Thursday, March 27, 2003

Here's my reply to Chris's Incisive ultimatum...

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:25 PM
Subject: 48 Hour Ultimatum

>Okay, my blogging friends, you have all been pretty silent since the collapse
> of the Post-WWII order began in earnest last week.
>Is Andrew's participation in anti-war rallies motivated purely by ennui?
>Has Marco's contrarian philosophy caused him to turn about
>180 degrees in response to new poll results?

Yes. I am afraid so. If an election were held today, I would vote against the govenment (probably democrat with labor preferences) against my other instincts that are in general pro-business, right side of centre.

Back in August 2002, Me and Sandor were talking about the developing situation in Iraq. It was even before the UN resolution recommencing inspections took place. We were both convinced (and continued to be convinced right through until March) that war was all but inevitable given the circumstances. Our only difference in opinion was the matter of when hostilities would begin. We therefore decided to make a little wager (20c or something) as to the dates of the war starting. To enable us to remember the dates, I picked the due date for Zachary (7th of November) while Sandor picked his wedding anniversary (17th of February). As it happened Sandor was right, and possibly for the right reasons as well (he figured it would take that long to move everthing into place, which I think was the main stalling factor - the UN thing was just a diversion which in the long run wouldn't harm the war effort) As it Happens, he wins, and the date hostilities started was very close to my wedding anniversary, and amazingly, both me and Kylie forgot all about it, due to the war and all that distracting us! Anyway, that sort of puts me out of the really bad books, because she forgot as well, which is better than what normally happens.

Apart from the obvious instincts, there are few other points I would like to make.

1) Peace protests essentially are "batting for the opposition". It essentially tells Iraq that it still has a chance of winning, and that it should be encouraged to keep on killing as much as possible. The obvious exception is violent protests for peace - these obviously encourage our troops who have to be violent to some extent, and strengthen the incumbent government on top of that, by making it look like the victim.

2) In general, I think wars are a matter primarily for governments. People like to think they can control the governments strategic decisions, but essentially, all they can change is the game and the shape of the board, not the mind of the person playing the game.

3) The war involves a lot of secretive information and intelligence that the ordinary voter is not privvy to. Therefore, I think we can easily jump to completely wrong conclusions about a whole heap of matters with regards to strategy. For instance, I believe that spies whose identities need to be protected know a whole heap more than can be public knowledge. To have a chance of winning, the US cannot afford to show any of its spying network information at this stage.

4) I think some of the reasons for this war are not very noble, but I don't think we'll ever find out about those for sure in our lifetime.

5) I think Australia's troops battling in the gulf are the worlds best, and the US could not win the war without them. They could even have a chance of winning the war by themselves, given enough equipment, money and time.

6) If you have to ask me in general if I am for or against this war in general, I would have to say that I'm for it, on the grounds that essentially, it forces Iraq to finally show its hand with regards to WMD and its link to terrorism. Networks of terrorists associated with the middle east will find it much harder to operate now, without putting their whole network at risk of disintegration. Every terrorist attack provides vital information about its network, and with fewer countries willing to protect them, they will find it near impossible to both hide and be an aggressive influence.

7) I have decided to make a personal boycott of French products. This means that I'm going to have to find a replacement for my "Drakkar Noir" products.

>Is Dave only making fun of Dick Cheney because it is *sooooo* easy?
> Androoo knows my opinions, reasoning and motivations, a little, but
> I am in the dark about the rest of you guys. Surely it is the duty of you
> lot as bloggers to provide moral and intellectual leadership to the world
>by clearly stating where you stand and why.

>Therefore, I am giving you all exactly 48 hours to provide a reasoned response to the *Jerusalem Post* op-ed piece below.

Sorry, I'm not going to refer to that piece directly, because I can't relate to its general assumptions.

Gee, I hope I made the 48 hr deadline!

No comments: