How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them

Cian co015d5200 at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Sep 9 17:00:10 PDT 2002


wojtek wrote:
> Another possible argument: Washington did not give a shit about Iraqi
weapons
> program then, so why should we believe it does now? This undermines the
> credibility of the claim that Washington is motivated by security concerns
> rather than some other ulterior motives. And that can be a convincing
> argument, especially when we add a list of those possible ulterior
motives. > My favorites include:

Because then he was the monster they could control, whereas now they've found that's he a monster they can't. Or in CNN speak: "Because he was our ally".

The US administration might well believe their own propaganda. Who needs evidence, when you JUST know. They're like a bent cop who knows that that a particular kid is guilty, and now just has the problem of fitting him up so he can convince a jury. Don't make the mistake of assuming this administration is rational; they've shown little evidence of rationality so far.

When people are sufficiently attached to a theory (especially one which is convenient), it doesn't matter about evidence. Saddam's just an evildoer. And to be fair - Saddam was trying to build nukes. This is a little like a bank robber being fitted up for the wrong crime ;)


> wag the dog to divert attention from the economic fiasco, Enron & Co
> scandal, and no achievement of any domestic issue which may work against
> the Repugs in November

That does seem to be a factor, though it didn't help his dad much.


> payback to the Brits for sending their mercenaries to Afghanistan - for
> some unknown to me reason the Brits seem to be the prime mover of military
> actions in the Persian Gulf; any ideas why?

Hardly. The British are only important, because if "we're" on side, Bush can claim he's acting multilaterally. The British military are as reluctant to go to war as the British people are to send them. Blair is definitely acting alone on this one.


> personal vendetta for the botched attempt to assassinate Shrub Sr. -
> perhaps not the primary motive but adding to the zeal, after all
regicide -
> even if botched - cannot go unpunished

Did that actually happen? I always thought that was just more propaganda.


> any other suggestions?

Pride. Flexing of muscles. Testosterone. Alpha-male syndrome. Proving the Vietnam syndrome is no more. I don't think there is a rational explanation; just a collective insanity on the part of the neocons. Strategically this is stupid. Not so much because it will cause insurrections in the middle east (the US could put those down easily) - but because those insurrections will have repercussions. If you have frequent flier air miles - use them up, or get another passport.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list