[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Robert Perkins <rob_perkins at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:19:26 GMT
Lines: 115

On 28 Mar 2003 08:06:40 GMT, jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

>1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11.

Granted. The connections made seem to all be on the side of what
*could* happen. Since "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a
cultural truism there, and since Iraq *and* Islamicists both consider
Americans their God-declared enemies, it stands to reason that
unaccounted-for WMD's will end up in the hands of terrorists. Etc. 

As far as Saudi Arabia, I think it's a determined goal of this
administration to very politely and indirectly obviate them. A
non-OPEC Iraq with a represenative elected government would be
something to see. And who can say that they're not "next?"

>2) The use of gas against his own people... If it was okay then for our 
>administration, under one Bush, to have it suddenly
>being the reason for this action under the second Bush seems to be rather
>arbitrary.  

For one, he's his father's son, but he's obviously not his father. And
to say the situation in the world is different today than it was 12-13
years ago is an understatement. Not having a Soviet Union breathing
down the necks of the region colors things differently.

>3) The CIA's assessment of Iraq's capabilities, in published reports, has
>indicated very clearly that Iraq (which has never directly threatened the US,
>unlike North Korea) would almost certainly NOT attack the US unless it were
>backed into a corner by invasion.

Stipulated. Provided they can put up a fight once the bombs are done
falling. 

>So the situations between Germany and Iraq are
>simply not comparable at any two contiguous points.

There are a few points of continuity in the comparison worth pointing
out: Saddam and Hitler both ran thier countries and oppressed their
minorities with frightening brutality. They both started dubious wars
for reasons of empire building. They were both well organized and
systematic about their programs of oppression. They both organized
networks of informers and institutions to balance possible threats
against each other rather than against the leader. They both killed
millions of their own people, either by rounding them up for death, or
by spending their lives on the battlefields of unwinnable wars (Iran,
Russia).

>5) If there were WMD present in Iraq, they're certainly taking their time using
>them in defense against a force set out to level their cities

If you still believe that's the case, you haven't been watching the
news pictures. Say that after Baghdad has been levelled. Allege it
will happen after the power goes out. 

> and depose their
>rulers.  Which only serves to reinforce the prospect that such weapons are not
>there in any useable fashion. 

Good grief, Joe! It's only been a week!

>It seems to me that we're attacking Iraq because we know they *don't* have the
>weapons to oppose us, and *not* attacking North Korea because we know they *do*
>have the weapons that could stop us.

Stipulated. Matter of fact one of the arguments I've heard about
preempting Iraq the way we're doing it is so that it would never get
to be like the situation from North Korea, which in spite of its
desperate need for butter, keeps making guns and letting the people
starve.

>Bush Sr., when asked why he stopped Gulf War I prior to taking down Saddam and
>going into Baghdad, said "It would turn the entire Arab world against us."  If
>that were true then, why is it not true now?

It is true now. The difference is today the U.S. doesn't really care
what kind of hate Islamicists (not Muslims, Islamicists) can drum up,
now that we've decided to come for them all.

I think there's also considerable hope that Iraq can be the second
predominantly Muslim democracy in Asia, after Turkey, and the first
Arab one. That model can directly map to a proposal for a free
Palestine. Such a thing would in the long term, (goes this logic) make
for a safer world; Arabs demonstrating to other Arabs how to live in
freedom and peace would speak louder than any politician's empty call
for peace. 

>The policy of containment and isolation has worked for these many years,

Yeah. For *us*. For the *Iraqis* it's been something this side of
Hell. Where is the left's outrage at that?

> there
>was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes the Adminisration
>seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to control a massive oil reserve and
>re-draw the map of the middle east in ways that will serve better American
>interests.

Why this is a bad thing is a bit confusing to me. 

>Was this one man worth all this, when there was so little imminent or plausible
>threat?

Ask the Iraqis, 20 years from now. Ask them *now* if they think Saddam
is an imminent or plausible threat. Oh, that's right; they've been
silenced by the Iraqi NIGHTWATCH!

Where's the moral outrage about that regime?

>I think history will say the answer to that question is no.

I have no intention of making the mistake of predicting what history
will conclude. 

Rob


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 28 Mar 2003 23:27:52 GMT
Lines: 93

>>1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11.
>
>Granted. The connections made seem to all be on the side of what
>*could* happen.

But don't you understand how blatantly this flies in the face of everything
this coiuntry has stood for, for over two hundred years?  We're striking first,
to take out a sovereign nation because it MIGHT be a threat in the future. 
Hell, there are DOZENS of countries out there that *might* be a threat, that
have *also* violated or ignored UN resolutions, do we go around bombing and
invading *all* of them?  

This is the first time we have pre-emptively invaded a nation like this.  And
what kind of precedent are we setting?  What's to stop China now from saying
"We think Taiwan is a potential threat to our interests, so we're going in
after them"?  Iran's firing up its nuclear program in violation of prior
agreements, so are they next in line?

For as many ups and downs as we've had as a nation, what always distinguished
us in the past was that we tried to take the high ground, to speak with
something at least approximating the voice of moral authority, leading by
example.  We have utterly shrugged that aside with this action.

>As far as Saudi Arabia, I think it's a determined goal of this
>administration to very politely and indirectly obviate them. A
>non-OPEC Iraq with a represenative elected government would be
>something to see. And who can say that they're not "next?"

Okay, so Saudia Arabia is next, then Iran, Syria, North Korea...by you this is
okay?

>There are a few points of continuity in the comparison worth pointing
>out: Saddam and Hitler both ran thier countries and oppressed their
>minorities with frightening brutality. They both started dubious wars
>for reasons of empire building. They were both well organized and
>systematic about their programs of oppression.

We can both name a dozen countries about which the same can be said.

> They both organized
>networks of informers and institutions to balance possible threats
>against each other rather than against the leader. 

Taken a look at what Ashcroft's been up to lately?  Project TIPS,
investigations into libraries to see who's been reading what (the National
Library Association reported that nearly 20% of their librarians had been asked
to provide this information to the government, and had complied.)

>Matter of fact one of the arguments I've heard about
>preempting Iraq the way we're doing it is so that it would never get
>to be like the situation from North Korea

Again, a pre-emptive war is against every democratic principle this country has
fought and bled for, for centuries.

>which in spite of its
>desperate need for butter, keeps making guns and letting the people
>starve.

And here in the US, $400 billion is being spent on the military just this year,
while social programs that feed and clothe the homeless, that help malnourished
children, are being cut back to make room for the war machine.

>It is true now. The difference is today the U.S. doesn't really care
>what kind of hate Islamicists (not Muslims, Islamicists) can drum up,
>now that we've decided to come for them all.

And if that isn't the most chilling thing I've read online in quite a while, I
don't know what is.

No, wait, here it is...

>> there
>>was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes the Adminisration
>>seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to control a massive oil reserve
>and
>>re-draw the map of the middle east in ways that will serve better American
>>interests.
>
>Why this is a bad thing is a bit confusing to me. 

'Nuff said.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)