TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Powell To Address The UN Security Council
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Given this fact, even if - with the evidence presented today - Powell has shown Hussein as being in violation of Resolution 1441, there is still a big difference between Hussein violating a single resolution (like I've said many times before, he's not the only leader in the world flaunting resolutions at the moment) and Hussein posing a genuine threat to the world.

well the reason this isnt just any other resolution is that this specific one calls for use of force (or i think the direct quote is grieve consequences) if not obeyed, this is very rare amoung UN resolutions and you will be hard pressed to find many more of that nature. so yes it is pretty serious if he violates just this one. furthermore it isnt just one resolution that he would have been violating, by defacto reasons it would mean that he hasnt been obeying any of the other resolutions passed at the end of the gulf war and any up through today.

quote:

Powell failed to address any of the moral concerns regarding this war, and it certainly came across as an excercise in trying to find any excuse possible to march into Bagdhad, rather than a genuine demonstration of Hussein's threat to the global community.

i guess as you pointed out powell's arguements agianst saddam from a human rights point of view might be a way of addressing moral concerns, but as you pointed out some of that may be hypocritical (still it doesnt remove blame from saddam himself). Bush has also repeatedly said from a moral side how bad saddam is as a ruler for the nation of iraq. i do however see the 'moral' arena as the important one that should be concentrated in, the bush team should put a stronger effort in explaining why war is morally justified and only solution left, along with how it will in the future be for the better good (in terms of setting up a working future democracy embracing freedom). they got nothing to lose seeing as morality is an opinion and cant really be put forth by proof.

nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei:
"The message coming from the (U.N.) Security Council is very clear, that Iraq is not cooperating fully, that they need to show drastic change in terms of cooperation,"
Blix:
'He said the evidence of Iraqi non-cooperation presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) to the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council on Wednesday and earlier evidence from Blix was compelling, and anyone who believed otherwise showed "a degree of unwillingness to face up to reality." '

rueters http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../iraq_blix_dc_3

would you need proof of a smoking gun in order to go to war or is proof that iraq isnt cooperating good enough?
why should iraq not cooperate if its got nothing to hide?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Give me a few hours to rewrite parts of it (as now I can refer to the transcript instead of just doing everything from memory) but apart from that you're welcome to post it whenever you like.

excellent, yeah, just let me know when your done editing it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Skaya I don't like like war, but if this threat is real and nearly as bad as they've been saying, we need to do what we have to do.

need to do what? are you being personally threatened? do you think that iraq has any way of personally hitting the U.S., or has planned to do so, using their "weapons of mass destruction"? clearly not.

the "threat" of saddam hussein is a "threat" to his own people and to the neighbouring countries. IMHO the U.S. shouldn't even be a thousand miles near that area. why should they? do they think they're world cop?

if war is "what you need to do", and if the U.S. is after "world peace" or "world justice", then maybe they should stop being so blantantly obvious about trying to steal iraq's oil. instead they should deal with some of the REAL problems around them.

like north korea.

again, this "evidence" is not evidence at all, and is a joke and a disgrace to the international community.

dammit double post, sorry..

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode need to do what? are you being personally threatened? do you think that iraq has any way of personally hitting the U.S., or has planned to do so, using their "weapons of mass destruction"? clearly not.

threat or no threat (i belive he does honestly pose a threat to the world and specificly the US) that is not the issue. the issue is whether or not iraq is cooperating with the world to make sure it is of peaceful nature (no WOMD programs, and other limitations put on it after the gulf war). i thought this was iraq's last chance to prove cooperation (seeing as it hasnt fully cooperated in over 10 years). in my eyes it is failing. since most all diplomatic avenues have been tried in bringing saddam to cooperate with the world the only option left is to force him to cooperate, whether he likes it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy threat or no threat (i belive he does honestly pose a threat to the world and specificly the US) that is not the issue. the issue is whether or not iraq is cooperating with the world to make sure it is of peaceful nature (no WOMD programs, and other limitations put on it after the gulf war). i thought this was iraq's last chance to prove cooperation (seeing as it hasnt fully cooperated in over 10 years). in my eyes it is failing. since most all diplomatic avenues have been tried in bringing saddam to cooperate with the world the only option left is to force him to cooperate, whether he likes it or not.

and what if the UN decides for no war, or for more inspections instead, and the US goes to war anyway?

who will be uncooperating with the world then?

i'm really really curious to see if the US will defy the UN.

there are really only 3 realistic outcomes of all this.

1) the US goes to war anyway, defying the UN.
2) the US pressures the UN so much, that it agrees to war out of desperation / forceful tactics.

in both cases, the UN and, by extension, the world, have been disgraced. what are the consequences of that, then?

Well, when Powell said that after 9-11 everything has changed, but, if there wasent any 9-11, would the USA still attack Iraq ? ? .. thats one big question. In my opinion, I think that Bush is such a lucky mofo, so lucky that everything that has happened, his been able to justify and link it with Iraq with either real or some fake facts, yet, Im not sure about them, but , he surely is doing something that he would've loved doing anyways. This topic is getting very controversial, in my school, we spend hours discussing this topic with the class, and theres just so much information that has never come to the media in the USA that we here dont know.

One of the comments was that, the US will go to war no matter what, and that the US is just going along with the UN just to make time to build up the US forces in the middle east and attack Iraq from now on to 3 weeks. And I see this happening , only if Saddam proofs real deeply that he has no weapons of mass destruction and so on .. something I would doubt.. but, I dont know, the answers are always made after the damage is done.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode i'm really really curious to see if the US will defy the UN. there are really only 3 realistic outcomes of all this. 1) the US goes to war anyway, defying the UN. 2) the US pressures the UN so much, that it agrees to war out of desperation / forceful tactics.

uh.. that's only two things. I guess you left out the third.

3) the US heeds international and UN concern , and does not attack iraq.

The protests taking place worldwide are the largest EVER before a war. The only protests bigger were for vietnam, and this was after the war. funny thing about people, most can't be arsed to do anything until it hits home for them, like when americas boys started coming home from vietnam in boxes, the protests started getting huge in the US.

The same thing would happen now, except that now americas technology and weaponry is so much better, they really don't stand to lose much in the way of human life at all.

yet still, i predict the protests will only grow larger. There is a massive demonstration in New York city for February 15th, don't expect it to be covered much in the news, but it will be unavoidable if you are in new york. I am planning my own walk in my city for that day as well.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith yet still, i predict the protests will only grow larger. There is a massive demonstration in New York city for February 15th, don't expect it to be covered much in the news, but it will be unavoidable if you are in new york. I am planning my own walk in my city for that day as well.

The anti-war movement is really gaining strength. Even though I think the war is not only morally justified, but is in fact the only moral option, I don't think the U.S. should attack unless it can garner more domestic support for the attack. If they proceed anyway, then I don't think Americans will want to bear the cost of rebuilding Iraq after a war they didn't even support, which would greatly hamper our chances of actually helping the people of Iraq (which is the only circumstance under which the war is justified anyway).

To be honest I think it's a sad reflection of the country that the anti-war movement is so strong. I think it is a manifestaion of our short-sighted, materialist culture. But I also think doubts about the U.S. government's motivations are legitimate (although they are a fallacious argument against the war in principle).

I fear that because of these factors, the people of Iraq may be fucked either way. For this I blame the U.S. government, for two reasons:

1. Their use of pro-war propaganda has provided an obvious and convenient straw-man for the anti-war camp to attack. Strengthening opposing rhetoric while creating the illusion that no justification exists.

2. Their vicarious sponsorship of big-media, mass consumption materialist culture has created an environment which gives rise to unrealistic human attitudes which refuse to make sacrifices. In the long run this refusal to make sacrifices is really what the anti-war movement is about. But we can't make progress unless we're doing it together. Even if the U.S. is right I'm not sure it will help to drag the rest of the world, kicking and screaming, towards those just objectives.

In any case, I still support the war with Iraq in theory. But under current circumstances, I fear that no choice we can make will produce acceptable results. It may be a case where we need to solve our own problems before we will be properly equipped to solve the problems of others.

I disagree with you that war is the only moral option. I fail to see how attacking a country which has done nothing is moral. I suppose the argument is that innocent people could die if we don't dissarm saddamn, but the fact of the matter is innocent people WILL die if we do attack iraq. both iraqis, americans, and all the "spinoff deaths" (i will come back to that in a moment).

you raise the point that because the support for the war is poor in america, money may not come to rebuild iraq. i agree, take a look at afghanistan, and we can see how the US rebuilds, even when support was high. and it's still not done bombing there yet. the iraqi people are going to be worse off if a war occurs, to believe we are doing this for the good of iraq is putting your head in the sand imo. america will have it's bases there for years to come.

this comes back to my "spinoff deaths". these are the people that will die from the exacerbation of the situation in the middle east.

This could be in any number of situations, resulting chaos after saddamn is deposed, riots and civil unrest in other countries such as saudi arabia, jordan and pakistan, as people try to fill the power void of saddamn, people killed by the US soldiers trying to "keep the peace" in the area.

However, these deaths don't seem to count much to the bush administration, they are merely "collateral damage".

But, there is another kind of spinoff death, that WILL result from an american attack, and that is increased desire for revenge from arabs, muslims in particular. American embassys will be attacked, americans will be targeted abroad (such as the bombing of the nightclub in bali), and there may be more terrorist attacks on US soil. some of these attacks may even be worse than September 11th if you believe the threats from saddamns son qusay(which i don't). As well, other countries that support this, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, etc may be attacked.

that's a potential huge loss of life, and could throw the entire mid east region into chaos. In fact, if the terrorist have it's way, what this will do, is throw the entire muslim religion into a holy war with the west. the potential for loss of life there is staggering, i'm sure you can see that.

So, the question then becomes.. who's lives hang in the balance? whose lives to we stand to save, by killing iraqi soldiers, and citizens, and causing and indeterminate amount of spinnoff deaths?

the answer, is shiites, kurds, kuwatis, israelis, and everyone else that saddamn dislikes in the middle east. because that is as far as he would be able to attack. he does not threaten the US, or even the UK, he could never get that far, he's a kid in the sandbox, quite literally. maybe the biggest and nastiest kid in the sandbox, but, only a kid in the end.

so, in conclusion, the question is: do we take this madman out, before he hurts someone? or do we leave him, and potentially let people in the mideast die and saddamn get more powerful.

The reason i do not support an american led war, is not because i do not believe that saddamn should be taken out. it's because that is not the job of the US or UK to decide nor enforce this.

furthermore, if they DO decide to take out saddamn, i feel that the consequences will only be more dire than if we had done nothing at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode need to do what? are you being personally threatened? do you think that iraq has any way of personally hitting the U.S., or has planned to do so, using their "weapons of mass destruction"? clearly not. the "threat" of saddam hussein is a "threat" to his own people and to the neighbouring countries. IMHO the U.S. shouldn't even be a thousand miles near that area. why should they? do they think they're world cop? if war is "what you need to do", and if the U.S. is after "world peace" or "world justice", then maybe they should stop being so blantantly obvious about trying to steal iraq's oil. instead they should deal with some of the REAL problems around them. like north korea. again, this "evidence" is not evidence at all, and is a joke and a disgrace to the international community.

Wow, calm down! I've been ardently against the war, and I'm just looking at some of the new facts and trying to come up with a logical conclusion. You're talking to me as if I was some gun-toting Bush fanatic, when in fact I hate the man, and I've been ridiculing the war this whole time.

*EDIT* Almost never during any war is specific civilian life directly threatened, your argument is weak. Besides, if for whatever reason Iraq does attack us (whether Bush is right or we just piss him off enough in this whole mess that he decides to), My city is probably the prime target. But other than that your right. I hate the US's pushing for this war, and we're disgracing the internation community.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith The reason i do not support an american led war, is not because i do not believe that saddamn should be taken out. it's because that is not the job of the US or UK to decide nor enforce this.

I agree it isn't the job of the US or UK to decide or enforce it. But do you have an alternative to recommend? If not the US or UK, whose job is it?

When something must be done, must not someone do it? We can't avoid the question of what to do simply by choosing the most passive course of action. By doing so we are deciding that it is acceptable to allow the Iraqi people to continute to live in tyranny. It is not easy to make a decision that will kill many of them. Nor should it be easy to make the decision to allow them to suffer as they do now, merely because we are then able to dissociate ourselves from being the direct cause of the problem by doing so.

Whether or not it is our job to decide, we cannot avoid doing so. We are making a decision either way.

I agree, doing nothing is still making a choice. As they say, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

However, i said it was not the US and UKs job to decide, which is why i don't support the war. why is it not Chinas decision to make? or North Koreas even? they have armies, why don't they take saddamn out?

it's no more their decision, or mine to make than it is george bushs.
BUT, even if it were, then i would not support it anyway, for the reasons i have mentioned above. I have my opinion, and i am entitled to it, but the decision to attack should be multilateral. Specifically, there should be a second UN resolution authorizing a war. I don't think the threat of "serious consequences" is enough to justify the massive military buildup by the US in the gulf region. or the loss of lives that will result.

I think we set a dangerous precedent when the most powerful country in the world is allowed make the decision to premptively attack another country irrespective of international concerns.

And i think those concerns are valid, given the fact that the US has obvious ulterior motives for being in the gulf, and that saddamn is only one of many world leaders that disregard it's people.

if doing nothing is making a choice (which i agree it is) then the US is choosing to let millions die in africa from poverty and aids, choosing to let the entire economy of south america fall apart, choosing to let china, thailand, singapore etc commit human rights violations on a daily basis. choosing to let NK violate their treaties.

in my opinion these are not choices made, but yet to be made.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be honest I think it's a sad reflection of the country that the anti-war movement is so strong. I think it is a manifestaion of our short-sighted, materialist culture. But I also think doubts about the U.S. government's motivations are legitimate (although they are a fallacious argument against the war in principle).

Are you serious with that paragraph? That�s some hard core 1984 doublesthink going on there. It�s the pro-war movement that�s the sad reflection of our short-sighted, materialistic culture. This is not a war about higher morals or ethics but one motivated by personal gain and power under the guise of a just war.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I agree it isn't the job of the US or UK to decide or enforce it. But do you have an alternative to recommend? If not the US or UK, whose job is it?

The UN�s. If the UN was given complete freedom form bullying by the more powerful states, particularly the US though others are not guilt free, and real power to work in the international community as an antonymous body then much more would get done in the world and it would be a much better place.

quote:

When something must be done, must not someone do it? We can't avoid the question of what to do simply by choosing the most passive course of action. By doing so we are deciding that it is acceptable to allow the Iraqi people to continute to live in tyranny. It is not easy to make a decision that will kill many of them. Nor should it be easy to make the decision to allow them to suffer as they do now, merely because we are then able to dissociate ourselves from being the direct cause of the problem by doing so.

That argument holds no ground what so ever. People all around the globe are suffering in countless locations and don�t get any help whatsoever. So answer this, what makes the Iraqi�s more deserving of this selfless and merciful assistance over the other millions of people in the world in distress?

quote:

Whether or not it is our job to decide, we cannot avoid doing so. We are making a decision either way.

Yes we can, give more power to the UN and let them take on the role of world police rather than bully nations.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Are you serious with that paragraph? That�s some hard core 1984 doublesthink going on there. It�s the pro-war movement that�s the sad reflection of our short-sighted, materialistic culture. This is not a war about higher morals or ethics but one motivated by personal gain and power under the guise of a just war.

actually i think that was his best paragraph.
if you would just take a step back and disregard specific countries and commadities such as oil, and see it as a fight of one nation representing freedom and liberty agianst another that represents totalitarism, oppression and tyranny, you would realize that yes the sacrafices that needed to be taken are worth it at the end. of course there are many more places in the world where this needs to happen, but just because theres more then one place doesnt mean we shouldnt do any of them at all. even doing just this one is a step in the right direction and better then none at all.

I truly do not believe we are doing this for the good of iraqis.

I will let noam chomskys words say it:

quote:

the conjuring up of enemies that are about to destroy us, that's second nature, very familiar. They didn't invent it, others have done the same thing, others have done it in history but they became masters of this art and are now doing it again. I don't want to suggest that they have no reasons for wanting to take over Iraq. Of course they do - long-standing reasons that everyone knows. Controlling Iraq will put the US in a very powerful position to extend it domination of the major energy resources of the world. That's not a small point.

......

quote:

If this is a war aim, why don't they say so? Why are they lying to the rest of the world? What is the point of having the UN inspectors? According to this propaganda, everything we are saying in public is pure farce - we don't care about the weapons of mass destruction, we don't care about disarmament, we have another goal in mind, which we're not telling you, and that is, all of a sudden, we're going to bring democracy by war. Well, if that's the goal, let's stop lying about it and put an end to the whole farce of inspections and everything else and just say now we're on a crusade to bring democracies to countries that are suffering under miserable leadership. Actually that is a traditional crusade, that's what lies behind the horrors of colonial wars and their modern equivalents, and we have a very long rich record to show just how that worked out. It's not something new in history.

and, even if we WERE doing it for the good of iraqis, i fail to see how they will be any better off. we will be destroying their entire country with bombs remember.

And will basically kill thousands if they really try to defend their homecountry..

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith it's no more their decision, or mine to make than it is george bushs. BUT, even if it were, then i would not support it anyway, for the reasons i have mentioned above. I have my opinion, and i am entitled to it, but the decision to attack should be multilateral. Specifically, there should be a second UN resolution authorizing a war.

I agree that, optimally, another UN resolution ought to be made authorizing the war before an attack is made. But the UN is an extremely inefficient, obstructionist organization. I've never really believed the fundamental idea of the UN was a sound one, because I don't think countries trust each other enough that any of the discourse at the UN is really useful in establishing a consensus. Furthermore, China and NK themselves are guilty of a plethora of human rights violations. Should they really be given authoratative power over movements to eradicate the same violations they either are or have been guilty of? You can't defeat tyranny by asking it for permission.

So the question is, should we allow the dysfunction of the UN to condemn the people of Iraq to life without freedom? You're right, you are entitled to your opinion. But my opinion is, "most certainly not!"

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Are you serious with that paragraph? That�s some hard core 1984 doublesthink going on there. It�s the pro-war movement that�s the sad reflection of our short-sighted, materialistic culture. This is not a war about higher morals or ethics but one motivated by personal gain and power under the guise of a just war.

Are you serious? A war would consume a large amount of resources to no domestically constructive end. This would hardly produce any materialistic advantage. But regardless, your argument is an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Rather arguing that the war is not justified by higher morals or ethics (which it is), you throw that argument out the window merely because you suspect the U.S. has other motivations. But in that case, you aren't really arguing about whether war is justified or not, you're arguing about whether a war with additional properties you have arbitrarily ascribed to it is justified. This, of course, has no actual bearing on the question at hand.

quote:

The UN�s. If the UN was given complete freedom form bullying by the more powerful states, particularly the US though others are not guilt free, and real power to work in the international community as an antonymous body then much more would get done in the world and it would be a much better place.

Of course, and if the U.S. government was given complete freedom from bullying by the more powerful political parties, much more would get done domestically and the U.S. would be a much better place. But are either of these phenomena realistic? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Such is the problem with democracy - factionalism is inevitable, and the most powerful factions will inevitably bully others.

quote:

That argument holds no ground what so ever. People all around the globe are suffering in countless locations and don�t get any help whatsoever. So answer this, what makes the Iraqi�s more deserving of this selfless and merciful assistance over the other millions of people in the world in distress?

So, what you're suggesting is that one ought not to solve one problem unless you're going to solve them all? This attitude doesn't seem very conducive to progress. I think we should help other people around the globe. But it would best be done one problem at a time.

Regards,

Arbiter

quote:

So, what you're suggesting is that one ought not to solve one problem unless you're going to solve them all? This attitude doesn't seem very conducive to progress. I think we should help other people around the globe. But it would best be done one problem at a time.

Ok, let's compare, say Iraq and Congo or former Zair, and see in which one of those countries people are in more need of aid. While living conditions in Iraq aren't optimal, people aren't massively starving to death, as is the case in Congo. Furthermore, regardless of how tyranical the regime in Iraq is, it is nowhere close to the one that is currently in charge in Congo (I don't know which one because they change every year or so).
Now let's look at the minorities. It is true they are opressed and often minority members are executed, but let's look at the status of the pigmeys in jungle areas. The rebels are forcing them to hunt for food, and if they don't find any, they kill a few pigmeys and eat them. Also they force other pigmeys to eat their former tribe members as well.
Political situation in Iraq is basically pretty stable, although that is only because it is ruled by the iron fist. In Congo, the only thing government controls are the few major cities and diamond mines, while many of the rebelious groups control all the rest. Not to mention that every once in a while one of those groups defeats the regular government forces, makes a massacre and executes the previous opponents, and then rules the country in the same way the previous one did.

So if it is for humanitarian reasons only, it is a fact that a need for overthrowing Congoan regime, as well as many other african ones of which Congo here is just an example is much bigger than the need to overthrow Saddam.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, let's compare, say Iraq and Congo or former Zair, and see in which one of those countries people are in more need of aid. While living conditions in Iraq aren't optimal, people aren't massively starving to death, as is the case in Congo. Furthermore, regardless of how tyranical the regime in Iraq is, it is nowhere close to the one that is currently in charge in Congo (I don't know which one because they change every year or so). Now let's look at the minorities. It is true they are opressed and often minority members are executed, but let's look at the status of the pigmeys in jungle areas. The rebels are forcing them to hunt for food, and if they don't find any, they kill a few pigmeys and eat them. Also they force other pigmeys to eat their former tribe members as well. Political situation in Iraq is basically pretty stable, although that is only because it is ruled by the iron fist. In Congo, the only thing government controls are the few major cities and diamond mines, while many of the rebelious groups control all the rest. Not to mention that every once in a while one of those groups defeats the regular government forces, makes a massacre and executes the previous opponents, and then rules the country in the same way the previous one did. So if it is for humanitarian reasons only, it is a fact that a need for overthrowing Congoan regime, as well as many other african ones of which Congo here is just an example is much bigger than the need to overthrow Saddam.

In principle, I agree with you, but the argument of where best to start is an entirely seperate argument from whether or not Iraq ought to be attacked at all.

I suppose i can only speak for myself but in my opinion, the reason antiwar pundits point out that there are worse places than iraq as far as human rights goes is not because we think that nothing should be done in iraq. or even that we think other countries should be dealt with first. we may well think that but that's not why we point it out.

The reason we are saying this is to expose the obvious lie that the US is wanting to attack iraq to "liberate" it, this is just a cover for the obvious grab for iraqs oil and control of the middle eastern geopolitical situation.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I suppose i can only speak for myself but in my opinion, the reason antiwar pundits point out that there are worse places than iraq as far as human rights goes is not because we think that nothing should be done in iraq. or even that we think other countries should be dealt with first. we may well think that but that's not why we point it out. The reason we are saying this is to expose the obvious lie that the US is wanting to attack iraq to "liberate" it, this is just a cover for the obvious grab for iraqs oil and control of the middle eastern geopolitical situation.

that still doesnt make sense.
techincally, yes, whether it is their excuse or not if america goes to war with iraq they would be liberating the civlians from dictatoriship rule. whether other places exsist that need liberation agian is irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy that still doesnt make sense. techincally, yes, whether it is their excuse or not if america goes to war with iraq they would be liberating the civlians from dictatoriship rule. whether other places exsist that need liberation agian is irrelevant.

Why is it "irrelevent"???? BECUASE THEY HAVE NO OIL!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Why is it "irrelevent"???? BECUASE THEY HAVE NO OIL!!!!

I find it rather hard to stomach that the U.S. would spend billions of dollars deploying its armies in order to procure a resource that in five years will not be worth half what it is today, and within a decade may be worth nothing at all.

The more logical explanation is that George W. Bush simply wants an enemy - any enemy - to serve as a punching bag for the might of the U.S. military, in hopes that the domination that results will make America feel more tough, and therefore, more secure. For this purpose, it is easier for Bush to pick a familiar enemy, such as Hussein, who most of the American public already knows enough about, than to try to rally support for a war against some other leader who 95% of the population has never heard of.

Regardless of the drab reality that Bush and his cohorts probably don't have a very good idea how to rebuild Iraq properly, if they even care, it remains true that this war is the necessary first step towards achieving the only acceptable outcome.

In actuality, however, the United States has far more to gain by making Iraq a prosperous nation than it does by instituting some form of primitive mercantilism - just look at the brilliant symbiosis between the United States and Japan. The only question, is whether the shortsightedness of our government will choose to decline the opportunity to make this very wise and very just investment.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.