From: Ian Reilly (ianreilly@comcast.net)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 11:14:41 MST
Hi Mike - It's Ian again -
I read some other stuff of yours - particularly about the patients bill of
rights act & fine print creep - right on! and further, I agree with many of
your points - but there is certainly no standard libertarian stance on the
Iraq war. Further, I would fully support regime change - and am not against
dropping a few bombs to do it - or finding some other way to knock off or
buy off Saddam - but a unilateral campaign of "shock and awe" is criminal
and is sure to increase terrorism and conflict with the muslim world - not
to mention weaken the UN, Nato, US cohesion, the US economy, US civil
liberties -
I have heard your argument that Iraq is like 1920s or 30s Germany, and that
europe is guilty of appeasement - from more than a few pro-war voices.
To me, this analogy is, I don't really know how to say this without you
getting out your flame thower, but, please choose the term that is least
offensive - the argument is: a. simply dishonest propaganda b. propaganda
intended to remind the French of their debt to us c. a sign of ossified
brains that are still somehow frozen in pre-cold war days d. wild-eyed nutso
e. Paranoid
f. pathetically historically ignorant g. a function of a large group of
americans whose sole understanding of history comes from the history channel
and war movies- to me, it is all of these - depending on who is making the
argument. But when I hear intelligent people, such as yourself, (as well as
a good friend of mine) make this argument, I am TRULY perplexed. How in the
hell can you support an analogy that compares the relative economic,
military and intelligence powers of Iraq vs. Europe, Russia, US & Arab
countries combined - to 1930s Germany vs. Europe, Russia, US & allied Arab
countries? Where are Iraq's allies - like Germany's Italy, Spain & Japan?
Syria? oh no! (yes i know I am neglecting the Russian/Nazi nonaggression
pact - justifiably but that's another issue) Iraq is militarily and
economically defeated - destroying it's own weapons, letting UN inspectors
roam the country, under sanctions, etc. This is not the Nazis taking over
the sudentenland & merging with austria. Iraq is under our thumb. If the
argument is that at some point in the future Iraq might develop nukes - A.
Doubtful B. Iraq attacking another country would certainly be total suicide
or Saddam is going to give suitcase nukes to terrorists? Don't you think he
would get caught even if, which is an extraordinary longshot - he could do
it? By far the greater danger along these lines is Iran, which does have a
nuke program, is run by relgious fanatics, etc. The HUGE problem i see with
"shock & awe" bombing of iraq is that Iran will respond, like N. Korea, by
stepping up its nuke capability, clamping down on opposition parties &
reform efforts, and really getting ready for Jihad. If we show Iran that
Iraq's steps towards disarmament only lead us to invade, Iran will ignore
the nuclear reg. agencies & proceed full steam with their nuke program. On
the other hand, Libya was brought around with a few well targeted bombs -
and is now even talking about compensating the victims of the lockerbie
bombing. Iraq is far more like Libya that Nazi germany. Pakistan could also
be taken over by fanatics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 11:36:29 MST