From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 18:42:41 MST
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
>
> Do you believe there is anything like "international law" or
> that there should be? Do you believe that might makes right
> between nations or is there some set of standards, whether you
> call it "international law" or not, on which the actions of
> nations in regards to one another should be judged?
I have found that pacifists who keep harping on the "international law"
phrase know shockingly little about international law, including
yourself, and those who I've encouraged to study up on the subject seem
to have stubbornly chosen to retain their ignorance, including
yourself.
>
> The best reasons for not going to war are:
> 1) It will not make America any "safer" and could make the
> international situation much more dangerous;
It will make America immensely safer, because with a stable and
pluralistic, democratic Iraq, we will defuse the arguments of the
anti-US muslim radicals who claim we are against democratic governments
in muslim nations. With allies like Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq as
examples, muslim despots will find themselves increasingly isolated
even within their own countries.
Furthermore, with a democratic Iraq, Iraqi oil will be freely sold on
the world markets, causing oil prices to plummet to $10/bbl ranges,
triggering budget deficits in muslim despot nations, forcing them to
cut their funding of terrorist groups.
>
> 2) It will cost a large fortune when we are already economically
> tanked;
We are hardly economically tanked. Last year's economy grew at a 3.0
percent rate, hardly anemic. One thing that would help immeasurably
would be to rescind the TRA of 1998 so that telecom companies can make
a profit running fiber into US households.
>
> 3) It will dirictly and indirectly result in the real deaths of
> a guesstimated 100,000 - 1,000,000 people.
Bullshit. Absolute hogwash. Deaths from the Gulf War were somewhere
between 40,000-100,000 and those were almost all combatants. Precision
guidance has improved immeasurably since then. We waged a much broader
campaign in Afghanistan than we did in GW I, yet on 5,000 deaths
occured.
With a quasi-independent Kurd government in the north acting as a
northern base, much better than the Northern Alliance served in
Afghanistan, and acting as liasons between US forces and Iraqi military
units, I expect that we won't even need to destroy as much Iraqi
equipment as we did the first time to achieve even higher surrender
rates.
>
> 4) Iraq, even if it had everything we cannot prove it has, would
> not be a serious enough threat to justify the above nor would
> simple "regime change" remove any such threat;
A changed regime would be less likely to use any remaining WMD on their
own people, not to mention on others. If we assure that there is a
pluralistic government in place, and it looks like Khofi Annan is
organizing plans for such an occurence, they will likely willfully
dismantle their programs much as South Africa did.
>
> 5) The American people do not want this war and it will tear
> hell out the already fragile respect for government and law (not
> that they deserve much) if this war goes forward;
I see a majority in polls saying that it needs doing. I am quite sure
your chattering intelligentsia buddies don't like it, but their
opinions have never reflected those of the people.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST