On Monday 17 February 2003 04:22 am, Richard Menedetter wrote: > Maybe I sometimes play advocatus diaboli. > But for most europeans war is the very, _very_ last measure. > It shows complete failure of all parties involved. > (and for most europeans we are not there yet)
I deem the same arguments could be heard about Hitler right before Czechoslovakia or Austria. Just imagine what could happen if Hitler would be stopped at the time. With your arguments, you're advocating ignorance (besides empty rhethoric) to the _very_ last moment, when it's too late already. Precisely as it was with Hitler. Shouldn't europeans learn the lesson of their own past? > And if I hear the talks, where Bush says that he wants a regime change in > Iraq (not the destruction of mass destruction weapons ...) Because just destruction does not assure anything. Destroyed weapons could be built again. > The US does not have the right to forcefully make a regime change in the > iraq without an UN mandate. (and maybe inner american mandates from > congress or whatsoever) First, existing UN resolution says enough to be considered a mandate. Second, UN has way too many members whose votes are dictated by reasons that are far from UN declared purposes. For example, not islamic countries, nor russians are interested in oil prices decline, same way as US interested in exactly the opposite. And so should be you, as an european, BTW. > If it does so by attacking another country, than the US are the aggressor. > Than US are the "bad" as bush likes to call them. Have you ever heard the term "preemptive strike"? Saddam already proven to be an agressor, why should we wait for more? > PS: Sam ... Iraq _IS_ the country wich has second most oil in the world. So what? Should this be his (Saddam) indulgence forever? > And I personally find it ridicolous that north korea (which has the > technology and the plutonium to build the a bomb) is not threatened by war > from the US. Wait a bit. There will be thir turn also. FIFO. BTW, Korea does not openly support terrorism. Korea does not pay a lavish sum of money to every family of every islamic terrorist, Saddam does. And it were islamic terrorists who hit US in the past, not Korean. > bur Iraq (which has no plutonium and no technology since the > golf war but muuuuuuuuuuch oil instead) is threatened. I wouldn't be so sure. And not only plutonium is a threat. One ampule of anthrax spores would probably be enough to turn the place where you are living into nature reserve. > Bush very intelligently plays the "defence" card here. > (Bush tries to make connections between everything he wants to destroy and > sept. 11th.) And there is a connection. He (Bush) said it right after Sep.11, that every party involved will be punished. And here he does. > SE> The United States is reasonably and appropriately concerned about > SE> the safety and security of it's citizens. > yes ... I also truely believe this. > The question is how far do you go, and how correct are your thoughts about > the threat. As far, as it is necessary to reach the goal, as otherwise it's all just irresponsible blabber. And it's always better to overestimate the threat, than underestimate it. You in Europe done that once. > Eg. you have not only to look at US citizens, but also that no wrong things > are done to non-us citizens, in order that US citizens profit. Isn't it only natural, that for the US government an interests of US citizens are more important, than interests of all the others? I wish your government would respect yours the same way. If you, as a private person, want to sacrifice yours and your family interests in favor of some sheikh, that's your private business, but it would be highly irresponsible to expect such behavior from country's government. > CU, Ricsi Be well, Ricsi Vitaly.
