Richard,

I read your restatement and thought "cool, now there is some meat to it".
Often I think I know what "the other side" thinks but I've been wrong often
enough to want to confirmation or disconfirm my theories.

Let me deal first with a couple of questions and basic issues that your
email raises.

> but there are lots of countries with nasty dictators running
> them and some of them are friends of the US.

In regards to the requirements of diplomacy short of war: In your opinion is
it a bad thing that the US has what you would call friendly relations with
nasty dictators?   If not why are you making the point that some nasty
dictators "are friends of the US"?

> These awful acronym has now appeared, WMD, which I assumed meant
>nuclear weapons.

Some on this list seem to claim ignorance of what WMD means.   This is my
bias but I find it hard to believe that someone interested in peace would be
ignorant of it's meaning.
WMD means more than nuclear weapons.   Please look at:
http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/

What is awful about the acronym?   Don't you mean the concept of someone
using a WMD is awful?

> The reason I attached the list of UN
>proposals, that the US had ignored or had chosen not to agree with, was to
>show that in my opinion, the US (government) only cares about the US
>(corporate).  It doesn't appear to have any interest in the world's
>problems.

The question to pose I think is what kind of test or proof could change your
mind?  Would you be willing to design a test that might disprove your
current belief?   A explaination.   There are many issues that have good
arguments on both sides.   While I usually take one side or the other in
such cases I also have to recognize that the other side isn't crazy or
simply motivated by crass objectives.  My practice is to give the other the
benefit of the doubt.   Often the difference hinges on value judgments and
different ideas about how the world works.   Some people accept that good
and reasonable people can come to opposite conclusions but many, it would
seem, can't or won't.

Many people said that they wanted to be convinced that Iraq had WMD, they
wanted to see the so-called "smoking gun" evidence.   Its more than fair to
ask what kind of proof such people would require.      (The "smoking gun"
analogy seems particularly inappropriate.   A gun only smokes right after it
has been fired.   The nuclear weapon equivalent of a smoking gun is a rising
mushroom cloud.)

There are peace activists who will refuse to even entertain the notion that,
for instance, there are rational reasons to question and even be opposed to
the international treaty to ban land mines.   To the hard core believers
it's all or nothing.   Everyone opposed is automatically misguided or
motivated by some evil design.

This is why I think that it makes sense to jointly design some kind of test
or way to prove or disprove certain ideas.


Aside:
The questions posed in this message are real questions by the way.   I am
not asking them rhetorically.   For the most part I dislike and avoid
rhetorical questions.   If you want to make a point or say something just
say it.  Couching a statement in a question is for wimps.  Much to my later
regret I can't claim that you will never see one from me.   But I rechecked
the questions above.   They are all "real" questions.

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Richard Barker
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:18 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT:RE: [HP3000-L] OT: War again and a bit of a rant
>
>
>Hi
>
>Maybe I didn't make my point clear, so I will try and summarise.
>
>First of all I was trying to clarify that most 'anti-war' people, are not
>just anti all wars, they are just against this one.
>
>Secondly, we have seen numerous Emails telling us that Saddam is a nasty
>person and must be removed.  No one is denying that, but there are lots of
>countries with nasty dictators running them and some of them are friends of
>the US.
>
>Thirdly, we are told this is about Iraq potentially being able to
>attack the
>US.  These awful acronym has now appeared, WMD, which I assumed meant
>nuclear weapons.  Again Iraq doesn't seem to have any, but a
>number of other
>antagonistic countries do and I have heard no talk of invading North Korea,
>Israel or Pakistan.  If this is about chemical weapons, Saddam,
>indeed might
>have them, but again, so do a number of other countries.  Before this
>conflict began it would have been nice to have some independent proof of
>these weapons existing and that they could and were willing to
>attack Europe
>and/or the US.
>
>Fourthly, we are told that this is about liberating the people of
>Iraq.  Now
>this is the most far-fetched claim.  The reason I attached the list of UN
>proposals, that the US had ignored or had chosen not to agree with, was to
>show that in my opinion, the US (government) only cares about the US
>(corporate).  It doesn't appear to have any interest in the world's
>problems.  On top of that you have a number of other countries with very
>poor human rights and yet some of those are ignored or they are even allies
>of the US.
>
>If you accept what I am saying you will see that the reasons for this
>conflict are extremely dubious.  I suspect it is only about oil.
>That would
>fit with the background of the US government personnel and the reason no
>other countries are being invaded is that this is the only the one with the
>large, under used, oil field.
>
>If this was about liberating people or genuinely reducing the risk
>of war to
>the world then it would get a lot more support, but it would also
>have to be
>applied to all countries and not just Iraq.
>
>Sorry if some of my mails seem a bit reactionary, but I'm often very busy
>and don't a large amount of time to articulate my point of view in
>the depth
>I would like.
>
>
>Richard
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cortlandt Wilson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 02 April 2003 21:51
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: War again and a bit of a rant
>
>
>Richard,
>
>It's sad that you don't have the wherewithal to make your point explicit.
>Your message drips with innuendo and invites inferences without
>standing for
>anything.
>
>I assume that your laundry list of complaints is to show that the US has
>"dirty hands" and therefore our "dirty hands" means that the US must be
>wrong now.     It seems to me that you have a dressed-up form of a personal
>attack.
>
>This kind of enfeebling moral perfectionism that would pretty well rule
>everyone out.   If I were apply a similar type of argument to your
>statement
>I would conclude that based upon the cheesy method of argument you use here
>therefore most things you say are cheesy.   I say that only to illustrate,
>reducio ad absurdum, why I reject such arguments.
>
>Cortlandt Wilson
>(650) 966-8555
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>>Behalf Of Richard Barker
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:15 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: War again and a bit of a rant
>>
>>
>>"If removing this psychopath and his regime from power isn't justified in
>>the
>>eyes of the world, what do you consider justice?"
>>
>>This is the whole problem, obviously the US is not doing it because Saddam
>>is not a nice person.
>>
>>Saudi Arabia    Autocracy, poor human rights
>>Egypt                   Dictatorship
>>Israel          War criminal as prime minister, in violation of UN
>>resolutions, nuclear weapons.
>>Pakistan                Military dictatorship, nuclear weapons
>>North Korea             Dictatorship, on the verge of having
>>nuclear weapons
>>Iraq                    Democratically elected president (very dubious
>>though), no evidence of nuclear weapons and a poor human
>>rights record
>>
>>So who do we choose to invade, without UN backing, Iraq.
>>
>>Here's a few home truths you might want to consider (borrowed from a more
>>articulate Email):
>>
>>
>>1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972
>>Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the
>first time
>>in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.
>>
>>2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations
>>including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London
>>conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the
>Convention
>>by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Under
>>Secretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the
>>same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan and Syria of
>>violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or
>supporting
>>evidence.
>>
>>3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July
>>2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.
>>
>>4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights
>Commission,
>>after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244
>>million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the
>UN budget
>>from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood
>>virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to
>>HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and
>>calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)
>>
>>5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to
>>try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and
>>crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was
>>approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October
>>2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US
>>Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill
>>that would
>>keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed
>>ICC. [In fact advocating use of force to "rescue" Americans
>>charged with war
>>crimes - RR]
>>
>>6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997
>>by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with
>>Russia, China,
>>India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton
>>rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect
>South Korea
>>against North Korea's overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the
>>US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by
>President Bush
>>in August 2001.
>>
>>7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead"
>>by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration
>>shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord,
>mainly by
>>watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.
>>
>>8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to
>>discuss, even
>>at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic
>>surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program).
>>
>>9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and
>>Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to
>>crack down
>>on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.
>>
>>10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of
>>anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001.
>>
>>11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism,
>>bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa
>>
>>12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations
>>(US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US
>>was the only one to oppose it.
>>
>>13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter.
>In the UN
>>in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth
>>consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote
>of 167 to
>>3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).
>>
>>14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and
>>ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by
>>President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The
>US is one
>>of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear
>>power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the 1.1 UN
>>Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the
>>Test Ban Treaty.
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dave Swanson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: 02 April 2003 14:38
>>To: 'Richard Barker'; [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT:RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Sec of State Powell's
>>Integr ity (was: Quote s of the Day)
>>
>>
>>Richard,
>>
>>
>>Ok, simple question,
>>
>>If killing 500,000 human beings does not qualify Saddam Hussien as one of
>>the most brutal dictators in the history of the world, then what does?
>>that's a middle of the road figure, some sources place it as low
>as 100,000
>>others on the opposite end of the "We love Saddam" meter place it
>>as high as
>>2.5 million. Popular informed opinion places the actual figure at
>closer to
>>300,000 - 500,000.
>>
>>Ok another simple question,
>>
>>If removing this psychopath and his regime from power isn't
>>justified in the
>>eyes of the world, what do you consider justice? Do we need to
>dig up every
>>single body, find every single smoking gun, load em all up in a truck and
>>dump them on your doorstep?
>>
>>I've never seen a kilo of cocaine up close, but I know that there
>is enough
>>of it being smuggled into our schools to know that I want the police to do
>>everything in their power to get it off the streets up to and including
>>invading countries that are the source of these poisons.
>>
>>I don't need to see Saddam line truckloads of people up and shoot them in
>>the head to know he has done it, is capable of doing it, and will do it
>>again.
>>
>>One more question for ya, and lets try and lob it over the fence
>this time,
>>
>>When does "Justice" take over? When the gun is being held to YOUR head?
>>
>>Yeah, waiting till the police had a smoking gun and brain matter
>all over a
>>sidewalk with boatloads of evidence to put the gunman away is a
>much better
>>form of justice than stopping him from killing in the first place.
>>
>>I dunno, but I prefer my world where people try and stop a crime when they
>>see a crime. And Saddam has committed crimes, even you don't deny it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Richard Barker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:12 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT:RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Sec of State Powell's Integrity
>>(was: Quote s of the Day)
>>
>>
>>How many times do we have to state this.  Everyone or at least the vast
>>majority of people believe that Saddam is not a nice person.  Nobody is
>>supporting Saddam, no one his ignoring is alleged war crimes.  Some people
>>do not believe that this war is justified and so are against it.  This
>>doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported the allied forces in the WW2 or
>>that they wouldn't have supported the war of independence.
>>
>>>We now very clearly see some of the weapons that the inspectors "did not
>>>find" and we are finding the chemical labs that hans blix and sean penn
>>said
>>>were not there.  We are seeing al qaeda fighters joining in the
>>fray, again
>>>demonstrating thier connection to saddam.
>>
>>I'd like to see a bit more evidence of this than some journalist saying it
>>is the case, I'm not sure I would even trust the US Government, if
>>they said
>>the same.  Saddam and his colleagues say that Iraq is winning the
>war, does
>>that make it true.
>>
>>>But because saddam is a left wing dictator, he has
>>>the support of the liberal/left of this country and his actions are
>>>therefore acceptable.
>>>Sure, they (and the U.N.) tried to make it appear as though saddam's
>>actions
>>>were seen as polically incorrect by pretending to make weapons
>>inspections.
>>
>>Oh dear, here we go again.  Jim, I assume you are American.  In
>the schools
>>in the US, do they teach everyone that left wing or socialist politics is
>>evil and all right wing, capitalist ideals are good.  Saddam is a
>>right wing
>>dictator, his name even appears under the definition of 'right
>wing' in the
>>Encyclopaedia.  I'm also sure there are a number of people, who would
>>consider themselves 'right wing', but still do not support the military
>>action.  Why do so many people try and group all the people who
>are against
>>this war (which is the vast majority of the world) into this little box.
>>
>>---
>>
>>I would be a little more worried about the backlash from this war.  After
>>9/11, America, had real world-wide support, but now, it is
>>probably the most
>>hated country in the world.  Unfortunately, I fear, that the problems will
>>now escalate for the American people because of the actions of it's
>>government.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jim Mc Coy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>
>>This person is part of the same crowd that thinks President Bush is a war
>>criminal for going after terrorists and the regimes that support them, but
>>does not consider saddam hussein's actions to be criminal.
>>
>>There is no one that is pro-war - at least not on our side.  There
>>are those
>>who do understand that sometimes war is the only solution and is persued
>>only as a last resort - just as in this case.
>>If you are "anti-war" keep this in mind:
>>
>>If it were not for war, we would not have the freedom that we have today.
>>We would still be subject to the British throne.  So if you are "anti-war"
>>then you have to be "anti- American independence".
>>After centuries of slavery in this country, it took a war to
>finally end it
>>completely.  If you are "anti-war" then you would have to be willing to
>>accept slavery.
>>If you are "anti-war" then Hitler and the Holocost would have had to have
>>been acceptable to you.
>>If you are "anti-war" in this case, then the events of 9/11 must also be
>>acceptable to you - just as gassing of the kurds, the torture and
>murder of
>>thousands of other Iraqi's, and saddam's desire to build nuclear and
>>chemical weapons for the expressed purpose of attaking Israel and the U.S.
>>also must be acceptable to you.
>>
>>If President Bush suddenly launched an attack on FL or CA and began
>>murdering and torturing millions of democrats, these same
>anti-war leftists
>>would be screaming for the U.N. to send in troops to kill him and bring an
>>end to the blood bath.  But because saddam is a left wing dictator, he has
>>the support of the liberal/left of this country and his actions are
>>therefore acceptable.
>>Sure, they (and the U.N.) tried to make it appear as though
>>saddam's actions
>>were seen as polically incorrect by pretending to make weapons
>inspections.
>>
>>We now very clearly see some of the weapons that the inspectors "did not
>>find" and we are finding the chemical labs that hans blix and sean
>>penn said
>>were not there.  We are seeing al qaeda fighters joining in the
>fray, again
>>demonstrating thier connection to saddam.
>>
>>What we need in this country  today are more people like
>President Bush and
>>Secretary Powell and our soldiers, who are willing to stand up and defend
>>America and alot less of those so eager to see it destroyed.
>>
>>JM
>>
>>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>
>>==================================
>>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 *
>>
>>==================================
>>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 *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>==================================
>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 *

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