Only in a "perfect" world. Thing is, we don't live in a perfect world. We
live in a world where the corners are not padded. We live in a world were
"ME" is often more important than "WE". We live in a world where people who
believe in the justness of their cause, crash airplanes into buildings. We
live in a world where Dictators can rule a nation with fear and brutality.
We live in a world that far too many see only through rose coloured glasses.
We live in a world where there is no such thing as Black & White, Cut & Dry,
Good and Evil, US against THEM. We live in a world where everything is
painted grey. Where everything has it's own version of truth and
rightiousness and justification. We live in a world where doing something is
percieved as evil, but doing nothing is NOT an option.
We live in the REAL world with REAL problems that demand REAL solutions and
unfortunately that occasionally means that people are going to suffer. That
people are going to hurt. That People are going to Die. There is no Perfect
solution. There is No Perfect Answer. There is no Perfect Response to ANY of
this.
No one WANTS to goto war. Civilians, Soldiers, Generals, Diplomats, all feel
the same way towards warfare. It's ugly. It's horrible. It's the most
primitive answer to problems. It's also sometimes the ONLY answer. It's
NEVER right. It's always a failure. But it's sometimes the only option left.
There is an Axiom, I forget who it can be attibuted to, and I'll probably
butcher it but nonetheless it goes something like this:
"War is just the exercise of Diplomacy by other means"
What I see that as meaning is that when you have tried every diplomatic
solution and shaken every diplomatic Olive branch and still, the situation
has not resolved itself to the satifaction of all parties then, if the
stakes are high enough it might be time for the type Diplomacy found at the
end of a Gun.
The case of Iraq goes back to Invasion of Kuwait which triggered the Pursian
Gulf War. Saddam had the option of withdrawing before a single shot was
fired. His response was effecitively to flip his middle finger at the world.
The World, lead by the USA invaded and drove Saddam out of Kuwait. The
forced him back into Iraq, crippled the bulk of his military and then sued
for a peaceful compromise. Part of that Compromise was that Saddam would
disarm. This isn't up for negotiation this is a fact. The FACTS clearly show
that Saddam has delayed and delayed for 12 years and still has not disarmed
to the extent mandated after the Persian Gulf War. In fact the evidence
shows that he has actually intensified his military expansion and the
pursuit of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons. He's performed a
complex shell-game with the Inspectors. While the evidence if this is
classified to me and you, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that it
hasn't been shown to the United Nations. Honestly. Do you think that we'd
still be hearing the same song and dance from the UN about Weapons of Mass
Distruction and Saddam disarming for twelve long years if there wasn't some
sort of compelling evidence that clearly showed he wasn't doing what he said
he was?
So, how long do we let him short circuit the diplomatic process HE agreed
to? Till he rolls his tanks into another neighbouring country and flips the
world his middle finger again? Only this time he says "Touch me and I'll
turn Washington or London, or Paris, or Frankfurt, or Tal Aviv into a glass
crater!" what do you THINK he's delaying for? Cuz he thinks it's humerous?
He enjoys the attention? Get a grip on reality people. He's a manipulative
monster bent on dominating the middle east and taking on the world if they
try to stop him. He's using every resource he has available to him to
achieve that task.
A former Chief UN weapons Inspector that worked in Iraq said that the effort
to foil the UN Inspections is almost an Industry in and of itself. The
"Shell-game" is so grand in scale that for every inspector the UN would
field, Saddam would task 100 men to counter-act that single inspector. The
handful of times that the UN inspectors actually managed to get through the
cloak and pick the shell with the pea under it revealed weapons development
that would chill anyones blood. Saddam is playing for keeps. He's taken the
gloves off years ago. He's biding his time as long as he can in order to
complete his war preparations. He's exercising that middle finger and he's
going to use it one day soon if we as a world don't do something to stop
him.
We need to decide what price we are willing to pay. Because we are going to
have to pay a price sooner or later to resolve this problem. It's a case of
Pay me now or Pay me later. And as any mechanic can tell you, Paying me now
will save you a bundle later.
