[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Mon Dec 22 13:54:36 UTC 2003


On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, none wrote:
> Haliburton is willing to take the risk to get that infrastructure
> repaired.  Alex is right on here.

What risk?  The US public is paying for the cost of repairs and
Haliburton is reaping all the benefit.  There is no risk when you're
handed a money-printing machine and told to use it.

> As far as the erosion of personal liberties argument, a little hardship
> in time of war is to be expected.

First, if you're going to ask that of the American people, then have the
courtesy to declare war.

Second, these are not simply temporary wartime programs.  These are
permanent institutions within the federal government.

> We need to be with the troops at least in spirit.

There is always a need for dissent.

> It's too early for the level of talk about personal liberties being lost
> that is going around, the president has talked about having powers he
> hasn't used and likely won't.

History has shown that it's very easy to take away freedoms and very
difficult to get them back.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilence.  The Bush administration has
not been vigilant against infringments on our liberties and that is either
negligence or outright maliciousness.  In other words, he is a tyrant or a
fool.  There is no third option.

> Saddham tried to buy missiles from North Korea.

There is no evidence to support those allegations.  This was part of the
scare package that the Pentagon put together.  Every single point in that
package was either refuted by fact or proven to be made up.

> It's easier to fight a man before he acquires weapons of mass
> destruction than is to wait till such weapons are visible, then attack.

Sure, maybe we should just occupy every nation... just in case.  It's
easier to do it now, before they suspect we might want to!

> It's safe to say he would have had terrible weapons eventually and use
> them against Iran, Israel, or even our troops.

That is NOT safe to say.  Ask any of the UN inspectors.  Read Scott
Ritter's book on the subject.

It's probably true that he WANTED those things, but it simply wouldn't
have been possible to put together an effective weapons program without
raising red flags all over the world.

> Don't come out against a corporation just because it's a corporation.

Woah, woah, woah.  A corporation is a legal entity whose sole purpose is
profit-making.  It provides psychological and moral justification for
inhumanity and ruthlessness.  It is an unaccountable private tyranny over
men.  It is its very nature to be brutal when it can.  There is no
mechanism by which enlightened ideals must be observed by such an entity.

> It is just as wrong to prejudge people because they are from labor
> unions as being against any employer needs before their own.

That SHOULD be the attitude of any laborer.  That is to say, a labor
union's purpose is to put the workers before all other considerations.

> Business against labor is not a good thing in any country.

Business and labor have diametrically opposed goals.  Business will always
be against labor, therefore labor should always be against business.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list