Ssubi, The issue here is not whether the war is justified or not. I raised the fact that both the pro and anti-war camps have raised very strong arguments for their stand on this war.I should have mentioned that my opinion is that the war is unecessary and would have serious repercussions on the global economy, middle east politics and the Islamic question (if terrorists decide to use it as an excuse for causing more terror). I am not sure whether that makes me a bleeding liberal or not.However, for us to say that it is humanitarian considerations which should be the strongest reason for us to oppose the war is to ignore the real factors why wars happen in the first place. As you mentioned rightly,wars do happen and many times justfiably, despite the human suffering.
The question is then,should we oppose this war because a lot of people are going to suffer as they inevitably do in any war??In that case, the anti-war lobby would have their plates more than full because of the human suffering that goes on everyday in various war zones. But i have not heard them scream about Uganda,Eritrea, Ethiopia,Congo, Rwanda,Angola,Ivory Coast or Liberia to name but a few where human suffering has been and is still rife.I do think think that the more compelling reason for opposing this war is the fact that our geopolitics (the word Ssubi hates so much) is overwhelmingly soured by US hegemony(What the US wants, the US will get and everybody else should go rot in hell.) The typical Texan,swashbuckling gungho attitute that GW Bush is dispaying this time round, typifies American foreign policy and IS the main reason why we should be against this war. Tio -----Original Message----- From: Ssubi Kiwanuka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: mambo_: Fw: from the Mirror.co.uk --- here's why "they hate u s" 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 ***************************************************************************************************************************************** The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally priviledged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying distribution or taking action in reliance with the contents of the information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. KPMG is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. *****************************************************************************************************************************************
