--- Erik Reuter wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > - although, as I mentioned before, if > definite proof could be > > found of SH's involvement with the Oklahoma City > bombing or the Towers > > attacks, we'd be justified in hunting him to his > death. > > Did you know Saddam has offered monetary rewards to > the families of > Palestinian suicide bombers, thus Saddam is involved > in terrorism? Given > that it would be disastrous for Israel to start a > war to depose Saddam, > and that the US is an ally of Israel, wouldn't this > meet your criteria for action?
<wry face> By the criteria you propose, wouldn't the US also have to act against Saudi Arabia, whose nationals have (I think) funded more terrorism, in both Isreal and the US, than Saddam? I am not being snide; I truly think that the entire Middle East is a field strewn with landmines (some of which - perhaps the majority, if one goes back to the beginning of the last century) the West has sown. If 'the West' reduced its dependence on Middle Eastern oil (conservation, innovation) and tied financial dealings to improvement in human rights, would that promote peaceful, lasting change? (I'm excluding Iraq from this particular scenario, because of the issue of WoMD, among others.) Of course, so far 'the West' is not a cohesive entity. :( Going in with guns blazing might be more emotionally satisfying, but I don't see how the US alone can afford to do that against _all_ the 'evildoers.' Even if we are the biggest a**kicker in the world. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
