'Do you believe the Gulf War was primarily to secure American
access to Kuwaiti oil? Did it also have to do with teaching
Saddam a lesson for his aggressive behavior with Kuwait? Do
you have any insight into which factor was more of a determinant
for the Bush Administration?
I think the main reason for the first Gulf War was what�s called
�credibility�: Saddam had defied orders; no one can get away with that.
Ask any Mafia Don and you�ll get the explanation. There�s good reason
to suppose that a negotiated withdrawal would have been possible, but
that wouldn�t make the point; again, ask your favorite Don.
The reason for leaving Saddam in place was explained very openly and
frankly: As the diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times,
Thomas Friedman, explained when the US backed Saddam�s crushing
of the Kurds, �the best of all worlds� for Washington would be an
�iron-fisted junta� ruling Iraq just as Saddam did, but with a different
name, because his is now embarrassing, and since no one like that
seemed to be around, they�d have to settle with second-best, their old
friend and ally the butcher of Baghdad himself. You can find plenty of
material about all of this in what I wrote at the time, reprinted in
"Deterring Democracy"; more has appeared since.'
Now is not this an open game ticket to Bush. In comparison to the amrerican butshers, can one believe anything they say any more...
did you know that iraqi kurds since 1958 slaughtered thousands of iraqi soldires at the behest of the US turkey and the US. forced the irqi government to sign a surrender treaty to the shah in 1975. the iraqi kurds handed over turkish kurds to the turkish authorities have string ties to israel etc.....
no need to expalin the events just read them in histroical sequence please... just read iraq's history. imperialism should not be left with the lsightest opportunity to manouver its forces into place.
Bill Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday, February 7, 2005 at 01:20:19 (-0800) soula avramidis writes:
>I thought that in many liberal and left material before the war on Iraq, the typical occidental eurocentric lakcing knowlege of the near east history blab started with drive for imperial war by Bush, and ended with Saddam "firend turned foe jagon" whose human rights record implicitly justifies occupation.... take any article in which saddan is mentioned and see for yourself.
So, what you are saying is that you actually have no evidence
whatsoever that Chomsky would make any such assertion and that you
join the ranks of the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys, and other
dishonest fanatics who prefer to slander rather than engage in
principled discussion.
Thanks for clarifying.
Bill
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired
of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
