[Powderworks] RE: [Powderworks]Iraq and Roll
Kate Adams
kate@dnki.net
Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:01:35 -0400
--=====================_1362761687==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Oh boy ... gonna need my fancy crocidolite nickers if I wanna jump into
this flame war ...
At my day job at Harvard I share an office with what looks like an amiable,
sandy-haired Carolina doofus several years my junior. In reality he is a
bright and dedicated fellow certified as UN biological weapons
inspector. Even though he is going to be getting married in the near
future, he could be called over at any time. He just spent six weeks in
Geneva in training, delaying his dissertation to gain certification.
I have published a paper with him for a project we worked on for a couple
of years. I also did some of the statistical work he used in his thesis on
airborne transfer of rhinovirus in office cube farms.
I know far more than I'm going to talk about here, for obvious
reasons. But here is the gist of my argument that Bush is looking for a
military-industrial complex distraction.
Iraq has been under UN inspection for biological weapons, chemical weapons,
and nuclear weapons since I nearly earned myself an all-expenses paid
vacation to Kuwait at the close of the Gulf War. Under the UN accords
there are clear circumstances under which an invasion is considered to be
acceptable, mostly due to either discovery of banned items, discovery of
manufacture of banned items, or non-cooperation with the terms Iraq and all
of the UN Forces agreed to at the end of the war.
Bush wants a war for all of the economic and political benefits the Gulf
War gave his Poppy, and he doesn't give a flying oilrig about the
conditions the United States agreed to at the close of the gulf war. IF
the UN inspectorate has not found violations AND Iraq has cooperated with
the terms of surrender, AND the UN has not decided upon military action,
then there is simply no legal justification for the United States to send
ground troops, or for our military to go in their alone.
The UN has, in the past, supported air incursions when Iraq has not
complied with what they agreed to, but noncompliance does not seem to be
the issue here or the UN could be persuaded to take action. Under these
circumstances, the US cannot in any way, shape, or form claim the moral
high ground and send in unilateral ground troops. If we do, we only prove
to the world that our ink is only as durable as water in the desert sun.
To paraphrase Dire Straits in their song "Industrial Disease": "There's a
protest singer, sings a protest song. He says: They wanna have a war to
keep our factories, they wanna have a war to keep us on our knees, they
wanna have a war to stop us buying Japanese, they wanna have a war to stop
industrial disease!"
Then again, treaty evasion isn't a new thing to the US ... just look at the
history of Westward Expansion.
At 05:40 PM 8/10/02 -0400, Beth Curran wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>If the United States went after the Taliban before 9/11 we would have taken
>a whole boatload of crap for that. Not to say that we shouldn't have, but
>either way there are people ready to jump in and criticize. Look at what
>Saddam Hussein is doing in Iraq. If the U.S. decides to attack there
>we will surely be chastised by most of the world community, but if we
>don't and Hussein starts using his weapons of mass destruction, then
>who will be blamed for not stopping him?
>
>***********************
>
>
>
>With respect to conflict situations in general, I see hope overall in the
>progression of empowerment of women worldwide. It s a savage irony that
>women in societies which oppress them are often the chief instructors of
>the young in the mechanisms of their particular brand of oppression. When
>half the members of a society are prevented from contributing, progress
>can t be expected. Civil disobedience will replace weapons-based conflict
>in the end, I am sure of it, as oppressive regimes begin to implode. We
>may not see it in my time but it s coming.
>
>
>
>But this Saddam thing is something I can t make up my own mind about. I
>don t know whether to believe the CIA when they make the claim of bio and
>nuke weapons development in Saddam s hands, but let s say for the sake of
>argument that this is true or at least, that enough evidence is there to
>convince a majority of nations that it s true. Is political assassination
>a morally justifiable action when it would prevent a weapon of mass
>destruction from being used? If so, where do you draw the line? Beth
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Parker Adams
kate@dnki.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"She's gonna dream up the world she wants to live in,
She's gonna dream out loud" - U2 (Zooropa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
go Out Of Mind ... http://www.kpasoutput.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--=====================_1362761687==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Oh boy ... gonna need my fancy crocidolite nickers if I wanna jump into
this flame war ...<br>
<br>
At my day job at Harvard I share an office with what looks like an
amiable, sandy-haired Carolina doofus several years my junior. In
reality he is a bright and dedicated fellow certified as UN biological
weapons inspector. Even though he is going to be getting married in
the near future, he could be called over at any time. He just spent
six weeks in Geneva in training, delaying his dissertation to gain
certification.<br>
<br>
I have published a paper with him for a project we worked on for a couple
of years. I also did some of the statistical work he used in his
thesis on airborne transfer of rhinovirus in office cube farms.<br>
<br>
I know far more than I'm going to talk about here, for obvious
reasons. But here is the gist of my argument that Bush is looking
for a military-industrial complex distraction.<br>
<br>
Iraq has been under UN inspection for biological weapons, chemical
weapons, and nuclear weapons since I nearly earned myself an all-expenses
paid vacation to Kuwait at the close of the Gulf War.
Under the UN accords there are clear circumstances under which an
invasion is considered to be acceptable, mostly due to either discovery
of banned items, discovery of manufacture of banned items, or
non-cooperation with the terms Iraq and all of the UN Forces agreed to at
the end of the war.<br>
<br>
Bush wants a war for all of the economic and political benefits the Gulf
War gave his Poppy, and he doesn't give a flying oilrig about the
conditions the United States agreed to at the close of the gulf
war. IF the UN inspectorate has not found violations AND Iraq has
cooperated with the terms of surrender, AND the UN has not decided upon
military action, then there is simply no legal justification for the
United States to send ground troops, or for our military to go in their
alone. <br>
<br>
The UN has, in the past, supported air incursions when Iraq has not
complied with what they agreed to, but noncompliance does not seem to be
the issue here or the UN could be persuaded to take action. Under
these circumstances, the US cannot in any way, shape, or form claim the
moral high ground and send in unilateral ground troops. If we do,
we only prove to the world that our ink is only as durable as water in
the desert sun.<br>
<br>
To paraphrase Dire Straits in their song "Industrial
Disease": "There's a protest singer, sings a protest
song. He says: They wanna have a war to keep our factories, they wanna
have a war to keep us on our knees, they wanna have a war to stop us
buying Japanese, they wanna have a war to stop industrial
disease!"<br>
<br>
Then again, treaty evasion isn't a new thing to the US ... just look at
the history of Westward Expansion.<br>
<br>
<br>
At 05:40 PM 8/10/02 -0400, Beth Curran wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">Mike
wrote:</font><font face="arial" size=2><br>
If the United States went after the Taliban before 9/11 we would have
taken<br>
a whole boatload of crap for that. Not to say that we shouldn't
have, but <br>
either way there are people ready to jump in and criticize. Look at
what<br>
Saddam Hussein is doing in Iraq. If the U.S. decides to attack
there <br>
we will surely be chastised by most of the world community, but if we
<br>
don't and Hussein starts using his weapons of mass destruction,
then<br>
who will be blamed for not stopping him? <br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">***********************<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">With respect to conflict
situations in general, I see hope overall in the progression of
empowerment of women worldwide. It s a savage irony that women in
societies which oppress them are often the chief instructors of the young
in the mechanisms of their particular brand of oppression. When
half the members of a society are prevented from contributing, progress
can t be expected. Civil disobedience will replace weapons-based
conflict in the end, I am sure of it, as oppressive regimes begin to
implode. We may not see it in my time but it s coming. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">But this Saddam thing is
something I can t make up my own mind about. I don t know whether
to believe the CIA when they make the claim of bio and nuke weapons
development in Saddam s hands, but let s say for the sake of argument
that this is true or at least, that enough evidence is there to convince
a majority of nations that it s true. Is political assassination a
morally justifiable action when it would prevent a weapon of mass
destruction from being used? If so, where do you draw the line?
Beth<br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Kate Parker Adams<br>
kate@dnki.net<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
"She's gonna dream up the world she wants to live in,<br>
She's gonna dream out loud" - U2 (Zooropa)<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
go Out Of Mind ...
<a href="http://www.kpasoutput.blogspot.com/" eudora="autourl">http</a>://www.kpasoutput.blogspot.<a href="http://www.kpasoutput.blogspot.com/" eudora="autourl">com<br>
</a>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></html>
--=====================_1362761687==_.ALT--