| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Re: Why we`re going to Iraq? |
From: "Adam Flinton"
Yup......
It is a christian man's duty to bring enlightenment to the heathen savages.
Adam
"David N. Barnett" wrote in message
news:836r5vo0l634ctrel8acbl859i4en6sg02{at}4ax.com...
> Here's a message I copied from the Compu$erve Cars Forum, written by
> one Matt Wienstein. I suspect that it is a frighteningly accurate
> analysis:
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> The recent Frontline Report is perhaps the best exposition of where
> this Iraq deal came from. It derives from the unhappiness of certain
> "Hawks" in the Bush I administration who belived the failure to finish
> off Saddam and to support the Shiite/Kurdish rebellions in 1992 were a
> disastrous mistake. Among these were Donald Rumsfeld & Paul
> Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz expanded on this in a series of think tank
> supported papers & he actually tried to convince the Clinton
> administration to use its power to "regime change" Saddam's
> government. But he was largely (tho' not entirely) ignored. Anyway,
> when he & Rumsfeld were invited into the Bush II adminsitration, they
> began positioning for a new assault on Saddam. 9/11 was both an
> interruption of their internal campaign, but also an opportunity to
> attach Saddam to the anti-terrorism war. Their theory (which has
> NOTHING to do with oil) is that now that the US is the only superpower
> and can act unrestrained by other states, it has both the ability and
> the OBLIGATION to advance human rights, democracy (& maybe free
> markets, too) to places governed by violent, dictatorial regimes.
> Also, democratic regimes never make war on other democratic regimes.
> Therefore, the spread of democracy spreads peace and reduces the costs
> and liklihoods of war. Moreover, Saddam, is a persistent impediment
> to peace between Israelis & Palestinians. Removing him would advance
> peace there.
>
> This position seems to me to be similar to the Victorian "white man's
> burden" argument for Imperialism. That is, the obligation to compel
> others to act rightfully follows from the power to do so. It's an
> evangelical argument that may not be shared by all of us but it is
> understood by Evengelical Christians -- including Geo Bush AND Tony
> Blair.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> --dnb
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/1.45)SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 @PATH: 379/1 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.