Do you need some reasons?

A nice cynical kick from an article on some more reasons to attack Iraq:

“Anxious to get on with the invasion of Iraq, a conflict in which the U.S. president has threatened to use nuclear weapons, Bush last week came up with a new reason to invade. “An attack from (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy,” Bush told reporters at his Texas ranch. “Our economy is strong, it’s resilient, we’ve got to continue to make it strong and resilient. This economy cannot afford to stand an attack”. Why rely on the old tools of monetary and fiscal policy to shore up a stagnant economy when pre-emptive nuclear attack is quicker and more reliable?”
“It is one thing to argue that Iraq poses a threat to the survival of the U.S. and its allies (a case that has never been substantiated); but it is quite another to argue that the West has the right to kill tens of thousands of people in another country in order to keep the economy over here resilient.”
“Axworthy implies that by invading Iraq, the West would be doing the Iraqi people a favour. But he never explains how he knows this. How can he possibly know what most Iraqis would choose, given the options of continuing to live under Saddam or facing an imminent U.S. military attack in which members of their family might actually die? But then we’re getting a little off topic from the real issues - like what impact a U.S. invasion would have on consumer confidence, the turn-out at the mall and the overall resilience of the U.S. economy.”

See it here.

Posted by Ian at January 6, 2003 09:31 PM | TrackBack §