It is all about Oil [WAS Re: [CLUE-Talk] Traitors, Cowards, Scoundrels, and Intelligent Dissenters]

[Randy Arabie]

On Saturday, 29 March 2003 at 15:57:39 -0700, Jeffery Cann <fabian at jefferycann.com> wrote:

<---snip--->

> Sounds vaguely familiar to me...  But let me point out how I think the Bush 
> Admistration did this:
> 
> 1)  America is under attack by terrorists.  (fact)
> 2)  Saddam Hussein is a bad guy who supports terrorists.  (fact)
> 3)  To alleviate the threat of terrorism, we must eliminate Saddam Hussien's 
> regime.  (not a fact, but it sounds plausible)  Here's the corrollaries:
>   3a) Elimitating Saddam will lead to lasting peace in the middle east  (not a 
> fact and highly unlikely according to most middle east experts)
>   3b) This will free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator  (fact)
> 
> So, the average person thinks, 'Hmm, maybe the President is right.  We must go 
> to war.  We must kill Saddam Hussien.'  Unfortunately, the Bush 
> administration thinks they can predict the future of the middle east after 
> Iraq is 'liberated'.  Many people who HAVE thought about it think it is a bad 
> idea.  The fact that 70% of the people agree with Bush indicates that they 
> either:
>   a) belive that the President and our armed forces can control the future  
> - OR -
>   b) haven't thought about the consequences of the actions of our government
> 
> Regardless of the reason they (i.e., the 70% who support this unjust war) have 
> been duped, IMHO

Here are my answers to your two "not a fact" bits (3 and 3b).

Answer to 3) - Eliminating Saddam Hussien's regime WILL alleviate the
threat of terrorism.  Alleviate means (according to Webster) "to lessen
or relieve."  You have already stated that the Iraqi regime supports
terrorism, so eliminating the regime will elminate one source of
support.  I don't think anyone in the Bush administrations has alleged
that eliminating the Iraqi regime will *eliminate* terrorism.  But, it
will *alleviate* the threat of it.  The reason the Iraqi regime has been
singled out is because of the following reasons:

	Their insistance to amass WMD,
	Their willingness to use WMD,
	Their repeated refusal to disarm/cease amassing WMD, and
	Their support of terrorism.

Many terrorism experts have stated that, considering the number of "rogue
states" and nations ruled by hostile regimes, it is a matter of when
(not if) before a terrorist organization gets their hands on WMD.

Is there a way to prevent that?  One way is to eliminate the terrorists.
Another way is to eliminate the regimes that support them.  And another
way is to attack the root causes of terrorism.

The Bush administration's course of action are implementing two of those
by elimating the Iraqi regime and eliminating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
(and where ever else they are found).

As far as addressing the root causes of terrorism, that is a much more
complex matter.  I tend to agree with some of the points made in this
analysis:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_07-09/radu_futile/radu_futile.html

It states that "is a matter of power - who has it and how to get it."  It
isn't about poverty, injustice, exploitation, and frustration.  Granted,
that is a little simple, especially when addressing such a complex
issue.  But I'm not willing to abandon our other efforts, and criticize
the Bush administration because they don't have a grand solution to the
root causes of terrorism.

Answer to 3a) - Your primary arguement against this seems to be that the
Bush administration cannot predict the future, and therefore this war
isn't worth the gamble.  True, the Bush administration cannot predict
the future.  Neither can anyone else.  By that logic, the US should not
have come in on the side of the allies, because we couldn't predict the
future...we may not have won.  Or, we shouldn't have attempted to build
democratic governments in Germany and Japan after World War II...we
didn't know if that would work either.  Simply saying we can't take a
course of action because the proponents "can't predict the future" is a
very silly position for the opposition to take.  The same arguement
could be made against *any* action.

Your other arguement is that the prosepect of this war brining lasting
peace in the Middle East is "highly unlikely according to most middle
east experts". Perhaps the experts are right.  But I was convinced that
the war was justifiable before the arguement that "it will bring peace
to the middle east" was made.

I do think bringing democracy to Iraq will help foster peace in the
Middle East.  But that is looking 10 or more years in the future. There
are many other things that have to happen before "lasting peace" will
come to the Middle East.  If you read the Bible, you will note that it
really won't happen until Jesus returns...and noboby can predict when
that will happen.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/