From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 19:10:00 MST
> In a message dated 2/17/2003 12:59:38 AM Central Standard Time,
> oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au writes: Wait a second... the
> US has weapons
> of mass destruction (and seems to want them),"
> ##Emlyn, please don't make such unfounded charges without any
> evidence. Of
> course I do understand why you wouldn't offer evidence of
> that charge --
> there isn't any.
The US has weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons. It really does!
Just ask your government. I wasn't judging the morality of it, just stating
that it is so.
>
> You continue, "has invaded its neighbours,"
> ## Gee, and the Mexicans & Canadians haven't said a single
> word about that.
> Where, when, & what are you talking about Emlyn? Are you
> discussing Germany
> during the Second World War? Are you talking about when we
> made the drug
> bust in Panama? Or are you discussing when we took the anti
> aircraft weapons
> away from the construction workers in Grenada that were
> threatening our
> medical students?
Maybe I am. I would also have included all of South America as neighbours of
the U.S., which may be overly broad of me.
>
> You continue again, "is fairly experienced at trying to
> control the world's
> supply of oil,"
> ##Now you inserted enough modifiers in that sentence that it
> is hard to
> decide if you really meant what you said or not.
Ok, I meant it.
> Like other
> countries the US
> has tried to bargain down the price of oil.
Indeed. I don't think that's wrong, particularly (oil? couldn't care less),
I'm just pointing it out in relation to the post I was originally replying
to.
> But, what I
> don't get is this --
> you are perceptive enough to notice all the things the evil
> rascally US has
> done wrong and still you didn't notice that the US had
> effectively occupied
> Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War. Then when the reason
> for their being
> invited there had been accomplished the US loaded up and
> departed. Imagine
> that, they had the oil supply of Saudi Arabia right under
> their thumbs and
> they gave it back without delay and without discussion? Of
> course a fact
> like that wouldn't make it through your "selectometer" would it?
Well, I've pretty much stopped pretending to understand the motivations of
the U.S. government. That was pre-September 11, and before the current
administration. Plus, the Saudis are pretty well behaved vis-a-vis oil
supply, are they not?
>
> You continued yet again, "and has used chemical weapons on at
> least its own
> troops and certainly on the citizens of other countries
> (think Vietnam)."
> ##Yes, I remember going through gas mask training three times
> during my
> tenure
> in the Navy. I imagine others had the same experience. To
> convince us that
> we really were in tear gas they made us remove our masks;
> march to the front
> of the room, recite name, rank and serial number; and then
> march out of the
> room. If you rushed at any point you had to go to the rear
> of the line and
> wait without a mask. Stories have been repeated that to get
> Viet Cong out of
> tunnels the US used the same gases we use on criminals in
> this country. You
> evidently thought we would be ever so much nicer if we had
> killed them
> instead of getting them to surrender.
Well, maybe it is justifiable, that's all well and good. I wasn't debating
the justifiability, just pointing out the simple fact of it.
>
> Then you wrote this, "I'm sure other countries would fit that
> bill, too.
> North Korea would probably fit rather well if it had oil,
> which is morally
> equivalent unless you propose that having power over some of
> the world's oil
> is somehow morally damning."
> ##Emlyn, I don't know what you were trying to say in that
> last little bit.
> Please take it back and rewrite it.
> Ron h.
>
OK, I'll type slower.
John Clark had listed points about Iraq having and wanting WMD, controlling
world oil supply, using chemical weapons on its citizens and others, and
invading its neighbours, as justification for invading Iraq. My point is
that many countries, including the US, fulfil the same criteria. Even more
fulfil the criteria if you leave out the point about oil. I contend that if
the point about oil cannot be left out, it means the assertion is being made
that oil is a good reason for war.
Note that none of this particular line of argument involved judging Iraq or
the U.S. or anyone else on the morality of these points, or required
establishing that the points were actually true wrt Iraq. I merely wish to
challenge these criteria as justifications for declaring war.
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 19:12:23 MST