[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A newbie's confusion about GPL

On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:07:12AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > ..as in;  "Where _is_ Osama and Saddam?".  And playing the 
> > "west bank settler" games on the Iraqis, is _not_ gonna help.
> > 
> I'm beginning to see this as an issue over which rational and reasonable 
> people can disagree.
> For me, this all ties back into my "Illusion of Technique" philosophy.  
> The positive argument the anti-Bush people make is: "Iraq is a waste of 
> time; we must eliminate al Quaeda itself."  I answer: show me your 
> SPECIFIC plan, don't just wave your hands and say: "We'll do it."

The was in Iraq was not intended to stop Al Quaeda. If I'm not mistaken
Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and he and Al Quaeda seem to be hiding
somewhere in Afghanistan. I won't comment on that war...

On a side note the was on Iraq was also not intended to get rid of
weapons of mass destruction. If the U.S. thought they had them they
wouldn't have risked attacking Iraq (actually they might have, the last
time they did, Iraq was busy bombing Israel and all the while the U.S.
was telling the Israelis that they could shoot down any Iraqi missiles.
But I doubt Israel would fall for that again.).

By waging war on Iraq when there was no clear link between Iraq and Al
Quaeda and when there was no clear evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, the U.S. wanted to show that they can wage war without even
making up semi-coherent reasons. I mean Bush kept
This is about weapons of mass destruction,
This is about terrorism
This is about regime change
We just don't like the sand monkeys :)

> When you press the anti-War people on just *how* they are going to 
> prevent cataclysmic terrorism, they generally bash Bush and say "we'll 
> use police techniques to prosecute them."  Sounds nice, but in 
> actuality, tough choices must be made.

The waging war in Iraq was simply playing into Bin Laden's hands. I mean
he was at no risk, since he wasn't in Iraq. There is going to be a lot
of concern and fear in the region, and this is legitimate because the
U.S. has attacked, Afghanistan and Iraq: who's next? Bin Laden is likely
to use this fear to strengthen his own crazy schemes. This is basically
analogous to how the Bush administration twisted people's legitimate
concerns after September 11th to increase support for their crazy
twisted schemes.

> Maybe in 50 years the Muslims will be turning out killer cars like 
> Germany or killer stereos like Japan.

Germany and Japan (during WWII) were very strong countries that used
their economic/military strength in terrible ways against other nations.
To a great extent, the German and Japanese peoples supported these

Most of the people in the Middle East live in countries that are not
powerful at all. Their governments (like so many third world
governments) are corrupt and basically carry out the dirty work of the
West (keeping poor people in line). The people don't support the
government but are powerless to do anything about it because their
governments have the support of the West. For example this a quote from
Noam Chomsky:

     "My own feeling, to tell you the truth, is that there was a great
     opportunity to get rid of Saddam Hussein in March 1991. There was a
     massive Shiite uprising in the south led by rebelling Iraqi
     generals. The U.S. had total command of the region at the time.
     [The Iraqi generals] didn't ask for U.S. support but they asked for
     access to captured Iraqi equipment and they asked the United States
     to prevent Saddam from using his air force to attack the rebels.
     The U.S. refused. It allowed Saddam Hussein to use military
     helicopters and other forces to crush the rebellion.

     You can read it in the New York Times. It was more important to
     maintain stability -- that was the word that was used -- or as the
     diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times put it, the best of
     all worlds for the United States would have been for an iron-fisted
     military junta to seize power and rule in Iraq the way Saddam
     Hussein did. But since we couldn't get that, we'd have to accept
     him. That was the main opportunity of getting rid of him. Since
     then it hasn't been so simple. The forces of resistance were
     crushed with our help, after the war."
     This is from an interview that appeared in Salon Magazine.

So the comparison doesn't hold up.

Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: