Thoughts on Iraq

[vze422fs at verizon.net]

on 2/7/03 11:43 AM, The Great Quail at quail at libyrinth.com wrote:

> I feel fairly neutral on the whole Iraq thread-- I mean, I would rather be
> discussing "Slow Learner," but I don¹t really have much to say about
> "Entropy." But since the coming war is an ongoing discussion, I though I'd
> at least state my opinion.
> 
> The government of Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical, evil regime -- truly one
> of the most murderous and repressive on the planet. In my heart, which is
> conveniently located in a body conveniently located in an armchair, I would
> love to see us wade in there like the wrath of God and yank up his poisonous
> plant by the roots.
> 
I know people whose bodies are not in armchairs. Those bodies are on their
way to Iraq. I hope they come back still animated.

> Also, I do not believe inspections will work without the immediate threat of
> overwhelming violence. I believe that anyone who "trusts" either the effete
> and compromised UN or Hussein himself is hopelessly naïve. The UN is a joke,
> and the inspections are the punchline.

Are you suggesting that Bush has not been threatening immediate overwhelming
violence?

> 
> Additionally, I am afraid of what Hussein would do with a nuke. There's
> little doubt in my mind that he would aid any enemy of the U.S. Without
> hesitation. He is wealthy and smart, this attack-dog we helped create. Now,
> just how close he is to having a nuke, I don't know. All I have is mediated
> information, which is naturally biased and untrustworthy. But I certainly
> believe in his dangerous *intentions.*
> 
I'm glad that you're not worried about what Pakistan or India would do with
a nuke. Or Israel. Or France. You must sleep well at night knowing that
those good people have no dangerous intentions.

> So, looks like on the surface, I'm for the war. But yet, I feel very
> conflicted. Why? The problem for me is context.

Are you willing to fight?
> 
> First, there are numerous other unjust and murderous regimes out there; so
> why select Iraq? Well, of course it's because of oil, whether directly or
> indirectly, such as if Saddam Hussein becomes a bigger threat to Saudi
> Arabia. Granted, this certainly falls under the category of "national
> interest," but that interest itself is complicated by Big Oil Money and an
> apathetic SUV-happy nation. Our leaders are untrustworthy, because they are
> financially self-interested.
> 
Statement of the obvious, but expository.

> Of course, the war has to be placed in the context of Bush's administration,
> which turns a blind eye to the Saudis -- our "real" enemy, in many ways --
> and offers nearly unconditional support for any desire nested in the black
> heart of Ariel Sharon. (These are typical of American politics in general,
> not just Bush.) We behave like a bully in this region, and our plans for
> Iraq do not help. I think we need an entirely different approach to the
> Middle East; but given Big Oil, the Israeli lobby, and the incessant beating
> of Bush's war drums, this is a fantasy.
> 
So far, this is an anti-war argument that you are presenting.

> Furthermore, what about al-Qaeda? Mucking about with Hussein is a
> distraction, more bread and circuses to detract from the failures of the
> Afghanistan campaign.
> 
Hussein is a secular military dictator. Al-Qaeda would only threaten his
power base within his own country. They might hate him more than they hate
us. And they are both hated by the Shiites. But the multi-national media
counts on people to believe that all Middle-Eastern Muslims are a block,
except for the "good towelheads of Saudi Arabia".

> And finally, no one has yet been able to state a clear and coherent plan for
> rebuilding Iraq after the Baath regime is broken. Our record hasn't been so
> good lately in follow-up or nation-building.
> 
> So there's the rub -- while morally I would like to see us help out Iraq by
> ridding them of this dictatorship, I know that we are not doing it for the
> right reasons, nor would it play out in the context of a more justifiable
> and sane Middle-East policy. And of course, what happens after the war?
> 
> So I have ambivalent feelings about this war -- I hate Bush and his cronies,
> oh I hate them with a passion. Though I think some good may eventually come
> of defeating Iraq, I suspect that only greater evil will eventually emerge.
> In other words: right war, wrong reasons.
> 
> --Quail
> 

Get off the fence, Quail. Saddam's an asshole. There are lots of them. This
is a picked fight. The reasons given are clearly not the real reasons behind
the war. They could be used to justify an invasion of damned near any
military dictatorship or theocracy in the world. Syria? Utah? Israel?
Indonesia? Texas?

You're against the war. Just come out and say it.


Joe

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
> http://www.TheModernWord.com
> 
> Better hope deferred than none. Up to a point. Till the heart starts to
> sicken. Company too up to a point. Better a sick heart than none. Till it
> starts to break. So speaking of himself he concludes for the time being,
> For the time being leave it at that.
> --Samuel Beckett, "Company"
> 
> 
> 
> 
>