WMD

[cathy ramirez]

--- Otto <ottosell at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Cathy, I disagree when you say: "war with Iraq is
> inevitable" -- if we want
> to fight everybody who's got WMD & is threatening
> his neighbours &
> neglecting UN-resolutions we would have a lot to do
> and should start
> somewhere else.

The US doen't want to wage war on every nation that
has WMD. That's obvious. From the US perspective there
is no place else to start. The President of the US has
identified those nations that he thinks are evil
nations. They are Iraq, Iran, North Korea.  The US has
been bombing Iraq for years and what the President
wants to do is escalate the existing war with Iraq. 
Iran and North Korea are not the best options at this
time. They may be next. For now, the US will wage war
on Iraq. 



> 
> When Rumsfeld has been to Iraq in 1983 he had no
> moral problems to talk to
> Saddam Hussein as a friend. And, on May 2, 1986 the
> USA have delivered
> anthrax-cultures to Iraq (according to DER SPIEGEL):
>
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,215594,00.html

It would not be a big shock to the world if the US
supplies and supports a new government in Iraq with
WMD if Iraq goes to war with Iran after the US has
installed a new governmet in Iraq. The new leader may
be no better or worse than the current one as far as
morals. 



> 
> Let them inspect Saddam (sorry Mark) before starting
> a war with an outcome
> nobody's able to predict.
> 
> Otto

The US governmet seems prepared to take the risk. I
agree that it's difficult to predict what may happen,
but Bush seems quite confident that the chips will
fall in the direction he pushes them. 

But there are many pitfalls. 

What will happen to oil prices and production? Hard to
say, but it seems that Bush is confident that
escalating the war with Iraq will eventually lead to
more favorable price/production for the US. Blair
seems to be betting on the same for the UK. 

Also, Bush may need a war to win re-election. My guess
is that he will get re-elected only if he suceeds in
excalating the war on Iraq. I predict that he will be
re-elected. 

the war on terrorism has been very expensive.
Globalization has been wounded by what amounts to a
terror tax on trade and multinational capitalism. My
guess is that this tax is not going to be reduced but
increased in the years ahead.  However, if Bush
suceeds and wins the war in Iraq the terror tax may be
offset by lower energy costs. If this happens Bush
will have reduced the threat from  the
environmentalists too. I think they are the one of the
key players in all this and we could almost put them
in the Bush axis of evil.   
I've just read a book on Disarmament, One World Or
None by Lawrence S. Winter. It may seem ironic that
Bush and Co. are talking about WMD and disarmament,
but it's really only the new thinking the old. It's
about the Rocket and the death instinct. Oil may be
the life blood flowing in the vein, but the Rocket is
the soul. 
And nothing is deeper than the soul. 

Though with the top of their minds people don't WISH
(my emphasis) to0 be destroyed, on the deeper levels
they seem determined not to give up modes of thought
and feeling that make war, which now means
destruction, inevitable. 

                               Aldous Huxley, 1946






__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com