From: Ivan_Ivanovich-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: M-INTRO: RE: Bobcat and War in Iraq
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:31:58 -0600


I find it funny that Bobcat starts by saying that he personally doesn't know 
if our (US) leaders had anything to do with 9/11, for "[he is] hardly an 
expert on the subject," and then proceeds to give a thorough and presumably 
expert accounting of what he "knows."
I have to take issue with the four opportunities that he identifies as being 
provided by this heinous attack on innocent men, women, and children.

First-     [The emergence of a new "enemy state" to make Americans fear, 
replacing
the now-obsolete Soviet threat and the Chinese threat which never really
materialized.] What new enemy state is he talking about?  It would hardly 
seem logical that he would refer to Iraq in this context. Though Iraq was 
named and targeted as an enemy state, bobcat seems to refer to some other 
state that is still in existence, the "fear" of which allows the US Govt 
to... what? How did the US Govt us fear of the CCCP to manipulate the US 
people? Manipulate the people into doing what? For what ends? Arguably, the 
fear of terrorism is an factor that inspires new legislation, but terrorism 
is not an "Enemy STATE."

Second-     [The chance to return "favors for favors" by giving loyal 
businesses huge
profits in a monopolistic environment (read HALLIBURTON)]  I see, the US 
Govt concocted a war for profit! It is so logical! Apparently the first rule 
of politics is no longer "Get re-elected," but rather "Endanger re-election 
by standing up for what is right and by choosing a corporation with which we 
no longer have any ties to ease the burden on the US military by supervising 
non-combat efforts in which the corporation specializes..." Wait, how does 
this translate into profit or gain for the Govt?

Third-     [Reason to take our minds off of messy domestic issues for which 
the
government had no answers]  Messy issues, messy issues... Hmm.  I guess you 
are referring to the recession that started during the 2nd quarter of Pres 
Bush's first year in office, the recession that obviously had its beginnings 
during the Clinton administration, the recession that was exacerbated by the 
effects of foreign terrorists. By no answers do you mean, no solutions? If 
so, you might be interested to look at the current growth rates, rates that 
are so high it has the Fed worried about inflation... Seems like a solution 
to me.

Fourth-     [Revenge for "Daddy's war" when the senior Bush allowed for 
peace without
overthrowing Iraq entirely]  Ok. Here I finally see your point- though the 
use of the word revenge, which means: To inflict harm in return for, as an 
injury, insult, etc.; to exact satisfaction for, under a sense of injury; to 
avenge; seems a little out of place.  Pres Bush (41) received no injury or 
insult by following the UN resolution in only expelling the Iraqi forces 
from Kuwait.  If anyone was wronged it was the Iraqi people that were 
waiting for a liberation that did not come for 12 more years.  Pres Bush 
(43) did "finish the job" that the Israelis (by blowing up Saddam's nuclear 
project) started, and Pres Bush (41) neglected to finish (the liberation of 
one of the most oppressed peoples of the world.)

I guess I feel strongly about this topic too.  I was one of those who would 
never had the opportunity to live through a hot desert operation if it 
weren't necessary for the security of the US and the good of the Iraqi 
people. Where were you the summer of 2003?

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to 
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx



     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---