From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:50:08 MST
Kai Becker <kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de> wrote:
> 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.
Which has been highly problematic from the very beginning. One
group's terrorists are somebody else's freedom fighters. See the
pained faces in the Western countries when the Russians immediately
hopped on the train, pointing to their own fight against terrorism
in the shape of the war in Chechnya.
> The Iraq topic has nothing to do with "terrorism". Not even the Bush
> regime has yet found a connection between radical islam and Hussein.
Yes, this is an important point. Hussein is a secular ruler who
would own a top spot on the list of enemies of radical Islam if he
didn't play to anti-Israel and anti-USA sentiments as expertly as
he does.
The USA looks like a powerless giant. They have this currently
unrivaled military machine but there is no targetable enemy. Poor
Hussein, who--as abominable as he may otherwise be--appears to be
innocent of any involvement with the affairs of "Al-Quaida", must
suffer as a substitute. Or so it occasionally looks from here.
> 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.
I think attributing this to corporate interests is a bit too
short-sighted, but clearly geopolitical interests are at stake here.
We're told that the country that currently offers the most support
to radical Islamists, including terrorists, is Saudi-Arabia, which
also has a rather unpleasant leadership that does not share Western
values at all. However, Saudia-Arabia happens to be the leading
supplier of petroleum, still has the largest proven reserves, and
has followed a foreign policy course that has as hypocritically
played to the West as Hussein does the opposite part. American
bases in S.A. are also important for the US military presence in
the Persian Gulf region.
Replacing the current Iraqi regime with a pro-Western one, puppet
or otherwise, would very nicely remove the US dependence on the
uneasy ally Saudi-Arabia and would in fact allow to put the squeeze
on that country. At least that's my take on the situation.
Hussein may be a murderous dictator, slaughtering his own people,
bound on gaining "weapons of mass destruction", but he was quite
welcome to do so when he served as bulwark against Iran's brand of
radical Islam. Claiming to remove Hussein because of his evilness
is hypocritical. On the other hand, those who object to US power
politics but want to see international justice administered can't
ignore the fact that Hussein deserves being whacked.
I guess there would hardly be any international resistence against
a commando raid sweeping down and capturing or killing Mr. Hussein
and a couple of his bodyguards. Alas, this seems impractical and
the alternative approach of a war against the state of Iraq suggests
that removing Hussein will also entail killing another 100,000 of
his subjects who are supposed to be liberated from under his rule.
Ouch.
> The US are not going to war for moral, ethics and democracy - or not any
> longer.
Indeed. It would be so much nicer if the US government, as well
as the American nationalists loudmouthing on this list, would stand
up and declare:
1. We pursue our own interests.
2. We are the fucking leading military and economic power on this
planet, we do as we please because we can.
Instead we get all this gobbledygook about (supposedly objective)
good and evil, ethics, democracy, freedom, bla, bla, that is
inherently troublesome and so obviously at odds with actual policy.
(Not to mention that I find Mr. Bush's persistent references to
"God" in his rhetorics eerily similar to those of Mr. Bin Laden.
This is a point where American sensibilities diverge sharply from
European ones.)
> 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.
Well, it's far from clear that leaving Hussein in power will be
less deleterious. The whole area is so fucked up, we just don't
know.
Now let me suck up in part to the kill-em-all-crowd here and annoy
their opponents by pointing out that I'm neutral on the issue of a
US war (with or without British and French support) against Iraq.
Apart from the oil price, I'm not personally impacted. It will be
just another video clip war, pretty pictures on TV of people blowing
each other to smithereens. It's not me dying out there, nor anybody
I'm close to. And I sure as hell can't do anything about it either
way.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST