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

[Dan Smith <anilorac AT nc.rr.com>]

My .02.

What about associated costs?  First you have costs of covert programs, 
then if military force is required, the $B's which most likely won't be 
shared this time around.  Then, if we engage a military action, what are 
the official and under table (kickbacks) costs to rebuild a decimated 
economy and install a new puppet government?  

What I want to know is HOW does Bush/Rove explain this in such a way to 
gain widespread mainstream US acceptance when our own economy is in the 
toilet, and the Bush economic team receives failing grades on domestic 
policy by our nation's leading independent economists?  

IMHO, these costs are difficult to justify when our stock market is down 
40% (so far) during the Bush watch, companies aren't aren't hiring, and 
consumers are curtailing spending.  The lastest consumer spending report 
hit the news yesterday.

The US is the key driver in the global economy; we can't rebuild other 
countries' economic infrastructure without our own rebound first.



David R. Matusiak wrote:

> so, i've been stirring this pot on multiple lists (for months!) and 
> getting zero responses.  by zero, i mean "none" with the occasional 
> "hey, support our leadership!" screech by Bush's apologists thrown in.
>
> it pleases me greatly to now see that there are actually 4 (four) 
> people who are thinking about this. with myself included, we could 
> probably rig up a helluva jazz quintet.  i dunno, maybe bluegrass.
>
> i would also like to know who or what "IISS" is.  i would also like 
> sound, rational answers to the following list of questions (forwarded 
> with permission from original author):
> ---
> I think there are some questions that should be
> investigated and answered:
>
> 1) What are the origins of the Al Quaeda movement, who
> trained them, armed them and backed them in the
> beginning.
>
> 2) How difficult is it to find a dialysis dependant
> 6"5' Arab who had his toes blown off during the
> Soviet-Afghan war and his buddy the blind Taliban
> Mullah who was ruling Afghanistan a year ago?
>
> 3) Why is the administration so unwilling to have a
> threat assesment for Iraq done?
>
> 4) Is the Iraqi threat to create AND deliver
> biological, chemical and/or nuclear weapons against
> their populace or a neighboring populace greater or
> equal to any other country?
>
> 5) Should the there be "regime change" in Iraq who
> will replace Saddam?   Will the new government be able
> to hold itself together in the long run?
>
> 6) Will the new regime be able to effectively
> introduce lasting democracy to a culturaly diverse
> population? Will we be prepared to handle the choices
> made by an Iraqi democracy?
>
> 7) Are we willing to station troops in a hostile
> Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade or more to ensure
> security to new governments?
>
> 8)  How much of our Middle-Eastern foreign policy is
> guided by an interest to protect Israel on the basis
> that they are "the chosen people?"
>
> 9) Is there solid evidence tying the government of
> Iraq to terrorist networks?
>
> 10) Will the US go after all governments that have
> used chemical and biological weapons on their
> populations?
>
> 11) Is the effort to go to war with Iraq a part of a
> bait and switch...to redirect the US gaze from a
> stalled effort to find the Al Quaeda bosses to a
> winnable war?
>
> 12) What are the real motivations to going to war?  Is
> it a vendetta from the circa 1993 foiled assasination
> attempt of the elder President Bush?  Are the
> motivations an attempt to consolidate the oil rights
> of the middle east and Asia for US and British oil
> interest? Or is it because we're afraid that Saddam is
> capable of destroying the Iraqi and Arabian oil fields
> and throwing the world and especially India and China
> into economic disaster (Both India and China have seen
> their oil consumption rise dramatically in recent
> years and they receive the majority of their oil from
> the Arabian peninsula).
>
> 13) Is the Administration's motivation to direct our
> attention from an absent economic policy?
>
> 14) Why are so many Pentagon leaders, especially Army
> officials opposed to going to war with Iraq now?
>
> 15) Is the Iraqi threat related to Al Quaeda and if so
> how closely?
>
> 16) Who has the most to gain from the results of a regime
> change in Iraq?
>
> Something to ponder: In the late 90's the UN conducted
> a study that concluded that at the current rate of
> consumption that all of the known oil fields (tapped
> and untapped) would be depleted in 75 years.  In that
> time, SUV sales have skyrocketted and the world's two
> largest populations have begun to increase
> industrialization.
>
> I think we as a country should seriously consider what
> we're getting ourselves into before we rush off to war
> and I sincerely hope that we get some answers within
> the week.  Do I think Saddam is a bad guy, hell yeah.
> But I don't want to see our conflict that will spread
> us to thin to protect ourselves. One last thought, are
> we trying to supply Richard Ashcroft with inspiration
> for his next song?
> ---
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 11:24  AM, 
> Childers.Paula AT epamail.epa.gov wrote:
>
> > > 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!
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers