The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
List, Nels' "analysis" is a perfect example of the type of unsubstantiated, inflammatory rhetoric that leads me to frustration. On October 14, 2002, Nels wrote: > If you listen to the American War Hawks and their mouth pieces > on/and-in the American media you will find out that they are > already pushing for wars against Iraq's neighbors. And which "American War Hawks" and "mouthpieces" would those be? I'll assume you mean individuals like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, or Frank Gaffney. For 'mouthpieces'...well, I'm not going to assume anything. Let's see some evidence. Maybe we could have a debate if you'd suggest (a) the content of such statements; (b) the dates of said statements; (c) where such statements were made; (d) to whom said statements were made. I am familiar with *hypotheses* that regime change in Iraq could precipitate political changes in neighboring countries; I'm not familiar with any suggestions that the United States utilize Baghdad as a staging area for launching cross-border military operations against Riyadh, Teheran, and/or Damascus. > Bush & Co. have stated that once they conquer and occupy Iraq they > will be in prime position to effect "regime change" and control, > in all the states surrounding Iraq. Citation please. Note how Nels uses quotes around "regime change" - a term that American administrations have used and continue to use -- but is careful not to use them around 'control'. Perhaps he would care to explain when and where the US government has stated (or inferred for that matter) that the goal of its actions with respect to Iraq is to bring about 'control' in all/of all of Iraq's neighbors. >I suggest you re-read the Bush Administration's manifesto outlining >how it will dominate the world. Better yet, perhaps Nels could read the National Security Strategy document himself. Perhaps you could quote for us, page and verse, where the document outlines the United States' strategy for world domination. I can't seem to find "world domination" in my copy. I can't seem to find "hegemony" in my copy. Perhaps you mistake "promoting democracy" and "promoting market economies" (both of which, if I may remind the list, were not GWBJr additions, but long-standing boiler-plate phrases) for world domination? Perhaps the preemptive strike section? Anticipatory self-defense is a far cry from "world domination". So is support for market reforms. Again, we can have a decent debate about the morality/viability/ feasibility of US goals if we could get away from the (frankly silly) suggestions that Bush desires to be the next Alexander the Great. >Also....... pay close attention to the writings coming out of the >plethora of militant right wing, corporate-owned, -tax exempt - so >called "think tanks" in the U.S. where many "pro-U.S. Power" former >government appointees and office holders move in and out beating the >drums in support of U.S. aggression around the world. Funny how think tanks are never 'militantly' left-wing... Anyway, perhaps Nels would like to suggest some writings for us. Again, I'll assume he means organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, National Institute for Public Policy, etc. Again, exactly which 'writings' would you like us to read? What should we be looking for? >The War Party is on a roll and through threats, intimidation, >bribes, economic terrorism and threat of military destruction on >the "Yugoslavia Model" and "Afghanistan Model," the U.S. will bull >doze its way around the world unless decent people muster the guts >to mobilize and protest by every means available to them.. It's interesting that those of us who see Saddam as the problem vs. George Bush, Jr. aren't considered "decent" people. It's also interesting that those of us who (a) see sanctions as extremely poor policy, but at the same time (b) believe that military force on the part of the United States is a legitimate means of enforcing Iraqi disarmament are also looked upon as 'indecent'. I get the sense that Nels equates GWBJr with Alexander, Caligula, Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin - pick your tyrant 'flavor of the month'. I don't see it. That mantle seems to fit Saddam a little better.... Cheers, Brian Auten _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk