! ! I asked first and you didn't respond. I'll ask it again: ! ! "Will this "new government" work for Iraq people or for the interests ! of the US government and corporations?" ! ! You know the answer.
No, actually I don't. Given the past, I'm almost inclined to believe they'll stab us in the back like everybody else. I would like them to be amenable to working with us and doing business with us. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as things are on the up and up. Granted, they often aren't, that's just the nature of politics. But I am not so cynical as to believe that they're no better off under the new regime than they were under Saddam. That so many left-leaning folks seem to disagree confirms what I've always thought about left-leaning folks. :) I still want to know which world, A or B, you'd prefer to live in. I choose B. - Bob ! ! ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ! > Simple question for you Helio: ! > ! > Is Iraq and the world better off with: ! > ! > A.) Saddam in charge, still funding terror bombers in Gaza and ! > subverting UN sanctions with the help of his buddies in the French ! > government and elsewhere in the UN power structure; Zarqawi ! alive and ! > roaming about freely; Al Qaeda with a potential, if not real, friend ! > in power in Iraq, willing to scheme against the free world; Libya ! > secretly and unbeknownst to just about everybody developing ! WMDs; the ! > world still thinks we talk the talk of democracy, but don't walk the ! > walk, let alone promote it in other parts of the world when our ! > economic interests don't seem aligned. ! > ! > B.) New government elected by the Iraqi people (certainly not of our ! > choosing, but at least elected) and negotiated between ! Iraqis despite ! > sectarian strife; Saddam on trial, his sons neutralized; Zarqawi ! > feeding worms; Al Qaeda on the defensive; Libya turning over a new ! > leaf and handing over their weapons program; dictators and mullahs ! > actively worrying that we take all this democracy talk ! seriously, and ! > in a panic over the spread thereof in their own backyard. ! > ! > Take your pick. Thanks to America's actions, we live in the ! real World ! > B, but you are free like many on this list to continue living in the ! > long-gone World A if you please. ! > ! > We still have problems in Iran and North Korea, not to ! mention here at ! > home, and I don't know how they are going to play out, but ! in general ! > I can't yet see everything we've done so far as purely bad and ! > ill-conceived, no matter how hard some people seem to want to paint ! > them that way. ! > ! > - Bob ! > ! > ! -----Original Message----- ! > ! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! > ! [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Helio W. ! > ! Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:50 PM ! > ! To: ProFox Email List ! > ! Subject: Re: [OT] What does Sen Biden really mean? ! > ! ! > ! So the US is going to put a democratically elected government in ! > Iraq. ! > ! Will this "new government" work for Iraq people or for ! the interests ! > ! of the US government and corporations? Please don't be naive nor ! > ! consider me a fool by saying that both things can be acomplished ! > ! simutaneously. ! > ! ! > ! ! > ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! Bob, do you really believe the US never intervened in other ! > ! > countries ! > ! > ! for economic interests? ! > ! > ! > ! > Who said that? Not I. ! > ! > ! > ! > Clearly it is in our economic interest to have a regime in Iraq ! > that ! > ! > isn't pro-terror, anti-United States, with delusions of ! > ! being the next ! > ! > Nebuchadnezzar. It is moreover in our economic interest to ! > ! ensure that ! > ! > long-term, all despotic regimes in the middle east are ! > ! toppled and/or ! > ! > otherwise replaced by democratically elected governments and ! > control ! > ! > of the education of the Arab "man in the street" is wrested from ! > the ! > ! > hate-filled religious fanatics who fund and breed fodder ! > ! for Al Qaeda. ! > ! > ! > ! > That hasn't always been so, sadly. We have funded those regimes ! > and ! > ! > propped them or indirectly allowed them to be propped up ! > ! for the sake ! > ! > of "cheap oil" and our policy in Iraq has them all more or less ! > ! > shaking their boots and flipping out. This notion that our ! > economic ! > ! > interests were served better by dictators with a heavy ! hand rather ! > ! > than free societies is what has changed in our outlook ! since 9/11. ! > ! > ! > ! > I would like to point out that the claim that we invaded ! > ! for cheap oil ! > ! > was precisely backward. It was for the sake of cheap oil ! > ! that we never ! > ! > cleaned that rats nest in the first place. Now that oil is ! > ! a bit more ! > ! > expensive maybe the lunacy of that argument can be ! shown for what ! > it ! > ! > always was. The people who were fighting for cheap oil were ! > ! the people ! > ! > who fought against us and still seem to think the world ! would be a ! > ! > better place with Saddam in power. ! > ! > ! > ! > For France and certain elements in other European ! > ! countries, it was in ! > ! > their economic interest to keep Saddam in place and ! > ! eventually to get ! > ! > the sanctions lifted for Chirac's buddy. I don't begrudge them ! > their ! > ! > rational self-interest, but I note sadly that in light of their ! > ! > unseamly involvment in the oil-for-food scandal, none of ! > ! our armchair ! > ! > patriots here seem the least offended that what really ! lie beneath ! > ! > their opposition to our military engagement was little more than ! > ! > kickbacks and bribes, not the lofty principles ! articulated by that ! > ! > fraud de Villepin in his passionate knife-in-the-back of ! > ! Colin Powell ! > ! > at the UN. ! > ! > ! > ! > The higher gas prices that have resulted were not in our short ! > term ! > ! > economic interests, and hence were contrary to the short term ! > ! > political interests of the Republican party and President Bush. ! > They ! > ! > have exacted their toll, and may give power back to the ! Democrats ! > in ! > ! > November. But if we stay the course, long term the ME will ! > ! be a better ! > ! > place because we took action that in the big scheme of ! things will ! > ! > redound to the positive, though that doesn't mean nothing ! > ! negative can ! > ! > or will happen. The only people being silly right now ! in terms of ! > ! > expectations are the naysayers whose pettiness today is really ! > quite ! > ! > shocking. ! > ! > ! > ! > Will there be more terrorst attacks? Of course. This is ! > ! because there ! > ! > will always be bad people. But will mullahs be ruling the ! > ! ME the next ! > ! > 100 years? That now is in jeopardy if democracy in ME ! takes hold. ! > If ! > ! > the mullahs lose power, then civilization has a chance in ! > ! that part of ! > ! > the world, and the civilizing affects thereof will do more to ! > ! > eliminate terrorism than all the bombs and kumbayas of both ! > extremes ! > ! > of our political process combined. ! > ! > ! > ! > - Bob ! > ! > ! > ! > ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Wasn't it to find WMDs before Saddam could use them ! > against ! > ! > the ! > ! > ! > US? ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! The spectre of WMD was raised in the immediate ! > ! > ! > ! aftermath of 9/11. ! > ! > ! > ! There was never a reference to this threat without some ! > ! > ! other tie-in ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! to 9/11. The rationale for the Iraq invasion depended 100% ! > on ! > ! > the ! > ! > ! > ! fear that was in the American people at that time that ! > another ! > ! > ! > ! terrorist attack could happen at any time. Now ! who better to ! > ! > ! > ! personify this threat than that terrible bogeyman Saddam? ! > ! > ! Given the ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! general ignorance of Americans about anything outside our ! > ! > ! > ! borders, ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > What a crock of sh*t. Talk about stereotyping and ! > generalizing. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! it ! > ! > ! > ! was simple to paint Osama == Arab == Saddam, and transfer ! > the ! > ! > fear ! > ! > ! > ! and anger toward Osama and al Qaeda to Saddam and Iraq. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > The argument was and remains that pre-9/11, containment ! > ! of Saddam ! > ! > ! > seemed like a good idea. Post 9/11, the rationale behind it ! > ! > ! was found ! > ! > ! > lacking, because of his history of terrorist ties ! and seeking ! > of ! > ! > WMD ! > ! > ! > capabilities---not to mention the proclivity to use ! them when ! > he ! > ! > had ! > ! > ! > them. And the strong suspicions --held by many world ! > governments ! > ! > and ! > ! > ! > their intelligence agencies--that he had them already and ! > ! > ! was actively ! > ! > ! > trying to develop them. While nobody knew for sure, we ! > strongly ! > ! > ! > believed it, and weren't willing to wait till they became ! > ! > ! an immanent ! > ! > ! > threat. Not to mention that strategically speaking Iraq was ! > ! > ! > geopolitically significant in this broader struggle against ! > ! > ! > Islamofascism. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > All Saddam ever had to do was let inspections run their ! > ! course to ! > ! > ! > prove he didn't have them. No, instead he played cat and ! > mouse, ! > ! > and ! > ! > ! > did everything he could to look like he had something to ! > ! > ! hide. And we ! > ! > ! > may never know for sure what was in those caravans crossing ! > ! > ! into Syria ! > ! > ! > that our satellites picked up on about the time we were ! > ! going the ! > ! > ! > extra mile with the UN and giving debate in ! Congress a chance ! > to ! > ! > run ! > ! > ! > its course. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > It was known then that Zarqawi was in Iraq---Bush mentioned ! > that ! > ! > too ! > ! > ! > in his speeches---as well that Iraq and Al Qaeda were at ! > ! > ! least feeling ! > ! > ! > each other out, if not collaborating "in general". (I keep ! > ! > ! pointing to ! > ! > ! > the 1998 indictment of Bin Laden which specifically ! identified ! > ! > this ! > ! > ! > fact, and ABC news reports at the time about it.) ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Nobody ever said that he was directly involved in the ! > ! 9/11 attacks ! > ! > ! > though there were suspicions based on, among other things, ! > ! > prophetic ! > ! > ! > editorials coming out of Baghdad's government run ! > ! newspaper just a ! > ! > ! > month or two before the attacks. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > In any case, the notion that the world would be a ! > ! better place if ! > ! > he ! > ! > ! > was still in charge in Iraq is absolutely assinine. That ! > ! > ! the strategy ! > ! > ! > of getting Al Qaeda to invest resources in Iraq has ! worked is ! > ! > ! > evidenced by how eager they seem to be defeating us ! > ! there, and how ! > ! > ! > impotent frankly they have been. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > At best they can muster a few IADs here and there, lob off a ! > few ! > ! > ! > innocent people's heads, and blow up some women and children ! > in ! > ! > ! > restaurants. To call this "insurgency" anything but a ! > ! > ! military dud is ! > ! > ! > also ridiculous. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Pschologically, the "loyal opposition" here in America gets ! > ! > ! a shot in ! > ! > ! > the arm every time a bomb goes off or a helicopter goes ! > ! > ! down and kills ! > ! > ! > some troops, or anytime anything bad happens for that ! > ! > ! matter, because ! > ! > ! > they see electoral opportunity in such bad news; but ! > ! > ! militarily we've ! > ! > ! > achieved pretty much all of our major objectives pretty ! > ! handily -- ! > ! > ! > including keeping our military casualties to a statistically ! > ! > ! > unprecedented minimum. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > The opposition has made the WMD argument the sine qua non of ! > the ! > ! > ! > policy of toppling the regime, but that was only part of ! > ! > ! the argument. ! > ! > ! > Personally I think it was oversold, but I think long term ! > ! > ! the argument ! > ! > ! > always was that in place of dictators the ME needed ! > ! > ! democratic regimes ! > ! > ! > if it was ever to enter modernity and overcome the forces ! > ! > ! of evil and ! > ! > ! > oppression from within. This now is happening in Iraq, but ! > ! > ! because we ! > ! > ! > tend to want instant gratification with our french fires, ! > we're ! > ! > also ! > ! > ! > getting politically antsy after a mere 3 years (which in ! > ! > ! geopolitical ! > ! > ! > and historical terms is NOTHING) of effort. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > If you look back you will see that Saddam was given many ! > ! > ! outs that he ! > ! > ! > could have taken, and we did everything we could short of ! > ! > ! throwing up ! > ! > ! > our hands and saying "Well, if De Villepin is against ! > ! it, how can ! > ! > we ! > ! > ! > be for it?" to please the UN appeasers. These same folks ! > ! > ! were all for ! > ! > ! > 1441, until they saw that unlike in the past, this time we ! > were ! > ! > ! > putting our military assets where our mouths were. Then ! > ! > ! they realized ! > ! > ! > their personal gravy trains were threatened (we discovered ! > ! > ! how deeply ! > ! > ! > embedded their hands were in Saddam's pockets in the ! > ! oil-for-food ! > ! > ! > scandal). Then all of a sudden they tried to stop us. Too ! > late. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Now Saddam is on trial, his sons are dead, Zarqawi ! is pushing ! > up ! > ! > ! > daisies, Al Qaeda is on the defensive, and Iraq has a ! > ! new elected ! > ! > ! > government of its choosing despite genuine political ! > ! tensions that ! > ! > ! > make even an upstate New Yorker's smarmy disdain for ! > ! > ! "Jesusland" pale ! > ! > ! > in comparison---and you'd think it's the end of the ! world and ! > ! > ! > everything is black and awful and terrible and ! going horribly ! > ! > awry. ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > Obviously, though, since we have to pay an extra $1 ! or so per ! > ! > gallon ! > ! > ! > for gas, and there are still some bad people in the world, ! > here ! > ! > and ! > ! > ! > abroad, the whole thing wasn't worth it. <sarcasm/> ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > - Bob ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! -- Ed Leafe ! > ! > ! > ! -- http://leafe.com ! > ! > ! > ! -- http://dabodev.com ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! > ! > ! [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
