What makes me laugh about this, is you speak as though France have really
gone out on a limb, just to spite the US.  Maybe this is the way it's
presented in the US.

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.

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.

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.

This isolationist idea that somehow the US can exist as some autonomous
nation that doesn't need or even want any ties with nations that don't just
accept US policy.  That would be financial suicide for the US and world
economy.

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.



-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Ryan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 17 March 2003 18:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Worth Considering II - (questions,
questions)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ali [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:14 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT: Worth Considering II - (questions, questions)
>
>

<snip>

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

What else is there to try but more of the same?

Sanctions failed because nations like France, Germany, Russia and China
chose to ignore them.

Diplomacy in the arena of the UN has become a tool for the dictators of the
world. There is no teeth behind the words of the UN so the words mean
nothing. Like telling a child that he will be spanked if he does not stop
jumping on the couch and then failing to follow through, the threat means
less and less each time it is used.

> 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?

When you say "in full knowledge of his activities" you are speaking in
hindsight.

Sure, the US tried to treat Saddam as a friend. It is in the interest of the
US and the rest of the world that it gives the benefit of the doubt and
takes a country's leader at his word. If a leader proves through his actions
that he is unworthy of that friendship the policy toward him must change. As
we all know, goverments take time to change direction when goverment
officials have invested their reputation into a policy.

You can say that the US is responsible for creating Saddam because we tried
to treat him as an ally. But what is our alternative? Do we cut all friendly
ties with the nations of the world in case they too someday have a leader
that acts against the interest of the US and the world?

Will we one day face blame if France continues its drive to dominate the EU
and moves it in a totalitarian direction? After all, we saved it in WWII and
rebuilt it afterwards so we must be to blame for all of its future actions.

> Is war "evil"?

War, like diplomacy, is a tool that can be used for good or evil. I expect
that diplomacy easilly rivals war in the number of deaths it has caused.

Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.




==================================
This message contains confidential information and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not
the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail
by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete. The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No contracts
may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
==================================

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