SPORK: About 'peace' people being supporters of SH.

johnhall johnhall@isomedia.com
Sun, 23 Mar 2003 11:26:29 -0800


> From: JS Kelly [mailto:jskelly@jskelly.com]

> 
> that isn't much of an analysis.

I didn't have time to write a book, only mention the conclusions.

> so you admit that we are fighting on a profit motive?

No, only that costs were a relevant factor.

> > And the benefit of deterrence after smashing Saddam?  Priceless.
> 
> i see. so a second goal is to say to all the region, "look out: you
could
> be next to feel our wrath." that'll win the peace for sure.

Historically, it is amazingly effective.  There are reasons to believe
it will be more effective than usual here.

> so from what you say, we have these two goals: make money from their
oil,

==> didn't say that.

> and show the region that we're going to bomb the living daylights out
of
> whomever we please. does that about sum it up?

You seem to have missed the fact that this was a side benefit, not a
reason.

> what about selling the rapist the crowbar that got him in the door
(and
> training him to use it); 

That isn't exactly a serious argument for your side.

If we did this, then it means we have a duty to take care of the
problem.  That is a PRO war argument.

The other point is that the future can't be predicted with precision.

> That is what our aid to iraq in the 20-some years leading up the gulf
war
> i did: enable saddam. and THEN we look the other way for nigh on to 12
> years (which is not to mention the years before) until gulf war ii:
the
> vengeance. of course that wouldn't in any way make us morally
culpable,
> would it? naaaaaaah.

You really ought to check your facts better.  Saddam achieved power in
1979 concurrent with the fall of the Shah.  From 1979 to 1990 is 11
years.

As for looking the other way for 12 years, that is a PRO war indictment
of the UN.

> how about our abandoning afghanistan after the end of the ussr-afghani
> war?  

Helping them keep out the USSR wasn't, morally, sufficient?  Why not?

> THAT surely didn't give rise to any extremism, say, on the part of
> one mr osama bin laden, well-known as the CIA's most problematic
blowback?

Consider the destruction of the Taliban and the current Iraqi war
'blowback' from 9/11.

> it's a given that the majority of nations and individuals in the world
> detest hussein and what he stands for, what he has done. 

Not operationally.  France and Russia made it clear over most of those
12 years that they could care less as long as they could profit from
Iraq.