[From Mike Acree (2003.02.18.1326 PST)]
Rick Marken (2003.02.17.2215)--
Some good negotiating skills (a PCT-relevant concept, from MSOB ;-)) on display here; thanks, Rick. Though my personal feelings lean to preemptive impeachment, the attention you give to face-saving for Bush, I should think, is what could stop the juggernaut, if anything could, and I've seen precious little of that so far.
Mike
"Liberty, security, empire: Pick any two." --Chris Maden
[From Fred Nickols (2003.02.17.2355 EDT)] --
Charles W Tucker, encouraged by Rick Marken, recently posted to this list a
Senate floor speech by Senator Robert Byrd. I'd like to thank them
both. Byrd's speech touches on some aspects of the road to war with Iraq
that have been troubling me.
Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
[From Fred Nickols (2003.02.18.1016 EDT)] --
>From [Marc Abrams (2003.02.18.01150]
Fred, are you suggesting that posting political material unrelated to PCT on
this list is appropriate?
No, and certainly not as a regular occurrence. However, I'm also not
suggesting that its occasional posting is inappropriate. That said, I
think the road to war with Iraq is legitimate fodder for analysis from a
PCT perspective. As for "politics" -- well, all social behavior is to some
extent political.
Do you think a speech by Senator Orin Hatch on the war would be an
appropriate post on CSG?
I don't know. If he's made one and you have a copy and list members are
interested in discussing it from a PCT perspective I can't see why it would
be inappropriate. That's a roundabout way of saying, "It depends."
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@safe-t.net
from [Marc Abrams (2003.02.18.01150]
Fred, are you suggesting that posting political material unrelated to PCT on
this list is appropriate?
Do you think a speech by Senator Orin Hatch on the war would be an
appropriate post on CSG?
[From Fred Nickols (2003.02.17.2355 EDT)] --
Charles W Tucker, encouraged by Rick Marken, recently posted to this list
a
Senate floor speech by Senator Robert Byrd. I'd like to thank them
both. Byrd's speech touches on some aspects of the road to war with Iraq
that have been troubling me.
[From Rick Marken (2003.02.17.2215)]
Fred Nickols (2003.02.17.2355 EDT) --
Charles W Tucker, encouraged by Rick Marken, recently posted to this list a
Senate floor speech by Senator Robert Byrd. I'd like to thank them
both. Byrd's speech touches on some aspects of the road to war with Iraq
that have been troubling me.
I think what we can do is try to think of an intelligent course of action for
our government -- one that is based on an understanding that all parties
involved are trying to achieve various goals and that violence is always the
dumbest of all courses of action (even if it's the only one sometimes, as when
one is being physically attacked).
The US can't go back and unmake the diplomatic mistakes it has already made.
We've now got thousands of troops and equipment deployed and ready to strike.
This deployment is very expensive and it's surely one reason why the US is
pressing for war ASAP.
Although the troop deployment was (I think) a diplomatically reckless course
of action, it actually produced a good result: weapons inspectors are now in
Iraq. What we need is a way to pull back our forces (due to the cost) and keep
the inspectors in Iraq. I think there is an easy, face saving way to do this
that will be acceptable to all nations. What we need is another unanimous UN
resolution saying that 1) all troops poised to attack Iraq will be de-deployed
2) the inspectors will stay in Iraq 3) the inspectors will expect cooperation
from Iraq 4) there is no time limit on the inspections 5) if the inspectors
report to the UN that they are no longer able to do the inspections needed
(if, for example, they are ousted or if Iraq actually uses its WMD) then this
will be considered an act of war and 6) a coalition of forces made up of all
UN signatories to the resolution (which should be unanimous) will invade Iraq,
take it over and set up a new, Iraqi government.
With the troops gone there need be no time limit on inspections. As long as
the inspectors are there it's highly unlikely that Iraq will be a threat to
its neighbors or a threat to give WMD to terrorists (which was more unlikely
_before_ the troop deployment than it is now). The US can claim that the troop
deployment and saber rattling was a great success because it got the
inspections going again. The rest of the world will be happy because the US
avoided war and acted cooperatively with respect to world opinion. It could
even be spun as a political success for Bush. Of course, one the Iraq
pseudo-crisis is over Bush will have to explain the horrible shape the economy
is in and the press will pay more attention to how the US is doing in its
effort to catch Bin Laden. But it's possible that the de-deployment will help
the economy a bit (all the military personnel back with saved up dollars would
increase demand slightly). So it might even work out for Bush politically.
This strikes me as being essentially a no lose solution for almost everyone
(except, possibly, Saddam, who will have to live out the rest of his
dictatorship with inspectors all over his weapons industry, but he does get to
keep being dictator -- but that seemed to be all right with us when we
installed him in the first place).
I hope things play out like this. But who knows?
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313
[From Dick Robertson,2003.02.22.1550CST]
Fred Nickols wrote:
[From Fred Nickols (2003.02.17.2355 EDT)] --
Charles W Tucker, encouraged by Rick Marken, recently posted to this list a
Senate floor speech by Senator Robert Byrd. I'd like to thank them
both. Byrd's speech touches on some aspects of the road to war with Iraq
that have been troubling me.
I'd like to weigh in on this subject too. I agee, in principal, with Marc's
rave to keep CSGnet subject matter more or less to the point. Nevertheless I
was glad to be made aware of Sen Byrd's speech, here, as I probably woud not
otherwise have known that anyone was weighing in on the unpopular side in the
current congress. (Whatever the man's past.)
I'm also with David Goldstein on lurking on the subject of economics. I have
felt I was gaining some small, general understanding which was more than I have
had previously. And at some point I was hoping to see an exe. model that might
give more illustration of some of the major issues in macroeconomics.
So far, whatever the flaws in Rick's attempts to model leakage I was interested
in, and remembered well, the forecast with which he went out on a limb a couple
years back. Wherever it came from, it seems so far to have been rather
prescient.
Best, Dick R