[lbo-talk] Let Ralph Debate in 2004

[Joseph Wanzala]

I am saying that because of the way in which strategic military planning 
works, the two policies are part of a piece. By the time the US under Bush 
launched an operatrion like the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (which is more 
about consolidating US military presence in that region - to police the 
worlds oil reserves - and may well see an extension of military operations 
into Syria and/or Saudi Arabia), such an operation had to have been in the 
works for at least five years, indeed this has revealed to be the case. The 
policy under Clinton paved the way for the military operations principally 
through softening-up Iraq by the enforcement of sanctions. I believe that 
they did not invade in 1990 because military they could not. By 2003 the 
country had been crippled to such a level to make invasion feasible. Let us 
not forget Madeline Albright's remarks about how the lives of 500,000 
children, victims of the sanctions, were 'worth the trouble' (paraphrasing).

Also, let us not forget that the US bombing of Yugoslavia under Clinton was 
carried out for the same sort of strategic reasons, but instead of WMDs, the 
used the 'human-rights' (mass graves) ruse.

Joe W.


>From: Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Let Ralph Debate in 2004
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:44:41 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
> >
> > the historical evidence has shown that one area where the Democrats are 
>very
> > bit as hawkish and insane as any Republican administration is Foreign
> > Policy. I would urge you, rather than seeking drugs fixes, to go and do 
>some
> > homework on US policy in Africa and South America under the Democrats.
> > Indeed, Clinton presided over a cynical US policy in Africa's Great 
>Lakes
> > region, contributing heavily to the tragic situation that has been 
>unfolding
> > in the Congo and Rwanda in the last decade. In Colombia the Clinton
> > administration assiduously pursued the war on drugs (interchangeable and 
>now
> > being conflated with the war on terror).
> >
>
>I agree with you: U. S. foreign policy under Clinton was nothing to
>be proud of.  However, Bush is clearly an order of magnitude worse.
>Clinton strategy: containment of Iraq via sanctions.  Bush strategy:
>invade and occupy the country.  Are you seriously saying these
>two strategies are equally militaristic?
>
>Miles
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. 
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize