Re: Iraq: the case for decisive action

From: Rüdiger (rkoch@rkoch.org)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 15:42:57 MST


--- Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>
> Sounds great, Europeans get to continue doing business with Saddam
> selling
> him the parts, service and equipment he needs to develop &
> manufacture WMDs.
> You get to continue buying under the table those things Saddam needs
> to get

In most members of the EU this is illegal and by no means protected by
the govt in any "under the table" kind of way. If it were so, don't you
think that Saddam would have that stuff since long ago?

> hard currency and when the mushroom cloud rises over New York City or
> we are
> dropping like flies from bacteriological warfare you get to yell
> piously once

Do you really believe that we want that to happen (or at least don't
care)?

> again, "Don't you Yankee gunslingers go off half-cocked. You will
> ruin our
> markets." Oh, I forgot, you will also nod agreement so sincerely
> when Sadaam
> next starves his people by spending that hard currency on weapons but
> not on
> food or medicine and then blames the American embargo.

This is a UN embargo. A Freudian? (World==America==USA ?) Actually I
thought that America is the big continent composed of South and North
America.

> Rudiger, the Europeans have played the game of trading with
> all sides
> during the First World War, Second World War, and you are doing it
> now.
> Ron h.

Ron, that's personal. And wrong, too. For instance Germany didn't play
that game of trading with all sides: We were one side. The UK didn't
play that game either: They were firmly on the other side. Most of the
continent was occupied by Germany during most of the WWII.

But that's history. Meaningless for todays politics. We're not arguing
about Saddam being a villain. We're arguing whether it's smart to poke
a stick into a bee's nest - that's what the middle east is. The risks
of getting stung are pretty high and anything but an immediate victory
can bring awkward results. History is full of battles that went wrong.

This isn't cowardice. Applying force can be OK, but only if the threat
is substantial enough. In fact this is one of the major worries of
other countries: That the US' threshold for starting a war is getting
lower and lower. Most of the friends of the US don't want a new Roman
Empire and I hope the Americans don't want that either. We're anytime
at the side of an American partner as the example of Afghanistan shows.
An American bully is not welcome, though.

-Rudiger



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST