> -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 11:40 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: The Choice Before Us > > > I'm taking what I believe to be a moderate stance, as follows:
I agree with most of this. Except that I've yet to be convinced that Saddam does have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Perhaps that hackneyed phrase needs to be better defined but I've seen no evidence that he has any weapon capable of more than local destruction and certainly no weapons capable of threatening American soil. Unlike N. Korea, I might add, and in that case we're taking only diplomatic measures. The first reports I heard were that Iraqis held 6 (or was it an even dozen) SCUDs... Missles capable of a 200 mile range. Later we heard that several (I think three) empty casings were found that could be used for biological weapons delivery. Are these violations? Yes, most definitely. However, from the US (most recently Colin Powell's PowerPoint-laden talks) we see a lot of "what if" scenarios, but very little actual proof. I can see going to war over circumstantial evidence (strong circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial nonetheless), but I don't have to like it. However in the end I find Saddam to be a minor threat to the US. As a breeding ground/supply partner for terroists Iraq is not unique, or even rare really. As a military power they are laughable. Arguments for war involving UN sanctions are strained as the US seems increasingly unwilling to abide by UN rulings in the matter. If it truly is a UN problem then let the UN handle it. I feel an attack could be more dangerous to future American interests. We are already straining our allegences and it seems like we will continue to do so. This administration seems more than ready to "go it alone" as someone said (on many fronts: military, environmental, economic, etc) and that worries me. America should be looking forward to it's role as a world leader. A world leader ecomonically, socially, intellectually and politically - not just militarily. Recent actions are jeapordizing that role, or at least delaying it. As to motive for war there seem to be many. The veneer motives used by the pro-war administration are valid if not indicative of deeper motives. These include humanitarian and social motives (not convincing since, as has been pointed out ad naseum Iraq is hardly unique in their human right violations) and pure defense motives (since, again as has been pointed out, Iraq is hardly the greatest military threat). Other motives are probably closer to the truth. Oil is an important issue (as a US friendly government in any oil-rich nation is desirable... although we've seen many an installed "friendly" turn sour later). Protection of allies is another (I think less convincing for an offensive, but logical). However the sociological motives can't be ignored. Before Powell's speech less than 1/3 of Americans were ready to go to war. Aftwards more than 1/2 were. It doesn't seem that the mountains of circumstantial evidence was the deciding point however. It was the purely sensationalistic (fake) vial of Anthrax. The fear of terrorists... that hit home. Americans are still frightened (even more than we used to be) and they want to see action. We can't find Bin Laden... So we're striking out at the next best thing. Like a freshly-dumped teenager that looks up her old boyfriend we're looking to Iraq for the feeling of security (yes, security) that a known enemy gives us. I personally happen to think that Bush is ass. But I also don't believe that he's arrogantly deciding to send people to their deaths for personal gain. I honestly believe that he honestly believes that what he's doing is correct and best for the country. He's aware (in an "iceing on the cake" way) that Americans are never happier with their leaders than when were bombing arabs. (In fact that could be a reason that we're backing off from N. Korea: Americans are only sometimes happy with their leaders when we're bombing asians.) He's also aware that wars, traditionally, have (temporarily) boosted the economy and that our economy could use a boost. On a personal level (and we ignore personal motives at our own risk) there is probably some family pride involved. In the end all of these motives (and many others) are at play. My fear is that these motives all have, at best, short term positives and potentially very long-term negatives (or, at best, question marks). Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
