From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 03:57:31 MST
John Grigg wrote:
>
> Seriously, it is the indirect attack done through third parties in the form of terrorism which worries us about Iraq. We created this Frankenstein monster and now we must go kill it.
>
There is no good proof to date that Iraq is behind terrorism to
any significant extent. So that can't be a serious supported
reason for the proposed action. The thing about terrorism is
that it can come from most any corner with sufficient rage and
suprisingly little financing. It doesn't require a Saddam.
Getting rid of him will do nothing to decrease terrorism. Most
likely it will increase it.
> It's just very sad that several thousand U.S. troops may die in house to house fighting in Baghdad, but that's what they signed up for. I'm certain an oil company CEO would say that to his confidantes as they watch on the news the bodybags come home.
>
It is more than just very sad. It is morally reprehensible in
the extreme that we would waste the lives of those sworn to the
defense of the US in a senseless and unjustified aggression of
this kind. It is senseless that their lives would be wasted
putting ourselves and the world more at risk and increasing the
ill will towards us. This is NOT what they signed up to do.
> I think there MAY be very positive effects to the U.S. led toppling of Saddam's regime. When our forces have vanquished his large middle eastern nation and are occupying it, the entire region will once and for all see our now unrivaled power to crush our foes is to be dearly respected. Of course heavyhitters like Russia and China (even North Korea or "ally" Pakistan) are still off the list since we would be biting off more then we could chew. lol
>
So you believe that "our unrivaled power to crush our foes" is
what will draw the Middle East into freedom and democracy?
Really? Isn't it more likely to increasingly lead to the US and
all it stands for being hated as the worst sort of tyranny? Are
we reduced to "we will crush you if you resist"?
> I agree with Mez that the real potential problem is China. They have all the raw materials to over the next several decades grow into a serious regional if not global bully. I just hope they prove better than that.
>
But I thought you just praised being a global bully above, at
least when we do it. Apparently it is just fine and to be
applauded that we aren't "better than that".
> My father lives in New York City and I pray the consequences of our occupation of Iraq is not seeing him and millions of others being vaporized by a terrorist nuke.
>
If such consequences are remotedly possible, consequences that
we are supposed to be doing this to avoid, then just what the
hell do we think we are about?
> Pax Americana!
>
Peace.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST