From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 02:16:35 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Mitch writes
>
>
>>Let us cut to the chase, if we may, and re-direct the emphasis of this thread. I say the war will occur soon any way, no matter
>
> what the protestors say or do. I am in the pro-war camp, myself, though I cry my crocodile tears, I see no other way out of this.
> Big freakin' deal right? Fair enough. Now what will those anti-War camp do now?
>
> *Violent protests?
> *A reign of molotov cocktails ?
> *Sit-ins ?
> *Laying on tracks carrying military equipment ?
> *A stern letter to the Times ?
> *Death threats, pipe bombs ?
> *Denial of service email attacks ?
> *taking up arms against the American Imperialists ?
> *Making common cause with the Iraqis, the Iranians,
> the North Koreans?
>
> I am curious about this. How can you compel the US to obey
> your will? What about breaking diplomatic relations, economic
> warfare of some sort?
It is you pro-war because we can think of anything better folks
who are into forcing obedience. We will simply keep pointing
out just how unjustifiable and wrong these choices are. We will
also find what means we can, peaceful for those who actually
believe in peace but not necessarily ineffective for all that,
to oppose this action.
> <
>
> Hal posted about "stealth democracy" and the researchers
> he quoted had me pegged pretty well: I wouldn't make (myself)
> a great study of policy issues confronting my country, but
> rather trust people whose ideology is close to mine, and
> who are presumably paid professionals.
>
I am sure many people in many aggressor nations and budding
fascist states said the same thing at some critical points in
history. How is this different from leaving the moral questions
in the hands of those paid to consider them? What does that
make you?
> But my *attitude* towards, say, France or Germany invading
> Bosnia would have been "What affair is it of my country?
> That's in Europe." To be honest, I felt the same way about
> Russia and Chechnya. So one other item to put on the table
> is, "Perhaps other nations should mind their own business.
> What happens in Iraq doesn't *directly* concern them.*
>
> Now I must quickly say that of course, talk is cheap and
> everyone (including other countries, of course) is quite
> entitled to their opinion. But from the way some sound,
> it's as if they regard the upcoming invasion as taking
> place on their own soil!
>
So, it is none of their business if we invade some other country
but it is our business to invade some other country that isn't
our business? No, wait.
> As for "today, yes, it's Iraq, but tomorrow it may be Iceland",
> that is so silly it hardly deserves comment. I can just see
> ten years of pressure from dozens and dozens of countries,
> innumerable U.N. resolutions, thousands of flights over
> Iceland to figure out just what those scoundrels are up to,
> etc., etc. ;-)
>
Were you napping when Bush declared it as US doctrine that we
can preemptively strike anywhere on Earth we feel threatened?
Assuming those paid to think about such things are actually
capable of meaning what they say, I think it is not too silly to
worry about such things.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 02:13:10 MST