Orange clashes with my red, white, and blue

[mithriltabby]

The terrorist threat level gets upgraded to Orange. What does this mean for average citizens? Continue about your daily routine while feeling more paranoid, so you’ll feel better about declaring war on Iraq. Bah.

Why is war such a boolean thing? Is there nothing short of war that can take Saddam Hussein’s toys away from him, since he won’t play nice? Why can’t the UN just say: “Since you guys are apparently hiding things from our inspectors, we’re going to start ‘inspecting’ sites by targeting them with bombs. We’ll let you know which ones, so you can evacuate your people, but anything leaving the buildings other than people on foot will be destroyed.”?

I find the “regime change” rhetoric particularly hypocritical. Why should Iraq get special treatment? It’s not like Saddam Hussein has a monopoly on barbaric behavior toward his own people. (The answer seems to be “because Iraq has vast oil reserves, and other countries run by harsh dictators don’t.” Harrumph.)

Comments

How much are hazmat suits these days?

[racerxmachina.livejournal.com]

Working in the computer science department puts me in contact with a lot of people from India and Pakistan... and they tell me that Americans don't know squat from terrorism. Imagine if we had to put up with what they put up with.
Just took a poll on the subject of war (oprah winfrey site, god help us) and though many people have doubts about the subject, most polled want war.
Looks like we might have to lose a few troops to remind people that war is about killing other people, not some abstract video-game concept....

inspections by fire

[rhylar.livejournal.com]

I always thought that the correct method of inspection was:

1. Surround site with armed troops
2. Ask politely to enter
3. If refused, back up 100m
4. flatten the facility
5. Go to next site
6. Repeat

Unfortunately, Iraq has said repeatedly that they would consider that an act of war. We can test their commitment, and likely end up in a war, or we can keep trying inspections that don't really work, or we can get involved in a war.

All bad choices. Which is the least bad?

Re: inspections by fire

[mithriltabby]

I’m inclined to agree on the correct method. Horrific weapons like that shouldn’t exist in the first place, and if they have to exist at all, are better off moldering in warehouses as a deterrent between mature, established nations until said nations can really grow up and get rid of them entirely.

Sounds like “test their commitment” is the least bad from that list. We’re already bombing them in other spots, so bombing buildings that are likely to contain Mr. Hussein’s nastier weapons is just a matter of degree, not of kind. From a public relations standpoint, which sounds better:

1. World’s most powerful nation declares war on impoverished but oil-rich Middle Eastern country because the former nation’s analysts claim that the latter nation is hiding weapons of mass destruction.
2. Impoverished but oil-rich Middle Eastern country declares war because inspections for weapons of mass destruction were backed up with UN-approved force when said country proved uncooperative to inspections, and gets stomped on for their presumption.

? I gotta admit, I can’t figure out why we aren’t going for option 2. Maybe GWB is putting on an act of frothing at the mouth for war so there’s more to bargain away at the negotiating table, in the appearance of being reasonable?