From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 15:49:08 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>
>
>>Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>>War protestors around the world may be dismayed to learn
>>>the effect of their efforts on the population of Baghdad
>>>and on Saddam's government. The news is greeted with the
>>>greatest elation by the government and Mr. Hussein.
>>>Meanwhile the people ask, "Is it really true?", so often
>>>have they been lied to by their government-controlled
>>>media. I'm afraid it is, and those who strongly want
>>>to be rid of him must be greatly discouraged.
>>
>>What people anywhere would fail to be elated that their country
>>was not to be invaded and large sections of it blown up?
>
>
> Those who oppose Saddam and wish for a regime change. How
> much they *personally* fear the kind of war that'll happen
> must surely vary a lot from person to person.
>
I doubt very much that those who want a regime change within
Iraq are overly given to wanting an invasion of foreign troops
and in the main determination by foreign countries of what the
new government and its leader should be. I doubt many of them
believe that further destruction of the countries infrastructure
and further death of its citizens is the best way.
>
>>Exactly how is this bad news or something that should
>>dismay those of us who point out that there is no good
>>reason for this proposed war?
>
>
> I'm surprised that I should have to spell it out. But
> that merely shows how each of us finds the viewpoints
> and arguments of others comparatively alien. You do
> grant the possibility (though I expect you to think
> it somewhat less probable?) that the uniform pressure
> from the armed might of the world might cause him to
> accept one of the deals that is talked about, and just
> abdicate? Surely if he knew that it was a certainty
> that he was going to be captured by the allies, he
> would be more likely to choose exile.
>
I do not think we are just positioning to get Saddam to stand
down in the least. I find your argument spurious. Also I don't
believe it is a legitimate tool of diplomacy or reasonable
international relations to threaten a country with emminent
invasion and mayhem unless it changes its leadership to suit you.
>
>>>So while the effect of the demonstrations on the Bush
>>>administration and its allies will be minimal, of course,
>>>we can expect that any thoughts Saddam Hussein has of
>>>abdicating or to destroying his WMD are put on hold.
>>
>>Alleged WMD. We have no proof. Zero, Nada. No reason that
>>stands scrutiny has been given for the carnage and cost,
>>immediate and likely consequent, of this proposed action.
>
>
> All the news reports and discussions I've seen refer to
> a number of WMD that he had in 1996, and for which he has
> failed to account. What do you think happened to them?
>
They allege various things but where the hell is the beef?
These allegations, even if all true which is extremely doubtful,
would still be insufficient for the proposed action and the
likely results.
>
>>>This resembles ever so much the Vietnam debacle a
>>>generation ago, the main difference being that in
>>>addition to the encouragement and support given to
>>>the murderous Hanoi regime, western politicians were
>>>deeply affected by the demonstrations and protests
>>>as the years went by. At least this time there
>>>will not follow such tragic consequences.
>>
>>If western politicians do not heed the cry of the people the
>>consequences will be tragic indeed.
>
>
> Okay, we have you on record as predicting that. I'll go
> on record as predicting that the deaths of Western soldiers
> will be less than a thousand, and that because of the
> difficulty that capturing Baghdad poses. It is said that
> some sectors of the city will be so willing to depose Saddam
> that the first things that arriving troops should do is pass
> out pistols. Other areas are known to be quite loyal to
> Hussein.
>
The tragic consequences include the consequences to so-called
democracies of ignorning and overriding the voices of their own
people. There are many other negative consequences of the
proposed action, both planned consequences and likely ones. But
I was principally referring to the damage done to democracies by
"leaders" callously dimissing the wishes of the people. I am
surprised I had to spell that out to you.
> As for the deaths of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as General
> McCafferty (or McCaffrey) said, there's little telling. It's
> expected that the Allied propaganda leaflets already dropped
> will cause the main Iraqi army units to surrender quickly, but
> that the Republican Guard units will not. Civilian casualties
> will be almost entirely limited to Baghdad, and will be much
> less than in other wars in which a capital city was conquered
> (e.g. Berlin) because of modern capabilities---no block by
> block, street by street fighting.
>
So our unwarranted act of agression is something you think we
can "get away with" with relatively low body count so we should
proceed? May history have mercy on such attitudes.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 15:46:24 MST