Aberrant RPG - Real 2003 and Aberrant 2003.

[Tangent]

I haven't ran/played a Aberrant game since 2000. I wanted to ask people who are still active with the game something that as I prepare to run a new story has crossed my mind. Has anyone included Sept. 11th and all that has happened because of it into their games? Meshing it into the story. I don't want to be insensitive about it but I also want to make the world still feel real and this is the world as it stands now.

[Sphere]

Hmm, tough one. There are two ways that I can think of to handle it. Bearing in mind it occured well after N-Day in game chronology.

a) Project Utopia have a presence in New York, the event was forseen by one of their pre-cogs and prevented. In my game Caestus Pax and T2M Central managed to safely intercept the planes and bring them down with minimal loss of life. This was also due to the "Let's roll." attitude of some of the passengers.

You could go the way Marvel Comics did which was to have the event occur. It is an example of how superheroes can't always save the day. Although in the world of Aberrant casualties would certainly have been lower as P:U would have had at least an hour to evacuate the towers with teleporters and warp-gaters, whilst other Novas attempted to stabilise the building.

The after effects of September 11th, 2001 would presumably be slightly different. The attack on Afghanistan may still have occurred, but P:U would certainly have assisted in the peacekeeping efforts afterwoulds. Afghanistan would probably be stabilised and well on the way to becoming a fledgling democracy.

The Iraq invasion wouldn't have occurred as I believe the dictatorship has already been deposed by Utopia and the country has become a democracy.

The Aberrant world does have it's own version of a terrorist attack on the scale of September 11th. In the Project Utopia book they mention a nuclear device being detonated in a small city, not sure if that was on American soil or not.

[Kirby1024]

Remember that the Aberrant Universe Diverges from ours at 1998. The two histories need never meet, really, if you don't feel comfortable doing so.

It's worth pointing out that the creation of the Hypercombustion Engine pretty much gutted whatever economy the Middle East had. Who was responsible? Project Utopia. Keep in mind that America may no longer be the primary enemy of Islamic Extremist groups. They may still lash out, but with a larger enemy (and one that's probably got them on the run), it's likely their targets will have changed.

With that in mind, It would make more sense in such a divergent history to have the event occur against a Utopian Target.

Of course, you can combine the best of both worlds - Project Utopia's Central Headquarters used to be in New York, after all. Attacking the Project Utopia Headquarters is almost certainly doomed to fail... Unless the Terrorists had powerful Novas on their side.

Some thoughts...

Also, the bombing that Sphere talks about is the Sao Paulo bombing, when terrorists detonated a Fusion Bomb. The death toll was considerably greater, as a great deal of the city was vapourised by the blast. Sao Paulo, if I recall, was in Mexico.

[Jager]

Note, the San Paulo blast may not have been a terrorist act. No terrorist organization that could have pulled it off claimed it. The other suggestion is that it was some hyper-experiment gone amok. After all, right after this, Utopia is given its technical oversight authority by the UN.

Personally, I dont' think PU is strong enough by Sept. 11, 2001 to have predicted and stopped the attacks. I do think the backlash against Islamic Extremist by the UN would have been stronger. The Taliban and Alqueda (?) would have gotten the same treatment the organized crime syndicates got. The Arab World's reaction to novas would have intensified by the nova intervention in Afghanistan.

The big thing to look at is that the UN is no longer a toothless tiger if there is a Project Utopia, with its novas, to back up its decisions.

Iraq is an interesting case. For one, the US isn't the sole superpower anymore. Next, the UN is more capable of enforcing its sanctions. Lastly, there is Utopia's liberal agenda to take into account. Basically, dictators beware. WMD or not, it is likely that the Project would find a way to oust truly disfavorable regimes.

[Sekhmet]

Sao Paulo, if I recall, was in Mexico.

Brazil.

[Sphere]

By 2001 Project Utopia would have been up and running for at least two years. I would have thought they'd have more than enough resources, if not to prevent the incident then at least to minimise casualties.

As I said above, Iraq has already been peaceably changed to a democratic republic by 2001, in game time, anyway. So an invasion would have been unneccessary.

It's unlikely that the presence of Project:Utopia would encourage the UN to over-ride one of it's basic tennats of not invading a country unless that country is (a) Showing aggression to it's neighbours, or ( Demonstratably represents a threat that cannot be contained. Although metasensory weapons inspectors'd be handy!

Even then you'd have to get it by all of the council members with veto powers (something that hamstrings it a lot in the real world too). Which is why Utopia had to use diplomacy to sort out the Israel/ Palestine problems rather than steaming in Authority-style.

Another option, for dealing with recent world events in the game. The attack on Afghanistan happens, and as in the real world as soon as the shootings over everyone turns their attention to other things. Northern Alliance warlords and resurgent Taliban control much of the country with the exception of Kabel. In the Aeon Continuum, however, you've got the added bonus of Elites pouring into the region. The place becomes another Kashmir-style killing field for baseline and Nova alike.

[Sphere]

That should be spelt "Kabul", apologies.

[Jager]

Quote:

As I said above, Iraq has already been peaceably changed to a democratic republic by 2001, in game time, anyway. So an invasion would have been unneccessary.

Curious as to how this was accomplished.

It isn't until April of 2005 that T2M takes out the dictator of Macedonia.

[Sphere]

Unknown as to how it was done. It's a footnote in one of the books. Someone correct me if I've got the date wrong, I'm quoting that from memory.

Regarding the takedown of the Macedonian dictator, I believe it was done under the Project:Utopia Science and Technology remit. The guy was using blacktech weapons systems to enforce his power. So T2M: Europe were able to enter the country and take him down.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Quote:

Sphere:It's unlikely that the presence of Project:Utopia would encourage the UN to over-ride one of it's basic tennats of not invading a country unless that country is (a) Showing aggression to it's neighbours, or ( Demonstratably represents a threat that cannot be contained. Although metasensory weapons inspectors'd be handy!

Are you saying that the UN would or would not have backed an invasion of Iraq as the situation existed?

[Walker]

In my game timeline I ruled that T2M rounded a lot of dangerous terrorists up soon after it was formed. The Project Utopia book mentions the Al-Burhan raid on an organisation called Islamic Dawn so I figured that others would have happened. At first I came up with an idea remarkably similar to what Sphere had happen in his game world but rejected it in the end as I didn't feel comfortable with it.

For the change of government in Iraq there wasn't much information given. The main rules glossy section mentions operation Desert Hawk, in which US army Novas take down some nuclear missiles and silos, again there's not much concrete information, but my mind tied the two events together for some reason.

[Sphere]

Sorry Doc, could you re-phrase that question please? I'm not sure what you mean.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Quote:

Sphere:It's unlikely that the presence of Project:Utopia would encourage the UN to over-ride one of it's basic tenants of not invading a country unless that country is (a) Showing aggression to it's neighbors, or ( Demonstratably represents a threat that cannot be contained. Although metasensory weapons inspectors'd be handy!

I'm saying that Iraq; "A" has a long history of showing aggression to it's neighbors. And "B" the containment of Iraq was breaking down.

We were very quickly reaching the point where we were going to have to choose between rehabilitating Iraq and doing something about it. And yes, we now know that Iraq didn't have (any more) WOMD. It just had programs for the same ready to start up again as soon as the sanctions ended.

Combined with Iraq's leadership's "rule by terror" style, the whole thing seems ideal for sending in T2M.

[Sphere]

Iraq has only been an independant country since 1932. Before it'd been part of the Ottoman Empire until invasion and occupation of it by the British. Iraq wasn't even technically a country until it's independance, and it's borders were determined by the British.

It's "long" history of aggression to it's neighbours have only two actual incidences of attempted invasion. The first was the Iraq/ Iran war, in which Saddam was supported by both the British and American governments of the time (to the extent that we'd agreed to look the other way if he used chemical weapons). The second incident is the invasion of Kuwait. An act which resulted in Iraq being completely and utterly defeated by a superior UN-sanctioned force.

