reasons for that
conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public
Law 105-235);
       
       Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing
to threaten the national security interests of the United States and
international peace and security;
       
       Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United
Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby
threatening international peace and security in the region, by
refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens
wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
       
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against
other nations and its own people;
       
       Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United
States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former
President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions
of the United Nations Security Council;
       
       Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and
interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
are known to be in Iraq;
       
       Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of American citizens;
       
       Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001
underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons
of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;
       
       Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as
acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to
defend itself;
       Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack
against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to
international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of
harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such
an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in
order to defend itself;
       
       Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other
obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to
cease repression of its civilian population that threatens
international peace and security under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United
Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 949, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 678
authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with
these “subsequent relevant resolutions,”
       
       Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the
President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to achieve full
implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670,674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council
Resolution 678;
       
       Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190 has
stated that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as bring consistent with the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law
102-1),” that Iraq’s . repression of its civilian population violates
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a
continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian
Gulf region,” and that Congress “supports the use of all necessary
means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688”;
       
       Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33
8) has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace
that regime;
       
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the
joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
Law 107-40); and
       
       Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
use force in order to defend the national security interests of the
United States;
       
       
       Now, therefore, be it
       
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
       
       SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
       This joint resolution may be cited as the “Further Resolution
on Iraq”.
       
       SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
       
       The President is authorized to use all means that he determines
to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United
..Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the
national security interests of the United States against the threat
posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the
region.  
 


Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21762
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:22:36 -0400
Subject: Re: The Resolution on Iraq
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <683loukhqnu9lf2h8kh40urma5gm4a8s3j@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...
> 
>     Here ya go, Gordon  --this will serve as a discussion document as
> to why some of us think that it might very well be time to finish the
> war begun in 1990.

Thanks for posting this.  I can't get to it right now, but I'll try to 
read it tomorrow.  I am also trying to find on-line an interview with two 
editors from Jane's Information Group that I heard on the radio today.  
It would make a nice companion piece.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21763
From: Charles Graft 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:47:18 -0500
Subject: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

All--
     Yes, major tornadoes today on the south (and east) sides of
Indianapolis.  Greg, Teresa (Doc's sister in law) and I were out to
lunch about five miles away when they hit.  It took us 2 1/2 hours to
drive home -- power lines down, trees down, vehicles actually picked up
and thrown -- it was quite a mess.  Telephone service is slower than
molasses, but is still functional.

     No damage to our new house, our old house, or to Greg and Beth's
home.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
jackasses." --  H. L. Menken



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21764
From: Dee" 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:02:33 -0500
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3D8BB386.238739E2@aol.com...
> All--
>      Yes, major tornadoes today on the south (and east) sides of
> Indianapolis.  Greg, Teresa (Doc's sister in law) and I were out to
> lunch about five miles away when they hit.  It took us 2 1/2 hours to
> drive home -- power lines down, trees down, vehicles actually picked up
> and thrown -- it was quite a mess.  Telephone service is slower than
> molasses, but is still functional.
>
>      No damage to our new house, our old house, or to Greg and Beth's
> home.

BC--

    So good to hear that you are all okay.  Thanks for thinking of us with a
report.

--Dee



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21765
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:31:22 -0400
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3D8BB386.238739E2@aol.com...
> All--
>      Yes, major tornadoes today on the south (and east) sides of
> Indianapolis.

Wow. Seems a little late for twisters, isn't it? Glad y`all are OK!


WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21766
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 21:42:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Eli Hestermann" <ehestermann@tmlp.com> wrote

> This is not necessarily intended as a criticism of the Clinton
administration,
> because the world has changed in other ways since then as well.  Following
last
> September's terrorist attacks, there's much more support, both
domestically and
> internationally, for dealing with "rogue" nations.
>
I'm not seeing that support! Sure, there was support for taking out the
Taliban in Afghanistan, but that was a small, relatively unimportant
country, with a unsophisticated opponent.

If you are defining Iraq as a "rogue" nation, then were is your support?
Especially internationally!

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21767
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:07:35 -0700
Subject: Air Powered Car
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Now this is pretty kewl. . .

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_harney091902.asp

Geo Rule

http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21768
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:05:40 -0400
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charlie:   Glad to hear that you all are alright.

Ed J


On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:47:18 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:

>All--
>     Yes, major tornadoes today on the south (and east) sides of
>Indianapolis.  Greg, Teresa (Doc's sister in law) and I were out to
>lunch about five miles away when they hit.  It took us 2 1/2 hours to
>drive home -- power lines down, trees down, vehicles actually picked up
>and thrown -- it was quite a mess.  Telephone service is slower than
>molasses, but is still functional.
>
>     No damage to our new house, our old house, or to Greg and Beth's
>home.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21769
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:24:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Air Powered Car
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I wonder of there are any efficiency advantages to operating in a warmer
climate? It does say that the process uses ambient air to warm the
compressed air. If so, it would be a natural for Arizona, Texas, Washington
DC....

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21770
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 12:24:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Air Powered Car
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Not quite the 21st Centruy Air Car we imagined, is it?



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21771
From: SpaceCadet 
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 11:43:19 -0500
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

BC,

I'm glad you're all ok.  Did you get to see any funnel
clouds?

Carol

Charles Graft wrote:
> 
> All--
>      Yes, major tornadoes today on the south (and east) sides of
> Indianapolis.  Greg, Teresa (Doc's sister in law) and I were out to
> lunch about five miles away when they hit.  It took us 2 1/2 hours to
> drive home -- power lines down, trees down, vehicles actually picked up
> and thrown -- it was quite a mess.  Telephone service is slower than
> molasses, but is still functional.
> 
>      No damage to our new house, our old house, or to Greg and Beth's
> home.
> 
> --
> <<Big Charlie>>
> 
> "Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
> jackasses." --  H. L. Menken

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21772
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:50:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <tdukouou3n1dkd2ikpo6gr4pgq7ppofg97@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:14:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >So, then, should the U.S. preemptively attack any country that is working 
> >on, or thought to be working on, nuclear weapons?  What about countries 
> >that already have them, such as Pakistan, or have them but will not admit 
> >it, such as Israel?
> >
> 
>     No.  I've never seriously considered nuking France. (emphasis in
> that sentence on "seriously").

I've wondered about the French, myself.  But what I am asking for is not 
your case-by-case decisions on which countries we should attack, but 
whether you have a set of principles for deciding this, or if you even 
think it is wise to have such a set.

My understanding is that the U.S. has tradition that does not support 
preemptive attack.  Am I wrong, or is the tradition?   

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21773
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:17:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


I think generally the tradition is against the pure preemptive attack,
but generally those situations aren't pure anyway.  The case with Iraq
certainly isn't; there are 11 years of instances (including the
attempted assasination of an ex-President of the US) that can be mined
quite easily for as many cassus belli as you care to have.  Indeed, I
would argue (and, btw, I still haven't personally decided that this is
a good idea) that what we are discussing is whether to put forth the
effort to *end* a war that has been going on for 11 years.

I was watching "13 days" last night (Curtis Le May got shafted pretty
thoroughly, but not a bad movie overall) and was reminded of one of
the things that turned that debate from sneak attack to blockade
--Bobbie Kennedy saying "Now I know how Tojo felt while planning Pearl
Harbor."  But this is just not the case with Iraq.  It is a mistake,
and historically untrue, in my view, to consider this a debate about
whether to start a war with Iraq.  It is a debate about whether to do
everything necessary to end that ongoing war militarily, and whether
the acceptable terms of surrender must include "regime change". The
demand for Unconditional Surrender certainly *is* in the tradition of
this country (ask the shades of Jeff. Davis and Hirohito).


On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:50:03 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <tdukouou3n1dkd2ikpo6gr4pgq7ppofg97@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
>writes...
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:14:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
>> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So, then, should the U.S. preemptively attack any country that is working 
>> >on, or thought to be working on, nuclear weapons?  What about countries 
>> >that already have them, such as Pakistan, or have them but will not admit 
>> >it, such as Israel?
>> >
>> 
>>     No.  I've never seriously considered nuking France. (emphasis in
>> that sentence on "seriously").
>
>I've wondered about the French, myself.  But what I am asking for is not 
>your case-by-case decisions on which countries we should attack, but 
>whether you have a set of principles for deciding this, or if you even 
>think it is wise to have such a set.
>
>My understanding is that the U.S. has tradition that does not support 
>preemptive attack.  Am I wrong, or is the tradition?   


Geo Rule

http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21774
From: Charles Graft 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:18:25 -0500
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Carol--
     Saw no funnels.  Would have had we been outside.  We saw lots of
damage firsthand, though.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
jackasses." --  H. L. Menken



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21775
From: Charles Graft 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:25:05 -0500
Subject: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

>  Ryan turned his head back to meet the President's eyes.  "Sir, the
decision to start a war is
> almost never rational.  World War One, kicked off by some fool kiling
some other fool, events
> skilfully manipulated by by Leopold something-or-other, 'Poldi' they
called him, the Austrian Foreign
> Minister.  Skilled manipulator, but he didn't factor in the simple
fact that his country lacked the power
> to achieve what he wanted.  Germany and Austria-Hungary started the
war.  They both lost.  World > War Two, Japan and Germany took on the
whole world, never occurred to them that the rest of the
> world might be stronger. Particularly true of Japan."  Ryan went on.
"They never really had a plan to
> defeat us.  Hold on that a moment.  The civil war, stated by the
South.  The South lost.  The
> Franco-Prussian war, started by France.  France lost.  Almost every
war since the Industrial
> Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost.  Q. E. D.,
going to war is not a rational act."

From "Debt of Honor" Tom Clancy

Comment?  I think there is more reason to attack Saudi Arabia that there
is to attack Iraq.  Not only were most of the hijackers Saudi citizens,
but the goverenment has contributed heavily to Al queda and other
terrorist groups.  And specifically said they would not support us in
taking action against Saddam.  And -- TFIC -- they have even more oil.

     But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
based on the information I have seen,
--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
jackasses." --  H. L. Menken



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21776
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:12:31 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3D8DFCF1.951783CA@aol.com>, Charles Graft writes...
>  Almost every
> war since the Industrial
> > Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost.  Q. E. D.,
> going to war is not a rational act."
> 
> From "Debt of Honor" Tom Clancy
> 
> Comment?

Starting a war might not be rational for a country, but it might be 
rational for a country's leaders.  Further, I am nothing like the student 
of history that Jack Ryan is, but I might be a better logician than Tom 
Clancy.  An action is not irrational simply because it fails most of 
time.  The other available actions might have been even worse.  ;-)
....
>      But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
> based on the information I have seen,

Right.  That is why the administration resorts to F.U.D.  Clancy might be 
right, but my concern is not that we cannot utterly defeat Iraq.  My 
concern is that we /will/ utterly defeat Iraq by removing resources that 
could be used against an enemy that has actually attacked us.  This will, 
at one stroke, strengthen our known enemy from a relative standpoint and 
create new resources in the Islamic world for that enemy to exploit.

Iraq could be Al Qaida's tar baby, and the Bush administration might be 
about to grab hold with both hands.

OTOH, I have a related concern that the threat of a U.S. invasion might 
be kept alive until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 
of 2004.  The corrupting effect on our institutions will be enormous. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21777
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:24:14 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:25:05 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:


>> Franco-Prussian war, started by France.  France lost.  Almost every
>war since the Industrial
>> Revolution was initiated by the side which ultimately lost.  Q. E. D.,
>going to war is not a rational act."
>
>From "Debt of Honor" Tom Clancy
>
>Comment?  I think there is more reason to attack Saudi Arabia that there
>is to attack Iraq.  Not only were most of the hijackers Saudi citizens,
>but the goverenment has contributed heavily to Al queda and other
>terrorist groups.  And specifically said they would not support us in
>taking action against Saddam.  And -- TFIC -- they have even more oil.
>
>     But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
>based on the information I have seen,

   The Gulf War.  Unfortunately, Iraq hasn't quite lost yet as they've
failed to keep the U.N. resolutions that were part of the peace
conditions.  Possibly the lesson here is don't settle for a cease-fire
with additional conditions to be fulfilled later.  Or are you arguing
that the French were right to allow the re-militarization of the
Rhineland in '35?



Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21778
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:39:25 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <jgnsouga68kub5gvubu2vsr6isqt5hmtoj@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:25:05 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
> wrote:
....
> >     But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
> >based on the information I have seen,
> 
>    The Gulf War.

I miss a lot of history, but when did Kuwait become the 51st state?

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21779
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:58:38 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:39:25 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <jgnsouga68kub5gvubu2vsr6isqt5hmtoj@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
>writes...
>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:25:05 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>...
>> >     But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
>> >based on the information I have seen,
>> 
>>    The Gulf War.
>
>I miss a lot of history, but when did Kuwait become the 51st state?

    Your point, in the context of this discussion, being what?  That
we started the war with Iraq and therefore based on Charlie's quote
were irrational and will lose?  By that definition, Britain and France
started WWII by declaring war irrationally on poor old Hitler who in
Sep. of 1939 had not attacked either of them.  Is that your position?



Geo Rule

http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21780
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:32:59 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <sd0touopvjpo77lfrvs556ei464npe9q4g@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:39:25 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <jgnsouga68kub5gvubu2vsr6isqt5hmtoj@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
> >writes...
> >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:25:05 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >...
> >> >     But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
> >> >based on the information I have seen,
> >> 
> >>    The Gulf War.
> >
> >I miss a lot of history, but when did Kuwait become the 51st state?
> 
>     Your point, in the context of this discussion, being what?  That
> we started the war with Iraq and therefore based on Charlie's quote
> were irrational and will lose?

No; if you notice, I argued against Charlie's quote.  Hussein started the 
"Gulf War" when he invaded Kuwait.  But, in doing so, he did not attack 
"us".  I thought your Gulf War response was intended as the information 
Charlie said he hadn't seen.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21781
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:51:48 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:32:59 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <sd0touopvjpo77lfrvs556ei464npe9q4g@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
>writes...
>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:39:25 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
>> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <jgnsouga68kub5gvubu2vsr6isqt5hmtoj@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
>> >writes...
>> >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:25:05 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >...
>> >> >     But the bottom line is -- Iraq had not attacked us.  At least not
>> >> >based on the information I have seen,
>> >> 
>> >>    The Gulf War.
>> >
>> >I miss a lot of history, but when did Kuwait become the 51st state?
>> 
>>     Your point, in the context of this discussion, being what?  That
>> we started the war with Iraq and therefore based on Charlie's quote
>> were irrational and will lose?
>
>No; if you notice, I argued against Charlie's quote.  Hussein started the 
>"Gulf War" when he invaded Kuwait.  But, in doing so, he did not attack 
>"us".  I thought your Gulf War response was intended as the information 
>Charlie said he hadn't seen.

    Ah.  No, I was responding to the "he who starts it" part as it
applies to the Gulf War.

    As to the other part, I would suggest that would depend on what
date you care to use as your baseline.  Personally, I see it all as a
continuum from 1990/1, when Iraq began the Gulf War.  Actually, it
goes back earlier when they used chemical weapons against Iran and
their own internal dissidents --that's part of the calculation about
what this guy is willing to do when he was the tools to do it, and the
difference between Iraq and, say, Pakistan.

Geo Rule

http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21782
From: Gordon Sollars" 
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:49:44 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Geo Rule" <georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote in message

>     As to the other part, I would suggest that would depend on what
> date you care to use as your baseline.  Personally, I see it all as a
> continuum from 1990/1, when Iraq began the Gulf War.  Actually, it
> goes back earlier when they used chemical weapons against Iran and
> their own internal dissidents --that's part of the calculation about
> what this guy is willing to do when he was the tools to do it, and the
> difference between Iraq and, say, Pakistan.

What I am curious about is why - if this matter goes back to the Gulf War
and before, it was not an issue in the last Presidential campaign.  And how
many speaches by members of Congress during the nineties calling for
Hussein's removal were there?

Here is what I see.  In light of 9/11, /suddenly/ the government feels
compelled to do something, even if what it proposes to do cannot be tied to
9/11.

North Korea has admitted to kidnapping Japanese citizens who "just happened"
to die.  Are our good allies the Japanese of less consequence than murdered
Iranians and Iraqis?  North Korea already has nuclear weapons.  But North
Korea does not have any oil.  That is a lucky thing if you want to avoid
being invaded by the U.S.

One difference between Iraq and Pakistan is that Hussein could do a better
job of controling any Al Qaida in Iraq (outside of the areas whose control
we have taken from him) than Musharraf can do in Pakistan.  Not to mention
the much larger numbers of Al Qaida in Pakistan.  But Musharraf is making
friendly noises, while senior members of Al Qaida hide out in Pakistan, and
Hussein is not.  That is another way to avoid being invaded by the U.S.

--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21783
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:48:24 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:49:44 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>
>What I am curious about is why - if this matter goes back to the Gulf War
>and before, it was not an issue in the last Presidential campaign.  And how
>many speaches by members of Congress during the nineties calling for
>Hussein's removal were there?

<From my Iraq Resolution post>
Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and
thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and
international peace and security, stated the reasons for that
conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public
Law 105-235);
++++

And there is more history thru the nineties included in that
resolution.  So I don't agree that this hasn't been ongoing, and that
there is anything "suddenly" about it.
>
>Here is what I see.  In light of 9/11, /suddenly/ the government feels
>compelled to do something, even if what it proposes to do cannot be tied to
>9/11.
>

Now, here we may have some common ground, even if only tangentially.
I think it quite likely that there is a faction (Perle and others)
who've *always* (at least going back to shortly after the Gulf War)
wanted to settle accounts with Saddam. And it doesn't take too much
speculation to figure out how the Bushes feel about Saddam.  I think
that faction *may* see 9/11 as creating the political conditions
whereby they can get done what they've wanted to get done anyway.
Now, this doesn't necessarily impugn their motives for wanting to get
it done (i.e. their motives could be, and possibly even in every case
are, for their view of furthering the public good of the US).  In
other words, they saw a hole and ran for daylight (to toss a
gratuitous football simile in there with Monday Night Football on the
tube).

Also, from a political consideration, they may see a necessity to keep
momentum in the war against terrorism, and see settling with Saddam as
a good way to do it.  I don't mean domestic political consideration of
the "let's talk about war instead of drug coverage for seniors"  --I
mean more like Jimmy Doolittle's raid on Tokyo; symbolism for morale
boosting.  But this consideration is, I believe, informed by the one
above (i.e. they think it is a "good" anyway).

Now, having said all that  --I don't know what I don't know because
they haven't told us.  I do know that the ex-head of the Iraqi nuclear
effort recently said that he believed that Saddam could have a nuclear
weapon in as little as three months.  But he defected in *1994*, so
how plugged in can he be to what is happening right now?



Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21784
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:11:21 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:48:24 -0700, Geo Rule
<georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:



>
>Also, from a political consideration, they may see a necessity to keep
>momentum in the war against terrorism, and see settling with Saddam as
>a good way to do it.  I don't mean domestic political consideration of
>the "let's talk about war instead of drug coverage for seniors"  --I
>mean more like Jimmy Doolittle's raid on Tokyo; symbolism for morale
>boosting.  But this consideration is, I believe, informed by the one
>above (i.e. they think it is a "good" anyway).
>

    To argue with myself, possibly Operation Torch (the invasion of N.
Africa) would be a better analogy than Doolittle's Raid.  The British
were agin it; they were afraid it would mean no invasion of the
European mainland in '43, and they saw that as the main show.  They
were right; it did turn out to mean that.  But FDR and his advisors
convinced them that it was politically impossible to keep the American
armed forces cooling their heels (at least against Germany) until the
middle of '43 (i.e. 18 months after the war started for us against
Germany, Dec. 10, 1941).  There were other considerations too, but
that was a pretty strong one.



Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

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

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 04:58:20
First article in this archive:  21740
Last article in this archive:   21784
Oldest article in this archive: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 00:56:45 -0700
Newest article in this archive: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:39:17 -0500