From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 16:41:51 MDT
> And the same could be said of Saddam. However, Saddams moral
> goals, that of remaining a murderous dictators, are far more
> repugnant that the Coalitions moral goals. Do you agree?
Hardly; both are seeking to maintain power.
> If
> Saddam had backed down, there would have been no senseless
> waste of time, energy, money, goodwill, and ~20 million
> Iraqis would have been freed without one drop of Blood being
> shed. Yet you and others still insist the coalition bears
> the moral culpability.
I was planning on releasing this to the press Monday morning, but....
"President Bush. It pleases me to inform you that you should abdicate
Your thron...OFFICE prior to the end of the week. If you do so you will
Ensure that there is "no senseless waste of time, energy, money,
goodwill, and
~288 million Americans would have been freed without one drop of Blood
being
shed. If you do not vacate your office immediately, I (and history)
will hold you morally culpabable."
> Again, just as Emlyn, you ignore the Gulf War I, in which
> Saddam invaded another country we agreed to defend. The
> resolutions calling for the end of the open fighting in the
> conflict were the ones that were violated and instigated res
> 1441. Saddam did nothing less than break the agreements that
> ended Gulf War I. Yet we were the invaders? Never mind the
> multiple other compelling reasons to oust Saddam.
Uh, just in case you didn't know, Kuwait was originally part of Iraq,
Like Sudan was part of Egypt. In point of fact, Iraq refused to
recognize
Kuwait as an independent country until 2 years *AFTER* the gulf war.
So as far as I'm concerned, Saddam didn't invade anybody. He was
putting down a long-standing rebellion when the rebels invited in a
foreign
power because they were scared of the consequences. This particular
scene
With foreign powers and psuedo independent states etc has been played
out
Repeatedly through history. I can't technically fault the man for his
"invasion";
Kuwait would have expanded his capabilities. 'course he got his butt
spanked by
The US, but that's another story.
> I am out of my mind? I have still yet to hear you say that
> no one has the right to be a dictator. As an extropian, can
> you not even acknowledge the basic moral premise that no one
> has the right to be a dictator?
It *is* technically better than anarchy.
<grin>
omard-out
> Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 16:51:24 MDT