Re: And So It Begins...

 Posted on 3/28/2003 by to

>>1) There has never been one shred of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11.
>Granted. The connections made seem to all be on the side of what
>*could* happen.

But don't you understand how blatantly this flies in the face of everything
this coiuntry has stood for, for over two hundred years? We're striking first,
to take out a sovereign nation because it MIGHT be a threat in the future.
Hell, there are DOZENS of countries out there that *might* be a threat, that
have *also* violated or ignored UN resolutions, do we go around bombing and
invading *all* of them?

This is the first time we have pre-emptively invaded a nation like this. And
what kind of precedent are we setting? What's to stop China now from saying
"We think Taiwan is a potential threat to our interests, so we're going in
after them"? Iran's firing up its nuclear program in violation of prior
agreements, so are they next in line?

For as many ups and downs as we've had as a nation, what always distinguished
us in the past was that we tried to take the high ground, to speak with
something at least approximating the voice of moral authority, leading by
example. We have utterly shrugged that aside with this action.

>As far as Saudi Arabia, I think it's a determined goal of this
>administration to very politely and indirectly obviate them. A
>non-OPEC Iraq with a represenative elected government would be
>something to see. And who can say that they're not "next?"

Okay, so Saudia Arabia is next, then Iran, Syria, North you this is

>There are a few points of continuity in the comparison worth pointing
>out: Saddam and Hitler both ran thier countries and oppressed their
>minorities with frightening brutality. They both started dubious wars
>for reasons of empire building. They were both well organized and
>systematic about their programs of oppression.

We can both name a dozen countries about which the same can be said.

> They both organized
>networks of informers and institutions to balance possible threats
>against each other rather than against the leader.

Taken a look at what Ashcroft's been up to lately? Project TIPS,
investigations into libraries to see who's been reading what (the National
Library Association reported that nearly 20% of their librarians had been asked
to provide this information to the government, and had complied.)

>Matter of fact one of the arguments I've heard about
>preempting Iraq the way we're doing it is so that it would never get
>to be like the situation from North Korea

Again, a pre-emptive war is against every democratic principle this country has
fought and bled for, for centuries.

>which in spite of its
>desperate need for butter, keeps making guns and letting the people

And here in the US, $400 billion is being spent on the military just this year,
while social programs that feed and clothe the homeless, that help malnourished
children, are being cut back to make room for the war machine.

>It is true now. The difference is today the U.S. doesn't really care
>what kind of hate Islamicists (not Muslims, Islamicists) can drum up,
>now that we've decided to come for them all.

And if that isn't the most chilling thing I've read online in quite a while, I
don't know what is.

No, wait, here it is...

>> there
>>was no apparent need for invasion except for the purposes the Adminisration
>>seems to have in its back pocket, a desire to control a massive oil reserve
>>re-draw the map of the middle east in ways that will serve better American
>Why this is a bad thing is a bit confusing to me.

'Nuff said.


(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)