On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:00:09AM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: > The third possibility is that one thinks Saddam doesn't deserve to > be planet Earth's - or even the USA's - priority number one. It's > arguable that, say, the world AIDS epidemic is a far more immediate > threat in humanitarian terms than Saddam and a more grave threat > to long-term global stability than either Ba'athism or Islamic > radicalism.
Another thing I want to mention in regards to this is that, whether or not I consider Iraq and Saddam to be my highest priority, and whether or not I agree with many of Bush's policies, a certain critical mass has been achieved. Yes, it would be better if we had more allies, it would be better if Bush was less arrogant and more trustworthy and not engaged in attacking our civil rights, but you can't have everything. In politics, I think being an opportunist frequently gives you your best chance of accomplishing goals. It reminds me of a line from Neal Stephenson's _Diamond Age_, about people in a Chinese airport which was apparently quite disorganized and poorly signed. One person saw another person who looked to be going to America and was walking purposefully, so the second person followed the first, and more people glommed onto those two, and they finally reached the gate to a plane: "It might or might not have been their assigned vessel, but the passengers now had a sufficient numerical majority to hijack it to America, which was the only thing that really counted in China." -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
