From: Kai Becker (kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 18:43:41 MST
Am Freitag, 21. Februar 2003 19:22 schrieb John K Clark:
> > And BTW, the fact that some person should be removed from
> >power doesn't automatically justify the use of military force
> >against this person
>
> Because Saddam has a "right" to remain dictator of Iraq?
No, because the people - you have cut my text most carefully - should be
able to decide for themself. In case of Iraq, some external help is
necessary, yes, but preemtive wars are obviously not the wisest way of
"help" in this case. This is at least what even what the iraqi opposition
says. Remember that you'll not kill Saddam and his loyal followers, but
mostly the victims of his regime he'll send to the front. Remember that
_if_ there are any garage type WMD fabrications, the chances are high
that they'll fall into the hands of some warrior group in the region,
before any US troops get secure them.
Besides, I don't believe a bit of this "we have to bring freedom and
democracy" rubbish. This will be a side effect, if it will happen at all.
For me, this seems to be the holy war of some lunatic who spreads and
uses fear as an instrument of terror and manipulation of the masses.
These so called "evidences" wouldn't stand any trial. Yet the US regime
thinks they are good enough to start a war that will shake the whole
middle east.
The US administration still deals with mad men and dictators all over the
planet for profit, resources and against the current enemy of the month.
Financial and military support for Pakistan for example, how ridiculous.
They _do_ have nuclear missile. Their secret service, ISI, not only
receives funding, weapons like Stinger missiles etc. and military
informations from the CIA, but also have good and personal relations to
the Taliban in Afghanistan. And last year, we almost had a war between
Pakistan and India. Or take North Korea. They _have_ WMDs and they have a
critical conflict with the South. They are desperate enough to threaten
the complete UN. And what do Mr. and Mrs. Hardliner from White House and
Pentagon say? Okay, we'll deal with it fully diplomatically.
One could get the impression that the US administration is more carefull
and diplomatic, the more WMDs a country has. Maybe they've made sure that
Saddam really has no WMDs and therefore it's safe enough to invade Iraq
:-)
> > If that would be the case, Mr. Bush should be very, very careful.
>
> Why? With a "right" and 50 cents you could buy yourself a Coke. You'd
> need more than a "right" to remove Mr. Bush from power with military
> force, you'd need , well, military force.
You're right. A passenger ticket for a 747 is a little bit more
expensive. But I heard dance hall's and subways are cheap these days -
and I think, with some small hand gun, one could free rides on a gasoline
ship, next time full speed into the harbor, yahooo! You think a war
against Iraq will make the world a safer place? Ha! It will turn Iraq
into a bazaar for weapons. And guess against whom these weapons wil be
used.
Kai
--
== Kai M. Becker == kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de == Bremen, Germany ==
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 19:10:13 MST