-Caveat Lector-

From
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/iraq2.html

}}>Begin
Why
              Did Bush Bomb?
by
              Llewellyn H. Rockwell,
              Jr.
The
              Clinton administration helped train us to never believe the official
              rationale for a bombing of a foreign country, particularly an
impoverished
              one. In the 1990s, foreign policy had more to do with domestic woes
              than with actual international threats, no matter what Clinton or
              his spokesmen said. But when it comes to providing something
believable
              in place of the truth, the Bush administration seems even less
competent
              than its predecessor. All the Bush White House could come up with
              for why it is bombing and killing people in Iraq was "self
              defense."
Look:
              Americans know what self defense is. It’s when you shoot the guy
              who has broken into your home to attack you. It’s when you blast
              the fellow who’s trying to mug you or steal your car. It’s a violent
              action taken to prevent an aggression against your person or property.

              Transfer the idea of "self defense" to national policy:
              it is something a nation undertakes when its borders are attacked
              or its embassies blown up.
The
              US military was not defending itself when it dropped bombs outside
Baghdad, even if you believe that Iraq was bolstering its anti-aircraft
              capacities. When you are standing on Iraqi soil and look up to see
              US fighters zooming around your airspace, and you look around and
              see that the country has been beaten to a pulp by ten years of cruel
              sanctions, and you notice that these planes drop bombs on a regular
              basis to correspond with US political priorities, you too might
              consider bolstering your defenses.
Let’s
              call the US bombing what it was, not defense but aggression, an
              extension of a decade of aggression that has taken both economic
              and military forms. There is no moral code, no religious tenet,
              no traditional accepted rule of international law under which such
              a policy can be seen as anything but immoral. What’s more, it has
              undermined US credibility yet again, just at the time much of the
              world was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.
What
              is it about the office of the US presidency that leads men who would
              never kill anyone in their capacity as individuals to believe that
              doing so is fine so long as you use a weapon of mass destruction
              funded by the taxpayer? What does George W. Bush think when he sees
              pictures of dead Iraqi civilians and wounded women and children?
              Is he really (like Madeline Albright) prepared to say it is "worth
              the price"? Under what system of ethics, what rule of law?
We
              know W. as a man of compassion, someone who reaches across the aisle
              to befriend even sworn enemies. He’s turned the other cheek many
              times, in the election and since becoming president. He likes to
              put the past behind him.
What
              then are we to make of his behavior toward Saddam, which seems
designed to make a lifetime enemy at a time when relations were moving toward
normalization? He wouldn’t lift a finger to punish Clinton’s gang
              for trashing the White House, but let Iraq try to protect itself
              from armed American warplanes and Bush starts shooting and bombing
              people he’s never met.
Listening
              to the pundits, reading discussion boards, scanning opinion columns,
you can take your pick of what you think is the REAL reason he gave
              the go ahead. The number one theory says that Bush is settling old
              family business, continuing a war begun by his father. In this
scenario,
              both the president and the vice president are simply pursuing a
              vendetta against Saddam Hussein. But it’s a heck of a way to do
              it, since every bomb that falls on Iraq only strengthens Saddam’s
              political standing in Iraq and the entire Arab world.
Other
              explanations are more creative. The Bush administration is in hock
              to the oil interests who want to keep Iraq crippled in its producing
              capacity, and thereby keep prices high and give monopoly profits
              to their friends in Texas. This theory notes that Iraq has
dramatically
              increased its oil production in the last quarter  –  possibly becoming

              a competitive threat to American oil interests.
Another
              theory has partisans of Israel within the administration attempting
              to take the focus off the investigation of the Marc Rich pardon.
              Or maybe Bush just wanted to bomb someone to show everyone in the
              world, including our allies, who is boss. There are other stories
              of splits within the administration, of conspiracies left and right.
Whatever
              the case, the official rationale is not believed, either at home
              or abroad. The stock market, hurting from very bad inflation reports,
              tanked the day of the bombing. The question everyone is asking is:
              do we have another warmonger in the White House? How tragic when
              Americans can understand the meaning behind a cartoon that appeared
              this week, showing Bush dropping bombs and saying "now I feel
              like a real president."
Bush
              has shown himself willing to learn from the mistakes of his father’s
administration. He should remember most of all that his dad’s war
              glory was short lived. He brought him 90 percent approval ratings
              that lasted only as long as the bombs fell. Later, he lost his
reelection
              bid. The
              greatest legacy that his son could leave is different, one  even
              greater than cutting taxes: peace. It’s not too late to reverse this
very bad first step. Stop the bombs. Pull the troops out. Start
              friendly trading relations. Do unto others as you would have them
              do unto you.
February
              19, 2001 Llewellyn
              H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig
              von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He also edits a daily
              news site, LewRockwell.com.

Copyright
              © 2001 LewRockwell.com

End<{{
A<>E<>R
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational
tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the
State among its hapless subjects.  His task is to demonstrate
repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the
"democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist
by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse
of objective necessity.  He strives to show that the existence of
taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between
the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled.  He seeks to show that
the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State
has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to
accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a
share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded
subjects.
[[For a New Liberty:  The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard,
Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]]

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to