[Powderworks] A Rare Political post from Michael!
Bawolski@aol.com
Bawolski@aol.com
Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:21:46 EDT
--part1_f7.2ae1a3b5.2bc9c14a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en
Excellent post Michael. I think you summed up very well the=20
mixed emotions that many Americans (myself included) have
about this war. =20
MIke
In a message dated 4/11/2003 11:17:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
mbtigger@charter.net writes:
> I almost never write to the list on political topics. I don=E2=80=99t read=
many of=20
> the political posts. I have been reading the occasional war post and I=20
> decided to write on a few topics. But since I have a few beers in me and c=
an
> =E2=80=99t sleep, I thought I might reply. As I live in the USA, that does=
color my=20
> view a bit. Be warned, this is a LONG post, and others may have covered th=
e=20
> same area in posts I missed. For those of you with limited time but=20
> interested =E2=80=93 Just read the last 3 Paragraphs. To keep a BIT of Oil=
s content=20
> =E2=80=93 I am listening to Capricornia as I type this=E2=80=A6.=20
>=20
>=20
> Is the war about U.S. security? =E2=80=93 This is the hardest question. I=20=
cannot=20
> answer it. I am not privy to intelligence reports from the CIA. I am=20
> willing to believe it is POSSIBLE. Iraq DID invade 2 countries, and has=20
> used chemical weapons in the past. As for the U.S. using 9/11 as an excuse=
=20
> to invade Iraq, there is a grain of truth to that. Many people in our=20
> government felt that Hussein was "Unfinished Business"; that he was a=20
> destabilizing influence in the Middle East, and was a threat to U.S.=20
> interests. After 9/11 more people were willing to look at Hussein as a=20
> potential threat, and an invasion was possible. I don=E2=80=99t think we w=
ould have=20
> invaded Iraq without SOME kind of event that would make people listen to=20
> the hawkish elements in the U.S. government.=20
> Is the war about Oil? =E2=80=93 In many ways YES. I don=E2=80=99t think Bu=
sh wants direct=20
> control of the Iraqi oil fields, but the free market flow of oil is=20
> important to the US =E2=80=93 and to other countries. If it were not for O=
il,=20
> Hussein would not have had the military capacity he had, and would not be=20
> seen as a possible threat. Oil colors everything about foreign policy in=20
> that region =E2=80=93 That is true of just about every country who buys Oi=
l.=20
> Would inspections have worked? No. There are quite a few scientists on the=
=20
> list. Most of them can tell you how amazingly difficult it is to prove a=20
> negative supposition. The U.S. and Great Britain could always have claimed=
=20
> weapons were being hid. If some were found and destroyed there might alway=
s=20
> have been more. It does not matter which side of the argument you believe,=
=20
> ultimate proof would be hard to come by.=20
> Is this all about Bush getting re-elected? Well - what is good for Bush an=
d=20
> what is good for U.S. national interests are not necessarily different. Bu=
t=20
> what is good for the U.S. is not necessarily good for other countries=20
> around the world. Leaders will do what is good for their country =E2=80=
=93 and the=20
> votes will follow later. .=20
> Is it a war of liberation? - Liberation is a very positive side effect, bu=
t=20
> it is not a reason for the U.S. to go to war. There are many cruel=20
> dictators that have never had U.S. forces invade their country. The U.S.=20
> goes where U.S. interests lie.=20
> Is it a lawful exercise? (according to international standards) =E2=80=93=20=
read=20
> Virgil=E2=80=99s post =E2=80=93 one of the more thoughtful posts I have re=
ad on political=20
> topics recently (and I admit I have not read all of them). The world is=20
> changing =E2=80=93 Laws are constantly being re-interpreted in the USA=20=
=E2=80=93 and our=20
> legislatures often revisit our civil code frequently. . International=20
> standards might change in much the same way.=20
> Do I approve of the war? OUCH =E2=80=93 I have been so torn over this ques=
tion. The=20
> only way to PROVE someone means to harm you is to actually have him or her=
=20
> try to harm you. The default in the USA is innocent until proven guilty=20=
=E2=80=93=20
> yet you can get restraining orders based on threats and past behavior. Wel=
l=20
> =E2=80=93 I did not actively disapprove. Maybe silence does equal consent.=
In the=20
> end it is a war whose motives are open to question. And I mean OPEN TO=20
> QUESTION. The motives cannot be flatly refuted either. However, IF Iraq is=
=20
> able to select a stable government, rebuild the country, and improve the=20
> economy, then secondary motives and "side effects" might actually be bette=
r=20
> for Iraq than more years ruled by Hussein. Only time will tell if this is=20
> true.=20
>=20
> Sadly, I know of no international standard for the removal of fascist=20
> regimes that oppress their own population. If such a standard was set, and=
=20
> APPLIED =E2=80=93 maybe things like this might not happen. I pray for thin=
gs to=20
> work well =E2=80=93 in the strangest of all worlds, this would be a war fo=
ught for=20
> the wrong reasons, but with a morally strong result that justifies itself.=
=20
> I will not say that violence never solved anything - It is just the worst=20
> solution in most cases. But sometimes the worst solution is better than no=
=20
> solution at all. Look at Rwanda or the Congo. There are no strong US=20
> interests there =E2=80=93 No incentives for a stable government, and no=20
> intervention. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. I have head of=20
> estimates as high as 800,000 in Rwanda (I cannot vouch for accuracy =E2=
=80=93 But=20
> most estimates I have read are above 500,000). Could intervention be much=20
> worse?
>=20
> Have you stuck with me? If you have I thank you =E2=80=93 This was such a=
=20
> depressing and difficult post that I went from the Oils to Leonard Cohen=20
> while writing it.
>=20
> It=E2=80=99s a cold and it=E2=80=99s a broken Hallelujah=E2=80=A6
>=20
> Michael
>=20
>=20
>=20
Bawolski@aol.com
--part1_f7.2ae1a3b5.2bc9c14a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Excellent post Michael. I think you summed up ve=
ry well the <BR>
mixed emotions that many Americans (myself included) have<BR>
about this war. <BR>
MIke<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 4/11/2003 11:17:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mbtigger@cha=
rter.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I almost never write to the lis=
t on political topics. I don=E2=80=99t read many of the political posts. I h=
ave been reading the occasional war post and I decided to write on a few top=
ics. But since I have a few beers in me and can=E2=80=99t sleep, I thought I=
might reply. As I live in the USA, that does color my view a bit. Be warned=
, this is a LONG post, and others may have covered the same area in posts I=20=
missed. For those of you with limited time but interested =E2=80=93 Just rea=
d the last 3 Paragraphs. To keep a BIT of Oils content =E2=80=93 I am listen=
ing to Capricornia as I type this=E2=80=A6. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Is the war about U.S. security? =E2=80=93 This is the hardest question. I ca=
nnot answer it. I am not privy to intelligence reports from the CIA. I am wi=
lling to believe it is POSSIBLE. Iraq DID invade 2 countries, and has used c=
hemical weapons in the past. As for the U.S. using 9/11 as an excuse to inva=
de Iraq, there is a grain of truth to that. Many people in our government fe=
lt that Hussein was "Unfinished Business"; that he was a destabilizing influ=
ence in the Middle East, and was a threat to U.S. interests. After 9/11 more=
people were willing to look at Hussein as a potential threat, and an invasi=
on was possible. I don=E2=80=99t think we would have invaded Iraq without SO=
ME kind of event that would make people listen to the hawkish elements in th=
e U.S. government. <BR>
Is the war about Oil? =E2=80=93 In many ways YES. I don=E2=80=99t think Bush=
wants direct control of the Iraqi oil fields, but the free market flow of o=
il is important to the US =E2=80=93 and to other countries. If it were not f=
or Oil, Hussein would not have had the military capacity he had, and would n=
ot be seen as a possible threat. Oil colors everything about foreign policy=20=
in that region =E2=80=93 That is true of just about every country who buys O=
il. <BR>
Would inspections have worked? No. There are quite a few scientists on the l=
ist. Most of them can tell you how amazingly difficult it is to prove a nega=
tive supposition. The U.S. and Great Britain could always have claimed weapo=
ns were being hid. If some were found and destroyed there might always have=20=
been more. It does not matter which side of the argument you believe, ultima=
te proof would be hard to come by. <BR>
Is this all about Bush getting re-elected? Well - what is good for Bush and=20=
what is good for U.S. national interests are not necessarily different. But=20=
what is good for the U.S. is not necessarily good for other countries around=
the world. Leaders will do what is good for their country =E2=80=93 and the=
votes will follow later. . <BR>
Is it a war of liberation? - Liberation is a very positive side effect, but=20=
it is not a reason for the U.S. to go to war. There are many cruel dictators=
that have never had U.S. forces invade their country. The U.S. goes where U=
.S. interests lie. <BR>
Is it a lawful exercise? (according to international standards) =E2=80=93 re=
ad Virgil=E2=80=99s post =E2=80=93 one of the more thoughtful posts I have r=
ead on political topics recently (and I admit I have not read all of them).=20=
The world is changing =E2=80=93 Laws are constantly being re-interpreted in=20=
the USA =E2=80=93 and our legislatures often revisit our civil code frequent=
ly. . International standards might change in much the same way. <BR>
Do I approve of the war? OUCH =E2=80=93 I have been so torn over this questi=
on. The only way to PROVE someone means to harm you is to actually have him=20=
or her try to harm you. The default in the USA is innocent until proven guil=
ty =E2=80=93 yet you can get restraining orders based on threats and past be=
havior. Well =E2=80=93 I did not actively disapprove. Maybe silence does equ=
al consent. In the end it is a war whose motives are open to question. And I=
mean OPEN TO QUESTION. The motives cannot be flatly refuted either. However=
, IF Iraq is able to select a stable government, rebuild the country, and im=
prove the economy, then secondary motives and "side effects" might actually=20=
be better for Iraq than more years ruled by Hussein. Only time will tell if=20=
this is true. <BR>
<BR>
Sadly, I know of no international standard for the removal of fascist regime=
s that oppress their own population. If such a standard was set, and APPLIED=
=E2=80=93 maybe things like this might not happen. I pray for things to wor=
k well =E2=80=93 in the strangest of all worlds, this would be a war fought=20=
for the wrong reasons, but with a morally strong result that justifies itsel=
f. I will not say that violence never solved anything - It is just the worst=
solution in most cases. But sometimes the worst solution is better than no=20=
solution at all. Look at Rwanda or the Congo. There are no strong US interes=
ts there =E2=80=93 No incentives for a stable government, and no interventio=
n. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. I have head of estimates as hi=
gh as 800,000 in Rwanda (I cannot vouch for accuracy =E2=80=93 But most esti=
mates I have read are above 500,000). Could intervention be much worse?<BR>
<BR>
Have you stuck with me? If you have I thank you =E2=80=93 This was such a d=
epressing and difficult post that I went from the Oils to Leonard Cohen whil=
e writing it.<BR>
<BR>
It=E2=80=99s a cold and it=E2=80=99s a broken Hallelujah=E2=80=A6<BR>
<BR>
Michael<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000ff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D4=
FAMILY=3D"SCRIPT" FACE=3D"Lucida Handwriting" LANG=3D"0"><B>Bawolski@aol.co=
m</B></FONT></HTML>
--part1_f7.2ae1a3b5.2bc9c14a_boundary--