There has yet to be any evidence found of Iraq actually having programs in place to re-start production of chemical or biological weapons once the sanctions ended. The general consensus was that the sanctions would only be lifted once Iraq was converted to a democratic government. Although I don't doubt Saddam would have wanted to if he thought he could have gotten away with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by containment. If there were no NBC weapons, active programs, or build-up of troops to invade other countries then containment was still working. As were the inspectors.

Real world: Iraq would most likely not have been ruled by terror if we'd supported the uprisings that occurred during the first Gulf conflict as oppose to encouraging it then leaving them all to be slaughtered.

Aeon world: Again, Iraq has already been converted to a democratic (or at least Western friendly dictatorship) by 2001. So there would be no need for T2M to invade.

Even in the World of Aeon there are countless countries ruled by despots and dictators. T2M is restricted by UN mandate on who it can and cannot depose. Which is one of Utopia's big weaknesses. The intervention in Macedonia was because Radocani was utilising blacktech weapons in his military and represented a clear threat to world stability.

The UN is unfortunately heavily restricted by it's member states who hold power of veto. Which is why both China and Israel have never been critisised or condemned by the UN for their atrocious human rights records, wereas Palestine (rightly) gets criticised. Israel's nuclear arsenal is actually illegal under international law, yet we look the other way because we are friendly to them.

My personnal paradox is that, as a person with a liberal political attitude, I cannot say that the ousting of a dictator is a bad thing. Although I look at the mess Iraq's in just now and desperately hope we have the guts to stick it out and not leave until we've healed the wounds of a country which has known nothing but crap for much of it's short history.

Apologies if I've irritated anyone, I realise this is not really terribly role-play related. But in order to discuss the impact of September 11th, 2001 on the Aberrant world I feel these things should be discussed. I'll shut up now.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Its "long" history of aggression to its neighbors have only two actual incidences of attempted invasion.

Both done by Saddam with little or no provocation. As I remember it, they both came down to “I have an army and you have money”.

The first was the Iraq/ Iran war, in which Saddam was supported by both the British and American governments of the time

The implication being that this war was somehow the fault of the British/American government? I remember a comment at the time being that considering who was fighting, it was a pity that the war had to have a winner.

...the invasion of Kuwait. An act which resulted in Iraq being completely and utterly defeated by a superior UN-sanctioned force.

Yes, the other President Bush was willing to go to the UN and get sanction. He was also willing to invade anyway if he didn't have it.

There has yet to be any evidence found of Iraq actually having programs in place to re-start production of chemical or biological weapons once the sanctions ended.

That's not what the interim report by David Kay, the administration's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, said. From the Economist's summation on October 9th, (quote)...The hard question is what the report implies about the UN's previous regime of sanctions and inspections—a regime the French, among others, believed would contain Saddam. The fragmentary nature of the weapons programs suggests that containment had stopped large-scale weapons-making. At the same time, the existence of banned missiles and the continuing development of new weapons suggests that Saddam was preparing to quickly restart his programs once the UN inspectors were gone...(end quote)

The general consensus was that the sanctions would only be lifted once Iraq was converted to a democratic government. Although I don't doubt Saddam would have wanted to if he thought he could have gotten away with it.

??? This is the first I've heard of this. General consensus from whom? It's neighbors? Right before the recent invasion, the sanctions were taking serious heat because (among other things) of all the children “it” had killed (mainly from Saddam building palaces rather than feeding his people). More and more countries were ignoring more and more of the sanctions. Between Saddam and his heirs there certainly was no sign of democracy creeping out. Would have been possible to have the sanctions (and starving children) for another 50 years?

,,

Real world: Iraq would most likely not have been ruled by terror if we'd supported the uprisings that occurred during the first Gulf conflict as oppose to encouraging it then leaving them all to be slaughtered.

Yes, Bush underestimated Saddam's ruthlessness and willingness to slaughter his own people. I believe the thinking was that the new Iraq government would have more legitimacy if they came to power without much more help, and that they wouldn't need help because of the state of Saddam's army. Definitely a bad call.

Aeon world: Again, Iraq has already been converted to a democratic (or at least Western friendly dictatorship) by 2001.

It has? Do you have a reference for this? Short of nova intervention, I don't see how it would have played out differently. In fact, considering the op-net and nova senses, I could see the world knowing the truth about Saddam's brutal rule and the UN sending in T2M long before 2003.

...The intervention in Macedonia was because Radocani was utilizing blacktech weapons in his military and represented a clear threat to world stability.

As opposed to Saddam? Do you really think that he wouldn't have used blacktech if he could?

...Israel have never been criticized or condemned by the UN for their atrocious human rights records, were as Palestine (rightly) gets criticized.

My general impression is that Israel is hauled on the carpet far more often than any of its neighbors, and held to a MUCH higher standard.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is actually illegal under international law...

As far as I know, Israel's nukes are technically legal because unlike most countries they (like India & Pakistan) never signed any agreements saying they wouldn't develop them. Iraq and Iran on the other hand did sign those agreements. That's not to say that they should have developed them, just that their actions were technically legal.

I look at the mess Iraq's in just now and desperately hope we have the guts to stick it out and not leave until we've healed the wounds of a country which has known nothing but crap for much of it's short history.

Agreed.

[The Paragon]

I recall one of the major questions bandied about at the end of the first Gulf War. Why the Coalition forces stopped advancing?

They were asked to stop.

The Saudis, being Sunnis, were terrified of a Shia state on their borders.

The Syrians didn't want Iraq dissolving into civil disorder.

The Turks didn't want the Kurds to form an independent Kurdish state.

The Iranians didn't want a Western democratic state forming up on their border.

The Kuwaitis ... well they wanted us to drive to Bagdad and drag Saddam through the streets, but they took the whole invasion and annexation of their country personally. Go figure.

The important thing to remember about the sanctions was that they were not having their intended purpose, which was to reform how the Saddam regime ran Iraq. If anything, Saddam had a stronger hold on his country in 2002 than he did in 1992.

Sorry, but chemical weapons worked wonders for keeping Saddam in power against both the Kurds and Iranians. Given the chance, he would have rebuilt his stockpiles and waited for his next opportunity, or senility to creep in.

As events are showing us, there was no force in Iraq capable of overthrowing Saddam. This going to take time ... and alot of patience and work.

[Sphere]

The sanctions were handled terribly, I agree. It hit the civilian population whilst barely touching the animals in power. Ten years of starvation and poverty combined with being run by a maniac might explain why there is continuing resistence to our occupation even in areas utterly opposed to Saddam.

Paragon, chemical weapons might have worked wonders back in the 80's when both the UK and the US governments of the time considered Saddam a great ally. But since the 1st Gulf War he has been under constant scrutiny. Even if all the sanctions had been lifted he'd have been under constant surveilance. The slightest evidence of an attempt to re-build his weapons and there'd be Coalition tanks sitting on his lawn taking potshots at his palace.

Troll, I think the statement about Iraq's status in the Aeon Continuum is a footnote somewhere in the Project:Utopia book (I'm really going to have to hunt it down). I totally agree that it probably took Nova involvement to depose the Saddam regime. I was trying to extrapolate the effects of the September 11th attack in the world of Aeon, as per PhoenixForce's question. If Iraq is already a democracy then the 2003 invasion wouldn't be necessary.

[Jager]

The slightest evidence of an attempt to re-build his weapons and there'd be Coalition tanks sitting on his lawn taking potshots at his palace.

Really? Given the present reticensce of the UN to act with force, I wonder.

