Re: Giant anti-war demonstration in Melbourne

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 09:33:07 MST

  • Next message: Hubert Mania: "Re: Media Bias"

    Avatar's post on the Melbourne anti-war demonstration and Hubert's comments
    force me to raise a sticky question.

    "When do we act?"

    Everyone is careful to say that they do not support Saddam Hussein but
    nobody seems to have a concrete plan for getting rid of him. And they
    fail to mention the *real* loss of human life of allowing him to remain
    in power (due to the sanctions against Iraq) and the potential for future
    losses of human life should he remain in power (odds seem against Saddam
    undergoing a miraculous transformation into a peacenik from his current
    orientation of restoring the Arab/Islamic world to power with him as
    its leader).

    Mind you, I am not in favor of a war if containment can work. *BUT*
    I've seen no reasonable discussion on whether the possible number of
    lives saved by going to war and eliminating Saddam will exceed the
    number of lives that might be lost in such a war.

    The entire "peace" movement I see here in Seattle (and perhaps
    in Melbourne or Germany) seems to be based on the concept of
    "no war ever".

    The most recent episode of "West Wing" that I've seen here in the
    U.S. was quite interesting. ["West Wing" for those of you outside
    of the U.S. is a prime time TV show about the intense environment
    at the top levels of the executive branch within the "White House".]
    The President, at his second inauguration chose to adopt a policy
    that the U.S. would intervene in international confrontations using
    only the basis of "moral correctness".

    The basis for this position is a fictitious confrontation in Africa
    presumably derived from the events of the Rwanda slaughter which
    the U.S., Europe, Australia, and the U.N. were content to ignore.

    Given the actions Saddam has taken against both foreign armies
    (e.g. Iranian soldiers) as well as his own citizens, is this
    man not a war criminal and guilty of crimes against humanity?
    And if so -- *what* should the world be doing about bringing
    him to justice?

    IMO, sticking ones head in the sand and hoping the problem will
    simply "go away" isn't an extropic approach. Go read the history
    books on WWII to see how far that approach will get you.

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 09:35:31 MST