[Powderworks] A Rare Political post from Michael!
Michael
mbtigger@charter.net
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 23:18:12 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C30080.9F84CBC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I almost never write to the list on political topics. I don't read many =
of the political posts. I have been reading the occasional war post and =
I decided to write on a few topics. But since I have a few beers in me =
and can't sleep, I thought I might reply. As I live in the USA, that =
does color my view a bit. Be warned, this is a LONG post, and others may =
have covered the same area in posts I missed. For those of you with =
limited time but interested - Just read the last 3 Paragraphs. To keep a =
BIT of Oils content - I am listening to Capricornia as I type this..=20
1.. Is the war about U.S. security? - This is the hardest question. I =
cannot answer it. I am not privy to intelligence reports from the CIA. I =
am willing to believe it is POSSIBLE. Iraq DID invade 2 countries, and =
has used chemical weapons in the past. As for the U.S. using 9/11 as an =
excuse to invade Iraq, there is a grain of truth to that. Many people in =
our government felt that Hussein was "Unfinished Business"; that he was =
a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, and was a threat to U.S. =
interests. After 9/11 more people were willing to look at Hussein as a =
potential threat, and an invasion was possible. I don't think we would =
have invaded Iraq without SOME kind of event that would make people =
listen to the hawkish elements in the U.S. government.=20
2.. Is the war about Oil? - In many ways YES. I don't think Bush wants =
direct control of the Iraqi oil fields, but the free market flow of oil =
is important to the US - and to other countries. If it were not for Oil, =
Hussein would not have had the military capacity he had, and would not =
be seen as a possible threat. Oil colors everything about foreign policy =
in that region - That is true of just about every country who buys Oil.=20
3.. Would inspections have worked? No. There are quite a few =
scientists on the list. Most of them can tell you how amazingly =
difficult it is to prove a negative supposition. The U.S. and Great =
Britain could always have claimed weapons were being hid. If some were =
found and destroyed there might always have been more. It does not =
matter which side of the argument you believe, ultimate proof would be =
hard to come by.=20
4.. Is this all about Bush getting re-elected? Well - what is good for =
Bush and what is good for U.S. national interests are not necessarily =
different. But what is good for the U.S. is not necessarily good for =
other countries around the world. Leaders will do what is good for their =
country - and the votes will follow later. .=20
5.. Is it a war of liberation? - Liberation is a very positive side =
effect, but it is not a reason for the U.S. to go to war. There are many =
cruel dictators that have never had U.S. forces invade their country. =
The U.S. goes where U.S. interests lie.
6.. Is it a lawful exercise? (according to international standards) - =
read Virgil's post - one of the more thoughtful posts I have read on =
political topics recently (and I admit I have not read all of them). The =
world is changing - Laws are constantly being re-interpreted in the USA =
- and our legislatures often revisit our civil code frequently. . =
International standards might change in much the same way.=20
7.. Do I approve of the war? OUCH - I have been so torn over this =
question. The only way to PROVE someone means to harm you is to actually =
have him or her try to harm you. The default in the USA is innocent =
until proven guilty - yet you can get restraining orders based on =
threats and past behavior. Well - I did not actively disapprove. Maybe =
silence does equal consent.=20
In the end it is a war whose motives are open to question. And I mean =
OPEN TO QUESTION. The motives cannot be flatly refuted either. However, =
IF Iraq is able to select a stable government, rebuild the country, and =
improve the economy, then secondary motives and "side effects" might =
actually be better for Iraq than more years ruled by Hussein. Only time =
will tell if this is true.=20
Sadly, I know of no international standard for the removal of fascist =
regimes that oppress their own population. If such a standard was set, =
and APPLIED - maybe things like this might not happen. I pray for things =
to work well - in the strangest of all worlds, this would be a war =
fought for the wrong reasons, but with a morally strong result that =
justifies itself. I will not say that violence never solved anything - =
It is just the worst solution in most cases. But sometimes the worst =
solution is better than no solution at all. Look at Rwanda or the Congo. =
There are no strong US interests there - No incentives for a stable =
government, and no intervention. Hundreds of thousands of people have =
died. I have head of estimates as high as 800,000 in Rwanda (I cannot =
vouch for accuracy - But most estimates I have read are above 500,000). =
Could intervention be much worse?
Have you stuck with me? If you have I thank you - This was such a =
depressing and difficult post that I went from the Oils to Leonard Cohen =
while writing it.
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah.
Michael
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C30080.9F84CBC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P>I almost never write to the list on political topics. I don’t =
read many of=20
the political posts. I have been reading the occasional war post and I =
decided=20
to write on a few topics. But since I have a few beers in me and =
can’t sleep, I=20
thought I might reply. As I live in the USA, that does color my view a =
bit. Be=20
warned, this is a LONG post, and others may have covered the same area =
in posts=20
I missed. For those of you with limited time but interested – Just =
read the last=20
3 Paragraphs. To keep a BIT of Oils content – I am listening to =
Capricornia as I=20
type this…. </P>
<OL>
<LI>Is the war about U.S. security? – This is the hardest =
question. I cannot=20
answer it. I am not privy to intelligence reports from the CIA. I am =
willing=20
to believe it is POSSIBLE. Iraq DID invade 2 countries, and has used =
chemical=20
weapons in the past. As for the U.S. using 9/11 as an excuse to invade =
Iraq,=20
there is a grain of truth to that. Many people in our government felt =
that=20
Hussein was "Unfinished Business"; that he was a destabilizing =
influence in=20
the Middle East, and was a threat to U.S. interests. After 9/11 more =
people=20
were willing to look at Hussein as a potential threat, and an invasion =
was=20
possible. I don’t think we would have invaded Iraq without SOME =
kind of event=20
that would make people listen to the hawkish elements in the U.S. =
government.=20
</LI>
<LI>Is the war about Oil? – In many ways YES. I don’t =
think Bush wants direct=20
control of the Iraqi oil fields, but the free market flow of oil is =
important=20
to the US – and to other countries. If it were not for Oil, =
Hussein would not=20
have had the military capacity he had, and would not be seen as a =
possible=20
threat. Oil colors everything about foreign policy in that region =
– That is=20
true of just about every country who buys Oil. </LI>
<LI>Would inspections have worked? No. There are quite a few =
scientists on the=20
list. Most of them can tell you how amazingly difficult it is to prove =
a=20
negative supposition. The U.S. and Great Britain could always have =
claimed=20
weapons were being hid. If some were found and destroyed there might =
always=20
have been more. It does not matter which side of the argument you =
believe,=20
ultimate proof would be hard to come by. </LI>
<LI>Is this all about Bush getting re-elected? Well - what is good for =
Bush=20
and what is good for U.S. national interests are not necessarily =
different.=20
But what is good for the U.S. is not necessarily good for other =
countries=20
around the world. Leaders will do what is good for their country =
– and the=20
votes will follow later. . </LI>
<LI>Is it a war of liberation? - Liberation is a very positive side =
effect,=20
but it is not a reason for the U.S. to go to war. There are many cruel =
dictators that have never had U.S. forces invade their country. The =
U.S. goes=20
where U.S. interests lie.</LI>
<LI>Is it a lawful exercise? (according to international standards) =
– read=20
Virgil’s post – one of the more thoughtful posts I have =
read on political=20
topics recently (and I admit I have not read all of them). The world =
is=20
changing – Laws are constantly being re-interpreted in the USA =
– and our=20
legislatures often revisit our civil code frequently. . International=20
standards might change in much the same way. </LI>
<LI>Do I approve of the war? OUCH – I have been so torn over =
this question.=20
The only way to PROVE someone means to harm you is to actually have =
him or her=20
try to harm you. The default in the USA is innocent until proven =
guilty – yet=20
you can get restraining orders based on threats and past behavior. =
Well – I=20
did not actively disapprove. Maybe silence does equal consent. =
</LI></OL>
<P>In the end it is a war whose motives are open to question. And I mean =
OPEN TO=20
QUESTION. The motives cannot be flatly refuted either. However, IF Iraq =
is able=20
to select a stable government, rebuild the country, and improve the =
economy,=20
then secondary motives and "side effects" might actually be better for =
Iraq than=20
more years ruled by Hussein. Only time will tell if this is true. </P>
<P>Sadly, I know of no international standard for the removal of fascist =
regimes=20
that oppress their own population. If such a standard was set, and =
APPLIED –=20
maybe things like this might not happen. I pray for things to work well =
– in the=20
strangest of all worlds, this would be a war fought for the wrong =
reasons, but=20
with a morally strong result that justifies itself. I will not say that =
violence=20
never solved anything - It is just the worst solution in most cases. But =
sometimes the worst solution is better than no solution at all. Look at =
Rwanda=20
or the Congo. There are no strong US interests there – No =
incentives for a=20
stable government, and no intervention. Hundreds of thousands of people =
have=20
died. I have head of estimates as high as 800,000 in Rwanda (I cannot =
vouch for=20
accuracy – But most estimates I have read are above 500,000). =
Could intervention=20
be much worse?</P>
<P>Have you stuck with me? If you have I thank you – This was such =
a depressing=20
and difficult post that I went from the Oils to Leonard Cohen while =
writing=20
it.</P>
<P>It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah…</P>
<P>Michael</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C30080.9F84CBC0--