[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dubya causes chaos in the Heartland...
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Amy N Macrellis wrote:
> Iraq has not attacked American citizens or American soil recently that I
> am aware of . . .
That depends on what you make of the allegations that Timothy McVeigh and
his crew had Iraqi connections. I don't know what to make of 'em myself.
> More importantly, however, I have yet to hear any concrete reasons for
> attacking Iraq.
Really? The reports that Saddam has acquired or developed centrifuges for
purifying uranium, and that he has told his scientists to go straight to
building missiles without testing the bombs first, don't sound like
reasons why we might want to bump that guy out of power?
> 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...)
I *tend* to agree, but if it's a choice between killing one group of
people and allowing an even bigger group of people to be killed ... well,
we're going to be responsible for deaths either way ...
> 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.)
And there are those who would argue that destabilization is exactly what
that region needs! E.g., it was reportedly the "destabilization" produced
by the Gulf War that halted Saddam's nuclear weapons program a decade ago,
and further "destabilization" may frustrate the terrorists even more.
I can't help but wonder, when does stability become stagnation?
> While Hussein is certainly guilty of atrocities towards his own people,
> he has not attacked us. He just plain hasn't.
Well, I'm Canadian, not American, so I don't know if you mean "us" in the
sense of you Americans or in the sense of North America, or what. But
even as a Canadian, I don't think I have to wait for him to attack
Canadian soil before I treat him like a matter of concern for Canada.
> Thus, his wrongdoings should be a matter for international or world
> courts . . .
Uh, no. If you think he is only guilty of atrocities towards his own
people, and if you think justice is limited within national borders, then
his wrongdoings are a matter for Iraqi courts. On what basis would you
justify any *other* country intervening in Iraqi affairs and dragging
Hussein before an "international" court? And on what basis would those
other countries be allowed to intervene, and America not so allowed?
> . . . (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) . . .
Given the open arms that the "world" community often gives to the likes of
Yasser Arafat and Robert Mugabe -- and I admit, Canada is as guilty as
anybody of tolerating and supporting those particular murderous despots --
I can't say I care for "world" opinion all that much. *shrug*
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
If true love never did exist how could we know its name? -- Sam Phillips
Happiness happens but I want joy. -- Marjorie Cardwell
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
References: