> From: Dan Minette > > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Fine, I wont quibble about definitions. Its actually > interesting, that > >some may call things like the war on Iraq, a "pre-emptive > strike" when > >in reality it is a war of aggression. > > It certainly isn't a typical war of agression. In many ways, > it would be closer to say that a cease fire had been > terminated. For example, British and American fighters > controlled 2/3rds of the airspace in order to protect Shiite > and Kurds from massive retaliation by Hussein. In > particular, the Kurds were generally free from Hussein's > rule, as a result of the air cover and their own military forces. >
No, it wasn't typical, that's true. But umm, a ceasefire, that's an interesting way to look at it. > >I think it is this new meaning I > >am using, and objecting too, not the Israeli style one. The > one where > >you just invent a threat and attack it, rather than when you strike > >against a real and very present threat. > > Even though no WMD has been found, and that can be said in > hindsight, given what was known at the time; it is hard to > claim that the threat was invented out of whole cloth. The > disagreement that existed between analyists who had access to > the general pre-1998 data, was that the difference was over > the size and immediacy of the threat, not it's existance. Even the UN > Sure, there was hints of evidence, if you choose not to look too deep and wanted to believe them (or not believe the bits that you did not like). I am of the opinion that you don't start wars unless you have REALLY good evidence, not a bit of hearsay and a few interpretations. But don't get me wrong, I know what happened, I just did not like it, at the time, or now. Probably more to the point is where was the threat? Maybe he might have had some sort of proto WMD's.... How was he going to deliver them? Who was he going to use them against? and more importantly why? You don't consider China a threat, cos they are not stupid enough to go to war with the US, knowing the costs to themselves. So Saddam was a madman was he? Who wanted to throw away his countrymen's lives and his own for a few fun minutes pressing red buttons. Where was his motive for using WMD's? I know what was said... 9/11, terrorists, WMD... I still have not seen anything that made that, then or now, seem like a reasonable basis for making him a threat. The only scenario I can imagine Saddam using WMD's would be during an invasion, when was on the verge of collapse and had nothing left to lose. So.. Umm.... Don't invade. As for him giving them to AQ.... Yea, just like the US hands out nuclear subs to anyone asks nicely. He was and is not a fool. I saw a lot of arrogance on the part of the US, racism even... "Stoopid crazy raghead givin away aatomic bombs and cheeemicals to them teerorists, they is all the same theem A-Rabs" (forgive my poor accent). Its not a good idea to use underestimation of an enemy as an excuse to attack them. I do not believe he posed a credible threat to anyone outside his borders. WMD's were just part of the story, the threat bit is still missing. <snip> > >No, I don't think that, there has been plenty of agro from > both sides. > >As I said, I am not a student of the arab-isreali wars and I > don't hold > >a strong position for one side or the other. The situation > sucks, the > >responses suck. My comments were in relation to the morality of > >starting wars. Your thoughts on that are of interest. > > I see an asymmetry here that I guess you don't. For the > first 25 or so years of Israel's existence, it was the stated > goal of the Arab governments to wipe "the Zionist entity" off > the face of the map. I don't think there is any evidence > that Israel planned to eliminate the existence of Arab countries. > > I can go on with this, but it isn't your chosen topic of > discussion....so I won't. I guess the point is that I don't > know what Israel could have done or can now do to virtually > guarantee that adoption of UN Resolution 242 would be > implemented as a major step towards a permanent peace. If I > were to magically run the PLO and have full authority over > all the Palestinian movements; I could probably get that > within 6 months. > Generally speaking, my sympathies lie with Israel, but its not cut and dried. I mean your point about wiping them off the map for example. Say someone gave half your yard away to some stranger. You would probably want him out, while he would be pretty happy with the status quo. I don't think we can grant too much moral high ground to either side. As you say, its not an area I know enough about to debate at length, but I do know that its gone on too long, and it has not helped world peace (if there is such a thing) Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
