From: Kai Becker (kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 09:01:54 MST
Am Samstag, 22. Februar 2003 07:03 schrieb John K Clark:
> > the people - you have cut my text most carefully
> > - should be able to decide for themself.
> Yes, but what on earth does that have to do with Iraq?
Indeed. The US regime wont let the people of Iraq decide for themself.
Instead, the victims of Saddam will now also become victims of the US.
This is neither democratic nor free.
> > I don't believe a bit of this "we have to bring freedom and
> > democracy" rubbish. This will be a side effect, if it will happen
> I don't care if it's a side effect.
I am pretty sure it won't happen at all. The campaigns for the 2004
elections will start a few months after the supposed war. Mr. Bush will
have to defend 600+x billion dollars of debts of which not a single cent
has been spend for civilian purposes. i.e for the benefit of the people.
He'll have to justify an economic breakdown (ah, what the heck, he has
already ruined 3 other companies before), substantial loss of freedom,
democracy, human rights and fair justice. To spend some more billion
dollars to rebuild Iraq would be his political end. The reconstruction of
the Iraqi oil industry will take circa a decade. So this is business for
his time after being president (his pension, so to speak). He may be able
to put up another scape goat to go after, though. As I said, there are
strong interest groups that will try to turn his attention away from Iraq
to get their share.
So, IMO, (1) Mr. Bush will be most grateful for every distraction from
the Iraq desaster to keep up the level of fear among the US people that
justifies his politics. (2) Whoever will win the 2004 elections will not
invest money, people or anything else into the reconstruction of Iraq, as
long as US based companies control the oil resources. (3) Therefore,
there will not be any democratic progress in Iraq after a war now.
> > These so called "evidences" wouldn't stand any trial.
>
> I really wish you were right but there is not a doubt in my mind you
> will be proven to be spectacularly wrong in just a few weeks, perhaps
> days.
I'll keep this mail until some years have passed and we maybe get some
truth out of this propaganda war. As I said before, US regimes of the
past haven't hesitated to lie to justify wars; Vietnam: That canon boat
incedent. Grenada: The "military" airport that was not military. Gulf war
I: The video about the slaughtered babys - faked and filmed by the CIA in
London and the interview of an "eye witness" who happened to be the
daugther of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington and hasn't even been
near Kuwait at that time. Now we are talking about high-school level
fabrication of chemicals or bio-chemicals in garage-like laboratories. No
secret service in the whole western world has any hard facts that this
stuff really exists. The alleged tons of viruses and chemicals have
melted down to some cans, not usable as a WMD, because Iraq lacks the
technology to prepare the fine powder.
This is the most ingenious scape goat ever made, because it's even
invisible. That's the essence of what Mr. Powell presented to the UN: He
has no facts that Iraq has WMDs, so he simply declared the hypothesis
(Iraq has WMDs) to be an axiom (or dogma), therefore it cannot be
discussed and the only answer left, why there are no hard facts is that
Iraq must be so incredible[sic!] clever and dangerous that he can make
all of this totally invisible.
Unfortunately for Mr. Powell, some of the "evidences" found another
explanation. Some truck movements, supposed container labs for WMDs, were
inspected by the UN (that should be the scheme: total surveillance and
immediate check on the ground). The inspectors found that these were
ordinary troop transporters.
> >One could get the impression that the US administration is
> >more carefull and diplomatic, the more WMDs a country has.
>
> No shit Sherlock. It's too late to deal with North Korea or Pakistan,
> it's almost too late to deal with Iraq but perhaps not quite.
You mean, if Iraq really had WMDs, the US would not use military force
(because it'd be too dangerous) but "deal with it diplomatically"?
If you don't have WMDs, we'll come and get you, just because we can, but
if you really have WMDs, you are safe?
Pardon, but if some small state is only safe from US foreign (military)
politics if it has WMDs, wouldn't every dictator like Saddam try to
really get WMDs as fast as possible? And since B and C WMDs can
supposedly be produced in every high-school lab, isn't this US policy
stupid, if not outright idiotic?
> >You think a war against Iraq will make the world a safer
> >place?
>
> Certainly, but what I don't know is how high a price we must pay to
> achieve it.
What about starting with several hunderd thousand people dead, mutilated,
starved to death, died of trival deseases? Ok, no US citizens, therefore
maybe "expendable" from some presidents point of view. What about another
region less to go for holiday or business? What about some thousand new
possible suicide bombers and a dozen new bin Ladins?
> >It will turn Iraq into a bazaar for weapons.
> Unlike the happy peaceful place Iraq is today.
No, unlike the relatively "ordered" place the Iraq is today. No islamic
terrorists, no fundamentalism, except for the small clique of mad men in
the administration.
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 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 09:25:57 MST