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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] Re: US orders new Iraq war plans


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....


Brian Auten

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]