[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dubya causes chaos in the Heartland...

(please forgive the extra >s, I mistyped the list addy the first
time 'round.)


> > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Sarah Herr wrote:
> > > Personally I'm against a war unless it's absolutely necessary.
>
> And Peter replied:
> > Hmmm, I'm not convinced that a war against Iraq *isn't* absolutely
> > necessary.  I'm attending press screenings for the Vancouver film festival
> > right now, and yesterday I saw a documentary on Iraq's nuclear weapons
> > program and its links to German companies that were in cahoots with the
> > Nazis way back when.  It's not just a German-Iraq problem, of course, but
> > Iraq *is* the country that wants to use this technology, or will gladly
> > supply it to others who would use it against us.  And you know what they
> > say about an ounce of prevention (not that this couldn't have been
> > prevented at much earlier stages ... but it's too late for that ... ).
>
> And I say:
>
> (Why oh why am I stepping out of the shadows for this of all things?)
>
> I will not argue that Iraq may still be developing nuclear and other
> weapons of mass destruction.  I will not even argue that a war against
> Iraq may eventually be necessary.  What I will argue, however, is that
> I do not yet understand the reasons behind our current aggressive
> stance towards Iraq.  Iraq has not attacked American citizens or
> American soil recently that I am aware of (although its leader certainly
> could treat his own people with considerably more respect and humanity
> than he does currently).  More importantly, however, I have yet to hear
> any concrete reasons for attacking Iraq.  The reasons I do hear are
> along the lines of the following:
>
> "It's the moral/right thing to do." (In my own little tiny universe,
> killing people is never the right thing to do...)
>
> "Let's finish what we started during the Gulf War.  We never should've
> let them/him get away the first time." (The objective of the Gulf War
> was not to depose Saddam Hussein, it was to protect Kuwait.  The forces
> sent to the area achieved their objective and (mostly) came home.  It
> was thought (and in some circles it is still thought) that "regime
> change" would be more destabilizing to the region than allowing him to
> stay.)
>
> "Iraq has ties to al-Queda/the Taliban/x-terrorist-organization-of-the-
> day, and we're Fighting Terrorism so we must be fighting Iraq too."
> (I don't doubt that Iraq has ties to some of these organizations, but
> no one has yet tied them directly to al-Queda or the Taliban.  Further,
> since the U.S. has supported "terrorist" organizations in the past (like
> Iran- Contra, South American rebels of various stripes, and even the
> Taliban), why should we be surprised that other countries do it too--and
> who are *we* to command the moral high ground?)
>
> What I haven't heard are unbiased and fact-based reasons for our friends
> and parents and sons and daughters to go marching into war.  No wonder
> much of the rest of the world is concerned.
>
> > >Let's try other things *before* we go over there and blow up
> more  > > innocent people.
> >
> > Like wait for them to come over here and blow up even *more* innocent
> > people?
>
> While Hussein is certainly guilty of atrocities towards his own people,
> he has not attacked us.  He just plain hasn't.  Thus, his wrongdoings
> should be a matter for international or world courts (like the one that
> the U.S. refuses to acknowledge because we're afraid our people will have
> to adhere to the same standards as the rest of the planet)--not for the
> United States' leaders' personal or political or moral or religious
> vengeance.
>
> My two pennies,
> Raven
> (Man, I should've just kept lurking...)
>
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: