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

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Randy Arabie (randy at arabie.org) wrote:
> 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:

Randy, I have a question on this terrorism point.  Sure, there is
evidence of Saddam supporting terrorists.  But it is not an overwhelming
argument in favor of war.  The only major thing that comes to my mind is
the $25,000 (or whatever it was) to families of those Palestinians who
die as suicide bombers.  That is mostly a PR ploy to try to get Arab
sentiment on his side, and is not particularly important to US
interests.  That is really the Israeli's problem.

Is there some other major form of terrorism support that Hussein doles
out that I have missed?  Because that really does not seem like
anything.  If we are going to go after terrorists, Syria, Jordan, and
Iran would make a hell of a lot more sense.  Doubly so, considering that
Hussein has been under the microscope for 12 years, and has had a third
of his country under the power of US and British fighter planes.  I
really think Hussein is a toothless tiger.

The terrorism argument really seems like bunk, unless I am missing some
major contributions that Hussein has made.  Am I?

Tim
--
==============================================
==  Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net  ==
==  http://i148.denver.dsl.forethought.net  ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================