From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:28:13 MST
In a message dated 3/17/2003 8:02:19 PM Central Standard Time,
paatschb@ocean.com.au writes: In the international community reputations
matter. The collateral damage to the US and to the interests of its citizens
has started already. The United States signed the United Nations Charter and
(under the Bush administration) resolution 1441. These are solemn agreements
made on very serious matters and any breaches of them and the consequences of
any breaches of them by the US (under the Bush administration) will remain on
the public record longer than Saddam Hussein or President Bush remain at the
head of their respective Nation states.
Brett,
We do take our international treaty obligations seriously but they are
not just binding on us.
Right now, we are in one of the toughest situations a person or nation
can be in. We are under threat by a person that has shot up one of our ships
without provocation, that has attempted to assassinate a past President of
ours, that is now threatening us by his conduct. That is to say 12 years ago
he signed a cease fire to give up certain weapons and undergo an inspection
process -- he has refused to do so to our satisfaction.
I should not have to repeat that. That I have to, in my opinion, is a
sign of bad faith on the part of those of you that are standing in opposition
to my country -- you have known all this for long since.
The situation is like the man being threatened by a shotgun:
-the man threatening us has been known to harm us in the past. Shall we
defend ourselves based on his threat? You would say "no" the threat is
insufficient.
-the man has a shot gun. Shall we defend ourselves when he opens the gun to
reload? You would say "no" the threat is insufficient.
-Should we defend ourselves after the gun is reloaded. You say "no" the
threat is insufficient.
-Should we defend ourselves when he has shouldered the shotgun? You say
"no", the theat is not sufficient.
-Should we defend ourselves after he has shot us? You say "no", he has not
killed us.
-Should our friends defend us after we are dead? You say "no", we are dead,
what good would it be to defend us now?
Without doubt there is no time that some one cannot argue against the
right to conduct a pre-emptive defense.
Please understand this. Sadaam Hussein has gone down the road of
threatening us in a manner that limits us to a pre-emptive defense.
We will not wait until you, or Sadaam, or the UN, or Germany, or
France says, "US, now you have permission to defend yourself."
We will decide when the time has come to protect ourselves and we will
decide what the best means of defense is.
Have a good day.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:35:22 MST