Michael S. Briggs wrote: >On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: > > > Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking > > gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And > > politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the > > US. > >I agree with you about oil and politics being hopelessly intertwined, and >that oil (along with political gain) does have too much to do with our >current motivation towards going after Iraq. But, there ARE other valid >reasons as well. Do you know anyone from Iraq?
Yes. >I work with a physicist who >fled Iraq with his family years ago to escape. He, along with many other >Iraqis, want Saddam ousted from power, and a true democratic government >established. So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. >His regime is a regime of terror - not only threatening >Israel and the US, but also neighboring countries, and killing large >numbers of people within Iraq because of their ethnicity, religion, or >just to test some weapons. The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's terrorist. >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there >is oil there? Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because, frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those who've claimed they're not based on oil at all. >The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and >dangerous). That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu, Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers. Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in Indian Kashmir. You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in Afghanistan. If you declared war on Iraq over Kuwait, then why not on China over Tibet, or on Indonesia over East Timor? The US was deeply involved in the Indonesian genocide in the 60s, about a million Chinese killed. And so on and on. Whether leaders are malicious, egocentric, and dangerous just doesn't figure at all, it's whose "side" they're on, whose interests they serve, and that's all. >Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going >after Saddam. Going after Saddam, taking "him" out... don't you feel a little uneasy about this depiction of Iraq as "Saddam", an entire nation and people reduced to one ultra-demonized man? When you see someone talking of "Saddam" you know what's coming next: calls for a "righteous" war. Saddam Hussein is not a maniacal monster, only the war-hungry in the US and Britain etc see him that way. He's not exactly a nice guy, you wouldn't want your sister to marry him, he's certainly most brutal, but no more so than many other brutish dictators around the world the US has propped up over the last 50 years, not as bad as some, smarter than most. There's no evidence he's mad, nor even remotely irrational, nor demonic. He had a go-ahead from the US to invade Kuwait (April Glaspie). And he knows very well that using any WMDs he may have would get him rubbed right out very fast, and even short of that it would lose him his major victory so far - the withering of support for the US. It would unite the whole world against him. He's not dumb. He's no threat. So how much does this next war really have to do with a rogue nation which allegedly has WMDs (of which there's no proof), and if they do have them, so what, or with the so-called war on terrorism, or with Big Oil interests, or with US elections and domestic popularity polls? It doesn't have much if anything to do with your "other valid reasons". >It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable >material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the >former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations >that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia >and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us >glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. The IMF reduced Russia's economy by 50%, something never before achieved in peacetime (and claims it as a success). This has done a great deal to make Russia's nuclear material very much less secure. The US has reduced its funding for Russia to secure its nuclear material. Keith >Mike ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
