On 23 Aug 2002 at 12:58, Dylan Sunter wrote:
> <JOEDEES>
> The very possibility of catastrophic nuclear devastation means that
> one cannot afford not to act, even on a probability rather than on a
> certainty; the stakes are just simply too high.
>
>
> <DYLAN>
> The problem then is Catch-22. For as long as the US and any other
> nation attacks another nation which is inferior in both military might
> and technological ability, then there will be no peace, for those
> nations, and their allies (in this case, arab states who have specific
> reasons for opposing action against a nation regarded as "one of their
> own", even if not best mates at the time) will continue to regard the
> US as enemies of islam, leading, naturally to increased tensions and
> hostile intent towards the "imperialistic aggressor".
>
It is doubtful that the set of circumstances surrounding Saddam Hussein
and Iraq will be oft repeated: a nation, ruled by a dictator, who has used
WMD's against oppressed people in his own land and against his
neighbors, who attempted to annex another country by force, was
driven out mainly by the US at the behest of the international
community, and subsequently attempted to assassinate its president
after he had left office, has kicked out UN WMD inspectors and funds
the families of suicide bombers.
>
> This leads to the raw hatred which is symptomatic of the response of
> smaller children to the school bully. And we all know what we tell our
> kids about the school bully...His time will come, and in a sense I
> dont think this analogy is too far off the mark. The US is seen as a
> big bully. George Bush is regarded by most people I know in the UK as
> a complete dickhead with the intellectual capacity of a brick, and I
> tell you this, if Mr Blair thinks the UK should be off to war with
> America, he is likely to lose the support of the people who put him in
> office. According to a MORI poll carried out in March 2002:
>
He's not the brightest lighbulb in the chandelier, but his advisers are
unparalleled in their experience and expertise. And Saddam was the
big bully of the region, with a half million man army he used to beat up
on his neighbors, until the school bodyguard heard the screaming and
heeded the calls of other dismayed students, and knocked the bully on
his keister.
>
> "The balance of British opinion is firmly against stepping up American
> military action against Iraq. Only 35% say the U.S. government would
> be right to attack Saddam Hussein's regime, while 52% think such a
> move would be wrong. The figures are similar for attitudes to British
> involvement in any American escalation in Iraq. Only about one in
> three Britons (34%), think their government would be right to join the
> Americans in any increased action, while 56% think it would be wrong."
> (Time Poll Reveals Declining British Support For The War Against
> Terror - http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/time.shtml )
>
The paper Power and Weakness explains this difference in perspective,
but I might add that Yanks expect reasonable opinions from Brits just
about as often as vice-versa, that is, hardly at all.
>
> The world has yet to see any evidence which points to the fact that
> Saddam is:
>
> a) rebuilding stockpiles of chem and bio weapson
> b) working on the creation of, or attempting to buy, a nuclear weapon
> c) intent on attacking the United States homeland d) ready or willing
> to START a war with the US
>
And might that be because Saddam has not allowed UN weapons
inspectors into his country for FOUR YEARS? And was playing a spy-
and-surveillance-informed shell game with them before then? Could
be.
>
> So, the world once again asks the question...WHERE is the proof that
> Iraq poses a significant threat, and WHAT are the moral, political,
> legal and economic justifications for attacking a country which has
> been devastated by UN imposed sanctions for 10 years. Mr Bush would
> like to keep us focusing on one individual- Saddam...But war is not
> just about 1 person is it? Its about civilian deaths, its about the
> loss of required infrastructure, and its about who controls the region
> after the successful deposition of Saddam. Until these questions are
> answered, the EU and other US allies should attempt to keep a tight
> leash on the bulldog that is currently the US administration.
>
It IS about one person if that person wields dictatorial control over a
country, is irredeemably malevolent in his intentions, and has a history
of acting upon such malevolent intent. And once again, America is not
prepared to wait for the mushroom cloud to rise over a US city and
furnish you with the only proof you seem prepared to accept.
>
> Regards.
> Dylan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT