From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 04:11:21 MST
Spudboy100 wrote:
> [moved to top of post ]
> Do these statements correspond to your take on things?
> 1) The US Pres is not blameless. W Bush and his family
> still apparently kow-tow to the Saudis, even though it now
> appears the Jihadi money trail leads right to Saudi
> Government Officials; as is being exposed by the
> Congressional Intelligence Committee headed by Dem.
> Bob Graham of Florida, and Rep. Shelby Foote of Alabama.
> The Pres cannot even bring himself to call the terrorists, for
> what they are Jihadis. This is a flaw that may have to be
> corrected with Regime-Change, with the 2004 election if
> necessary.;-)
Apparently there have been developments concerning the
Bush family and their links to the Saudis that I haven't yet
heard about. We get a TV program the West Wing over here
presumably a little behind you guys. Your comments on the
Saudis remind me of an episode featuring an outraged CJ
having to deal with them. I think a country effectively ruled
by a monarchy is an anachronism as is a country where woman
(half the talent of a population) are treated so badly. I wonder
(but don't know) if the Saudi Royal Family is being supported
by the outside world in a manner that is preventing the Saudi
people determining for themselves that a new system of
government would be an improvement.
Global politics is complicated. More complicated that probably
the average Jane and Joe watching TV can really deal with, yet
this does not (and in my view should not) stop them from having
a view and if they choose voting on that view. The upshot is
though that even the powerful American government (of any
persuasion) has to pick its battles carefully. It only gets four
years at a time to do anything. It couldn't reform all of the world
in the chosen image of any political faction within it quickly even
if it wanted to.
I'd be personally wary of talking up too much the Jihadi angle
(it serves the religious radical leaders more to reinforce their
divisioning of the world and affirm it to their followers than it
benefits those opposing them). And isn't an anti-jihad a jihad
or something pretty close to it?
> 2) I am aware that Australian special ops (SAS) participated
> mightilly in the over-throw of the Taleban, as well as helping
> to track Bin Ladin. My question was, does Austrialia have the
> "fire in the belly" to pursue these Jihadis to further spheres,
> or will it take a massacre of Australians on the Aussie
> mainland to accomplish this? What you seem to indicate
> from your post, is that most Aussies would tend to become
> more ticked, but not necessarilly more aggressive toward
> the Jihadis, despite a sarin gas attack in Sidney. If there is
> a huge body-count, my suspicion is there will be a
> sea-change is Aussie politics, which will undermine Labors'
> political corrected-ness.
I'm having trouble with your term Jihadi's so I'll read it as Islamic
fundamentalists willing to perpetrate acts of aggression on civil
populations. ("terrorists"). I wouldn't call Saddam Hussein's regime
a Jihad though doubtless Saddam would try and play the Jihad
card if it thought it would serve him.
If Saddam attacked Australia, or any other country did, then yes
you would see an rapid reallocation of resources as the country
went onto a conventional war footing. But terrorists don't fight
in the way of conventional wars. You can't take them on with
thousands of "belly fired" soldiers whether these be volunteers
or conscripts because they don't have standing armies. Your
better of with a few thousand or so elite soldiers, state of the art
weaponry and intelligence gathering. Australia can, does and
will continue to contribute with the soldiers and intelligence (Pine
Gap etc).
This is why I think if a Sarin gas attack was made on Sydney,
the reaction emotionally would of course be very strong, but
it would only increase the desire to go after Iraq if a clear link
was found to Iraq. The case would really have to be made for
a link. Otherwise the fire-in-the-belly will just be vented in an
unstructured way on largely or completely undeserving
bystanders including Australian Moslems.
The view of most Australians towards terrorism of the sort
carried out on September 11 and in Bali does not need any
more inflaming in my view. There is already all the willingness
to pursue genuine "terrorists" that is needed. In both major
parties.
> 3) Environmental treaties and such, do not seem to yield
> new answers to technical problems of polution and energy
> production, as you indicated this being the view of a few
> of your countrymen and women. The United Nations is
> experincing an all-time low, in American public support.
> We can't all agree, unless we can agree what constitutes
> what reality is. Also, if the Greens, for example, have
> solar tech to power civilization, please ask them to display
> their inventions. If they have nothing to offer but words
> and pretty cinematic displays...?
My understanding is that reduced levels of CFC's etc have
in fact stopped the hole in the ozone layer spreading. I think
I concede at least that one win to an environmental treaty.
Environmental treaties don't solve technological problems
as I see it they rather create the incentive for technological
innovations that are more environmentally friendly to be
pursed sooner rather than later. Its up to science and
technology not the treaties to do the innovating. The treaties
indicate that their is sufficient political will to take a short
term economic hit for a longer term net benefit. Without
the treaties it would be hard to get governments or industry
to back innovation that costs more because whichever
country took the world lead in implementing would be
a loss leader.
> 4) Killing foreign leaders is generally a bad idea, but
> letting them aquire nukes, and ICBM's with MIRV-ed
> warheads (now a decades old technology) seems far
> worse. Russia and China seem to be happy to
> accomodate anyone with the right credit card, with
> this tech.
The leader of every country is a foreign leader to the
people of every other country. I understand it was the
US itself after a few embarrassing botch jobs by the CIA
that introduced the policy of not going after foreign leaders.
I don't think it makes any more sense at the national level
to punish someone for what they might do than it does at
the individual level. What does make sense is to let them
know if they do do what you fear that they will wish like
hell that they had not. But the problem needs to be
considered at different levels. What incentive has Saddam
got not to use every bit of weaponry at his disposal if he
knows as it seems he must that the Americans and some
of their allies or a UN sanctioned force will be targeting
him personally? If he has nothing to loose, he doesn't seem
to me to be the sort who would be excessively bothered
my taking most of his country down with him in one last
"glorious" defiant act.
The other levels are the officers. They may be turned given
a sufficent show of force and time to think it over into
defecting when the crunch comes.
The Iraqi people generally, in my view, do not deserve to
suffer for the crimes of Saddam. This doesn't mean that no
action should be taken at all against Saddam if it risks the lives
of Iraqi civilians, we need to be real and recognize that we
have not yet got the choice to choose the all good option over
the all bad option. Sometimes leaders and generals must
make sacrifices of their own side for the greater interests of their
own side. This is not a pleasant reality. But it is a contemporary
reality. It is sometimes argued that the people of a country are
themselves partly to blame if tyrants rule over them. But in the
modern world I think this is too simple. All too often, the tyrant
rulers have tools (weaponry, wealth etc) out of all proportion
to that which they would have acquired left to their own devices
and not becomes caught up in the economic activity and political
machinations of outside powers.
> 5) Your last statement included the UN, which in one
> of the most venal institutions created.
That may be so. But it is, so far as I can see, the only serious
global political organisation around. Symbolically it is important.
It is seen, I think, by many in the world who are not from a
power (and some who are but disagree with the policies of that
power) as the great hope for a 'new world order' (a real one :-) )
in which all people in all countries will have a chance at justice.
For all its failings, the UN is, at least conceptually, seen as being
about something bigger and nobler than mere nationalism.
Nixon and at least part of his administration were pretty venal
too but Amercia was bigger than Nixon.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:22 MST