Questions on the War, found on the web, worth answering

i think yes he is more likely to use them when pushed into a corner like he's going to be....but i still dont think its very likely he'll use them at all - this is why so many people are convinced the U.S. are targetting Iraq ahead of North Korea because of oil

i agree that the war will provoke more radicalism and extremism from hard-line Muslims young and old - especially in Asia where Bin Laden continues to be idolised - terrorist attacks are likely to increase on the US and UK predominantly, with perhaps incidents similar to the Indonesian nightclub bombing occurring in those areas of 'Western decadence' that are surrounded by a predominantly Islamic populous

is the gap between the West and the rest increasing still? is it constant or decreasing? i'm sure you could argue that long and hard.

fourth question is interesting, a huge chain of events in the last 30 years put paid to the threat of Russia (thus Cuba) to the U.S. - i like many people have no idea whats going on south of Mexico these days apart from the turmoil in Argentina not too long ago. what about Nicaragua, Guatemala etc. - countries too poor and concerned with neighbour squabbles to really affect the rest of the world i guess.

1. If he's clever he won't use them. It'll make the US look like tits.
His country is about to get badly fucked over wether he uses them or not. Not using them is a much more sound political decision. The question is will he realise this?

2. Yep, the more scared or annoyed Muslim countries become vis a vis America, the more fundamentalist they will get. If fundamentalist terrorism starts croping up once a month somewhere in the world then we've got serious, serious problems.

3. I don't think Bush is the remotest bit internationalist beyond protecting US interests. Reaganomics cannot apply to third world countries. It presumes a rich strata of society for the trickledown effect of which there is none in places like Afghanistan.

4. Thats just as far away from me as Iraq, so meh. Maybe it'd be a bit different if it was Belgium, but when the fuck would Belgium ever be that interesting . . . .

Stevem: Lots of very important stuff going on in Central/South America.

First of all, and oil related, is Venezuala. The Bush regime hates Chavez as much as Saddam, but they have no pretext to start a war to get rid of him, so they backed a very short-lived coup against him a year ago (the CIA is losing its touch), and now he is dealing with an oil company "strike."

And then Colombia, where we are funding a war to help Colombia get rid of the lefty drug-dealing FARC. We are also giving them "advisors" (i.e. civilian contractors hired by the military and some CIA guys of course) to provide non-combat support services. A few days ago a plane carrying 2 contractors, 1 colombian army guy, and 1 CIA agent crash-landed due to engine failure - FARC got to the plane first, killed the CIA and Columbian, and kidnapped the two contractors.

A good source for south american news is www.narconews.com

1. If you consider biological weapons WMD, he's already used them on his own people (and on other people in other countries, allegedly. And probably in the Gulf War, though the evidence is more sketchy.) If he had nukes in the 80s, it's perfectly logical to assume that he would have used them as leverage when he invaded Kuwait. Same for Israel. He will certainly use everything in his power if he's invaded, just like the first time.

2. Where is there evidence that Saddam has been controlled by the UN? There are thousands of missing missiles, thousands of missing documents, and literally tons of biological weapons that are unaccounted for in the inspections. As for your premise: what about all the Muslims that Saddam has murdered in his own country? I guess the Muslims aren't all that united after all. The Middle East is already awash in young Islamic terrorists--Al Qaeda comes to mind. As long as the US supports Israel in any way, the US will alienate young followers of Islam and fill the dark corners of the world with terror minds. At least Bush has come to the realization that we will ultimately need a Palestinian state--allegedly, he's the first US President to mouth those words (correct me if I'm wrong, someone.)

3. Religious fanatacism dominates terrorist groups long before economics, although certainly minds are probably more vulnerable when they are poor and starving. The argument could also be made that much of the poor in the third world are completely unaware of the standard of living in the West or in first world countries. A staggering majority of people in third world countries are illiterate and have never seen a TV before. Capitalism is the dominant economic engine worldwide--not really sure what "Reaganite economics" under your terms--and it has proven time and time and time again to be the only reliable way to increase wealth worldwide. Most third world countries are run by dictators or militaristic heads of state, virtual kingdoms with a state-run economy that has little chance to disperse any generated wealth. As for the situation in Afghanistan--since October 1, 2001, the U.S. has committed $840 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid to help the people of Afghanistan with the U.S. fulfilling 95 percent of the $297 million pledged at the Tokyo Conference in January 2000. The US is still in Afghanistan doing things like immunizations, etc. As for Kyoto is a different thread entirely.

4. If Iraq was in, say, Central America they never would have been allowed to come this far as a threat. The US would have moved much earlier to dispell Saddam's power. But in this day of long range missiles being so much more prevalent than they were even ten years ago, the world is a much smaller place.

The Inspections Dodge
Why are France and Germany pro-Saddam? Follow the money.
BY KHIDHIR HAMZA (former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053

If the root cause is economics, why aren't poor nations around the world sprouting terrorists? Why is it that these terrroists come primarily from Arab states?

In 1999, 46.7% of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa lived on less than $1 per day. In the Middle East and North Africa, only 2.3% are that poor. Where are the droves of African terrorists? Are they too poor to hate?

Per capita GDP has fallen in the last 25 years in Sub-Saharan Africa, but has risen in the middle east. The regions have equivalent literacy rates.

Infant and maternal mortality rates in Sub-Saharan Africa are much higher than in the Middle East. Casualties from conflicts in SSA are double that of arab countries in the last 10 years. Life expectancy is 15 years longer in the middle east than in SSA.

How can anyone view these discrepancies and still claim an economic cause?

77% of Sub-Saharan Africans live in countries with multiparty electoral systems. Only 48.5% of Arabs do. Arab states also have the lowest free-press scores in the world. It's political, not economic.

>How can anyone view these discrepancies and still claim an economic >cause?

There is more terrorism is Africa than anywhere else in the world, but it is directed inward rather than outward. Crime is rampant, there are "revolutions" every month or so that are really just an excuse for armed gangs to loot, kill, and rape villagers, it's basically hell.

The US only cares about terrorists who act out against the US.

>77% of Sub-Saharan Africans live in countries with multiparty >electoral systems.

Bwahahahahha. If you want to call it that, go right ahead.

The UN calls it that. I don't really know. My point is, it's not economic.

The root cause of Islamist terrorism isn't economic.

>>the US only cares about terrorists who act out against the US<<

Wow, that certainly doesn't explain the US sending our kids to get killed in Bosnia, Sudan, Lebananon, El Salvador, etc, etc, etc, etc.--places where terrorists were local and busy raping and pillaging the citizens of that country. You know, places where countries more local to the sitation--well, France of course springs to mind--wouldn't dare lift a finger or a dollar to help. The US currently has a military presence in nearly a hundred countries worldwide, and the figure was even higher during the Clinton administration--there aren't but maybe 20 countries in the world with long range ballistic missiles and most of those are our allies. Not to mention without the US there wouldn't have ever even been an attempt at peace or treaties in the Middle East since the 60s. Not to mention that the Clinton administration made a passionate effort to mend fences in Northern Ireland--a country that has almost no economic value to the US. To suggest that the US has only unilateral interest in the area of terrorism is preposterous and shortsighted.

>>the US only cares about terrorists who act out against the US<<

Clarification: The US under the leadership of George W. Bush. Although the record under Clinton was spotty. We helped Bosnia, which required only some bombing (and is now a base for islamic terrorism), but we ditched Somalia (Sudan?) very quckly after Mogadishu. Clinton did nothing for Rwanda, the biggest massacre of the 90's. Israel and the UK are close allies, of course we would help negotiate peace btw them and their enemies. And I don't know what the fuck you are talking about in El Salvadore, we supported the right-wing terrorist government there.

I'm not really sure why Clinton's record was ?spotty? as far as addressing global terrorism goes; Rwanda is absolutely an example of an egregious error on Clinton's part, and he had (and has) many critics for his lack of action but overall his administration hardly shied from asserting the US role as global cop. I'd appreciate seeing at least a handful of examples before I assess 1992-2000 as years where the US only spottily cared "about terrorists who act out against the US."

And as for Bush Jr., he's committed more resources (financially and otherwise) towards world terrorism than any US president in decades, and certainly more than any other country in the world. The US maintains an active, powerful interest in fighting terrorism directed towards its allies, for example. The US also continues to provide a substantial amount of resources devoted towards world stability in general. We have thousands of troops all over the world and thousands of governmental agents (CIA, ambassadors, etc.) working actively to combat terrorism because the US knows that any political and economic instability can result in direct or indirect confrontation. It would be easier to agree with ?the US only cares about terrorists who act out against the US? if you were listing a bunch of examples where the US is currently avoiding confrontation with terrorists.

Also, why is it the US? job to be fighting terrorists in other countries where we have no interests, explicit or otherwise? How did that suddenly become our job? What is the appropriate amount of involvement we are supposed to have? How much more?

The US policy towards terrorism has been superficially inconsistent at best, but it is absurd to assert that it has been ambivalent or universally uncaring in the past two years. In fact, I?d be interested to know of another country that has "cared" more about terrorism outside their own borders and interests more than the US has in the past two years.

"Also, why is it the US? job to be fighting terrorists in other countries where we have no interests, explicit or otherwise?"

Becuz we seek to stamp out evil wherever it may lurk!

"lurk"

That darned evil! Always cropping up!