I beg to differ with both you gentlemen. I am not, or
so I believe, what anyone would term a bleeding
liberal. War, gruesome and sad as it may be, is at
times justified. Rarely though can the aggressor claim
justification, and in this case, the Bush-Blair
coalition (rightly dubbed) has failed completely.
Tio you refer to geopolitics. An asinine term to
justify war at the best of times! But, in this case,
the term itself confounds all claims justifying a
preemptive strike. Iraq is in no position to harm
either the US nor UK. It simply does not have the
ability to project any meaningful threat or force,
against either, given its global positioning and
military equipment at its disposal. And whatever
threat it may project, taking the old adage of the
mouse and lion into consideration albeit twisted, both
the US and UK are capable of a hundred-fold response.
Hence, possessing a deterrent not easily over looked
by the most foolhardy of leaders. Not to mention a
seasoned political survivalist like Saddam.
For those that feel compelled to introduce the events
of Sept 11 as possible justification for preemptive
strikes and all out war, a quick reference to the
Oklahoma bombing should suffice. The US government has
not called for all out war against the militias that
bred McVeigh. It was considered a crime perpetrated by
individuals and hence punished as such. What more,
there is absolutely no proven link between Iraq and
the perpetrators except hearsay from a couple of
politicians. A profession that is known for its rather
liberal attitude as regards truth and fact.
But the most compelling reason, as the article points
out, for us to oppose and unanimously condemn this war
is humanitarian. Most on this list are African. With
the exception of a lucky few, all have at one time or
another experienced the ravages of war. As is always
the case, it is the civilians that suffer and die the
most. Taking the last war in Iraq as an example, there
is little reason to a different result this time
around. So, as rightly pointed out, the humanitarian
interest supersedes all others. On this stand alone,
not to mention others, it is our collective
responsibility to oppose this war.
Ssubi
--- twinemanzi tumubweinee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I agree with Tio but i will go further and say that
> its more than one's shade or level of sympathy and
> appreciation of geo-politics and US hegemony, it has
> more to do with the simpler attributes we all have
> as human beings, we have to take a side on any issue
> and once you believe in something you can always
> justify it... Kibwetere and Co. But when Bush Jr
> makes the argument for a side, when his thinking
> abilities have flatteringly compared to those of am
> epileptic baboon on its day off...... i shudder
> !!!!!
>
> Twinemanzi
>
>
> "Kauma, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Both the
> pro-war and anti-war people have got good and strong
> arguments.What colours one's perception of it all is
> one's view of geopolitics and US hegemony.It is a
> tough call.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
