Speaking of the mini-nukes, have you heard of this supposed "e-bomb" that's supposed to wreck electrical infrastructure by sending out an EM pulse? Some people have found it relevant to point out that - surprise! - nukes do something like this...
So as to not heat up things too much, here's a fairly unemotional summary of what I think at the moment:
- Saddam's government is illegitimate and brutal.
- Bush's government is marginally legitimate, but at least he's got Congress (even if the Democrats are too spineless to really stand up to him when it comes to a vote) and a few Supreme Court justices to balance it out a bit.
- The war isn't solely about oil, nor is it solely about disarming Saddam and/or liberating the Iraqi people. I'm sure that these goals are not trivial to the administration, but I very much doubt that either is the primary motivation. More likely Bush intends to sacrifice the short-term stability of a contained Saddam for the long-term strategic benefit of having a decidedly US-friendly regime in a central location in the region. Or maybe he really does believe that he's doing the Right Thing. Who knows?
- A war will most likely increase anti-American sentiment and possibly terrorism in the short term. What happens in the long term depends very much on what happens after the war (cf. Germany after WW1 vs. Germany and Japan after WW2).
- IIRC, White House officials have repeatedly stated that they don't want to get involved in "nation-building". They don't seem to specify exactly what they mean by that, and the vagueness is just a little unsettling.
- Eric Eldred should have won Eldred v. Ashcroft - not relevant to the war as such, but the implications are a bit scary anyway. Plus, I don't like Ashcroft.
- David Rees rocks. Catharsis is good.
So as to not heat up things too much, here's a fairly unemotional summary of what I think at the moment:
- Saddam's government is illegitimate and brutal.
- Bush's government is marginally legitimate, but at least he's got Congress (even if the Democrats are too spineless to really stand up to him when it comes to a vote) and a few Supreme Court justices to balance it out a bit.
- The war isn't solely about oil, nor is it solely about disarming Saddam and/or liberating the Iraqi people. I'm sure that these goals are not trivial to the administration, but I very much doubt that either is the primary motivation. More likely Bush intends to sacrifice the short-term stability of a contained Saddam for the long-term strategic benefit of having a decidedly US-friendly regime in a central location in the region. Or maybe he really does believe that he's doing the Right Thing. Who knows?
- A war will most likely increase anti-American sentiment and possibly terrorism in the short term. What happens in the long term depends very much on what happens after the war (cf. Germany after WW1 vs. Germany and Japan after WW2).
- IIRC, White House officials have repeatedly stated that they don't want to get involved in "nation-building". They don't seem to specify exactly what they mean by that, and the vagueness is just a little unsettling.
- Eric Eldred should have won Eldred v. Ashcroft - not relevant to the war as such, but the implications are a bit scary anyway. Plus, I don't like Ashcroft.
- David Rees rocks. Catharsis is good.