If techno-geek audiophiles can put GPS into their car stereos, I suspect that the North Koreans can do the same thing with their missiles.

It's just a tad bit more complicated than that

It's just a tad bit more complicated than that

Really? Don't misunderstand, I am not doubting you; but I am curious as to what those complications would be. IANARS.

With GPS the missile will always know exactly where it is, and exactly where it needs to go. Too far South? Just fire a small maneuvering jet and aim it a bit more North.

What am I missing here?

tanstaafl.

It's just a tad bit more complicated than that

If you wanted to put something down a specific chimmney, then yes.

But they'd only need to get accuracy within a kilometre to do some serious damage. Heck, probably not even that. It wouldn't be that complicated to glue GPS, an altimeter, and possibly some inertial sensors together with a small embedded PC. I'd even bet that a suitable PIC microcontroller would do the job.

The real technical issue though is making sure that it works as expected, and that the code doesn't have any bugs. That's one vehicle that they'd want to ensure went the right way. Obviously they'd also need to protect the system from the elements - ICBM are basically orbital in nature, temperature and radiation are both factors.

Fortunately for us though - civilian GPS has a height and speed limit, something like 40000ft and 550mph, although don't quote me on that (Derrick would probably know). ICBMs would exceed both, and anything slower and lower could be taken out fairly easily I would guess. But that wouldn't rule out the bad guys getting hold of a milirary GPS receiver and using it. I believe that the military signal is encrypted somehow. Obviously, I wouldn't know the details of that. I'm guessing the units need to be manually keyed to decrypt the stream, and that the keys change on a fairly frequently basis. Assuming there is only one encrypted stream, and that there are many listeners, key management would be a weak point in the system. (Somehow every listener would need to change keys at the same time, giving an avenue of attack.)

I think that is a new record for staying on topic. Anyway, thanks for playing, thread's over. How bout them Cubs?

Anyway, North Korea's missiles are unproven. Most analysts believe they do have nuclear warheads, but I think if they only shot one, we could detect it pretty early and shoot it down; our fighters fly at roughly the same speed as ICBMs and, while extremely difficult, there are pilots that train on such things.

Iraq and North Korea both have "weapons of mass destruction." In Iraq's case, Saddam has extensive chemical weapons and limited biological weapons. He is a few years away from developing nuclear warheads, although it is probably he can already build a "dirty" bomb. He can deliver these weapons by short-range ballistic warheads or artillary shells.

North Korea has some chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons already. It is very difficult to know how many they have, but they apparently have some of each. Their nuclear weapons are probably about as powerful as the ones used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They can deliver their weapons by short-range ballistic warheads, artillary shells, and long-range/intercontinental ballistic missiles. They also have ONE MILLION MEN stationed at their border, most of whom have been training for their entire lives. In contrast, the U.S. currently has 200,000 or so men in the Middle East. They have threatened that any hostile actions will be responded to with a "sea of fire," involving the total destruction of Seoul (sp?) and several other South Korean cities, followed by military invasion.

It will be easier to deal with North Korea once Iraq has been conclusively dealt with. Don't, however, assume that just because it is not front-page news that nothing is being done. The U.S., South Korea, Japan, and China are actively working behind the scenes for a peaceful resolution. The most likely scenario is that we bail North Korea out of imminent financial collapse and they put their war plans on hold for another 5 years.

If we fail to deal with Iraq and North Korea, it is likely that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Iran will go nuclear within the next 5 years (some within months). Those countries will be followed by virtually every other country in the world within the next 15 years. If we don't deal with Iraq's biological and chemical weapons, you will see a similar expansion of those weapons and their re-introduction to warfare (which has been thankfully limited up til now).

-Biscuits

Having read all the posts and replies to posts in this thread as of Tuesday evening, I feel compelled to address an issue that seems to be generally ignored.

Everyone seems hung up on the ideas of should we go to war, and what are the justifications, and is the war about oil, and will the allies support us, etc.

Has anybody given much thought to the consequences of doing this war, whether we win, lose, or draw?

There will be no winners here. Oh, sure, we may (probably will) go in and just like last time kill a bunch of poorly trained, inadequately equipped Iraqi soldiers and blow up a lot of tanks and bridges and things. But the financial consequences of this action will be devastating -- more so to us than to Iraq.

A dozen guys commandeered a couple of airplanes and flew them into a couple of skyscrapers and damn near took down the whole US economy. We have thousands of skyscrapers, thousands of jet planes, and yet this relatively infinitesimal attack on our resources had enormous consequences. I don't mean to belittle the loss of life and the tragedy of the attack. But only a tiny fraction of one percent of our assets were destroyed, and yet... Don't ever say that terrorism isn't effective.

So imagine what the effects will be if the entire Arab community, or even a sizable portion of it, unites and acts effectively against us. An oil embargo, a dozen effective suicide attacks, could prove immensely damaging, not to the physical infrastructure of the country, but to the confidence, the "psychological infrastructure" of the citizenry. With the overall economy balanced on a razor's edge (can you say multi-trillion-dollar national debt?) it will take very little to push us over the edge.

Want to take it a bit further? Read the book "Warday" by Streiber & Kuselka. The premise is a very limited nuclear strike against the US (total of 6 bombs, all exploded high in the atmosphere doing little blast damage, but the EMP would destroy most communications, make inoperable any automobile built after about 1980, destroy most civilian computers in the country taking out virtually all of the banking records... How many millions do you think would die with no transportation, no communication and thus no government?

We're not just playing with Iraq's future here. We are putting our own very much at risk.

tanstaafl.

Hmm.. I doubt Japan would as they have a well-grounded viewpoint when it comes to nuclear issues. Japan also discovered post WWII that not spending significant sums of cash on defence had some remarkable economical benefits, and they are more likely to negotiate for protection from economic partners (such as the US) than they are to start spending cash on something that they don't really want.

Taiwan wouldn't want to antagonise China by going nuclear. Since the USA is basically the reason that China hasn't reclaimed Taiwan as it's own, I doubt that anyone wants to rock that particular boat...It's an uneasy peace, but peace none-the-less.

South Korea - Probably not, for similar reasons as above. If North Korea attacked them with a Nuke, then US servicemen would also die. Since the US would almost certainly retaliate with some SSBN launched cruise missiles, Seoul doesn't really need to go nuclear for it's own protection. I doubt that the US would be happy with them acquiring Nukes for potential offensive use either - too much risk of escalation. If they went behind the US' back to get them, then the US might just close up shop there, taking the land mines with them. 1 million men would be waiting...

Iran - First chance they get.

www.idleworm.com

Check out "Gulf War 2". Rather amusing. Note that the coalition forces have a resounding success in Iraq, despite the final outcome.

Firstly, I doubt the Arab world would embargo everyone, since they want to sell their oil as much as we want to buy it. Our economy would screech to a halt as fast as theirs would (the U.S. uses something like 25% of the world's oil and the Middle East produces something like 37%). If they just embargo the U.S., we could buy all our oil from other sources while the European buy Arab oil (the market will just shift). Of course, if we seized Iraqi oil fields, it really wouldn't matter if they wanted to embargo us (assuming they didn't mine all the waterways, which would bring about a nice little regional war). Eventually, we would open new wells in the Carribbean, Alaska, and gain access to the extensive Siberian oil reserves.

I don't think any terrorists are going to make a massive electro-magnetic-pulse that destroys all the computers in the world. That sounds like a scheme from COBRA at best. Even assuming that it could plausibly be done with ballistic nuclear warheads, there are very few countries with that many warheads, fewer with ICBMs and fewer still that would launch them at us or let terrorists steal them. We could probably also shoot down a limited number of warheads, so I suspect they would have to launch a heck of a lot to hit much of anything.

-Biscuits

As far as economic damage goes, it is really hard to say. War provides an enormous boost to economies, as new jobs are created and the government pumps massive amounts of money into the economy. The question is whether the economy grows enough during wartime to pay off the debts down the road. In some wars, such as World War II, it does. Regardless, there should be a short-term boost. It is doubtful this war will be long enough or costly enough to make as big of a difference as a lot of people want to pretend.

As far as political consequences, if we win, it will significantly strengthen the U.S. credibility. Winning a war has a calming effect on quasi-allies as well as enemies. We can hopefully prevent future wars and prevent the destabilizing spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Germany will be isolated by refusing to go to war, perhaps France as well, while Britain and the U.S. will get a boost in perceived power.

If we lose the war (all the Iraqis have to do is fight us to a draw), then the U.S. loses credibility and the world smells blood. We will be powerless to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and will actually speed the spread of world conflict. As we lose economic clout, our economy may suffer, but our relations with our allies, for engaging in an unpopular war, will suffer more. Our enemies will take advantage of our weakness. Power perceived is power achieved. We will be next to powerless to protect our interests.

As far as terrorists go, they have not launched a large successful attack in any first-world country since 9-11. If we defeat Iraq, it will give the public renewed confidence (unless Bush wants to keep hysteria high with his "terror alerts"). Terrorists will be increasingly active, especially targetted at the U.S., but I don't know how much more so than if we showed weakness by backing down from war. Terrorism in Israel might decrease from less money going to the families of suicide bombers, but it might also go up from increased antagonism.

Basically, what I'm ending up with is a mixed bag. Most of the consequences, such as Arab anger and world frustration at United States unilateralism has already been suffered and backing down isn't going to help it much while showing signs of weakness. The rest could go either way, but probably won't change too drastically.

-Biscuits

South Korea would very likely arm themselves with nuclear weapons, as would Japan if they felt sufficiently threatened. The U.S. is a long ways away and is always going to be perceived as having other interests as well. These countries are going to want their own arsenal that they have direct control over rather than relying on the discretion of the United States.

This isn't the best source (the age), but here are a few choice quotes:

Mr Kim said the North should not "even dream of having nuclear weapons", which he said would be a dangerous development. "If North Korea gets nuclear weapons, the stance of Japan and our country towards nuclear weapons would change," he said.

With its highly developed nuclear industry, including plants that could make bomb-grade fissile material, Japan was rated, even as far back as the 1970s Ranger Royal Commission in Australia, as capable of building a bomb within weeks of a decision to do so. In the early 1980s, the US headed off incipient nuclear weapons programs by South Korea and Taiwan, which both have the industrial capacity to build bombs.

The emerging threat of nuclear arms and ballistic missiles is already causing a shift in Japan's defence posture. On Monday the Japanese Self-Defence Agency was reported to be seeking 20 billion yen ($A280 million) to test an anti-ballistic missile system being developed with the US.

Tests could start in Hawaii in April next year.

Last week Japanese Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said Japan could launch a military strike on North Korea if there was evidence that it was preparing to attack with ballistic missiles.

I doubt Taiwan would go nuclear, although they probably could within weeks. The United States will not support them if they declare independance. I think we might make a similar threat about nuclear weapons, but, if everybody else suddenly got them, I don't know. Also, if Japan started to increase their focus on personal defence, they might also choose to decrease our military presence there (but maybe not).

Iran restarted their nuclear program a few days ago.

-Biscuits

In reply to:

---

Most of the consequences, such as Arab anger and world frustration at United States unilateralism has already been suffered and backing down isn't going to help it much while showing signs of weakness.

---

Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with this. It is a far greater show of strength for the US Government, despite all the provocation, to be seen to be pursueing all other avenues of settlement. I believe the protests here in Australia, and in the US and UK, are proving that the if their respective governments backed down from the agressive talk their popularity would soar. Peace is what people want, not governments that are pretending to be strong by rattling sabres.

Also, at no point is anyone suggesting that if the US takes this road that Saddam or anyone else is going to be parading around pretending they've beaten the US or anyone else. They're all going to be too interested in making sure that they comply to UN requirements - which is ultimately what we want AFAICS. Sure, there's going to be a lot of posturing from Iraq. But there already is - using all available avenues of peaceful settlement is not going to change this.

This is the other side of the coin of your quoted argument, I believe.

For peace,

Paul

I believe the protests here in Australia, and in the US and UK, are proving that the if their respective governments backed down from the agressive talk their popularity would soar.

The popularity of the respective governments would not soar. They would be seen as impotent. People protest over everything, but that doesn't mean that it is "what the people want." 10% cares strongly about the issue on either side. The rest are ambivalent and it doesn't matter to them one way or the other. In addition, perhaps 5% of the entire population is going to know enough about any given issue to make an informed decision. If you want to use all those silly statistics out there, I believe they say that the majority of the U.S. population supports war and a significant number of people in Britain and Australia do as well. At the least, the current administrations in each of these countries would be finished.

Also, at no point is anyone suggesting that if the US takes this road that Saddam or anyone else is going to be parading around pretending they've beaten the US or anyone else

Riiiight. Regardless of the circumstances, Saddam and Al Qaeda and all the radical muslim clerics are going to be intentionally refrain from manipulating the facts to say what they want.

They're all going to be too interested in making sure that they comply to UN requirements

Just like Saddam has been doing? After all, he did fully disarm back in 1992, and once the option of force has been taken off the table, he is going to suddenly take the French seriously.

Seriously, if I were running Iraq, I wouldn't disarm either, yet. I would play the Western countries against eachother, opening up faultlines between allies and within countries, undermining western power. I would attempt to get the Muslim people to support me and egg on militants in every surrounding country. Then, at the last minute, I would deliver the coup de grace and agree to all French demands for disarmament, essentially giving the finger to the United States. As soon as world attention shifted again, I would start all my weapons programs again, drawing the ire (and possibly low-level action such as bombing) from the U.S., keeping my people united against a common enemy. Rinse, repeat. If I played my cards right, I would be able to dissuade any foreign powers from significantly intervening in Middle Eastern affairs, rendering any embargoes ineffective and allowing me to finally wipe out those pesky Kurds and Shia muslims.

Do NOT underestimate Saddam Hussein. He may be mentally unbalanced and a cruel murdering tyrant. He is also, however, a political genius that has managed to STRENGTHEN his power despite losing the first gulf war. He is an expert at turning any situation to his advantage.

-Biscuits

Protesting is one sided. The people who agree with what's going on stay home.

The people who agree with what's going on stay home

No, it's the people that can't be bothered that stay at home, whether they agree or not, that's why so many minority opinions succeed.

Your photo looks suspiciously like Saddam Hussein letting off with a 12bore, are you sure that you don't have a hidden agenda here?

The position I really think is poorly thought-out is that of Germany. The other countries, no matter their stance, have left themselves room to negotiate. Germany has painted themselves into a corner by stating they will not support war, even if there is a UN resolution. Hence, nobody cares much what Germany thinks since they don't have room to manuever. With France, on the other hand, a lot of effort is being put into convincing them to change their minds and the U.S. is letting them lead us around by the noses with their demands for more time and more diplomacy. If France had just said "no war under any circumstances," Iraq would already have been invaded.

Granted, France does have a veto on the security council and Germany does not, but I think if Germany had left themselves room to negotiate, the world would pay more attention to them now, whereas if France had ruled out war, they (and the UN) would already have been made irrelevant. Schroder just wanted to win reelection, no matter the costs to his country.

-Biscuits

The last that I heard, Germany wasn't prepared to send any troops under any circumstances. They didn't completely rule out supporting a further UN resolution though, or even (politically) supporting action under the existing one, if merited. (Which they don't think is the case at the moment).

Here is a rather lengthy but very well written essay that is worth reading. If I had to state my stance on the current subject, I couldn't do it better than this guy does.

That is a powerful argument. It is a little more emotional than I would use, but he gets his point across pretty well. The mentions in passing about idolizing John Brown put me off and I disagreed with the argument that it is likely for Saddam to attack the U.S. mainland (although I can see him killing every man, woman, child, and their pets in Isreal. Overall, I think he summed up a lot of the arguments pretty well. Appeasement is not going to be the answer, especially against a Saddam Hussien. By avoiding this war, we are only going to create more wars that are more costly down the road. By going to war, we will do more good in Iraq and the world than by abandoning those people to the "leadership" of Saddam and his goons.

There are very real costs if we go to war, but there are also real and more potent costs if we put our heads in the sand. Are you willing to sacrifice the credibility of the Western World and allow any Joe Tyrant to get his own nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons without being hamstrung by the French from having any credible deterant? There is a very real link between doing nothing now and the future proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of all sorts and their eventually use.

A stitch in time saves nine

-Biscuits

Wow. That's very well written, and mostly well reasoned, but it's plagued by several basic follies.

First, there's the idea that promoting democracy will make everyone like us, and, even more basically, that pushing our ideas of ideality on others will do the same. The essay fails to point out that large portions of the reason that many Arabs dislike or hate the United States and the western world in general is due to the failed attempts to Westernize the Middle East, from the 40s -- likely earlier -- to, probably, now. In addition, many of the stated reasons also have to do with US interference in their world, from support of Israel's often incorrigible attacks against their neighbors, internal and external, to the total support of the Saudi ruling family.

Second, there's the idea that the democracy we promote would be egalitarian. We've blatantly put people in power before. There's no reason to think that we wouldn't encourage certain factions while repressing others. He points out the cordon of soldiers protecting the members of the ``proto-democracy'' in Afghanistan. While it's true, they were also keeping out others.

Third, the idea that, somehow, we can annihilate all the bad people is ludicrous. There will always be some nutjob that thinks that he can and should destroy us all. It's happened throughout history, and it's unlikely to stop because we want it to.

He does make a good argument as to why attacking Iraq is not pre-emptive, though. It'd be nice if our administration could put it in such terms to us and the rest of the international community, instead of just rattling sabres.

We've blatantly put people in power before

IIRC, a certain Mr. S. Hussain being one of them.

I think our main problem is that the media does not care about the truth, they care about selling newspapers and magazines and cable advertisements. Thus, they are going to only portray the most emotionally wrenching stories from either side without ever giving us a fair and balanced view of the real situation. No one wants to listen to a history of the various UN resolutions and the subsequent Iraqi violations of them; they want to hear about the poor mother of 6 whose husband was tortured by Saddam for failing to win a soccer tournament. There are thousands of news sources around the world. True, most may all print the exact same story from Reuters or the Associated Press, but there are enough out there that you can generally find alternate views and better reporting on most important stories. Read the New York Times or the Economist for once instead of merely watching Fox News or listening to the sound bytes on the radio.

Here is a funny clip of a guy interviewing antiwar protestors. Now, I know there are going to be just as many pro-war people that are ignorant and some of the people at this rally may have known what they were talking about, but I think this illustrates the plight of the average world citizen regurgitating the rhetorical nonsense they were told by the media:

http://brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html

-Biscuits

So he's making fun of people for not knowing a way out of this situation? I'd argue, as you have, that GWB put us in this situation to begin with. People have a right to express their frustration with this. It is, as one of them said, the government's responsibility to deal with it. They, supposedly, have a staff of international diplomats and policymakers that are experts at this. They are simply letting those people know that the choice taken is the wrong one, and to find another way.

I believe that France and Germany, along with basically everyone in the Western world believe that Saddam is, to put it bluntly, evil. If it were as simple as just killing him and everything would be good, as much as it bothers me morally and ethically, I'd do it, because sometimes the ends do justify the means. But that's not the case. If we invade Iraq, we just show the rest of the Middle East that we do have a penchant for unilateralism, and it's just going to piss off more people. There's bound to be some way we can start to show the Middle East that we can coexist on the same planet without getting in each other's way.

I don't know what the alternatives are, but they are bound to exist. If the current administration could show me that they've explored any alternatives, I'd be less argumentative. But it seems that they haven't. If the Kennedy administration had been like this in 1961, the east coast of the US probably wouldn't be here today.

Of course, the thing that pisses me off as much is the fact that the Bush administration is using this whole Iraq debacle as a smokescreen for the progressive curtailing of the civil rights of US citizens, from the so-called Patriot Act, to some people who have just disappeared under the Federal governments expanded authority to detain people without charges. Basically, without saying it, habeas corpus has been lifted across the whole of the nation.

And, for me, that casts unbearable suspicion on the whole of the Iraq affair. Rational citizens think that it's okay to detain people without any of their guaranteed rights, because ``they're terrorists''. Of course, the whole of our legal system gets thrown out the window, because then you've got one organization working as judge, jury, and (hopefully not) executioner.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-Martin Niemoeller

Bitt, I agree with you 100% about Bush and Ashcroft using the "War on Terror" to take away the personal freedoms and liberties that make this such a great country. Everything that patriots have fought and died for throughout our history is being thrown away for the mere illusion of security. Worse still, the citizens of this great country don't seem to care very much: "why should I care about my privacy if I don't have anything to hide?"

Back on topic: The problem with peaceful ways of dealing with Iraq is that we can't think of anything else. Weapons inspections failed last time and they are failing again. The embargo hasn't done much of anything and although we've isolated their country politically, Iraq doesn't seem to be changing their behavior. The only way that Saddam will disarm short of war is at the point of a knife. If he knows that he can not delay and argue any more, that his country is facing imminent invasion, that unless he disarms, he will either be killed or arrested as a war criminal, then he might disarm. If he still were to refuse on D-Day-1, I don't think there are any peaceful ways to convince him otherwise.

-Biscuits

(First, I'd say thanks to Biscuitsjam for starting this thread. A civil debate. Let's hear it for that concept. This thread dropped down the list quite a bit, but when I thought where I could best post an Iraq war rant/polemic, I couldn't think of a better place to put it-- also didn't want to clutter up some of the more recent, more specific threads. Also, I don't expect to somehow revive this thread...and it probably doesn't even qualify as civil debate...mostly I'm just getting this out of my system!)

I'm not entirely sure that this will qualify as a polemic -- that term connotes (to me, anway!) that you know what you are talking about. My meager collections of opinions may not qualify. In the polemic vein, though, I will offer this opinion: Saddam has won. Yes, it is only the 18th of March, and the brigadiers of the 3rd Infantry Division have not yet fired off their flares, but I think Saddam has won. I'll come back to that.

I won't lay claim to being some high-end philosopher. Much of what I have to say is the product of received opinion. Soooo, much of what I have to put in to this post includes links to other, smarter folks and to news bits that I thought were informative.....and boy will it ramble...

The Philosophy Gap

I hardly think that I am the only person who asks "What is GW Bush's obsession with Iraq?" As I try to understand that -- and whether my extremely low opinion of "Shrub" is justified -- I have earnestly tried to understand what makes him/them tick. A while back, I linked to a radio program on this subject and, in deference to folks who can't/won't play Real media, I'll sum up that show like this:

- A Gallup pollster (Frank Newport) says that if you are a white, evangelical Christian you are much more likely to support Bush in general and "the war" in particular.
- A long-time Bush observer (Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News) says that, while there is no indication that GW Bush thinks that God (tm) speaks to him in his dreams (saying things like "Invade Iraq, Georgie!"), Bush *does* have some sense that he is on a divine mission -- or that his being in office is part of a divine plan -- so that any decision he makes *must* be the right one (I am oversimplifying and encourage anyone so interested to listen to Slater's explanation...)
- A journalist from the BBC (Nicholas Fraser) says (more or less!) "Holy Crap! If voters in Europe encountered a politician who seemed to be so religiously inspired, they would run 180 degrees in the opposite direction."

The Middle East Gap

From my limited perspective in the U.S., it had seemed that the attitude of Christians (at least fundamentalist Christians) toward Jews was not always very positive. The term "Christ killers" comes to mind. I like to stay as far away from free-floating conspiracy theories as I can, but one remarkable aspect of the past year's debates and discussions about the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the very surprisingly high degree of support for Israel among evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.

(parenthetically, I will say that I almost felt that this was a place where I had some sympathy for Shrub: When what you have to work with are Arafat and Sharon, why should I be surprised if he turns up his nose and avoids the whole situation for as long as possible?)

*Anyhow*, if I am trying to make sense out of the high degree of support for Israel's excesses coming from American (meaning U.S.) Christians, the only thing that I have been able to latch on to as a tool is a recent novel by Robert Stone called "Damascus Gate". Not sure that this novel qualifies as history, but it seemed to hint at some of the possible cross-connections between various Judeo-Christian apocalyptic strains.

Anyhow, even allowing for Palestinian suicide-bomb atrocities, for reasons that I don't come close to understanding, there seems to be an unprecedented level of support for Israeli Jews -- some higher alignment of interests -- among U.S. Christians (OK, perhaps I wasn't paying attention before) at a time when the Israeli government has swung as far to the right as I can remember and is engaged in as controversial a wave of ultra-reciprocal killing as I can recall (naive 23 year-old leftist, peacenik Washington State student among the recent dead.). Stone's novel laid out this alignment of interests in religious, apocalyptic terms (I may have to read it again). I open the floor here to any Christians (or other folks) to dispel my notions -- explain the recent demonstrations of support for Israel on other grounds.

My sense, though, is that one thing this apparent alignment seems to do (and maybe this should be no surprise) is to increase the antagonism not just to Palestinians but Arabs in general and Muslims in general. So for anyone who wondered or cared where I was going with this, I suppose I can sum up the proposition: Recent increased support for Israel among evangelical Christians also translates into more support for invasion of Iraq.

The Towel-head Gap

I am going to go out on a limb here: In the mind of the American public, I don't think that the life of some poor innocent non-combatant farmer in Afghanistan or his innocent non-combatant farmer cousin in Iraq is worth much. In the Vietnam era, I remember a chip-on-the-shoulder bumper sticker (and more vividly a tatoo) to the effect of "Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out". I get the sense that we are willing to take this approach. Oh, if we puree 100 people at an Iraqui wedding party with an AC-130 gun run? I think we'll manage to forget it pretty quickly.

Where did this feeling of mine come from? Well, for one, the 48 Afghans who were previously killed by an ill-considered AC-130 burst don't exactly seem to be sticking in our collective memory, never mind the many other civilian casualties. Call me judgemental, but I also have the sense that there's a certain element of "all Arabs are pretty much alike" that contributes to the "average" opinion here.

Please consider this snippet from a recent on-air survey of some Rotarians in Missouri (from an NPR news bit):

Mr. HARRY MURRELL (Rotarian): We could do it alone. We don't need the United Nations' approval. We don't need France's approval. We don't need Germany's approval. You know, historically France has always been against us. I think a lot of people have forgotten September 11th already. They just plain forgot about it.

WERTHEIMER: Going to the UN in the beginning was wise, says Realtor Shirley Sallenshooter(ph), but it's taken too long.

Ms. SHIRLEY SALLENSHOOTER (Rotarian): I think we need to go ahead and start the war, because while we're waiting, trying to get world opinion on our side, the terrorists could be in our country waiting to attack us the minute we start war. So I am very concerned that we need to start this now and get it over with.

What I take away from this -- "a lot of people have forgotten about September 11th" and "the terrorists could be in our country waiting to attack us" in the context of interviews that were specifically about an impending war with Iraq -- is that "average" Americans (Rotarians at least!) don't make any great distinctions between Iraquis and Al-Quaeda terrorists and that it is all one big, dark, evil world full of sinister Arabs east of St. Louis... (and they are making their way west to Kansas City!!).

The Propaganda Gap

From the beginning I was skeptical of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq war rationale. One day it was terrorism, the next day it was WMD, then it was terrorism. I smelled Tonkin Gulf. For all of you who are clinging to the various aluminum tube rationales cited by the Bush administration, I have a prediction: some day in the future most of the world is going to look back at those tubes (if they haven't already) and consider them a big, fat lie -- another Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Dissident voices are pretty hard to come by in the current CNN-Fox media rainbow. One interview I recently enjoyed was with John "Rick" McArthur of Harpers. Oh, aluminum tubes? Baloney? Oh, the IAEC statement that Iraq was 6 months away from nuke capability? Ummmmm, they never said anything like that. Once it is over, what else will we discover that Bush's folks invented?

Y'know, I would think I was cynical and overly pessimistic about this whole adventure if it were not for letters from State Department professionals like this gent (oh, or like this gent). The former I think is really striking.


The Turkey Gap

The point was recently made about the U.S. "making Turkey our bitch". Whatever exception was taken to this phrasing, I have to say that I think it is very apt and correct. On of the most horrifying aspects of this whole Iraq war thing is just how cavalier U.S. politicos can be with regard to very tenuous situations like Turkey and the Kurds. I don't pretend to know what the most just resolution of the whole Turkey-Kurds-Iraq relationship is, but it is my opinion that the current administration *isn't even thinking about it*. "Hey, Turkey, yeah we've been supporting Kurds against Iraq, but howsa 'bout we invade Iraq through Turkey and Kurdistan?". I don't know what this all means except that we seem *very* willing to offer 23 billion to a country like Turkey so they will play along, but we don't seem very attuned to the possible destabilizing consequences of our expedient desires (Oh, why should we care? We'll be back at Fort Benning before the Turks and Kurds *really* start killing each other!)

The Crusade Gap

Some of you may have already played the Flash game Gulf War 2 cited by genixia previouly in this thread. For anyone who hasn't played this "game", I highly recommend it. I have returned to it every 5-6 days and it seems to get more real every time...

It occurs to me that Tommy Franks' little army may just drive to Baghdad in short order, vaporize Saddam, and impress the *hell* out of CNN with aggressive tactics. This seems like a case, though, where we can win the war, but lose the war. D'uh! What this mean? I think there's a reasonable chance that we can win the immediate war against Saddam but set the stage to tilt the scales against ourselves in any continuing attmpt to protect ourselves (like from terrorism).

This seems like a case where the U.S. administration can't manage to see the forest for the trees. This puzzling, aluminum tube-fueled idee fixee of war against Iraq is oblivious to the historical images of The Crusades that it evokes. A while back I read an article and book by Bernard Lewis entitled "What Went Wrong?"; among other points, I think it offered a reasonable explanation of how it is that many Islamic states and societies resent and suspect "The West" in general and the U.S. in particular. In practical terms, this war will only make matters worse and will lay the foundation for many Mohammed Attas of the future. We should dread this outcome, yet we, as a country, seem intent on the "gated community" approach (as referred to in this essay by Brian Eno).

Further, I think here in the U.S. we have managed to consider issues of "East versus West" in fairly selfish, US-centric terms. Issues such as those brought out by Lewis' books -- Islam's (including radical Islam's) relations to Western societies and values -- exist in many, many countries, yet we seem to be focused only on U.S. interests.

On we go, sword in hand. When Bush used the term "crusade" some time ago, the media characterized it as a slip. I did not buy that explanation. At first I attributed it to Bush's ignorance of the full meaning of the term -- and that his handlers had to explain it to him. Recently, I am more convinced that Bush and his people truly view this as a Crusade -- that the divine guidance toward some crypto-Armageddon really does make this a Crusade for them -- just that it is considered impolitic to say that openly.

The President Gap

So, more and more political commentators portray Bush's stance on Iraq as a matter of deep, nearly religious, personal conviction, but as much satisfaction and admiration as Bush's simple, basic Crusade messages evoke in some quarters, I predict that history will view his presidency quite harshly. No heroic Roosevelt or Lincoln as some would hope, rather a Franklin Pierce or Herbert Hoover. Much of this historical opinion will be founded on the inept and arrogant foreign/military policies and the damage done to the U.S.'s reputation, to important relationships, and to important institutions (the U.N.).

I don't necessarily think that this mistaken war will result in a one-term presidency. The timing of the war is such that the tendency to line up behind "support our troops" will likely carry Bush/Cheney to a 2nd term. Only then will it become clear that everything else is completely farked up and Bush's popularity numbers will begin a steady decline.

