Harry, Have any other countries in the world continually ignored and defied Security Council Directives?
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 5:59 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Electric wire and rubber tires (fwd) > Pete, old lad, > > I'm glad you introduced hope. Every time I speculate on Iraq, I couch what > I say with hope. So, I hoped that the troop build-up would be enough to > force Saddam to become submissive. Until the UN events made it impossible > for the troops not to invade Iraq. > > Then my hope was minimum casualties - which seems to be the intent and one > that has been properly carried out. I'm somewhat worried about the Baghdad > situation, but Basrah seems to be slowly going down with hardly any > civilians becoming casualties. > > Many civilians appear to be leaving the city, which is good. These small > cities near Baghdad are becoming resistance centers for remnants of the > Guard and "Saddam's Fidayi". I fear that civilian casualties will mount in > these intense fire-fights. > > As soon as the invasion was a reality, I changed to what might be good > about the war. What good things might come out of it. It looks to me like a > Czechoslovakia problem, or a Yugoslavia problem. In fact it looks like an > Iraq problem. Our attempts in the past to put together manufactured States > containing various factions haven't exactly been larded with success. > > However, we have the mightiest military force in the world there. If we > choose to use our power well, we might be able to make the area something > more than an service station for the world. > > Also, as I've said, maybe this will be the breakthrough in the > Israel/Palestine problem. A Palestine State coming down heavily on Hamas > and the Jihad, allied to US pressure on Israel to retreat from the West > Bank, might just pull it off. > > Well, I'm optimistic. But, I think that you are over-optimistic believing > that if we had done nothing all might have been well in Iraq. There is not > a shred of evidence that this might be so. The pressure to make Saddam do > something was exerted by American and British troops and not by the UN. > > As I said to Karen, once the troops were there, it would have been madness > to withdraw them. > > You hang your disagreements around Bush's policies, yet he isn't alone. You > blame him for: > > Ill advised domestic tax policy. > > I agree. Yet, he is little different from the rest of them inside the > Beltway. It's good Keynesianism to use government policy to prop up a > sagging economy. (We are all Keynesians now.) > > So the tax cut differs among our politicians only in degree and its > direction. It's perfectly valid Keynesianism to give a tax cut to those who > might then invest and strengthen the economy. Not so valid to those who > might use it to pay off their credit card bills. > > Yet, none of the politicos know what they are doing and they don't read > history - not even recent history. Clinton raised taxes by "the largest > peacetime tax increase in history" - according to the Republicans, which > should have knocked the boom sideways. It didn't. So, why expect a > moderate tax reduction to boost the economy? > > Well, it won't. Neither will the other idiocy, reducing interest rates. But > Bush and the Republicans don't know what to do about the economy, neither > do Gore and the Democrats. > > In fact, as I have often repeated, not only do our neo-Classical economists > not know why we have a recession - they don't even know why we had a boom. > > It is likely that the Administration hopes that the wave of euphoria that > may well sweep the nation when the war is immediately concluded will swing > us up into the next cycle of business activity. > > "rash foreign adventurism" > > If it works, he's a genius, if it fails he's a goat. > > As far as it goes - seems to be working. > > "lack of any concern for social or environmental issues" > > Perhaps it depends on your political inclinations. > > Scientifically, Kyoto was ridiculous. It deserved to be abandoned. > > Up in the Wildlife Refuge, if we drill it is unlikely that any lasting > damage would be done to the herds. If we interfere with their calving > grounds, calves may be fewer - as happened several years ago when they were > kept from their grounds by an adverse environment. > > Meantime, the caribou affected by the first pipeline have increased 500%, > though doom was forecast when the pipeline first went in. > > I'm a free trader. I think there should be no barriers to people or goods > anywhere in the world. So, I am against drilling in the Refuge. (The best > thing about this thoroughly inhospitable area is its name. About 90% of it > is wretchedly unfit for man or beast.) > > I think we should use up everyone else's oil before we touch our own. We > should also use up Canada's forests before our own. The purely political > tariffs against BC timber were disgraceful. > > Oh, I'm not trying to destroy North American forests. In fact, the US > annual wood count has increased every year since the mid 20's (at least up > to a few years ago). It gets tiring to keep up with reality when often > zealous advocates won't listen to anything factual anyway, because they > have completed surrounded the truth. > > Of course he did want to put arsenic in everyone's water. > > But, shallow thinking? Don't see much evidence of it. He seems to know what > he wants to do - then he does it. What a pity he doesn't know the right > things to do. > > But, then neither do his adversaries. > > Harry > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Pete wrote: > > >Hi Harry: > > > >On Thu, 03 Apr 2003, Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >[I had written} > > > >>>To my thinking, I agree with the view that the moment the troops crossed > >>>the border, Bush had lost, it is just a matter now of waiting now to see > >>>how much and how badly, and how much can be salvaged by postwar > >>>bridge-mending and statesmanship (a concept so far apparently > >>>utterly foreign to the current administration)." > > > >>I happen to think there is chance we've all won. Don't let your lack of > >>appreciation for Bush to color your approach to everything. > > > >Well, I really hope so, but I fear just the opposite. And I really > >don't have any personal opinion about Bush as an individual, I > >watch actions, not personality. I like to always expect the best > >of everyone, and always assume clever and thoughtful motivation > >first, but I just really find it very hard to find a way to fit > >that model to the actions taken by this president. Ill advised > >domestic tax policy, rash foreign adventurism, lack of any concern > >for social or environmental issues, all combine to paint a picture > >of shallow thinking. Try to merge the idea of cautious, thoughtful, > >sharp analytical minds with american foreign relations actions to > >date, and you can only come up with scenarios of grave secret > >emergencies, desperate enough to justify sacrificing wide swaths > >of foreign relations. So the choice seems to be between conspiracy > >(or, I guess, paranoid fantasies of imagined threats), and stupidity. > > > >The point of my initial comment, if it must be spelled out, is > >quite simple. The discovery of instruments of torture does not make > >the war a better idea than it was, because their discovery was > >fully expected by those who have cautioned against the war, and > >won't influence the minds of people who see this as an unforgivable > >incursion of foreign infidels into their realm. > > > >The question I keep coming back to is what's the rush? Excessive > >speed seems to be the main feature of the folly here. Given a couple > >of years, much of the problem of Iraq could have been resolved > >peacefully and with no negative diplomatic consequences. An adjustment > >of the sanction regime to expose the Iraqi populace to western > >largesse could undermine the dictator's authority without any > >need for military action. How many Iraqi's could be won over > >to the american vision for the million dollar cost of each bomb > >and cruise missile spent in this war? Whenever I see a miilitary > >action, I consider how it looks through the filter of the adage: > >"do I not destroy my enemies if I make them my friends?" > > > > -Pete Vincent > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 4/1/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
