Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Childers.Paula AT epamail.epa.gov]

> Actualy, it's "Josep".

Apologies, my finger didn't get to the "p" key, I know you're Josep :-)

> Then, the myth was not an American invention. Kuwait lied to the US
> congress.

Yes, they did.
""The story was a total invention, a fabrication and a myth, " reveals
Knightley. The teenage girl who so convincingly told of the horrors in
that ward was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the
United States. She had been coached and rehearsed by a US public
relations company who was hired by the Kuwaiti government in exile to
campaign for American military intervention to oust Iraq from Kuwait.
But the purpose had been served. Morally outraged, the US public backed
their government's military campaign against Saddam."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0906-01.htm
http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/MoralOutrage.htm
http://www.globaled.org/curriculum/cm18h.html

> I already have said in my post that Iraq was seen as the US ally  in
the
> area against the religious revolution in Iran. Read it again.

Credit given. However, the point remains that we, in effect, have "set
him up." we gave him the first WMD's, and many more after that, and in
effect created the Hussein regime. We have no moral grounds to act
superior, or to believe we would do any better a second time around,
especially after we kill thousands more Iraqi civilians.

> The papers from IISS indicate that they are still a danger, a growing
> danger. This indicates that they are rebuilding their facilities and
> capabilities.

I'm afraid I don't know this IISS. Who are they? Do they stand to make
money from a war? I think the bigger issue is, even if Hussein does have
WMD's, why does that make it OK for us to go after him? Why is Iraq any
different from Pakistan, which also has military rule and far more
dangerous terrorist activity? Why the double standard? (any SANE leader
of a small nation would want WMD's these days, as a deterrence factor.
Otherwise, there's nothing to prevent larger nations from invading them,
except the UN. oops, guess that doesn't work either) Is it because
Saddam won't be a puppet to US oil companies? Can anyone say
"Venezuela?"

>> Or that the US is in a recession, and GWB really needs a war to keep
>> peoples attention away from more pressing issues that could hurt the
GOP
>> in November.

>It's a possibiblity, yes.

Frankly, it's one of the three primary motivations for this war:
distraction from the true issues of "homeland security" (unemployment,
poverty, the growing gap between the rich & everyone else),
consolidation of neo-liberal power in the US, and gaining control over
vast oil supplies. It's not that hard to figure out. Follow the money,
follow the power, figure out who really wins & loses. This war is SO not
about Hussein or WMD's.

> Even Dubbya cannot change the constitution. This is the democratic US,
> not a Junta-style place. If you do not like the current
representatives,
> vote. Complaining and emigrating to Canada won't solve the problem.

If the Supreme Court is Republican-controlled, laws can be made by a
Republican-controlled Congress & interpreted as they see fit, regardless
of whether they are truly legitimate within the Constitution. Look up
the Alien & Sedition Acts, look at the McCarthy hearings, look at what
happened to Eugene Debs, look at the USA-PATRIOT Act. I vote, believe
me. And just remember, the VonTrapp family didn't want to emigrate,
either.

> "Always war" as a solution is bad. As bad as it is "Never war". Have
you
> ever trained a puppy? Do you know what happened to Lebanon? Who
> remembers Chamberlain and the British cabinet that wanted to talk out
of
> war some not-so-friendly central European nation? Have you ever seen
> Milosevich repented of anything that he ordered?

I'm not against every war, just the ones that are immoral, unjustified,
manufactured, that will kill thousands of innocents, and that could
easily be avoided with little long-term consequence, if the world powers
collaborated on finding a real peaceful solution.

I keep hearing Hussein compared to Hitler. That is not a very good
analogy. Germany had immense capacity to manufacture heavy war machines
(anyone here ever read The Arms of Krupp?), and a large, well-trained
military force that included some very smart veterans of WWI, and a
populace with lots of anger at the surrounding nations over the post-WWI
reparations. Iraq has only a meager fighting force, of which many
intelligence agenicies expect 50% desertion rates; no heavy weapons
manufacturing capability; and a heavily-impoverished populace that
shares a common religion (albeit with variations) with its neighbors.
Regardless of Hussein's aspirations, Iraq is no Germany.

> If you have no stick, there's no point of being nice. If you have a
big
> stick, hold by a group of nations determined to use it, then, yes, you
> can possibly skip waging war to Iraq.

I'm not sure I understand this stick analogy. Do you mean you'd support
a UN-led peaceful disarmament initiative? Or that if you have WMD's you
can play nice because of deterrence? :-)

> But not even considering the war option, in this case, with the record
> of the ruling Ba'as party in the last 20+ years... is just wrong,
> hypocrite and unrealistic. Avoiding all possibilities of confrontation
> today can very well mean a worst scenario a few years down the road.

well, how about an all-out investment in Iraqi poverty alleviation
through targeted UN & NGO intervention? And a concerted effort to win
over support for a democratic govt there? Not only lifting the embargoes
(which are just killing poor folk, making people more pissed at the US
and aren't harming Hussein himself at all), but truly trying to change
the minds of the people. The people are the most powerful weapon in any
country.

> Whoever criticized Israel for blowing up Iraqi's Nuclear facilities in
> the '80s has to be very glad that Saddam wasn't a nuclear power in the
> gulf War.

I didn't say that, because I don't know anything about it.

Guess I just hope folks will PAY some $*%$#% ATTENTION to what ISN'T
being said by Bush & Co. before making up their minds. What is the
motivation behind their actions? Who stands to gain the most by war?
(hint: it isn't you, me, the nations of the world, or the Iraqi people)

pc
Jeffersonian patriot, fighter for the Good & True

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed herein are mine only, and not meant
to represent those of my employer or any other entity besides myself.
Although I wish they did!