On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:24:36PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: > When you use force to combat terrorism, it should go hand in hand with > a reasonable effort to understand and ameliorate the root cause of the > problem. > > Maybe there is no way to do that here, I don't know, but I'm sure that > I haven't seen much of an effort.
I don't think you can do much until after the corrupt dictators and monarchs have been replaced with democracies. I think some of the root causes are false propaganda and lack of freedom, as well as needlessly poor living conditions, all of which can be ameliorated by freedom, democracy, and a free-market. > The reasons Bush says he is attacking Iraq are that they have weapons > of mass destruction and that they support terrorism. He has paid > lip service to suffering of the people of Iraq, but his sincerity is > questionable IMO. So question Bush's sincerity, I certainly don't trust him. But whatever his motives, it is hard for me to imagine him botching the job so much that the people of Iraq are not much better off in the long run. > I am not convinced that Hussain's weapons are an immediate threat to > us, Neither am I. But they are surely a threat in the medium to long term, and it will be much harder to do anything about it in a few years. > nor am I convinced that he has supported Al Quida or any other > terrorists. Al Qaeda, I agree there is no clear link. But you are wrong about Saddam not supporting "other terrorists". Saddam has a longstanding monetary reward for the families of suicide bombers. And as for Al Qaeda, or other terrorists, do you think that if Saddam had the chance to increase his power by working with terrorists, that he would not do it? Actually, I think it is likely that he would attempt to deliver WMD through a terrorist group if he ever decides to attack the US. Working with terrorists is consistent with both his past behavior and his motives. > I listened to Colen Powel's UN speech from beginning to end and while > it convinced me that Hussain probably has some weapons, the paucity > of the evidence presented convinced me that the problem has been > exaggerated. Let's review. In the 90's, despite repeated roadblocks and difficulties placed in their way by Saddam, inspectors found chemical and biological weapons in Iraq that Saddam had previously denied having. Then in 1998, Saddam kicks the inspectors out, KNOWING that it will cost Iraq billions of dollars in sanctions. When Saddam finally is forced to let the inspectors back in 4 years later, he says that all the WMD have been destroyed, but he doesn't have any documentation about what, when, where, and how they were destroyed. What happened during those 4 years? The conclusion is crystal clear: Saddam stashed his WMD and WMD development labs in remote hiding places and mobile units that inspectors have virtually no hope of finding. > I've listened to some of Blix's reports and believe that while Iraq is > disarming more slowly than I would like, progress is being made. I don't think Saddam giving up a few piddling missiles while hiding his main caches of WMD is progress. The only acceptable alternative is for Saddam to immediately provide full documentation of his weapons and completely disarm. He has already failed to do this multiple times, the most recent of which was documented by Blix after resolution 1441 again demanded it. 12 years is a long time. Progress has NOT been made, it is a simple thing and would only take a few months. > do not discount the pressure Hussain feels from the presence of our > troops, but I don't believe that it's necessary to use force yet. When? After he defies 14 more UN resolutions? After he kills tens of thousands more Iraqis? After he launches a nuclear or biological attack against Israel? Against New York? > Are we going to go, one by one, after all of the crazy, violent > dictators? Whenever and wherever possible, yes. For the next one, though, I think we need to do a much better job of trying to build support and gain allies beforehand. > When (if) we succeed in Iraq are we going to move our 300,000 troops > to South Korea? Too late. They already have nuclear bombs. Why do you think we should wait for Saddam to develop them? > Are we prepared to be at a state of war for many years to come? I > think that the problems we face with terrorism and weapons of mass > destruction are better addressed by a more measured, unified response > than that outlined by the Bush administration. I agree, but that is not the choice in Iraq. What's done is done. Next time, we should do better. I hope people take into account foreign policy when casting their votes in 2004. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
