>for war seems fairly uncomplicated and does not seem
>conditional on bold scientific claims.
I agree, the argument for war is fairly uncomplicated. The US
government wants to seize control of Iraqi oil supplies, redraw the
map of the Middle East in its own interests, and use its massive
military superiority to maintain and extend US global dominance. As
the now infamous September 2000 Project for the New American Century
report put it: ""While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
Hussein, " with the goal being "maintaining global U.S.
preeminence...and shaping the international security order in line
with American principles and interests." Or as Colin Powell told the
House Armed Services Committee, the U.S. needs to be "the bully on
the block" in order to "deter any challenger from ever dreaming of
challenging the U.S. on the world stage."
Perhaps we should have explained that "the people" doesn't mean "the