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]
Sure ain't rosy in the garden. But, please, mind them (George W?) Bush(es)!! >From: tupac shakur <firstname.lastname@example.org> >To: email@example.com >Subject: [casi] "Reasons" for war... >Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:17:40 -0800 (PST) > > >[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] > >SADDAM WILL COME INTO YOUR FRONT YARD AND PISS ON YOUR ROSE BUSHES IF WE >DON'T KILL HIM FIRST! > I made the mistake of turning on the local talk-radio station. I knew >better but I was out doing errands and just turned on the car radio without >thinking about it. Instantly, my sense were assailed by a non-stop diatribe >of why "we" (meaning our kids but not those of the radio personality in >question) had to invade Iraq. I kept hearing jingoisms about "time running >out" and mentioning that the attack "should" start as soon as the UN >inspectors turn in their report on the 27th, as if it is a foregone >conclusion that the UN inspectors will submit a memo saying, "Go ahead and >nuke them, we think they are scum!" > > Well, I changed the car radio buttons to point to some mellow music >stations and won't tune back to Clear Channel ever again. But I thin it is >time to take a close look at the supposed case for war, in order to reply >to the pro-war salesmen, should they ever get their fingers unplugged from >their ears, or the craniums dislodged from their sphincters. > >Is there a case for war? > >1. Has Iraq invaded the US? > >A: No. > >2. Okay, who HAS Iraq invaded? > >A: Nobody for the last 10 years. > >3. Does Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction? > >A: Not that the UN inspectors have found, and Blix just announced he >doesn't think there are any. Bush keeps screaming "Iraq isn't disarming" to >which Iraq replies, "We don't have anything to disarm WITH!" > >4. What about those chemical weapon warheads? > >A: What was found were empty warheads, that could be used for chemical >weapons, but tests show they have never had those chemicals in them. This >means those warheads, 16 in all, are as dangerous as the empty warheads >military buffs buy at the surplus store to decorate their dens with. Iraq >says the warheads were listed in their declaration. Bush says they were >not. Blix says that the complete Iraqi declaration hasn't been translated >yet. > >5. What about the documents which prove interest in nuclear physics? > >A: These appear to have been papers written by college students in a quest >not for weapons, but for an advanced college degree. Iraq has a justifiable >and legal interest in nuclear power for electrical generation, except that >Israel bombed their reactor. > >6. What would happen if Iraq obtained weapons of mass destruction? > >A: Nothing. Iraq can have all the weapons of mass destruction it wants. It >just can't use them. Your parents and grandparents got stuck with a $5 >trillion bill to create a US nuclear deterrent capability. The instant Iraq >uses a weapon of mass destruction on the US or its allies, the US nuclear >force will melt Iraq down into a green glass parking lot. Saddam is many >bad things but he is not stupid. He knows he cannot use a weapon of mass >destruction. Maybe he can put them on display in a museum. > >7. But Iraq is shooting at our planes! > >A: Iraq, like any other nation, has a right to protect itself from >invasion. The "no-fly" zones are illegal. The UN did not approve them. >Every time a US plane flies into Iraq it is committing a technical act of >war by invading their air space without permission. Were another nation to >fly their aircraft into US air space without permission, the US would shoot >that aircraft down and nobody would find that response unusual. > >8. But what about the "Secret Intelligence" the US says proves Iraq has >weapons of mass destruction? > >A: The UN inspectors just finished checking the CIA's list of "sites of >concern" and found nothing at all. > >9. Rumsfeld says that not finding any weapons proves Iraq is hiding them. > >A: Not finding any weapons proves that no weapons were found. If Rumsfeld >wants to insist weapons are there in Iraq, the burden of proof is on him to >show the world, and that proof had better be able to withstand close >scrutiny. > >10. But didn't Saddam gas his own people? > >A: There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that he did so. However, the >United States, having gassed a church full of women and children in Waco >with a poison gas that's illegal to use in warfare does not have the moral >high ground to pass judgment on other nations. > >11. Isn't Iraq in defiance of UN Resolutions? > >A: It is only if it is PROVEN that Iraq has illegal weapons of mass >destruction. > >12. Shouldn't we invade Iraq if it is proven to be in defiance of UN >Resolutions? > >A: A lot of nations are in defiance of UN Resolutions. The record holder is >Israel. One cannot argue for invasion of Iraq solely on the grounds of >defying the UN without also justifying invasion of Israel for the exact >same reason. > >13. If the US nuclear deterrent can keep Saddam from using any weapons of >mass destruction he has, then just why is the US so eager to actually >invade Iraq? > >A: Oil. The US Government is broke; so deep in debt that all the income tax >paid by all the citizens cannot keep up with the interest payments. The >American people are burdened by high taxation, most of which is hidden in >excises, fees, tariffs, etc. and passed onto the citizen hidden in the >price of consumer goods. The government has had to recently borrow more >money just to make the payments on the money it already owes, and borrows >so much money that it drives up interest rates, which means YOU pay more >for the money you need to borrow as a result. All businesses take that >increase interest, plus the taxes and fees they pay and pass them onto you >in the final retail price. You would be amazed just how much of the >purchase price of anything you buy eventually tracks back to government. > >Because of high taxes and regulatory compliance, manufacturing started to >leave this nation about 20 years ago. The government tried to conceal it >with the "service economy", a silly notion that you can make a nation >prosperous by doing each other's laundry. While the exchange of service >fees back and forth among the citizens resulted in more opportunities for >taxes to be assessed, very new money was coming into the nation because the >nation wasn't making as many products to sell outside the nation. Over >time, money shifted from the population into the government, which meant >cash flow to tax declined even more. > >Because products we used to make and sell are now purchased from outside >the nation, we have a trade deficit growing by a billion and a half dollars >a day. That kind of deficit makes a devaluation of the dollar inevitable. >This will cause the debt problem to increase, since the debt is payable in >the currency of the nation in which the lender does business in. As the >dollar drops in value, it will take MORE dollars to pay off the same debt. > >Finally, there is the stock market. The Plunge Protection Team used market >tricks to run the indicator numbers up for political gain during the 90s. >But that did not actually signal a healthy stock market, it actually >signaled a dangerously over-valued market, worse than the market in the >weeks leading up to 1929. Toss in scandals like Enron, and the US stock >market has a severe credibility problem. > >The US Government cannot wave a magic wand and make the stock market a good >investment overnight. Likewise, it took 20 years for manufacturing to be >driven out of this nation and will take 20 years to build back up. The only >possible way for the US Government to avoid defaulting on the debt when the >dollar crashes (which it will do as soon as the real estate bubble bursts) >is to reverse the trade deficit, and the only way to do that is to turn >Mideast oil from an imported product to an exported one. > >And THAT is the reason for the push to war. > > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now > >_______________________________________________ >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 firstname.lastname@example.org >All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _________________________________________________________________ Worried what your kids see online? Protect them better with MSN 8 http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=186&DI=1059 _______________________________________________ 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