From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 15:31:08 MST
John K Clark wrote:
> "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:
>
On the contrary, I have addressed the so-called reason ad naseum.
> 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 I and others have pointed out, the so-called Kuwaiti invasion
was greatly inflated and partially a setup by America. We
pretty much told Saddam that it was alright to take some action
against Kuwaiti violations the week before. We then inflated
what was going on and faked (as later came out) satellite
evidence of a massive Iraqi Army maneuvering to also invade
Saudi Arabia. We faked such emotional tear=jerkers as the
testimony before the Senate of Iraqi soldiers barging into a
hospital and taking babies out of an incubator and throwing them
to the floor. Faked it at just the right time to ok the
agressions we already have planned. Since then we have not only
imposed sanctions that are quite ruinous to the well-being of
the Iraqi people. The US and Britain have unilaterally imposed
no-fly zones and conducted bombing runs on various manufacturing
centers on the grounds that perhaps they could somehow be used
for producing weapons.
> As dangerous as Saddam is now just imagine if that advise had been followed,
Saddam is far less dangerous than Israel or North Korea or even
Pakistan. He is orders of magnitude less dangerous to world
peace than the only superpower that now claims the right to
unilaterally bomb anyone and anything preemptively that it
thinks might perhaps be a threat. Get serious.
> today he'd still be in Kuwait and because he saw how easy it was he'd almost
> certainly have annexed Saudi Arabia too.
Again, there is no proof he had ever any such intention or the
means to do so.
> If that had happened Saddam would
> have his hand on the throttle of the world economy by controlling the price
> of oil.
As opposed to us first invading and occupying Iraq to our
satisfaction and financial gain and then finding ample reason to
do the same with our former "friends" in Saudi Arabia? The
difference is, we are quite capable of doing it and have
expressed intentions in that direction.
> 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.
>
As opposed to what we propose to spend trillions on? Let us
address the friggin' beam in our own eye once in a great while
before beating our chests over some little splinter like Saddam.
Really.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 15:28:50 MST