On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > It means that there wasn't a third option between > going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in > power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was > even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the > other.
Really? No other options? Then what of all those that opposed the war, including almost every major religious organization across the globe? Was the Pope trying to stop democracy in Iraq? The World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Middle East Council of Churches, the churches of Norway, Finland and Denmark, Greece, the United Methodist Church, my own Lutheran church and on and on and on -- were they all trying to stop democracy in Iraq when they opposed this war and proposed other options. Are you aware of the six-point plan proposed by a group led by Jim Wallis, and Tony Blair's response to it? You are aware, surely, that tremendous regime changes have taken place without wars? The most recent example is South Africa. Perhaps closer to your heart would be a certain enormous former British colony with a primarily Hindu population? > In that list the people came down on > all different sides of this issue - I don't even know > where some of them did, actually. But I don't think > any of them thought a World Court indictment would be > all that useful in removing Hussein. I wasn't asking for a list, I was wondering how you propose to distinguish between the serious thinkers and those who are just playing games. What are the criteria? > The worst leaders in > history (and they're not really worthy of the term) > are the ones who pretended that there were no > decisions to be made or costs to be paid. You seem to be introducing a new issue here...? > > > the people being dropped feet-first into shredding > > machines. > > > > Perhaps you forget that this sort of thing has > > touched me rather directly. > > Well, I don't know. It doesn't seem to stop you from > attacking the people who stopped it. Who? Stopped what? Whom have I attacked? Did you read what I said at the press conference the week before last? > I have no respect at all for > constant condemnations of the morality of your > political opponents, I've done my best to comment on policies, actions and decisions, not people. I've said many times, though perhaps not often here, that I believe George Bush is doing the best he can, for example. That's hard for me to say, but it is a personal path to peace for me to refrain from playing the blame game. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
