Ms. Heller, to this itinerant scanner of Mpls Issues you have staked out a position as a consistently analytical, hard-headed and, if necessary, iconoclastic speaker of unpopular truths. Thus, your comments below greatly surprise me. I would ask for your justification of the following two statements:
"It seems to me that spending a few hundred billion [by invading Iraq] to prevent another such homeland attack is well worth the money." Here, clearly, is the implicit claim that there is a relation between wreaking devastation on Iraq and preventing another "homeland attack." What is the evidence for possibly suggesting this? Surely those who think at all beyond what Ted Koppel and Cokie Roberts feed us are aware that there is no evidence whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 or any other successful, thwarted or suspected acts of violence in this country. The bait and switch from 9-11 to invading Iraq was breathtaking in its audacity and, if it has taken in even a clear, no-nonsense thinker such as yourself, clearly an act of propagandistic genius. Is it not relevant evidence to you that in an unbroken stream of policy documents dating back to at least 1992, those who determine George Bush's actions (Mssrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, etc.) have advocated for an invasion of Iraq as the first step of global military control in preservation of U.S. global prerogatives? Are you not familiar with the planning documents showing that this administration was planning for this war on Iraq from its first day in office (and indeed, precisely at the time that Mr. Bush, in his campaign, was speaking of "humility" as his guiding principle of U.S. action in foreign affairs)? "Our government, at all levels, is trying to protect us." Again, indeed, what possibly is your evidence for this? I am sure that in your business dealings you do not simply take people at their word when they express their motivations. You assume that a person has certain goals and then acts in a manner rationally related to achieving those goals. Thus, it is actions, not words, that are the evidence by which you assess what motivates a person. Please review for us what actions of the Bush administration are rationally related to achieving a goal of protecting U.S. citizens. I have followed fairly closely the broad array of actions the administration has taken since 9-11 and am not aware of any actions that bear in any material way to protecting U.S. citizens. Indeed, each action appears precisely calculated to greatly increase world instability and destroy the mechanisms haltingly constructed over decades to enhance global cooperation and the rule of law. (Which, of course, is rationally related to the albeit short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive desire of the "fittest" to shrug off the constraints of cooperation and return to a "survival of the fittest" model for global behavior.) I do not suggest that the Bush administration has the goal actually of decreasing U.S. security, simply that its goal is unrelated to the security and interests of U.S. citizens and, alas, its pursuit of that goal must undermine that security. (Next thing we know, someone actually will suggest that the interest of the Bush administration is in seeking to foster democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.) I will not ask where your figure of $7 trillion comes from, nor ask what the actions of the Bush administration since 9-11 (and the opportunity costs of those actions) have amounted to as a loss of global social surplus, including costs for the City of Minneapolis (there's the Mpls-Issues connection). Nor will I ask whether the "few hundred billion" you cite as the cost of the invasion includes a liquidated value for the death, destruction and immiseration this action will create for a nation of innocent people. But I would be interested in your thoughts as to why, in recent weeks, there seems to have been a near-perfect inverse correlation between the daily change in the stock market average and the perceived likelihood of the U.S. war. My apologies for going on, but I haven't felt like a war since I woke up this morning. Chuck Holtman Prospect Park From: "Victoria Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mpls Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:38:49 -0600 Subject: [Mpls] The War- About to become a major Minneapolis Issue... Dyna Sluyter writes: With payroll and expenses skyrocketing It would be no surprise to see R.T. asking citizens to pay their taxes early so the city can make payroll. All because of a totally uncalled for and inexcusable war that some say is "not a Minneapolis issue". Vicky responds on the other side of the argument: The 9/11 terror attacks have cost our economy $7 trillion. It seems to me that spending a few hundred billion to prevent another such homeland attack is well worth the money. If you found a swarm of rattlesnakes in your basement, would you just close the door and "hope" they don't venture upstairs. Our economy cannot withstand another attack. Our government, at all levels, is trying to protect us. Another attack is what we can't afford. Vicky Heller Cedar-Riverside and North Oaks TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
