Cortlandt

I've read your posts on the various related threads with some interest
although I confess to being rather perplexed by them. If you get a moment,
perhaps you could help me understand.

You wrote:
>I am in favor of intervention when, as in this case because of Hussein's
equivocations and procrastinations, no other option remains.

Do you think everything that could be done peacefully has been tried?

>What it comes down to is this: We have a moral obligation to intervene
where
evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq.

Why do we have a "moral obligation"?
And you define "evil", how?
When we (UK, US, etc) traded with Saddam and considered him a friend (in
full knowledge of his activities), was he "evil" then? If so, what does
that make us?
Is war "evil"?


Just wondering, philosophically

Richard Ali

Richard -

We did not 'consider him a friend'.  We aided him against what we
considered a greater enemy.  It was not an alliance a much as a marriage
of convenience.

Now to Mr Barker -

France, Germany, Russia and a number of other countries are representing
what the majority of the world thinks.  It is indeed the US and the UK who
are the ones not 'playing ball'.  To basically blame a nation, who is well
within it's rights under the democratic process of the UN, to object to all
out war, without pursuing other methods and without even seeing the report
from Hans Blick (not sure of spelling) is unbelievable.  Basically it shows
that the US has no respect for the democratic process of the UN and is just
a bully.  It will go to war, whatever the UN decides, what kind of statement
is that.

I say -

France, Germany have involved themselves in supporting Iraq's illegal
weapons program and don't want proof of that dirty secret to come out.
I am talking about serious chemical weapons, not botulism toxin or
bug spray.

I don't know why Russia is acting this way, maybe it is a carry over from
the Stalinist days of fear of a capitalist hegemony.  I would not be
surprised to find out they have a dirty secret or two to protect.

Mr Barker says -

The immature nature of some of the responses from the UK and even people on
this list, that somehow France (and old Europe) now supports Saddam, is
inflammatory, untrue and rather pathetic.  Added below the old chestnut from
Chuck, which he has brought up more than once, that the US saved France in
WWII, not to mention the whole of the world in previous emails, again is sad
and inaccurate.

I say -

It is impossible to speculate as to France's fate had not the USA been
involved.  It WAS our military which drove the Axis out of France.  There
were other countries as well, but the majority was the USA.  In addition
to that we help rebuild the country.  There was also lend-lease, etc.
So it is not 'inaccurate' to say the USA saved France.

Mr Barker says -

The other one is anyone who doesn't support war is obviously a communist and
apparently Today Mandela is now virtually a communist.  That's like saying
Bush, as a right wing capitalist, is almost a Nazi.

I say -

No, it is not.  A Nazi is a socialist, just as a Communist is a socialist,
Gerorge Bush is neither of those.

As far as Mandella is concerned, I cannot begin to tell you how badly that
government was destabilized.

Mr Barker says -

As yourself a simple question, if you've waited 12 years and the UN are
asking for longer (maybe 5 weeks, to examine other avenues, wouldn't the
sensible thing be to wait the 5 weeks and at least get the UN and more
people on your side.  Even listen to Hans Blick, the man who actually went
to find the evidence.

I say -

5 weeks will be too late, summer will be too close and military operations
will be hard to carry out.  Saddam knows this, and he hopes to stall long
enough for this to happen.  This will essentially give him another year,
and by then maybe the rest of the world will lose interest.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *