What to do about North Korea...?

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Matt,

Moving them to Iran


Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You have world
politics down pat, no doubt.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


You do remember that Saddam moved several of his fighter aircraft to Iran
during the 1st Gulf War?

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On 7 Jul 2006 12:51:39 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

They are killing EACH
OTHER now, and I think that's been part of the plan from the start.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
so _this_ is only collateral damage, eh?


That database (at least the first page) pretty much confirms what Jay wrote.
With the exception of one airstrike that killed to people it looks like all
the deaths were caused by insurgents.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:16:31 +0000, Jose wrote:

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh?

I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want the
police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the houses
that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?

The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a
price.

You don't need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor. Think
"Philadelphia" and "MOVE". I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I'm not sure where this takes the discussion, however. Perhaps: don't
underestimate the population's willingness to see houses bombed as long as
(1) it is someone else's house and (2) it is supposed to make them safer.
Consider those that respond to the current administrations warrant-free
searches with "well, if you've nothing to hide...".

Then there's the ADIZ, which makes the DC area safe from law-abiding
pilots. Or the invasion of Iraq, which makes the US safe from all those
WMD-carrying terrorists that attacked the US in 2001/09.

Populations aren't all that discerning. And what does *that* mean for the
promotion of democracy laugh?

- Andrew

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:32:24 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way before
Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

If we're comparing this to Afghanistan, then it pays to be mindful of the
fact that Germany as a political entity didn't/doesn't support the
terrorists. In fact, it considers them criminals and works to hunt them
down.

I'm pretty sure that Hamburg is safe, therefore, from the US.

The situation with Pakistan is far less clear, in my opinion. It's an
interesting left hand/right hand case.

- Andrew

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:05:52 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

only varying shades of gray
-- how can you possibly ever decide that *anything* is worth fighting for?

[...]

people intuitively understand that only
standing against things isn't a workable solution to anything.

This is an interesting juxtaposition. You require that one be able to
decide upon something being worth fighting for, and yet "standing against
things" isn't workable.

You make several other logical errors, perhaps the largest of which is
mixing "left" and "anti-war". In fact, even "anti-war" is a misnomer and
simplification. There's a difference between a pacifist that is against
war as an institution and someone that is against the current "war" in
Iraq.

But this is all a game of public relations. Just as the debate about
illegal immigration was framed as one about "immigration" by those looking
to avoid a true debate on the issues, people like to reframe the "war" in
Iraq as being about the "war" on terrorism.

The reality is that one can be for the "war" on terrorism w/o being for
the "war" in Iraq. In fact, there are those of us that have a heightened
concern about our waste of time and resources in Iraq precisely because
we've this other "war" to which we should be paying attention.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you're willing to look
past the silly PR on the news every day (primarily in politicians'
speeches) and actually see the situation in Iraq for what it is distinct
from the situation with terrorism. Yes, there are insurgents in Iraq
today using terrorist techniques. But that's largely a civil war amongst
its own population. We didn't cause that, but we did permit it. And we
should do something about it...although, to be honest, I'm not sure that
we can do enough. Can a central government be sufficiently strong to
govern in the face of the sectarian tensions w/o simply recreating the
horrors of the Saddam regime?

But this has nothing to do with the [more important, in my opinion] "war"
that we should be fighting on terrorism.

Of course, neither action is truly a "war" in the conventional sense.
Both really should be seen more as police actions. In Iraq, we're trying
to enforce a peace between sectarian groups (thus "peace officers" {8^).
In the case of the terrorists, the conflict is largely not one of applied
military force but instead tracking, identifying, and locating the
individuals involved. This is more the task of a police officer than a
soldier (though of course "intelligence services" play a role either way).

There may be some real wars in our "war" on terrorism. Afghanistan was
one, and I suspect it's not the last. But the overall process isn't
really a "war" (though perhaps "cold war" as a description might work).

- Andrew

You don't need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor. Think
"Philadelphia" and "MOVE". I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I do need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor, since what I am
addressing is attacking somebody that didn't attack you. MOVE at least
was attacked by police that had actual jurisdiction. Whether they did
right is a separate question - at least they had the grounds to do it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?

That depends on the extent to which they were backing the terrorists.
Bear in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists,
funding their activities, and training them. We might not like it, one
branch of our government might be trying to root them out while another
branch of our same government is giving them scholarships, paying food
stamps, and teaching them how to fly. It could be construed as criminal
negligence that even faced with actual reports to relevant government
officials about the "odd" behavior and training requests that the 911
pilots manifested, our government ignored these reports, gave them
visas, and aided and abetted them. (We'd certainly call it "aid and
abet" if it were Pakistan that did that).

Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
his soverign airspace.

As to paying rewards to suicide bombers' families, that's not an attack
on the United States, and I don't think we have the right to stop it.
Here we pay rewards to jobless drifters, faith based institutions, and
drug dealers. There are many government programs that can be construed
to support the actions of evil people. Be careful, houses are made of
glass.

Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

I don't trust any of them. I don't know what "Republican" has to do
with what I am saying.

Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed.

What he believes and wants is one thing, what he does is another.

He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

What were our soldiers doing at the time?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?

This is a credible threat, and I would shoot as soon as he pointed the
gun at me or my friends. I would not subsequently go out and shoot
everyone else who looked like him.

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.
Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

There are some problems that just have no solution. In these cases, it
is even =more= important not to take actions that make the situation
worse. I don't advocate caving in to their demands, and I don't think
there is a general answer to the question, except this is something we
just have to live with and accept, if we are not going to "destroy the
village in order to save it".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:35:58 +0000, Jose wrote:

Bear
in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists, funding their
activities, and training them. We might not like it, one branch of our
government might be trying to root them out while another branch of our
same government is giving them scholarships, paying food stamps, and
teaching them how to fly.

To what aviation students are you referring?

[...]

Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying
rewards to suicide bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes,
etc.

What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
his soverign airspace.

A pair of no-fly-zones were enforced as a consequence of Iraq's defeat
after having invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure that "sovereign" applies in
that case, given that the no-fly-zones were to ensure the enforcement of
the cease fire to which Iraq had agreed.

- Andrew

Bear
in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists, funding their
activities, and training them. We might not like it, one branch of our
government might be trying to root them out while another branch of our
same government is giving them scholarships, paying food stamps, and
teaching them how to fly.

To what aviation students are you referring?

No specific reference, although the 9-11 terrorists were given visas by
our government despite warnings by their CFIs that they were up to
something suspicious. Osama Bin Laden himself was trained and supported
by the United States. We give out welfare money with little regard for
criminality; granted our system may be broken, but that would not be an
excuse if it were our enemy claiming the same things.

A pair of no-fly-zones were enforced as a consequence of Iraq's defeat
after having invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure that "sovereign" applies in
that case, given that the no-fly-zones were to ensure the enforcement of
the cease fire to which Iraq had agreed.

I'm sure Iraq considered itself soverign, despite its defeat.

Politics is not so simple that we can simply walk around knowing we are
right, and imposing ourselves on others. The world is getting much too
small for that.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Newps wrote:

You could have taken it to Big Sky Aircraft in Laurel. It's an FAA
repair station and Frank is famous for that kind of work.

Yeah, Edwards mentioned them. I just went along with my insurance
company's recommendation. I checked out the Greely outfit, Beegles
Aircraft Service, and from what I could find, they have a good rep.
Fortunately, I don't have a lot of experience in the aircraft repair
business.