>>And there is no tiny excuse as exists in Iraq's case - "evil" man, gassed his people, etc. What I find quite incredible is that it does not seem to offend anyone's rational senses that they are being invaded NOW, about ten years after he did anything "evil"<<
Do you think we should release Jeffrey Dahmer because he hasn't killed or eaten anyone in over ten years? Criminals should be punished and there are very few people who qualify as a criminal as clearly as Saddam. The tragedy, is that there is no way of doing this without taking innocents with him. Furthermore, if the world was determined that international law would be enforced, Saddam would be inhibited along with Sharon and the Phalangists, Arafat, and other people involved in crimes against humanity. Your argument that Saddam hasn't killed anyone lately would not apply to other murdrers. I don't understand why Saddam should be exempt.
>>They are better off than before, at least for the short/medium term, AND the US will be exploiting them - Haven't you heard of the pipeline that Unocal will be building in Afghanistan? Do you think it is another coincidence that Hamid Karzai used to be a consultant for Unocal in the US and negotiated with the Taliban for a pipeline?<<
Exactly correct, and positive for Afghanistan. The pipeline will be a source of revenue, and possibly stability, for Afghanistan. Having a contract that benefits the US does not connote exploitation. In fact, as you know, every contract is drawn so that both parties benefit. However, and you know this to be true, many Europeans reflexively interpret all actions of the US as exploitative, rather than mutually beneficial.
As per your statements about the undue influence of the oil industry on Bush...they're probably understatements. Look up the Carlyle Group in Google, look at Cheney's fighting disclosure of his energy meetings, hell-- just look at the background of where the Bush's got their money from and the picture is clear. In fact, one of my upper class friends inherited many oil wells. He has a direct access to several Washington figures. Interestingly enough, he is a liberal and critical of Bush. His best friend at Harvard was Michael Rockefeller so I will only tease at what I won't reveal. He is among the people I know and respect who's inheritance has made be leisurely rather than productive. I'm for the 100% inheritance tax!
Z--In addition, a recent CNN nonscientific poll indicated that 75% of Americans were opposed to invading Iraq. Bush saw that poll also.
Finally, the notion that a feudal society, of mainly nomads, who happen to wander over oil fields, should control these resources that they didn't earn is also a problem for me. Their having this enormous wealth is no different, IMO, from others with inherited, rather than earned wealth. I want my kids to earn their own way and I'm pleased to help while I'm alive.
fred |
