"Repercussions of Iraq"

To: nonserv@etext.org
Subject: Re: [nonserv] WMDs and democrats and whatnot
From: David McDivitt <david@nonspiritual.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:09:38 -0600

Iraq is without a doubt the most strategically significant property in the region. By taking Iraq, Iran and Syria are squeezed on all sides by the United States and its affiliates. The morality of invading Iraq can be debated without end, but we know morality doesn't mean anything. It was a logical imperative. Even if no exit strategy was sufficiently planned, and even if the U.S. does not maintain control, the dynamic of the region was changed and that change cannot be undone.

The highway for arms from China, across Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria has been cut, affecting overall peace in the Middle East. China is being changed from within through trade and capitalism. Entry by former Soviet states, now sovereign, into affairs greatly diminishes leadership and agendas of the French and Germans. France and the European Common Market have been preempted - a massive blow to the solidification of Europe. Britain has effectively been saved for the time being from absorption.

The way I see it, the U.S. only had so many resources left and was losing influence. Those resources were spent wisely. One might ask why Bush rushed into Iraq when he did, even without proper planning, apparently, and without support from the north from Turkey. Obviously, a window of opportunity was closing, and closing rapidly. Because risk assessment was within bounds, a logical imperative dictated that the U.S. must take Iraq.

One could say 911 and WMD were used as excuses for the invasion. On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, no. A long term effect is that the European Common Market was restrained and cannot exploit Islamic people so easily, making profit and gaining political strength while at the same time proclaiming itself the champion of morality and savior of disenfranchised peoples. Business dealings of the French were uncovered, showing them to be no different than anyone else, and driven by profit just like anyone else.

Whether or not Bush will be reelected I do not know. He has however displayed a brilliant global strategy with use of limited resources. The only arguments against this are, once again, moral posturing from the left, which is naked and powerless; the ideology of which exposed as hypocrisy for those not deluded into agreement with it.

Surprisingly, I think we need the left. Criticism is necessary for the sake of diversity. The fact they almost win on occasion is very good. Though Bush and the right have done marvelously, they need to be reminded on a regular basis that they are not representatives of God.

>To: NonServ <nonserv@etext.org>
>Subject: [nonserv] WMDs and democrats and whatnot
>From: Svein Olav Nyberg <xxx@xxx.com>
>Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:12:57 +0100
>I got this one in the mail by a friend who wanted to smear the
>democrats for being hypocrites or something. Dunno. All I can read is
>that US politicians were set in their minds that Saddam had "WMD"s
>long before any evidence or any proper investigations, and even long
>before 2002.09.11. The invasion of Iraq, it seems, was not a response
>to anything, especially not to "sept. 11th", but was long planned:
>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
>is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
>want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
>Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
>air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
>the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
>programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
>Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
>"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
>has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi
>(D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
>Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
>programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
>continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
>continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
>licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
>the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by
>Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
>threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
>mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
>and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
>power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
>weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
>confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
>biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
>build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
>reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd
>(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
>to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
>and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,
>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
>to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
>next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
>the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
>destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
>significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
>chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
>refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
>Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
>stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
>also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
>members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
>continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
>and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
>NY), Oct 10, 2002
>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
>Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
>the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob
>Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
>... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
>..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
>Svein Olav Nyberg <xxx@xxx.com>
> "Did you ever contribute anything to the
> happiness of Mankind?"
> "Yes, I myself have been happy!"
> - John Henry Mackay
>This message was delivered to the Non Serviam mailing list, nonserv@etext.org
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@etext.org with message body of:
>"unsubscribe nonserv"
>To reach the list manager, send mail to nonserv-owner@etext.org

Return to Articles