On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:55:47 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > Hi All,
> I've got to disagree with Sam: >> This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as >> being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. > Really? Sadam, until not to long ago, was one of the best good-old-boys in > the entire region--both armed and supported by the US. If he hadn't gone > off-side in the Kuwait thing, he'd still be Washington's buddy. The only > reason that the US wants to snuff him now is that he is seen as a threat to > Israel. Given the treatment his Moslem brothers are receiving from Israel, > and given that they are the ones who hold Washington's leash, it isn't > surprising that he hates them. But, so far, he has not attacked them > (Israel), or ANY other country (except Kuwait), until AFTER war has been > waged against him. Sadam violates on an almost daily basis the treaty agreements he made with the US and its allies by his attacking coalition aircraft in the No-Fly Zone. Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a successful suicide bombing mission. I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true. North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft and they aren't sending suicide bombers streaming into South Korea. The US and the UN are pledged to support Israel by securing that country's viability even as she finds herself surrounded by very hostile enemies. There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel some time in the near future. It isn't a very smart military strategy to wait and let one's enemy continue to build up his weapons and his logistics and his forces so that he can plan his attack according to his own time table. If the US waits for Sadam to attack first, then there will be more destruction and more lives lost than would happen if we were to attack first. The moral arguments about how we should wait until Sadam attacks first can easily be countered by simply explaining that the longer we wait the more lives will be lost. The moral issue is about how to solve the problem with the minimum amount of destruction and loss of life. There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any US leaders except in US courts. The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values. Americans want to do their own thing. We don't wqnt to have "world government" imposed on us. I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and occupying their territory and to steal their oil. US intentions are only to disarm Sadam of his WMD's and to replace Sadam's regime with Iraqi leaders who favor peace and who are more sensitive to the best interests of the Iraqi people. Why should anyone but Sadam and his murderous cronies have a problem with that? > To date, he has only used his 'weapons of mass destruction' on his own > people, and on nations that are at war with him. Sure, he's a butcher, but > that has never been a problem for the American government, has it? So far, > there is not the slightest reason to believe that Sadam has any intentions > of starting a war that he couldn't possibly win. Even if he does have WOMD > (like Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.) there is no doubt in my > mind that he won't use them *until*he*is* *attacked* -- and then why > shouldn't he? Every rule of international law says that an attacked nation > has the right to defend itself in any way it can. The psychopath of the > piece is GWB, who should be tried as a war monger who would make the Fuhrer > blush. Pakistan and India's having WMD's is not a problem because they don't have any enemies other than each other. Although they may continue to have occasional border skirmishes with small arms, there is little danger that they would get into any really serious conflicts with each other because of the already proven facts established during the Cold War about how well the MAD theory works. (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction). Neither country would dare launch nukes against the other because that would result in both countries becoming a devastated and irradiated wasteland. > The sane thing to do is to let Sadam be until when and if he tries > something; then making war on him would be both legally and morally > justified. >> The Bush administration >> thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly >> even bought off. Although the North Koreans even admit to having >> some nukes, we do not believe they have any ideas about actually >> using them against nearby countries, at least not in the immediate >> future. Their corner of the world is not anywhere as troubled as >> the Middle East. I think the North Koreans are producing the nukes >> not to start a war, but only to increase their bargaining power at >> the negotiating table when dealing with countries which don't want >> them to have them. The North Koreans are now in a stronger position >> than the one they held before they had the nukes. They can offer to >> stop producing and to dismantle their nukes in exchange for some >> concessions and better treatment by the countries they don't get >> along with very well. I think the North Koreans and the rest of the >> world can work out a peaceable and positive outcome for everyone >> concerned. > Now, Kim Il-jong ... there is a nutbar. Unlike Sadam, this guy boasts > about having nukes, and about the fact that he's about to start making > more. He also boasts about having missiles that can deliver them, and > about the fact that he is making even better delivery systems as we speak. > In contrast to the Iraqi's he has just thrown UN inspectors out of the land. > He is still, technically, at war with the US, and North Korea engages in > almost non-stop military provocation against the South. Kim even says, out > loud, that if he is embargoed, he will consider it an act of war! Sadam is > Mother Theresa by comparison. > Just my 2 cents worth :-) Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
