Citizens of Upright Moral Character
don't drink the kool-aid
  USERS  
  Log-In  
  Register  

<< more on UN   |   WEBLOG   |   brave or free? >>

familiar tactics

from hanson:
"Blowing up petroleum pipelines and vital water supplies in a scorching summer is directed at the Iraqi people, not just the American military."

This seems like a the same strategy as the UN's Iraq embargo that existed before they got their freedom. Screw the people so they hate their government. Or, in this case, make them "hate freedom."


Moral Citizen: pibor on Aug 23, 03 | 4:27 pm | Profile
[0] Trackbacks | [0] Pingbacks | Link | Email Article

COMMENTS

Are you suggesting that the goal of the Baathist and Al Queda in blowing up pipelines is to get the people to 'hate freedom'? Or are you suggesting a moral equivelance to the UN Iraq embargo and the recent bombing/pipeline incedents? Or both?


Posted by: Jacques Vanderdreschd on Aug 24, 03 | 6:38 am

suggesting that hanson's analysis indicates both.


Posted by: pibor on Aug 24, 03 | 10:43 am

Wait--I still don't understand. Are you saying that HANSON is suggesting the equivelance, or your analysis of Hanson's article leads you to believe:

"Baathist and Al Queda in blowing up pipelines is to get the people to 'hate freedom'? Or are you suggesting a moral equivelance to the UN Iraq embargo and the recent bombing/pipeline incedents?"

?


Posted by: Jacques Vanderdreschd on Aug 24, 03 | 2:52 pm

I dont' know but it sucks. Expressing shock at it happening is kind of naive

Perhaps this is off topic of Hanson's article but:

In Gulf War I they blew civilian infastructure up, and it never recovered. But what do I know. Then the civilians were supposed to 'rise up' and overthrow Saddam, Bush the Elder said. And there was an uprising among Kurds, but support was pulled, leaving them to get slaughtered. I've read that they(US) most wanted an "'iron-fisted' military regime, but not with Saddam" somewhere. The uprising was not supported.

Back to the freedom question: I don't think they really feel like they have 'freedom'. A bunch of tanks rolling in, and 'shock and awe?' True, the 'liberation/occupation' (I'll use both those words) is only a couple of months old. It's preposterous to say there would be Iraqis rushing out into the street with open arms, even if they were getting rid of Saddam.

Another off topic- Saddam on CIA payroll. 50's or 60's or something. Here's a quote from a UPI article, April 2003:

'U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.'

I'm not into second guessing history, but I think we do need to look at it. The people that are most willing to betray their own country are the people most likely to work with the CIA, and the ones to rise to power, and...

After Gulf War I, Saudi Arabia ('Mecca' to Islam) got permanent (supposed to be temporary) US bases (since Gulf War II they said they are pulling out). Now they will have permanent US military bases in Iraq. There are 160+ US military bases around the world, BTW. We support them with our taxes. We spend over half the total military budget in the WORLD on our military now.

To ask us to put everything in military terms (same simplistic focus as sportswriting), all the time, ála warbloggers is a shame.

No, I've never made it through a Chomsky book.

(on my second beer, forgive me)


Posted by: evil-barry on Aug 26, 03 | 7:39 pm


Notify me when someone replies to this post?




Powered by pMachine