----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:10 AM Subject: Re: brin: education
> d.brin wrote: > > > > > On a separate matter, let me weigh in with an opinion that the present > > Iraq frenzy is the most blatant 'wag the dog' I have ever seen. > > Blatant, shameful, obvious... but he's got Congress sniffing his arse. > What a sorry act. > > What really upset me though was the mushroom cloud imagery invoked the > other night. > > Who's the terrorist? I'm in the middle on this, so I'll ask questions on both sides. My read is that two things are clear: 1) There has been a strong push to go after Iraq in the Administration for over a year. It just isn't politics, there is a camp within the Administration that really believes it. The primary push for going to war with Iraq is not political, it strategic. 2) The vote coming in October is not a coincidence. Given the fact that the Administration wants to do well in the November election, and given the fact that it wants a big vote for action in Iraq, the timing for both is perfect. The Democrats were in fine shape to set up for the fall election in mid-summer. The news cycle was on energy company fiascos, and Bush was getting close to being tied in. Now, the fact that Bush's company played some games with hiding the true balance sheet of the company to push stock prices up, (like but not as severe as Enron) is lost in the noise. So, my conclusion is that the push is real and heartfelt as Bush's understanding of what best to the for the US. The timing is political. Indeed, I have quotes via Yahoo that show that the Republican consultants state that they will do what they will to keep Iraq front burner in the news till mid-November. I don't fault the Republicans for this, though. Going to war for politics is despicable. Timing the votes so its win-win for the Republican party and the vote on the war is not. If you are going to do it anyway, sliding the vote forward or back a couple of months does not change how many people will die in the war. Since I'm responding to Doug, I will ask the question I ask those who are against action in Iraq. If not action, then what? IIRC, the "peace" faction were pointing out how bad and worthless the sanctions were about 18 months ago. Before 9-11, it looked as though the UN was about to remove them. IMHO, the sanctions slowed down but didn't stop the remilitarization of Iraq. Without them, Iraq would have about $50 billion/year income to play around with from oil (if my back of the envelope is correct). With half of that going to the military, a bit conservative, that's still a lot of money. Especially, since military pay will not consume much of the cash. You know the French and Chinese will find ways to sell Iraq arms for the right price. So, is the answer that the suffering due to the sanctions remaining in place is better than the cost of war, and that the sanctions do work after all? Inspections have been suggested, but it is apparent to me that Iraq allows just enough inspections to stop an invasion. You might argue that what is best is a full inspection due to the only other option being an invasion. But, the counter to that is that, for this to happen, Bush is doing the exact right thing. He _has_ to be the bad cop, for the UN to be the good cop. I'll ask questions of the other side in a bit. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
