From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 18:46:25 MST
I must say that I am frightened about this war. I'm not a religious person
but I find myself actually praying that Saddam does not have weapons of mass
destruction ready and available to use against our troops, against Israel
and/or Kuwait, and against his own people. If he really has WMD then it's
going to be bloody hell.
Like Russia, China, Germany, France, and many other important countries, I
just cannot find good reason to support this attack on Iraq. I realize
Saddam is a thug and murderer and a ruthless dictator, but I have not seen a
convincing case that he presents an imminent threat to the USA. In my mind I
cannot justify a pre-emptive strike when there is not a clear and imminent
threat!
Also, the world community looks to us to set an example in international
relations. If we Americans assert that we have the legal and moral right to
launch a pre-emptive strike against vague theoretical threats like Iraq,
then what argument do we have to stop other countries from doing the same?
Why, for example, should China not launch a pre-emptive strike against
Taiwan? And why not India against Pakistan or vice versa? And what about
North Korea against its neighbors? If other countries follow our example
then the world is going to be in deep shit over the next several decades.
Bush's case that Saddam is a sponsor of international terrorism is weak at
best. Saddam is more like a Mafia boss who rules his tiny corner of the
earth with an iron fist. He's an asshole and a bad-guy, for sure, but
there's no clear evidence that he supports international terrorists like the
Al-Qaeda. In fact Osama bin Laden calls Saddam a "socialist infidel"! Saddam
is basically a secularist dictator, with little sympathy for the Holy Jihad
that motivates the real international terrorists.
It looks to me, and to much of the world community it seems, that Bush is
waging this war in an emotional reaction to 9/11, and because he doesn't
want his dad to go down in history as the president who didn't finish the
Gulf War.
Our only important friend here is Tony Blair, but several of Tony Blair's
cabinet members have already resigned because of Blair's support of this
war.
Last I heard even our good friend and neighbor Canada was refusing to send
troops.
And what about the UN? According to the UN, we're going to war illegally in
violation of the UN, supposedly because Iraq is illegally in violation of
the UN. But wait... is the UN a world legal authority, or not? We can't have
it both ways!
Bush's response to the UN argument is that he believes Iraq is an imminent
threat to the USA, and that we are a sovereign country, and that it's his
responsibility to protect the American people. I agree wholeheartedly that
we are a sovereign country and that we don't need permission from the UN to
wage war, but the argument that Iraq is a serious threat to the USA is total
bullshit. We bombed the hell out of Iraq 12 years ago, and for most of the
time since then we've restrained Saddam with weapons inspections and
economic sanctions. As far as his conventional forces and weapons go, Saddam
can barely fight his way out of a paper bag.
And that leaves Saddam *desperate*. He's backed into a corner, possibly with
his finger on the trigger of chemical or biological weapons, or worse. If I
were him then I would be thinking about how best to go out in a blaze of
glory. Let's hope he doesn't really have the weapons that we accuse him of
having.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 18:56:21 MST