From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 09:39:53 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> ...
>
>But the above *motives* can lead to actions and effects
>that some people on this list approve of.
>
There might, however, be some doubts as to the proper techniques to
achieve these ends:
>(1) non-proliferation of WMD
>
Considering that nobody strong is being attacked, the lesson learned
might be "Achieve redundant delivery capability before you are caught".
>(2) diminishing support for terrorists
>
Reports from Egypt indicate that the opposite is being accomplished.
The government is using violent methods to suppress dissent, resulting
in an increase of violent opposition.
>(3) breaking monopolistic control of oil
>
This isn't being attempted. Be honest. The US govt. is attempting to
place monopolistic control of oil under it's control. Some say that
it's the oil companies, and that the govt. is merely a front.
Plausible. But whoever is doing this, they aren't planning to make the
rewards available to all.
>(4) punishing the abrogation of treaties and agreements
>
Perhaps. Some of them, anyway. If the other side is sufficently powerful.
>(5) giving the evil and murderous Iraqi regime what
> it richly deserves
>
OK. I grant that. Giving them evil and murder might be seen as
equitable. But the main people who end up paying won't be the people
who were, themselves, evil and murderous. So I can't see feeling good
about this.
>(6) instilling fear in small dictatorships in general, and
> also respect for the West's values on human rights
>Lee
>
Try "instilling fear in governments in general, if they have anything
that they think the US govt. might someday want".
The Iraqui government is evil and vile. And we put them in power. We
can't claim clean hands, or a high moral ground here. Self-interest we
can claim. If we lied a bit less, I think that people would be more
accepting. At least they'd have a chance of knowing where they stood.
E.g.: There's a lot of vile and evil governments on the planet. Iraq
isn't the worst. So claiming that that's why the US govt. is going
after them is silly. There are reasons, but they don't become stronger
by lying about them.
P.S.: If you made a deal with someone who held a knife to your throat,
would you feel that honor compelled you to abide by it? Practicality
might, but I can't see that honor would. So I can't feel self-righteous
about Iraq breaking the treaties that they agreed to. Saddened, yes.
But I don't see it as demonstrating that they are without honor. Merely
that they are trying to weasle out of a promise that they made to a
bully. In a manner that appears to me to be foolish. (But I'm also not
sure of the evidence. Different people seem to be giving different
stories, so Iraq may just be being set up. [Well, Saddam doesn't
deserve any sympathy ... but neither do most governmental leaders.])
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:04 MST