[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...

Hi John,

I was wondering whether to enter the fray on this issue; but you've said much of it for me!

Thanks, Eric Sommer

 John Sechrest <sechrest@peak.org> wrote:

While I think that Eric has drawn an interesting
collection of links.

However, I think that it misses some critical

1) Iraq is not the problem: The implication is that
regime change will alter the pattern of
terrorism. The missing piece is that the
result of regime change, especially forced
regime change, is unpredictable.

My belief is there is more opportunity of jumping
out of the pan and into the fire if the
change is made poorly.

2) The US is not the policeman of the world:
The issue presented assumes that regime change
by the US is appropriate.

Just because you can do something does not
mean that you should do something.

If California gets unhappy with Arizona for
abuse of the river that california wants.
And it becomes a life and death issue for the
people living in LA, is it going to be reasonable
for the state militia of california to arizona?

We believe in a world ruled by law, not by
power and not by personality.

Just as we would not want states using armed force,
we don't want a world run by arms instead of law.

3) The law of unintended consequences.

When you make changes in a complex system,
you get unpredictable side effects.

There is no guarentee that the side effects are
better than the current situation

4) Haste makes waste

Iraq has been doing silly things for decades.
While eric made a case for why there is a
relation between Iraq and al-queda,
he does not make a case for timing.

Why do we need to do something about now?
There is no compleling reason to invade Iraq now.
There are other tools in place that
can effect change without going to war.

the cost of war is going to be much higher than
people imagine.

5) Our social system is based on trust.

Much of what we do in the US is based on trust.
We assume that things will work.
We go to our banks and the banks don't have
armed guards with special scanners and door locks.

(They do have this in Italy by the way.)

So we have many opportunities for terrorism.
Any truck into a chlorine tank will take out a city.

How many chlorine takes can you identify on your
way to work?

How many people died in Bpol because of a gas leak?

So, there is no reason to expect that if Iraq is changed
completly that they have in any way reduced the risk
of terrorism.

If fact, by forcing the issue in this way,
they force more people into polarizing on the issue,
and it in fact breeds more terror later.

A short term win for a long term loss.

So, I believe that eric has left out many of the issues
related to the case. And as such does not make the
compelling case for why we should do something
in Iraq.

We lose more people to stupidity every year than we lost in

It would be far more effective to engage the world
on a different level than the current administration is
operating on.

John Sechrest . Helping people use
CTO PEAK - . computers and the Internet
Public Electronic . more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc .
1600 SW Western, Suite 180 . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333 . (541) 754-7325
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest

Advanced Data Management Systems
Email: staff@adm21.net
WorldWideOutline Initiative:
Download free Trial Client:
ADM homepage:

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more