Re: IRAQ Reasons for War (was: RE: First Announcement of the Secretary of PUKE...)

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 05:54:21 MST

  • Next message: gts: "RE: (MEDIA) More enthusiasm than news in Fox's coverage of war"

    Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, matus wrote:
    >
    >
    >>As Robert Bradbury pointed out, leaving Saddam in power will cause more
    >>deaths of Iraqi people then taking him out of power. He asked anyone
    >>to present a reasonable challenge to that notion, and received no
    >>responses as of yet.
    >

    I didn't reply because I don't believe the general case or
    especially this specific case can be reduced to such simple
    equations. If it a few less people die due to one course over
    the other immediately but set into motion a series of
    repurcussions that lead to many more deaths this clearly would
    not be a win. But there is no way to easily quantify these
    fuller costs. Those the equation is not of much value to me at
    this time.
    >
    >>We do not support war because we like to see people die, or get our jollies
    >>off of watching bombs fall in Iraq, and until you understand the reasons
    >>*why* those of us who actually support this effort support it, and address
    >>those points, your comments will not persuade anyone.
    >

    The argument is rather lacking when we supported Saddam for
    years when he was just as bad as now and far more powerful and
    dangerous. We have supported far worse than Saddam. To turn
    around now and say we are justified in invading a country that
    is no clear and present threat to us on the basis of freeing it
    from the evils of Saddam is hardly convincing argument.

    > People who promote "peace at all costs" simply do not recognize
    > that these technologies have the capacity for eliminating civilization
    > as we know it (note my recent posts on SARS -- and that is probably
    > a natural situation).
    >

    Straw man. Peace instead of unilateral and preemptive war of
    indefinite duration, very shaky justification, and unknown
    multilvel costs IS NOT "peace at all costs". Please desist from
    bringing out this tired and grossly inaccruate phrasing.

    > I'll make an assertion to people who object to my position (or the
    > activities of the U.S./U.K./Au) -- *you* are *clueless* with respect
    > to how bad it could get and how close people who have virtually
    > no respect for "human dignity" are to bridging the gap to the point
    > where they are executing your worst nightmare. How long do you need
    > to watch Al-Jazeera before you figure out that they are promoting
    > the "unextropic" concept that they want you ("us") dead?
    >

    I am not in the least "clueless" about this. Unfortunately for
    your argument it has nothing to with our current actions in
    Iraq. Do you believe with Mr. Bush that they "want us dead" just
    because they are E-V-I-L and we are so filled with Light and all
    that is Good?

    - samantha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 05:55:01 MST