And all metaphors aside, we are talking about lives not dollars. And the
price starts high and only goes up. You think the people thinking about
sending people to war don't think about this? Don't realize that what may be
pieces on a map are actually human beings with full lives ahead of them? No
one is that cold-hearted. They are probably more cognizant of the number of
lives at stake than you or I ever will be. Because THEY are the ones making
the decision to pull the trigger. They are the ones who will wake up in the
middle of the night for years to come.
Dave Swanson
-----Original Message-----
From: James B. Byrne [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak support
On 11 Mar 2003 at 11:18, Cortlandt Wilson wrote:
> More humane IMO to force an end to fighting by destroying their
> fighting capability (which will of course kill some soldiers in the
> process) than by killing all their soldiers.
This is a recipe for disaster, as it leads directly to attrition warfare,
the most expensive, destructive, and tedious form of that particular
mental illness. If you wish to end a war speedily, don't start it. If
you are in a war of someone else devising, find a way to end it,
quickly. The military route is never cost effective; even if you can
assign a value to the lives that must inevitably be spent.
I don't want to get going on this topic, but my bottom line is that if a
lot of people are dying, then its the ones doing the killing that are in
the wrong. Period. There is no "they". The mass does not exist.
Each individual life is precious to the one that holds it and no one
else should be able to assign that life to the "acceptable losses"
column of the diplomatic ledger. Lives taken are not "collateral
damage", they are deaths. Every person is father, mother, son,
brother, sister, daughter, friend, wife, lover to someone, and each
death touches the lives of all the survivors. There is no they; only
many, many me.
Each person in Iraq, and each individual soldier within all of the
forces posed on the verge of war, does not wish to die. Much less
do they wish their lives taken from them so that middle-aged men
in bomb-proof shelters and air-conditioned comfort in a far away
country can some day write their memoirs about how "they" made
the world safe for democracy, by killing everyone else who
disagreed.
A Parable:
A man buys a gun. He buys several guns. He lives far away. He is
cruel to his family and abusive to his neighbours. He lies. He
steals. He hurts. He cheats. He threatens those about him. He
threatens you. He is despicable.
You own a gun. You own lots of guns. You have a big family. You
go to church. You are righteous. You don't like being threatened.
You fear for yourself and your family. You turn to the law and the
law says; this man has done you no injury, and those he has have
not as yet complained. You and your family take your guns and go
over, kill this man's family, his neighbours, and possibly even the
man himself. You make a desolation and you call it peace.
Who is the criminal?
Don't tell me that relations between states are any different than
those between people, because they are not. States do not exist
independently of the people within them. In a very real sense,
states only exist within the minds and beliefs of people, and no
where else. We do not kill our fellow citizens when we fear for our
safety, we seek the protection of the group. We do not take matters
into our own hands and employ judge Lynch whenever we are
dismayed with circumstance, we look to the law.
We have a concept in the western tradition called the rule of law. It
is an imperfect, flawed, irresolute, and oft-times discarded hope that
men can rein their passions and behave, not like the beasts of the
wilds, but like reasoning, circumspect, rational beings. But we
promote it none-the-less, because without it there is no peace. The
strong go forth and take, the weak suffer and die. The strong age,
weaken, and new strength destroys them, taking their place. The
world is dark with strife, cold with anger, and white hot with hate.
This is not a world for men, but for savages.
There is a law that applies in the case of states. It is called the
Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions on Warfare,
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first and the
last are patterned upon the Constitution of the United States. Is this
not authority enough? Must we kill in defiance of our own laws?
What does this make us? Are we subsequently better than that
which we set out to cure?
Why then, can sensible people not extend the same courtesy to
others as they extend to themselves? Is that not the essential
doctrine of Christianity? Love thy neighbour? Is not failure to do so
prejudice of the worse form possible; to kill somebody because they
are different from your concept of what is same, and for ultimately
no other reason than your beliefs?
Sincerely,
Jim
--- e-mail is NOT a secure channel
James B. Byrne mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
