Subject:
|
Re: My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:10:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> I gather from your post that you believe like I described that Bush and
> Blair are either mistaken, or deliberate deceivers. I guess my real question
> is why. What would motivate two men so different politically to suddenly
> drop those differences and join for this goal? I am not a Republican, but I
> voted for Bush and I tend to believe that he is operating out of integrity
> and that he genuinely believes that Iraq poses a real threat to this
> country. It is Blair that cinches it for me. This man, in the face of stiff
> opposition from his own party, stands firm in his resolve to win this war.
I'm just not familiar enough with Blair to say, beyond I suspect he likes
the idea of acting tough. Bush probably has several agendas, though the
weight of each is unknown:
Inherited hostility: The enemy of my father is my enemy. Though Bush the
Elder wisely at the time accepted limited goals for the Gulf War for
political support, he later regretted not continuing on and finishing off
Saddam. Dubya has kept the goal in mind, but both seem to have forgotten
that Bush the Elder only had a mandate to free Kuwait, not invade Iraq.
Oil: Not in the sense that most people spout about America needing Iraqi oil
for their SUVs (though I gotta say that Hummer H2 is pretty obscene: worst
acceleration, worst braking, worst gas milage). It's the contracts for
drilling, refining, and transporting the oil. Look at Cheney's old company
already getting unbid contracts regarding Iraq. The French, who are also
pretending this isn't about oil, are currently freaking because it has
finally dawned on them that they may lose all their contracts since they
didn't join in - to the victors go the spoils (I'm just observing what
happens, not supporting or condemning it).
Terrorism as Dubya Defines it: Bush isn't limiting this to terrorism related
to 9/11. He hasn't established a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Let's
face it, a big link to Al Qaeda support is within Saudi Arabia. Saddam is
the easier target - Bush was simply following what he thought would be the
path of least resistance. He has lost focus, and thus international
support. He's sold the war to America on the basis that somehow these
"weapons of mass destruction" are a threat to the United States, but it
should be noted that most Americans are woefully unsophisticated when it
comes to international affairs.
Liberating Iraq for Democracy: This, if it happens, would be a byproduct,
not a primary goal. I do not believe it to be a motivation, it's more of a
scam on the level of a used car salesman. "Hey, buy this war and I'll throw
in Democracy! How 'bout that?" Whereas I might think that Democracy is a
good thing, have we seen a massive revolt against Hussein yet?
>
> Finally, what if you are wrong, what if all those protesting this war have
> underestimated Hussein. We cannot simply wait for another attack on our
> soil. Shortly after 9-11 many criticized Bush for not doing enough to stop
> the attacks. I believe that 9-11 gave our country the right to root out any
> threat to our safety, even preemptively. No Saddam may have had nothing to
> do with that attack, but sticking our chin out waiting for him to take his
> first punch makes little sense.
This is certainly the line that Bush has taken, play on people's xenophobia.
I don't buy it: Saddam is only interested in stealing his neighbors' oil. I
haven't seen one thing that convinces me of anything else. Killing random
Americans? I'm sure he wouldn't shed a tear, but since it would get him
nothing except misery, I just don't see him doing it. He is not an
idealist, fundamentalist, or politically motivated person. He's just an
old-fashioned dicatator: power and personal aggrandizement are his goals.
Random terror attacks against America? There's no profit in it for him.
Now, what if I'm right? Lots of Americans have died (not to mention
everyone else) for a phantom meneace. Lots of tax money has been spent so
corporations can mine money out of Iraq (and people wonder why corporations
should be taxed). International relations have been left in ruins for
nothing, while the real target is still out there.
Acting on every imagined threat is ludicrous. China is a big threat: are we
going to invade them? North Korea? Cuba (maybe the Ruskies left a few
nukes behind, Fidel is getting old, and he was stupid enough to advocate
using them during the missle crisis, even though it would have left him dead
and a glowing crater for an island)? Saudi Arabia: bag men for Al Qaeda?
Russia (they still have nukes)?
No, 9/11 does not give us the right to bring untold misery to the rest of
the world, it merely gives us the moral right to pursue those who were
responsible for it. They were given protection by Afghanistan? Fine, damn
the UN, France, Germany, Russia, *whomever* if it was necessary, too! But
invoking Al Qaeda as a universal boogeyman to justify other agendas? No.
>
> I pray with everyone that this ends soon, and with as few deaths on both
> sides as possible.
Ditto. But I don't think our prayers will be answered: note the warnings
the politicians are starting to issue about tough fighting ahead since their
planned-for uprisings haven't happened.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
| (...) And even worse, this action sets a precedent for the above countries (along with India, Pakistan, etc, etc) to invade other countries (including US, UK, Australia, etc, etc), without international sanction, because they perceive a potential (...) (22 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
