From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 20:06:32 MST
gts writes
> I must say that I am frightened about this war. I'm not a religious person
> but I find myself actually praying that Saddam does not have weapons of mass
> destruction ready and available to use against our troops, against Israel
> and/or Kuwait, and against his own people. If he really has WMD then it's
> going to be bloody hell.
Good reminder. Though the thought is that it's better now
than after he and his sons have ten times as many.
> Also, the world community looks to us to set an example in international
> relations. If we Americans assert that we have the legal and moral right to
> launch a pre-emptive strike against vague theoretical threats like Iraq,
> then what argument do we have to stop other countries from doing the same?
The United States did not just wake up on September 12 of 2001 and
decide that Iraq was a problem. U.N. resolutions *demanding* that
Iraq stop their behavior and disarm as they had agreed have been
going on for ten years!
> Why, for example, should China not launch a pre-emptive strike against
> Taiwan? And why not India against Pakistan or vice versa? And what about
> North Korea against its neighbors? If other countries follow our example
> then the world is going to be in deep shit over the next several decades.
Why have you forgotten that there has been no international
condemnation of Taiwan? Why doesn't it come to mind that
Taiwan has not been the subject of countless "resolutions",
did not invade anyone ever, has no interest in WMD, etc.?
> And what about the UN? According to the UN, we're going to war illegally in
> violation of the UN, supposedly because Iraq is illegally in violation of
> the UN. But wait... is the UN a world legal authority, or not? We can't have
> it both ways!
Well, neither can anyone else have it both ways. Enough is
enough. Personally, I see the U.N. as an only semi-effective
organizations for helping to focus world opinion, or as an
outlet for formalistic urges. What did it do when Russia
overran Chechnya? Where was it when the U.S.S.R. invaded
Hungary? What about Yugoslavia? Clinton and his friendly
allies didn't even bother to consult the U.N. Did that make
the attacks on Serbia illegal? What about Argentina's seizure
of the Falklands? Where was the U.N.?
Personally, I think that the U.S. has acted with incredible
restraint. Perhaps this was prudent because of the low esteem
the socialist world has for conservative U.S. presidents---would
they have objected so if Clinton had still been in power, and did
to Iraq what he did to Serbia?
> And that leaves Saddam *desperate*. He's backed into a corner, possibly with
> his finger on the trigger of chemical or biological weapons, or worse. If I
> were him then I would be thinking about how best to go out in a blaze of
> glory. Let's hope he doesn't really have the weapons that we accuse him of
> having.
Yes, indeed, let us hope he has not. Or at least that he
doesn't want to lose the support of France by using them
(snicker). Why would you be happier letting 5,000 children
a month die in Iraq due to sanctions, and let Hussein continue
to murder thousands of his countrymen each year for political
reasons? You are totally all right with allowing him to build
up a stockpile of weapons, and sooner or later sell them to
Al Qaeda?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 20:10:05 MST