The Two-Party Gap

Bush *could* be a one-term president if the main opposition party had *anything* to say that distinguished them from the Republicans. Aside from the rare dissenting voice like Robert Byrd, the Dems seem intent on lining up a la: Democrats Criticize Failed Diplomacy, but Call for Unity Before War so that no one can call them unpatriotic. WRT the 2004 election, I think they are doomed. If this article represents the party line, *I'm* not voting for them (again!).

The Beacon Gap

I think this is a sad day to be an American, IMO. The notion of the U.S. of A. as a beacon of democracy, even if it hasn't always been supported by our behavior, has been a nice ideal. Things *are* better here than many other places. Look, I can post this under my own name without police knocking at my door (so far, anyway!). I won't go to bed hungry tonight. I didn't die at age 1 from dysentery. My hands have not been chopped off by rebel forces. The accident of my birth -- that I was born in this country -- is something that I am always thankful for. The notion of a liberal democracy that other countries admire, the country of the Marshall Plan is something I cherish. Well, I think while we were busy working on new walls and gates for the Rotarians, we forgot to clean the lens in our beacon.

Saddam's victory

This megalo-sociopath has really learned how to manipulate "the staff" during his "institutionalization" in Iraq. I doubt that any options to bow out -- exile on St Helena or in the Seychelles or somewhere -- hold any appeal. The guy seems sick enough to ride the bomb all the way even if if takes thousands of innocents and supporters with him.

If I accept that notion, then I'd have to look at what Saddam might think he has accomplished. Well, by walking a behavioral tightrope, it appears that he has maneuvered us into the role of the reviled crusader in a way that will *decrease* our own security going forward. He has managed to separate us from our friends. Even at the moment that he is vaporized by a smart bomb, I have the very sorry feeling that he will have had the last laugh.


[edit: "student", singular]

You know, historically France has always been against us.

Yeah. Like during the American Revolution. And Haiti's independence. And Vietnam.

People are so stupid.

I will buy you a one-way plane ticket to anywhere in the world if you officially give up your US citizenship.

Wow, you had quite a bit to say on this and you make some very good points.

I’d like to explain the little I can about the evangelical attitude toward Israel from an insider’s perspective, though for reasons I’ll get to, the Rev could probably give a better answer. At least a little of the evangelical support comes from end-times prophecy and the belief that Israel represents (or will represent) “God’s chosen people”. For some Christians, this has led to an attitude of “I’m a Christian, therefore I support Israel.”

One of the notable things is that in the bible, the end-times are prophesied to come when Israel is at peace and walls are no longer necessary (my paraphrasing here). Until recently, this has really made no sense as there was no Israel. Now it makes more sense, though of course Israel is certainly not at peace. Some see the possibility that removing the threat of Iraq being the first step toward this peace coming about. I am inclined to view the situation this way, though I don’t believe bringing peace to Israel should be our nation’s motivation in attacking Iraq. I should also point out that there are some evangelicals who don’t believe that the Israel of today corresponds to the Israel spoken about in these prophecies (i.e. the name is the same, but the people are different).

There are at least two major views of eschatology within evangelical Christianity (and many more depending on how you count), though it seems that one particular version of dispensationalism is loudly touted as being the “party line”. My own church (and the Rev’s if it is Southern Baptist) holds to this view of the end-times, though personally I am not decided and will probably remain that way. Edit: I forgot to finish this thought: However, this prevalent view holds that during the “tribulation” (7 years of badness) God (who has been working through the Christian Church ever since the first century) will again work thorough Israel.

How exactly this translates into the U.S. foreign policy I’m not certain, but this is clearly a driving force among evangelicals. This is where I’ll have to defer to those more knowledgeable than myself. However, my feeling toward biblical prophecy is that it is generally not something designed to show us how to live and act, but to confirm the authenticity of scripture as well as Jesus Christ. The foretelling in Daniel of very specific events that would happen years after the book was written did not as much help prepare the people for the events as it offered compelling evidence afterward that he’d received inspiration from a divine source.

From my perspective, we should treat Israel as any other nation, and if God’s prophecies occur, then that is a testimony to the scriptures. I don’t believe we need to “help things along”.

As far as evangelicals and conspiracies go, I think that’s a little bit far. More likely there is a pattern of thinking that has developed certain attitudes toward Israel that influence Christian decision makers. I should emphasize that I’m speaking a great deal out of ignorance here, but I do understand at least a few of the underlying issues.

I have the very sorry feeling that he will have had the last laugh.

That's a laugh I'll gladly concede him ... his last.