Brenda, thanks so much for your informative post questionning the White Houses' push to go to war. I have been reluctant to join in this debate, but I thought, I'd jump in with some random facts and questions and try to contribute to the informed debate that Kasey, was asking for.
Brenda asked...how are we going to pay for this rebuilding after Saddam is gone? Given the current and former ties between the present administration and the oil/energy industry, I think they've got rebuilding a post-war Iraq covered. Some misc. historical info...After the Gulf War...During Cheney's tenure as Halliburton CEO, through foreign subsidiaries and affiliates, Halliburton became the biggest oil contractor for Iraq, selling more than $73 million in goods and services to Saddam Hussein's regime (as reported by the London Financial Times). For a Washington Post article on the subject see...http://gwbush.com/spots/postpage.html Also interesting...during his five years as CEO, Cheney nearly doubled the size of Halliburton's government contracts, totaling a whopping $2.3 billion. He convinced the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. to lend Halliburton and oil companies another $1.5 billion, backed by U.S. taxpayers. but I digress... I have yet to see the evidence that proves an attack on Iraq is an integral part to fighting the war on terrorism - or anything that links Saddam to al-Qaida. Kasey, any chance you can point me to articles that cover this? I'd be interested in reading them. (Please note: this is a serious request - I feel like I have to make it clear that I'm not being sarcastic - given the nature of recent posts). A report released by CIA officials on Friday said that Saddam's ability to produce and store chemical weapons is probably less than it was before the Gulf War. It is clear that Saddam if left unchecked would continue to build a chemical and biological weapons arsenal and probably nuclear as well. But, as someone else asked, why war now? Why war without U.N. backing or support from other nations in the world? I am suspicious of the White House motives because their public relations efforts have attempted to piggy back a war with Iraq on the events of Sept 11th. And I am not able to follow their logic. In fact, I sometimes wonder if they believe the general public desires or is even capable of logical and rational thought. Is there evidence now that links Saddam with Islamic fundamentalists? He has been repressing Islamic fundamentalism in his own country for years. I seriously don't understand. The cynic in me wonders if this is related to November elections. I mean how could it possibly be? And yet, why else the push for a strike in October? Scary thought. (see a side article on Karl Rove on p. 36 in Time magazine this past week - for an interesting look into Bush's chief strategist - and the impact Bush's focus on Iraq has had on Republican campaigns.) Do they want to destabilize the region and gain more control of oil production? I know it is cliche for liberals to cry "Oil" in these situations, but in this case, I don't think it is unreasonable given the administration's relationships with the energy industry. Maybe reading the reports Brenda pointed to will help illuminate this situation more. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Jenny Brenda wrote:On 5 Oct 2002 at 21:01, kasey simpson wrote: > And just how would you "fiercely" defend that right? I do support > Bush on this. That choice is not some need to kick a-- rather a > resignation that some people can not be "talked" with. You had a > weekend of love and peace. I've had a lifetime of freedom in a > country that has had to fight many wars. Why not get a group of JM > listers and fly to Iraq? Play Sadam JM, and tell him you want peace. > Then if he listens, and you come back alive, then call Washington and > tell them how easy it is. I would prefer peace, I would prefer love, > but history has shown us that is not always possible. I will place the > call, and let them know I support Bush, > Kasey > I'm feeling some antagonism in your response and I'm not sure why.....You quoted me so I take it your comment was addressed to me. I'm glad that you will place your call. That's why I wrote my email to begin with, to encourage anyone on the list who supports the war. It is democracy in action. I can fiercely defend the right without fighting. By being a citizen who participates in democratic and political processes and who speaks for a diversity of views and fully supports the expression of those views with the conviction of my belief in democracy, I feel that I am fiercely defending that right. By doing what I can in my work to lobby for media diversity, I'm defending that right. It's not fierce by its action; it's fierce by its conviction. I believe in democracy. I agree that some people cannot be talked with. I am not anti-war. However this war is NOT a defense of democracy. It is about domination. If you doubt that, read the "Defense Planning for Guidance" documents produced by the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 1992 (Cheney) and 2002 (Rumsfeld - basically Cheney by proxy) and the "Defense Strategy for the 1990's" also written by Cheney. I also recommend reading Rumsfeld's "Transforming the Military" published in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs. This war is not another front in the war on terrorism; it is the culmination of a plan many years old. And as some Senate members asked this week during their remarks on the resolution, how are we going to pay for this war? In his radio address, President Bush pledged US support for rebuilding Iraq after a conflict. Nevermind the fact that he ran on a platform of not engaging in nation building - something that I know my fellow Republicans in my district considered important, how are we going to pay for this rebuilding after Saddam is gone? What will this mean for our relationships with our allies? Will we lose the support of countries (like Egypt) which have been critical in the war on terrorism? Are we giving nations with which we have tenuous relations at best (like China) or with which we've had hostile relations in the near past (like Russia) an issue on which to unite against us? Will most of the free world think that we are the bully on the block who needs to be stopped? Our President is taking a position that is not only in opposition to the UN security council (and permanent members China, Russia and France) but also undermines the UN generally. As I hear from my friends in Washington, even the multilateralists in the Bush administration think that this is unwise. What do you mean "a weekend of love and peace?" If you're talking about the fest, I didn't go, so I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote or the war on Iraq. This is not simply an issue of war or peace and I don't see how it can be reduced to those terms. Especially when the balance and security of a volatile region of the world (and the lives of millions of people who live there) are at stake. Our national security is dependent upon global security. Will a war in Iraq destabilize the region and thereby lead to reduced global security? Until the answer to that question is no, I'm against it - not because I'm a peacenik, but because I'm a pragmatist. Brenda n.p.: Dexter Gordon - "Darn That Dream" ------------------------------ Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous. Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com
