consequences of U.S. warmaking
BrownBingb at aol.com
Mon Jan 27 13:30:07 MST 2003
Mark Jones wrote: < . Blair's public line has been that it is
necessary to disarm or depose Saddam in order to prevent the spread of
terrorism, but it is obviously more rational to suppose that attacking
Iraq is highly likely to result in fearsome revenge attacks on
capitalist states. >
Paul F. <I don't think that there is that much danger of a sustained wave of
attacks in the USA, Britain or other belligerent states in the
forthcoming war. I remember during the first Gulf War scary reports in
the press about imminent terror attacks against Western powers. What
happened? Nothing. -clip>
Charles B. : It was not "imminent" or immediate in relation to the first Gulf
War, but wasn't the Sept. 11 attack likely CAUSED by the U.S. ongoing war on
Iraq ? This seems like the most important pragmatic argument we must make to
the American people against an attack on Iraq now: eventually , somebody will
get us back; Sept. 11 didn't just fall out of the sky; it was a retaliation
for U.S. mass murder "over there". Sept. 11 means "everything has changed".
No longer can the U.S. go around the world making war without a cost in the
"homeland" or in the tourist population, as it has since the Korean war .
America, get real about what your government has been doing across the globe
for all this time. You are not innocents abroad.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism