On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:56:02 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:16:23 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> <snip> >> Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to conduct >> a war of alleged aggression against Saddam Hussein? If it is OK to >> attack Milosevic to stop genocide, then why isn't it OK to attack >> Saddam Hussein for the same reason? The issue isn't really about >> aggression or weapons of mass destruction. It is about genocide and >> the need to get rid of a ruthless and evil dictator. >> Sam Heywood > The attack on Milosevic had a UN mandate and Milosevic is in the court > in THe Hague now standing trial. If Saddam is taken alive then he too will end up in a court somewhere to stand trial to answer for war crimes. The US does not need to have a UN mandate to determine whether it is in her national interests to invade a country. Without even trying to get a UN mandate the US went into Panama to forcefully abolish the regime of Manuel Noriega because he was a narco-terrorist and an oppressor of his own people. We captured Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial. He is now serving a 40 year sentence in a US penitentiary. During our invasion of Panama we were not hearing any complaints of any significance from the international community and from anti-war protestors. > Why is the issue changing all the time? > According to Bush Administration: > First goal: stop links to Ben Laden organisation. > Their is no proof at all those links exists. > Second goal: stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. > The inspectors are still searching. > Third goal: get rid of Sadam. > This is helping reach goal one, two, stop genocide and > some more goals. There might be proof that Saddam has links to the OBL organization and there might also be proof that he has weapons of mass destruction. The US doesn't always lay all its proof on the table for all the world to see because it needs to protect its sources and its methods of intelligence collection. Your country and everybody else's countries likewise do not prove to everybody all that they know about their enemies. > To tell the world that the US have been attacked or will be attacked > by Sadam is "bull shit". A preemtive strike on a country that is not > even threatening is ridiculous and a thread to all nations. > "The world" is not against the removal of Sadam but against the way how > this goal will be reached by the US and without a clear mandat from the > UN. In the No-Fly Zones the US patrol planes and other coalition aircraft have been routinely attacked by Iraqi anti-aircraft guns and missiles. > To attack Iraq will probably cost more Iraqi lives than Sadam could ever > murder. Bagdad has abt. 5 million people living in that city... how many > will be killed by US bombs? In December of 1998 Bill Clinton decided to order the launching of 450 cruise missiles on Iraq because Saddam was being uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors. Clinton made the decision unilaterally. He just did it, and with no UN mandate. There was no international backlash of any significance. > How much turmoil will give a militairy action in the region? > How much damage will be done to the world economy? > How will the US restore the order in the region? US military policy is to accomplish its objectives with minimum casualties on both sides and with minimum collateral damage. I don't think the "world" should be worrying over whether the US would be competent to restore order and to restore the economies of any territories which may temporarily come under its control. Look at Germany and Japan. Their economies are now prospering much better than at any time before and during WWII, and also both countries now enjoy a much more civilized style of law and order, thanks to the US. > ********************** > How much damage will Sadam do to Kurds, Americans or anyone else on the > globe if the eyes of the world are fixed on him? > Keeping an eye on Sadam, by inspectors, by aircraft, by satellites... > will take no casualties, will be cheap and will not make the whole > region a hazardous place to live in. Since Sadam does not live forever > the surveilance will not be forever. A dictator doesn't care whether world opinion is critical of his evil ways. He will continue to oppress his people regardless of how much we might disapprove of him. The only thing that will stop him is his being overthrown, either by forces outside his country or from within, or from a combination of both. > And if no arms of mass destuction are be found... the sanctions agains > Iraq should be lifted very soon. These sanctions do cause many > casualties, especialy children (over 500,000 until now). The sanctions are not causing any casualties. The UN and the US allow food and medicines to be shipped into Iraq. > Why is George Bush so eager to attack muslim fundamentalists? He has nothing against Muslim Fundamentalists. Muslim fundamentalism does not endorse terrorism. Some Muslim sects endorse terrorism, but some Christian and Jewish sects also endorse terrorism too. Religious fundamentalism is just about conserving very ancient belief systems and dogmas and doctrines which are considered by the "progressive and reformist" elements within the religion as being backward and outmoded and unenlightened. > GW is a fundamentalist... christian though. All fundamentalists want to > whipe out devils, Satan and have their "axes of evil". You are probably essentially right in describing fundamentalists as people who want to wipe out "devils". Not all fundamentalists perceive their "devils" as being in the souls of other people. Most of them just want to wipe out the "devils" they believe to have in their own minds. The troublesome and dangerous fundamentalists are the ones who consider themselves so holy and who perceive only in others the faults with which they themselves are possessed. This kind of personality disorder is just as likely to manifest itself in persons belonging to a "progressive and reformist" sect. The only difference is that they will tend to replace the word "devil" with the modern abstract and pseudo-scientific equivalents invented by the mental health profession. The devil is still the same devil regardless of however he dresses and grooms himself and regardless of how authentic his false credentials appear to be. > This is a crusade... Christians against Muslims... we are going back to > the middle ages. This is not about Christians vs. Muslims. Such was the sorry case in which the Serbs conducted ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Ethnic Albanians. The US came into the conflict on the side of the Muslims, being the Ethnic Albanians. > IMHO we must get rid of Sadam... but not this way. IMHO the best way to get rid of him would be to try to get him to see the wisdom of stepping down and accepting an offer of permanent exile. The problem is that Saddam probably is not smart enough to take this way out. Regards, Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
