[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> But the Pentagon says this will be a new type of warfare - a war
> against infrastructure, not people.
So all the people there need to do is make sure they're standing in the
streets rather than inside a building and then they'll be ok?
> The American plan is to take out the first two tiers of Iraqi
> leadership in all government departments, but otherwise to leave
> things as they are. The aim is to take over the country with
> virtually no loss of innocent life, rule it for one year, then hold
> elections.
That's very neat and bloodless and it's not going to happen that way.
For one thing, Saddam Hussein will probably manage to stay alive and a
lot of innocent Iraqis end up very dead or maimed. You think Saddam and
"the first two tiers" are going to stick around while all the buildings
are falling? And if you, and we, know about the US plans, you don't
think Saddma doesn't? Jeez!
> Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. I believe that -- no
> matter how ridiculous it may sound to a small number of you.
Small number??? You're really dreaming now!
> Those of you who say 'it's about oil' should spell out what you mean.
One thing it means is that US oil companies have not been allowed to buy
Iraqi oil since the embargo was put into place in 1991. Cheney (and
probably others) would like to see that changed. ("Year that Dick
Cheney, as head of oil field equipment manufacturer Halliburton, called
for the end to sanctions against Iraq: 2000"). Iraq has the second
largest oil reserve in the world. I think Cheney, Bush, and all those
big oil company executives who gave money that helped get Bush elected
would like to be able to get to some of that oil, as cheaply as
possible, and then sell it as expensively as possible so they can
maximize their profits, for the shareholders, of course (very good
excuse in a capitalist society, and an excuse that's been used A LOT
lately for what turns out to be gouging the consumers). The US having
easy access to that much oil means those companies wouldn't have to pay
attention to the Saudis and their control over prices anymore. Those
prices really were way too low, weren't they? and didn't help any US oil
company executives, or, uh, shareholders, of course.
Most actions Bush takes is to pay back his contributors (hey, he's an
honorable guy), so the idea that he would pay back the oil company
contributors is not far fetched to me. As I've often thought, Bush and
his Bushies are going to be billionaires eventually through their
various manipulations. And if people are dead, too bad. If consumers end
up paying double or triple for energy, too bad. Bush's words of concern
always sound good; too bad his actions don't match them.
Another thing was a report months ago was that Bush offered to share
some of that Iraqi oil with Russia (and another country, maybe France)
if they would back up the US in this "venture". Apparently, the idea
didn't go over well with those countries. Most importantly, why is it
Bush's oil to give away?
There's no reasonable explanation for this venture (sorry, hawks, as
much as I like Colin Powell, the PhD paper just doesn't do it) so people
start looking elsewhere for reasons. Moral issues? Hmmm, let's see...
the Kurds were gassed in 1988. Now, all of a sudden, Bush is concerned
about them? I don't think so... (although he may himself may now
believe he is concerned since he's said it so often, and since he's
talked about the al Qaeda connection so often he probably genuinely
believes that too, and for the time being, has forgotten all about that
oil thing; a person's mind can rationalize anything; Bush will remember
the oil thing eventually I'm sure... Cheney will remind him when the
time is right).
So let's "liberate" Iraq and claim we're doing it for the good of the
people there so righteous Americans and a few other righteous people can
be distracted (and let's ignore that many Iraqis will be dead, maimed,
or sick for the rest of their lives from the chemicals US bombs will
release), let's get their oil, and then US companies will have control
over a huge part of the oil supply. That makes a lot more sense to me
then the "we're concerned about the Iraqi people" claim. There's never
been any evidence of that before.
So, as I see it, those are some of the reasons some people say "it's
about oil".
> What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being
> liberated?
Who here has ever said that??? Your attempt to push buttons and push
the hawkish line rather than spend a second looking at things another
way is really getting on my nerves. As I assume, some of what I write
gets on some people's nerves. I won't deny that. However, because of
your insistence, Sarah, on the Iraqis' need for help, I did spend some
time wondering and writing about how people there could be helped
without mass killings. I guess you missed that.
> Those of you who oppose this war should suggest a viable alternative.
Alternatives have been mentioned. Guess you weren't paying attention.
No one has said that Saddam is a good guy. No one has said that the
Iraqi people do not need help.
People ARE saying that bombing those Iraqi people is not an appropriate solution.
Debra Shea,
truly dreading this world changing event we're heading toward. We're ALL
getting screwed with this one, one way or another.
