In a message dated 12/02/2003 16:00:17 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< But the Pentagon says this will be a new type of warfare - a war against infrastructure, not people. I can't know whether that's true, but their descriptions make sense, and it does seem possible. Don't you remember the search in the 60s/70s for the bomb that would kill people, but leave buildings standing? Well, these bombs do the opposite. >> I can't believe that you are so willing to accept this line. The lie of "smart bombs" was exposed after the gulf war. Bombs kill people, they always have done, and they always will. If you're willing to countenance massive civilian casualties, then say so - don't try to sweeten it up by fooling yourself that these bombs won't kill civilians. And why destroy the infrastructure, for Christ's sake? I thought the goal was regime change. Or was it to counter the threat against the USA (for which no credible evidence has yet been produced)? Or punish Iraq for its connections with Al Qaeda (ditto)? << The American plan is to take out the first two tiers of Iraqi leadership in all government departments, but otherwise to leave things as they are. The aim is to take over the country with virtually no loss of innocent life, rule it for one year, then hold elections. >> I have not seen a coherent explanation for why the USA thinks it has a right to go into another country and install a leadership, despite the number of times they've done it. A look at the history of Iraq's next-door neighbour Iran, which was subjected to the inhumane leadership of the USA-sponsored Shah might give pause for consideration as to just how positive an outcome can be expected here. The upshot of that exercise in dictating another country's business was the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, which wasn't exactly what was intended. And then, of course, we had to sponsor a neighbouring strongman to counter the Iranian threat, and we all know who THAT was, don't we? << Did Osama bin Laden intend minimal loss of life when he attacked New York? Did Saddam intend it when he gassed the Kurds? >> No. And what is your point here? I thought "we in the west" had different, superior values to these thugs. Are you suggesting that because these madmen don't care about loss of innocent human lives, we needn't either? << Our intentions, unlike theirs, are decent. I believe that -- no matter how ridiculous it may sound to a small number of you. >> It does sound ridiculous, to more than a small number of people, unless you are ignoring the people on this list who are opposed to the war. You seem to think that you know what the USA intention is. What if it IS to get their hands on the oil. Is it still decent? << Those of you who say 'it's about oil' should spell out what you mean. It has turned into a chant that no-one understands. >> You are wrong. Whether or not you agree with it, I refuse to believe that "no-one understands" what is meant by this statement. It is really very simple: the arguments in favour of war are simply a fig-leaf for the true aims of the campaign against Iraq, which are to do with getting control of the vast oil reserves in Iraq. You don't agree with that? Fine. You don't understand it? Give me a break. << What is it about the Iraqi people that makes them unworthy of being liberated? How many of you who are anti-war have spent time with one single Iraqi in your entire lives? >> As someone has already pointed out, this is the hoary old rhetorical device of setting up an argument that nobody is actually making, so that it can be knocked down. << I don't know what Churchill's motive was when he pushed Britain into a war against Germany. I do know that he ended up liberating the people in the concentration camps. So who cares what he intended? >> So the ends justify the means? Churchill has become something of a secular deity, which conveniently ignored the fact that he was pretty anti-semitic himself (which was far more prevalent in those days, to be sure, not that this excuses it), and was very enthusiastic about gassing the Kurds. << If George Bush wants oil, let him have it. Who cares? All that matters, IMO, is that the people of Iraq are liberated. >> Oh that's alright then. Doesn't it even matter to you if the MAIN reason for waging the war is to get the oil, as long as Iraq is "liberated"? And I think we have to be very careful with this notion of liberation. Nobody has any idea what the fate of the average Iraqi will be when the last bomb has been dropped and the last fire is put out and the last corpse has been buried. << Those of you who oppose this war should suggest a viable alternative. >> I'm not even sure I agree with this proposition. I think it's more important to make a convincing case FOR war. Not making war is the default position, surely. There are any number of countries that are doing despicable things to their own people now, which have been mentioned on this list. We are not being asked to come up with reasons NOT to make war on them, because the USA is not suggesting making war on them. Now we are being told to come up with reasons NOT to make war on. Well I'm sorry, this proposition is back-to-front. War is a drastic step, and those waging it are the ones on whom the burden of proof rests. The efforts to prove that the war is justified are pretty feeble; it seems that every line they come up with fails to convince, so they search ever more desperately for a new one. There is no question that the Iraqi people are woefully benighted and deprived of freedom of speech and expression and most other human rights. The sad fact is that they are not the only people in this world who are suffering. You may think this point is irrelevant, but I don't. Nobody is suggesting that we wage war on Mauritania or Western Sahara, which are totally repressive societies, where slavery still goes on; or China, where the whole make-up of the population has been fatally skewed by the regime's insistence that families only have one child, and where, as a consequence, millions of girls (who are not as highly valued as boys) have been abandoned at birth or even murdered. And let's not forget China's illegal annexation of Tibet, where they have trampled on Tibetans' human rights and effected something akin to a cultural genocide. Nobody is suggesting waging war on any of these countries, because there are two crucial factors: 1. Do we trade with these countries? and 2. Do they have something we want? If the answer to the first question is "no" and the second is "yes", then war is a viable option. In the case of Mauritania, Western Sahara and more, it's "no" and "no", so no war. For China it's "yes" and "yes", so no war. And so it goes. There is, of course, another question that takes ultimate precedence: Does this country have the wherewithal to launch a nuclear reprisal? That'll explain the extraordinary silence over North Korea's recent sabre-rattling. I'll be going on the march on Saturday, along with several hundred thousand poor deluded fools who don't like the idea of war. I don't suppose it'll m ake a blind bit of difference to The Revd Blair's evangelical zeal to support military action; at least if a lot of people show their opposition, he won't be able to say nobody opposed the war. By the way, people outside the UK might not be aware of this, but our government actually tried to ban the march on Saturday. Their reasons for it were so preposterous that they might have come from The Onion. They said the ground in Hyde Park would be too wet, and that it would be getting too dark. I wish I were making that up but I'm not. Azeem in London
