From: Kai Becker (kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 02:02:07 MST
Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2003 18:52 schrieb Spudboy100@aol.com:
> Yeah, I had wondered about that in his posts. So the USA should be good
> liitle victims and ignore 9-11?
No, but your president and his fellows should think a little bit further.
It's not enough to throw some bombs, when this just feeds the troops of
another enemy.
War against terrorism is not comparable with conventional wars. It means
fighting against belief systems and against the causes for the motivation
of those people. Wars like this can not be won with bombs. You either win
them in the minds or not at all. Therefore, the only intelligent idea of
Mr. Bush so far has been the "coalition against terrorism". He now is
going to destroy this coalition for no sensible reason.
The Iraq topic has nothing to do with "terrorism". Not even the Bush
regime has yet found a connection between radical islam and Hussein. Iraq
is almost 10,000km away from New York and Washington. Hussein has nothing
to win in a war against the US. So, what's the dangerous thing with Iraq?
Weapons of mass destruction? There are a lot more countries known to have
or manufacture ABC weapons, which are a lot more unstable, unpredictable
and would sell anything to anyone. Former GUS states, Pakistan, North
Korea, Jemen, Sudan, etc. So why isn't there an international coalition
against proliferation, lead by the US, but instead only one focus on one
of the most unlikely terrorist supporting countries in the world?
If you want to hear my guess: There's no profit to win by attacking those
others. Iraq has the second largest oil resources currently known. A
puppet regime in Bagdad would guarantee a good profit to all those
multi-billion dollar companies who heaved Mr Bush into his office with
the largest campaign contributions ever seen. The same goes for
Afganistan. It was the only country opposing the long wanted pipeline[1],
rsp. wanting too much money.
The US are not going to war for moral, ethics and democracy - or not any
longer. Would that be so, other countries than Iraq would be top on the
list. Countries where people die of hunger, while a small elite sells
their country for their own profit.
This war against Iraq is about profit and domination of the resources for
the next two decades. It is a war of a puppet regime of the oil
companies, that uses US media to mobilize emotions like nationalism and
uses US troops for their own business. And sorry, it would be total
foolishness to risk a years long uproar of the whole middle east and many
more terrorist attacks, for reasons like that.
[1] http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm
> Why does the USA still have troops in rich Europe?
(1) They need the supply and infrastructure, because ...
(2) ... they can't reach targets in the middle east from the US directly
(3) The bases exist; it would be costly to rebuild them somewhere else
(4) The political landscape here is rather stable and reliable
(5) To fulfill their duties according to the NATO treaties
(6) To maintain their NSA and CIA posts, the Echelon network, etc.
(7) To keep a foot in the door for everything that happens here
Kai
--
== Kai M. Becker == kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de == Bremen, Germany ==
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST