Dan Minette wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 6:27 PM > Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit > > > >> The people pushing this war don't care much about the American >> economy as a whole - their biggest friends are in the defense-and >> oil related industries. This is a profiteers war. > > So, if I understand your point correctly, Bush went to war so that a > few key industries could make about 10 billion per year in profit > for > a couple of years? He was not only wrong, but happily sacrificed > thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of the > military readyness of the US, just so a few key friends could make, > compared to the 11+ US ecconomy, chump change? > > In particular, if you compare the profits from this war to the > chance > of getting further tax cuts through, dosen't it seem like an > inefficient way to get money to the wealthy? > > Further, I did a bit of research on Clinton's views. A speach he > gave in early '98 is given at: > > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ > > Let me quote a bit that seems relevant: > > <quote> > > Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable > job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have > uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity > than was destroyed during the Gulf War. > > This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 > gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 > warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, > and > a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to > produce > anthrax and other deadly agents. > > Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to > rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken > yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions. > > By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring > key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, > I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by > comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites > reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, > the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for > this. > > One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, > D.C. > That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. > We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal > matters involved. > > It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole > history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of > his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to > deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. > > The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of > chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type > missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program > and build many, many more weapons. > > <end quote> > > This seems to raise the spector of strong military action being > necessary. We know Clinton warned the inspectors about plans to bomb > suspected WMD sites later that year. We also know that he > considered > stronger action, including a war. > > My question is whether you think he was making a good faith > assessment in this speach, or whether he was under the sway of the > profiters too, or whether he was wagging the dog? >
As I recall, in the period immediately before the war, I supported the war for several reasons. First and formost was the way the people of Iraq were treated, and I recall feeling quite alone in this at the time. Secondly, I suspected Iraq had WMD (Chemical weapons more than likely) because of Saddams lack of cooperation and outright defiance. Iraq was known to have used chemical weapons in the past, so it wasn't unreasonable to posit that Iraq still had a significant stash. Tertially, even when an administration I opposed had been in power in the past, I had faith that in matters of serious import the American people would be told a story that was mostly true if not the entire truth. I didn't and don't like Bush and his administration, but I presupposed that this group's view of America was not as different from my personal views of America, than the views I currently see them holding. In examining my past reasoning and comparing it to the views expressed by others in this thread I can forward some tentative hypothesis. * Bushco took advantage of pre-existing opinions/beliefs with regard to Iraq/Saddam, formed during the previous 2 administrations, and used them as a base for building sentiment for war. The administrations outright prevarications and flexing ot the truth did not occur in a vacuum, it was a structured argument built upon a pre-existing foundation. This does not excuse them in the least, but it implicates each of us who lent support to their argument, and I for one recognize that I personally bear some portion of responsibility for letting myself be misled. *Americans have more of an inbuilt bias towards trust in our leaders than we can afford to possess. Many of us have forgone critical thinking (if indeed we ever learned this skill), placing higher value in bias and immediacy even if it can be demonstrated to be against our self-interest. *People are addicted to feeling that they are "right" and will go to great lengths to prove their rightness, even dishonestly, and even when the things they feel are "right" are things that have "bad" outcomes for themselves and others. Maybe someone else can think of a better way to express these thoughts. xponent Suburban Robots Who Monitor Reality Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
