Re: Iraq: the case for decisive action

From: Kai M. Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 09:13:31 MST


Dickey, Michael F schrieb:
> In this instance we have a murderous racist US and west freedom hating
> tyrant, and yet the US government can STILL not drum up enough popular
> support

It's hard to bear the drawbacks of being the self-proclaimed leader of
the world, hm? ;-) Bad reputation normally comes from bad manners, such
as dealing with the contras in Nicaragua, financing bin Ladins group or
Saddam, killing democratically elected politicians in South America,
Africa, etc. The US foreign policy has a serious problem with its self
marketing and credibility. Even though I do not share any hatred towards
americans (nor towards other people), I can see where the hatred comes from.

And to make one thing very clear again: Saddam and his regime is one of
the worst tyrannies currently on this planet, but it makes no sense to
suddenly get into such a hurry that will produce more negative than
positive effects.

> In this case a clear and present threat exists,

Pardon, where exactly _is_ this "clear and present threat"? No ABC
weapons have been found so far. The US government says to have evidence
of them but refuses to give these informations to the UN. Why?

Iraq is almost 10,000km away from New York and Washington. That's a
roundtrip LA, Anchorage, NY, Houston, or in other words 1.2 times the
distance between Honolulu and New York. It's far enough away, that even
US bombers cannot reach them directly from the US, but have to use bases
in Germany (3500km), Turkey (1200km) or Saudi-Arabia (1400km).

The Iraqi military forces are no threat to the US army. Their airforce
is almost extinct or dead metal, because the jets cannot be repaired.

Even if Saddam would ever have ABC weapons, of which B and C are the
most likely, what could he possibly do that would be a threat to the
USA? Risking a counterstrike that would bomb his country into the stone
age? Risking to lose his only source of wealth? Saddam knows pretty well
what would happen to him if any kind of attack on the US, terrorist or
not, could be traced back to him. In my opinion, that's why no
connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam has been found yet.

So, which kind of danger can a country be with almost no military power,
with a sharply restricted economy, being under embargo for 10 years now?

> I am all for ousting the non-democratic despotic regimes all over the world,
> bring all humans into constitutional democratic republics and all the world
> will benefit.

Wonderful. And you will find me at your side, as soon as the plan has a
better chance to really solve problems, instead of creating new and more
dangerous ones.

> "And even worse: the US has no interest in such a development."
>
> And you know this howwwww....? Creating a democratic free arab nation over
> one of the largest sources of oil in the world will have profound benefits
> to the US.

Sure, but not for the interests of the people who currently reign your
country. You do know, that most of the cabinet members are personal
buddies of Bush and are closely connected with the biggest oil companies
of Texas?

I don't think, that this "cartell" has spend 50mio. US$ to finance a
president just to be the benefactor of a far away country. Not even if
it would be tax reducible. I don't think, that these folks will silently
sit back and watch an Iraq-owned oil company rise. I personally find it
far more plausible, that these companies will use every form of
influence they can find, to control the Iraqi oil all by themselves.

    Kai

P.S. You may decide on your own if you find any grain of truth in the
following joke I found in my mailbox today...

On a campaign through the US, president Bush visits a school to explain
his foreign politics to the students. Afterwards, he askes the kids to
ask questions. So, little Bob asks:
"Mr president, I've got three questions.
1) How come that you became elected although you've lost the elections
by numbers?
2) Why do you want to attack Iraq without a reason?
3) Don't you think that bombing Hiroshima was the biggest terrorist
attack of all times?"

But before Bush can answer, the school bell rings and all children go to
have a break.

After they are back from the break, president Bush asks again for
questions. This time little Joey asks:
"Mr president, I've got five questions.
1) How come that you became elected although you've lost the elections
by numbers?
2) Why do you want to attack Iraq without a reason?
3) Don't you think that bombing Hiroshima was the biggest terrorist
attack of all times?
4) Why did the school bell ring 20 minutes early today and
5) Where's Bob?"



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST