From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 14:24:48 MST
"Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>Frankly, Saddam as such is none of our business. [...]
>We would save a LOT more lifes if we dropped the
>sanctions tomorrow
I must be the only member of this list who doesn't know if this war is a
good idea or not. I do know there are valid reasons to be very nervous about
it but you haven't addressed any of them. Consider what you wrote above:
The sanctions started 12 years ago when Saddam invaded Kuwait, in the 6
months after that before the first war started many people (and you too I'd
be willing to bet money on) said there should be no war because sanctions
would work and make him leave Kuwait. Give sanctions a chance they said,
and now these same people say there shouldn't even be sanctions.
As dangerous as Saddam is now just imagine if that advise had been followed,
today he'd still be in Kuwait and because he saw how easy it was he'd almost
certainly have annexed Saudi Arabia too. If that had happened Saddam would
have his hand on the throttle of the world economy by controlling the price
of oil. He'd also be about a trillion dollars richer than he is today, and
he wouldn't be spending all that money on hospitals and candy for little
kids I can tell you that. It doesn't sound like a world I'd like to live in
and that's why Saddam is my business.
>continued inspections
The only reason the inspectors are allowed into Iraq is the threat of
military force breathing down Saddam's neck, the instant that force is
reduced the inspectors will be kicked out so fast it will make your head
spin and we'll be back to square one regarding his weapons of mass
destruction. It's interesting that just a few years ago the USA was saying
Iraq should not be allowed to sell more oil until the inspectors are let in
and France said inspectors were not important and Saddam should sell as much
oil as he wanted, now France says inspectors are vitally important and the
USA is just greedy for oil. Odd.
>It is guaranteed that many times that number of lives will be
>lost in the war
Guaranteed by who, you? Your prediction of the number of lives
that would be lost in the Afghanistan war was lousy.
> increased likelihood of terrorism
That would imply that the reason there has not been a terrorist attack in
the USA in the year and a half since 911 is that Islamic fundamentalists no
longer hate us sufficiently. I don't buy it. The reason is a lack of ability
(so far) not a lack of will.
>Many are there because this war has not been sufficiently
>justified for the costs in lives, finances,
Ok, I over spoke before, you did have one legitimate question and I don't
know the answer to it. I don't worry about making terrorists mad at us and I
don't worry about the injustice of depriving Saddam of the dictatorship of
Iraq, I do worry about civilians killed be nerve gas, house to house
fighting in Baghdad, Smallpox, Iraq turning into a Arab Yugoslavia, and 1500
oil well fires. I'm not saying any of that will happen I'm saying it might.
There are plenty of valid reasons to be apprehensive no need to make up BS
ones. There are dangers in going to war and dangers in not going to war, I
just hope Bush is right about which is greater.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 14:27:59 MST