[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News ToutsDoubt and Dissent]

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

Lots to address, but I had to take this point right now: 

> Have any of you been in a fist-fight, or played a
> strategic computer-game, or any sort of wargame?  

Not in a while, but I've seen my share of fist-fights. 

> If there are two
> people/countries that are threats to you, do you fight both of them
> simultaneously, or do you swat one of them and hope that the other
> leaves you alone until the one you started with is dead?  

If I'm in a fight, I go for the biggest guy first as violently as
possible with an eye towards putting him out of commission as quickly as
possible IF THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID A FIGHT. With any luck if I take
him out quickly there's less threat to me and maybe I'll scare the crap
out of the smaller guy. 

But, I've never been involved in a fight where I threw the first punch.
I've been in fights where the other guy never landed a punch, but not
where I threw the first one. 

Guess what: Iraq is the smaller guy. Between the two threats, I'd choose
to deal with North Korea first, and I'd choose to do so diplomatically
if at all possible - especially since they actually pose a serious
threat to the U.S. 

If Iraq posed a serious threat to the U.S. -- not some "well, in five to
ten years they might be a threat" -- we'd be going in full-bore. We're
not, because they don't pose a real threat. 

> If you usually
> win these sorts of games you know that the only way to do handle threats
> is one at a time, unless there is no other choice, and when there is no
> other choice, your tactics must be a LOT more brutal, if you are to have
> a hope of winning.  By contentrating our resources on the war with Iraq,
> and temporarily ignoring Vietnam, 

I think you're thinking of North Korea here, not Vietnam. 

> we buy the ability to be 'surgical'
> and the ability to spend resources on rehabilitating Iraq.  If we fight
> both at the same time, rehabilitation will no longer be an option, all
> our resources will go toward disabling the threats.  

I still do not buy the idea that Iraq is a real and present threat to
the U.S. North Korea, on the other hand, is definitely a very real
threat. I have no idea just how serious the North Korean government is
about using their nuclear weapons or how badly they're itching for a war
with us...but they're making a lot of noise and have the weaponry to
back it up. Saddam wasn't, and doesn't have that kind of weaponry. 

I'm curious to see just how much we put into "rehabilitating" Iraq...if
it's comparable to our efforts at rehabilitating Afghanistan, I feel
really sorry for the Iraqi people. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net