I think the scenario is like this:

- Sanctions end

- Saddam begins working on chemical weapons

- Is found out

- Is threatened wtih Sanctions

- Disposes of Chem weapons

- Sanctions called off

- Saddam begins building up a biological arsenal (which is much, much easier to hide)

- World gets distracted in another crisis

- some neighbor gets to experience biological warfare. Better yet, Qusia (?) takes over, decides to launch a terroristic attack on the five largest British and American cities, waits a few days while our intelligence services are running down the leads, then stands up and makes some claim to being a Pan-Arab Nationist leader fighting British and American Imperialism ... then what?

Consider the spread of the SARS virus, folks. Now, think about how much worse it would have been if it was deadlier and a deliberate action.

The lab to do this kind of work is the size of a trailer, and easily disguised and/or moved.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Even if all the sanctions had been lifted he'd have been under constant surveilance.

The French were opposed to the inspections to begin with. More likely, getting rid of the sanctions would have meant getting rid of effective surveilance.

Think of how hard it was to inspect even with the stick of the sanctions in place. For that matter, the sanctions were never intended to last forever, or even 10 years. The idea was that the inspections would prove that Saddam had disarmed. Like he agreed to at the end of the first war.

Saddam proved that he wanted WOMD very badly, even to the point that he was willing for his people to endure any amount of suffering if he could get them. From previous experience, if he had them he would use them.

The slightest evidence of an attempt to re-build his weapons and there'd be Coalition tanks sitting on his lawn taking potshots at his palace.

You don't think we had the "slightest evidence" this time around? I certainly didn't see a lot of willingness for the UN to bring force to bear.

But let's assume that is the case. Question: Who pays for this army to intimidate him? How many times does the UN have to show up on his doorstep before actually doing something about it? The big lessen he seems to have learned from the first war was that no one was willing to depose him.

[Sphere]

I'd like to continue this discussion on Private if that's okay Doc? Don't want to commandeer PhoenixForce's thread to debate non-roleplay stuff. Unless everyone's cool to continue here?

Hell, my last few posts have been only tenuously connected

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Quote:

Sphere: I'd like to continue this discussion on Private if that's okay Doc? Don't want to commandeer PhoenixForce's thread to debate non-roleplay stuff. Unless everyone's cool to continue here?

Hell, my last few posts have been only tenuously connected.

I don't hear any objections to us staying here.

Abby connects to the real world as of 1997 or so. Thus a discussion of real world hot spots, and how the real world would/should deal with them, is both related and not-related to Abby.

How the world would/could/should/did deal with Saddam is (I think) a role playing discussion. T2M is run by the UN, which in turn is handycapped by real world politics. Saddam owed a lot of money to the French, and they hoped that he would regain his oil wealth and repay them. In the event of the US overthrowing his government, the French very likely would (and will) lose a great deal of money.

Shifting the topic over to Isreal for a moment, does anyone know when Giesha erupted? If she was around in 2000, it is hard to imagine her not being at the peace conference. And if she was there, then it is hard to see Arafat rejecting peace off hand.

[Tangent]

On a side note to this.

I was looking through the Ab Players guide and it mentioned Iraq was still under a dictatorship. So I think It still shows it as a problem in the mideast region.

How many novas do you think erupted in Iraq?

Many against Hussein erupting during the torture and executions that he ordered so regularly. But I am also sure he would have a few loyal Novas who would protect him or do his bidding.

If we wanted to pull back into a more broad scope.

How many Novas would Al Qaida have? Or Islamic Jihad, PLF. THen look at the flip side. How many novas would be in Mossad.

A story around a Nova "suicide" bomber would be a very intense story as well as a reflection on the times.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

"But I am also sure he would have a few loyal Novas who would protect him or do his bidding."

Saddam inspired fear more than loyalty. Imagine a nova with mega-chr next to Saddam... it is hard to see how they would avoid being executed for the crime of being more popular than he was. Ditto for most other nova powers.

[Tangent]

Keep in mind not all of Iraq was brought to heel by fear. Tikrit and most of northern Iraq is loyal to Saddam. Gathering Novas from this area would give him fanatically loyal followers.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Sure.

Our press reported that the Iraqi making announcements to the press was missing his front teeth because one of the kids knocked them out and forbade him from getting it fixed (or was that the guy missing his fingernails?). One of the top nine guys in the county was ordered to loose an unreal amount of weight in 10 weeks or so, and did so.

These were not people you wanted to be close to, or even to know on a first name basis.

Think about it. Would Saddam tolerate even one of his sons becoming a nova? If they went nova, they would almost by definition become a big threat to him.

[Sakurako Hino]

And woe to the world if one of them did.

They were nuttier than the tree they fell off of.

[Tangent]

So basically your saying that no Iraqi had any loyalty to Saddam?

So who was doing his torture for him? Was he doing it all himself?

I am not saying the country was loyal to him. I am not saying the majority was loyal to him. But the Bath party was loyal to him. If a Nova would have erupted in those ranks he would have used it to his advantage.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I'm not saying no loyalty, although it is worth noting that the army for the most part didn't fight.

I'm saying that Saddam and company liked to demonstrate their power by torturing their colleagues. Presumably one of the reasons Iraq did so poorly (and Saddam made so many mistakes) was because everyone was afraid to give him any bad news, or express any opinion that he didn't like.

So how is someone like Saddam going to react to a nova?

Say the nova has an offensive power, this means he could kill Saddam at will if he were in the same room.

Say the nova had advanced Int. How exactly do we reconcile "makes better decisions" with "must always agree with Saddam".

Say the nova had advanced leadership abilities (Mega-Chr), wouldn't this be a threat to Saddam's leadership?

Put another way, how exactly does Saddam absolutely guaranty the novas loyalty? Threaten his family? (And we are assuming the nova is a man) Would "do this or your children die" inspire loyalty? The man killed his own sons in law. If one of his inner circle tried to become "more" than him (say, by becoming a nova), it is hard to see him NOT having them killed.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I'm just saying when I try to think of a set of powers that would allow it I start to run into contradictions.

[Tangent]

If the nova was the average tank. (mostly physical related powers) it wouldnt be hard to get him to toe the party line. Even be Saddam's bodyguard or enforcer. Saddam might addict him to a drug to keep him in line. There would be ways for him to keep a stable of Novas around for his use. It might be reaching somewhat but I dont think it would be to farfetched.

Or consider this. A coalition bunkerbuster destroys a command bunker and only one person survives. Walking from the crater with his uniform in tatters. Saddam erupting himself would certainly be twisted.

[Alex Craft]

I really don't think there's much reason to assume that novas would be much less likely to follow a guy like Saddam than anybody else. Some exceptions could be addressed (Mega-Int being a good one), but most novas think like humans. Check out some sociology texts.

"...he could kill Saddam at will if he were in the same room."

Yeah. So could a human. It isn't really that difficult to kill people.

I have trouble reconciling the idea that Saddam likes Weapons of Mass Destruction but would kill any nova with a combat oriented power portfolio.

[Jager]

Loyalty is a funny thing. It is not always deserved, or even understood. I recall the Charlemange(French) SS fighting to the last for Hitler in the ruins of Berlin.

We, as outsiders, look on Saddam as a monster. For the children who have grown up knowing no other leader, things might be different.

Now, if the nova was Kurdish or Shia, then you can pretty much guaruntee fight or flight, but if he/she isn't, things can get complicated. For instance, the Ba'ath Party has a very powerful Pan-Arab dogma. It is the "Rebirth" party, harkening back to the days of Islamic Glory. Likewise, since Saddam's government is secular, not religious, it might become a haven for novas from less tolerant countries. Imagine that.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Iraq could convince some Arabic and Islamic novas to rally to their cause, to make Iraq, and Baghdad, the center of a reborn Arab Empire.

When the Iran-Iraq war started, Saddam had complete control of the armed forces. No senior officer could give an order unless Saddam okayed it. That is one of the reasons the Iraqi army did so poorly at the onset, despite having a better army, better weaponry, and better logistics.

As things began to bog down, and the Iraqis began to be kicked back, Saddam elected to surrender more authority to regional commanders.

The man is adaptive, folks. Don't put it past him to find a way to gain an advantage in the nova age.

Let's not even go into the effects of Saddam, or one of his sons, becoming a nova.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

"...he could kill Saddam at will if he were in the same room."

Yeah. So could a human. It isn't really that difficult to kill people.

True, but a nova could do it and walk away from it. More to the point, Saddam likes everyone to be afraid of him. What is he going to do with someone who isn't (say because he can teleport, or is bullet proof, or just has a level of mega-stamina and so can't be tortured).

Having said all that, I think Saddam would at least try to work something out. Maybe keep the nova's family as "guests", never meet with him personally, etc. But I'm not convinced it would be a viable situation long term, or even short term for most people/powers.

[Sphere]

Let's not forget the Desert Snake faction of the Teragen. They're being led by a Nova who cares more about his own personnal power than he does about the Null Manifesto, and keeps his people separate from the other Teragen factions. What do people think about the possibility of him loaning some of his Nova followers out to Al-Qaida, or to Middle Eastern dictators?

I'm not sure about Geisha's involvement in the peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. From some of the hints given in the Utopia book it looked more like Proteus was involved behind the scenes to convince the sides that the other had secret weapons (ie hidden Nova population, etc). Utopia pulled a bit of a "Sting" on them both.

Saddam did have some loyal troops, which didn't necessarily obey him out of fear. A lot of these were recruited from Saddam's own tribe. Although probably enjoyed the fact that he literally let them get away with murder, they also may have fought because they knew they'd end up in prison once Saddam fell. First against the wall, and all that.

By the by check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1082289,00.html

Anyone else heard about this? Just wanted some feedback. Although the part about Saddam saying he'd agree to internationally monitored elections within two years is pretty unbelievable. Just look at Zimbabwe for examples of how dictators like their elections to be run.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

I'm pretty sure that several other countries (like France) would have jumped on offers of peace, had they been made.

In addition, if the US has to put a quarter million troops on the boarder every time we want Saddam to keep his word, one has to question the cost effectiveness of the situation. By that point Saddam had wasted 10 years fooling around with the inspectors.

RE: Desert Snake

Now that is an interesting point. One handshake from this guy and Saddam is a slave, thus replacing a brutal and cruel heartless dictator with a smarter nova heartless dictator.

[Sphere]

Welcome to the wacky world of Teragen-run Iraq. A template for the Eden colony? Or an even worse place to live if you're a baseline?

Re. The Guardian feature. One of the primary effects of a peace deal such as those discussed would be that various UN countrys would send troops, (yes, even the "Great Satan", France ). Don't forget that there have been soldiers from various nations, including the US and UK, posted out there since the implementation of the sanctions. So it's not like America would be standing alone on it.

As I said previously, I doubt that Hussein would readily allow elections. But as pointed out in the feature, our governments would be the ones giving the orders to him. Troops could have been brought in to peacefully oversee the transfer of power.

I do realise that's an "ideal world" view of it. And when do things ever run according to plan?

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

our governments would be the ones giving the orders to him. Troops could have been brought in to peacefully oversee the transfer of power.

And how, short of invading the country, do we "peacefully" oversee the transfer of power? If Saddam had wanted, or been willing, to step down, he could have simply handed power over to his son.

The guy is known for torturing people to death for the crime of "thinking" about being disloyal to him. He wasn't the type to voluntarily step down. And that is before one considers all the people who would want to kill him if he did so.

I find the idea that Saddam would have been a peace loving democrat if only we had given him the chance to be incomprehensible. Don't get me wrong, the invasion had problems, the war had problems, but it still seems to be the least bad option that was available.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

(Forgot to respond to this)

Welcome to the wacky world of Teragen-run Iraq.

The interesting thing here is that although this would be in character for the Desert Viper, it is technically against Teragen ideals. The Teragen are seperatists. Ruling baselines is against their ideals just as being ruled by them is.

[Jager]

The Teragen are seperatists.

Take a look at the Primacy, Troll. Not all teragen are as benign as Ashnod. Likewise, the Pandemonium has a large baseline base (hehe), and Orziaz is works very well in the baseline world.

A terat-controlled puppet government is completely believeable to me. I would hardly consider it an "Eden", though. I would be a place were novas would be above the law, and baselines would serve "the greater good" - of novakind, that is.

As for the Guardian piece;

I had heard it all before. In '92, and again in '98. Of course, when armed conflict looked likely, he would promise anything. Then, when the UK and the US stepped down, he would return to his bad ways, throw out the inspectors (again), and the process would start all over (again).

He lied.

He lied through official channels and through unofficial channels. It was all about testing our resolve. If we backed down, he would push again. If we slapped him down, he would push again.

How many times were Coalition warplanes shot at over the no-fly zones? The zones he had agreed to in the cease-fire.

The Guardian is pushing its own political agenda. No big suprise. News is business, too, and controlled by people who have their own views of how the world should be.

Do I think there were any WOMD there? No.

Do I think my government actively lied to me? No.

I do think they chose to ignore intelligence reports that showed that there were no WOMDs, and listen to the reports that said they were there, just hidden.

I do think the Bush Administration was looking for a fight. I do not think that Saddam did all he could do to avoid one, by a long shot.

BTW, I think the UK and the US acted in their economic best interest. So did France, and Russia. Only Germany suprised me. Their decision seemed to be more a matter of internal politics than anything else.

Personally, I would have been somewhat amused if France and Russia had gotten their way. They would have engineered the ending to Iraqi sanctions so they could rebuild the Iraqi oil fields. Then Saddam could ally with China, then nationalize the fields. China blocks all anti-Iraqi propositions in the UN Security Council and get access to Iraqi oil to feed their growing industry. Iraq gets access to Chinese weaponry and tech, as well as hard currency.

Militarily, neither Russia or France can project enough force against Iraqi. What could they have done?

It isn't likely the UK or the US would have been in the mood to help out, now is it?

Looks like the Saddam dynasty goes on for another generation.

As for the Taliban;

Remember the Stone Buddahs? The ones that were blown up.

Can you list the economic imports of Afghanistan under the Taliban? None.

Can you think of any leverage anyone could have used against them? I can't. The Taliban was happy enough to have their country live in the 18th century. They could always keep selling opium to us heathens and non-believers for what little hard currency their leaders might have wanted.

So, the Taliban was going to hand over Osama to a nuetral islamic country. Which country would that have been? Any country that would have been acceptable to them, would have either not wanted to take him, or would not have been acceptable to us.

Not much of a concession.

Why make it? To keep us out of the ongoing Afghan civil war.

At the end of the day, the UK and the US live in a world economy. We get pissed when other people or countries attack us for it, or disrupt our livelyhoods. We act in our percieved national isterests.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Quote:

The Teragen are seperatists.

Take a look at the Primacy, Troll. Not all teragen are as benign as Ashnod. Likewise, the Pandemonium has a large baseline base (hehe), and Orziaz is works very well in the baseline world.

A terat-controlled puppet government is completely believeable to me. I would hardly consider it an "Eden", though. I would be a place were novas would be above the law, and baselines would serve "the greater good" - of novakind, that is.

I mispoke. I should have said that "Teras" is seperatist. We even have that section in AB:WWII where the effects of a nova controlled country are explored, and why Divis would be against this.

But I also find the idea of a Teragen controlled country to be believable. Especially with the Desert Viper and Saddam involved.

[Cody]

We even have that section in AB:WWII where the effects of a nova controlled country are explored, and why Divis would be against this.

Yeah, the one and only time Mal gets off his fluffy behind to make a definite unambiguous statement impossible to misinterpret. Pretty convenient...