Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00674)

Bill: "Sorry to jump in.

Please do. I have an answer and a question.

Bill: "When we assign motives to others, and declare that the war 
with Iraq is a Bush power play to gain control of oil so that the 
Bush oil dynasty can become even richer and more powerful

Right or wrong, that is a perception shared by a striking number of 
well informed people, including apparently some in the administration.

Bill: "we might ask ourselves why the elder Bush stopped the war the 
first time?

Nig George is on record that (1) the Saudi monarchy, with whom he has 
a long standing personal relationship, wanted it stopped, (2) the 
Arab allies would have all pulled out had it not been stopped,, and 
(3) he hypnotized himself into believing Iraq would fall into his 
hands without further ado. The British wanted to push on to Baghdad 
where they could kill Udey and then bag Dad.

Bill: "What seems to be ignored in the discussions of the Bush 
position on Iraq is the necessity of taking a firm stand against 
Sadaam's acquisition of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons 
(beyond what he already has) and the delivery means to make war with 
and/or hold hostage neighboring countries (including SA). Such a 
stand has to be perceived by Sadaam as more than mere diplomatic 
appeal.

I do not believe self interest is ever far from the minds of the 
people formulating this policy. After all the scandals in the 
investment banking community anyone who would suggest taking tax 
money and giving it to those scoundrels is either showing 
extraordinarily poor judgement or something more sinister. You have 
probably noticed some prominent plutocrats are gettinginto investment 
banking, possibly in anticipation of the coming windfall. One could 
cogently argue that disarming Saddam is the only way to keep 
political control of the oil patch fragmented. But the problem of 
keeping dictators from acquiring WMDs is akin to the proverbial 
problem of filling a bucket with live frogs, Not only is every 
dictator in the world feverishly working to acquire these weapons, 
but so are terrorists and religious groups which want to eliminate 
the evil infidel and thereby placate their moon god. If you know the 
answer to that one you are smarter than I, but wars are not going to 
work. There are some more Draconian solutions available, but 
even "Rummy" Rumsfeld is not advocating those. When Saddam goes 
(whether by natural causes or otherwise) the next dictator will start 
the cycle all over again. I suspect the cold war, which was mostly 
fought in the dark by spies, or the current war on terrorism which is 
fought largely by secret ahents and law enforcement may be better 
models for how to solve our current problems.

If you want to worry about something more worrisome than Saddam think 
about China. They have already put Japan on notice they want Okinawa 
turned over to them. They are threatening war with Taiwan. They 
tried to invade Vietnam twice and both times were defeated by second 
string troops. Vietnam is not an easy country to conquer as several 
ambitious imperialist leaders have discovered. They will surely lay 
claim to Australia and New Zealand in years to come. They have 
already threatened us several times with nuclear attack and are 
working on better delivery systems. They are not ready yet, but when 
they think they are there will be war. We don't know which Bush the 
Supreme Court will select to put in the white house when this 
happens, whether it will be Jeb or Silverado Neil or some other scion 
we have not heard of yet. But he will have to decide whether he 
wants to get involved or not. War in Asia is inevitable. 
Condoleezza Arroz is not pretending to any fantasy about "disarming" 
China.

What is worrisome is Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld's itch for a war there 
and for his desire to keep a hair trigger. It is not apparent that 
he is interested in negotiating anything. Time will tell whether 
this is all wise and works out well.

To Bart: There was a discussion on NPR recently in which some of the 
panelists said they believed Venezuela was a target. The so called 
war on drugs will be used as a pretext for escalated miltary 
intervention in Colombia, then Colombia will be used as a base for 
attacking Venezuela. Time will tell whether that is true or not. 
You probably know the British wanted to invade Venezuela in 1899 I 
believe and the Germans wanted to invade in 1902 or thereabouts. In 
each case the US threatened war to stop it. It was the thwarting of 
Kaiser Bill which started the series of events which led the US into 
the European war in 1917.