Disgusted
D. Stephen Heersink
sympathize, with those who are truly against the war in Iraq. My own
views is that the Butcher of Baghdad is better off dead than alive,
and that he and his odious sons needed to be removed from power. This
is the doctrine of "regime change" that President Clinton initiated
while he was in office, but, with the exception of Kosovo, did little
about it. Regime change is more than mere disarmament, which is what
Belgium, France, and Germany claimed they were after (I don't believe
it, since France and Germany had multilateral contracts to do business
in Iraq, and Iraq was France's largest trading partner). Nonetheless,
President Bush decided against further appeasement, and wanted the
same kind of regime change that President Clinton wanted.
After much negotiation and diplomacy, the United Nations once again
faltered in its ability to do anything right. With countries like
Libya as the chair of the Human Rights Commission, it's hard to take
the U.N. seriously. Yet, President Bush did his best (without being
extorted) to bring about a negotiated agreement to change Iraq's
regime. France all but nullified any and all efforts to do this,
despite a majority of Europe and 20 other nations supporting Bush's
regime change. During this protracted engagement to elicit support,
Iraq managed to build up its resources in the anticipation of war.
Well, war has come, and thus far has gone remarkably well for the U.S.
and its allies. But the streets of San Francisco have become a
wellspring for angry, violent protestors of the war -- or so it would
seem. These protestors are not content to act civilly and tell us of
their minority position; no, they have to line up in the streets, turn
over police vehicles, utter epithets at and spit on passerby, make
people late for work and their appointments, and prevent people from
doing their daily basis. Oh, what fun for the protestors. They got to
act like spoiled brats, meanwhile exchanging names and phone numbers
for dates later in the week. The cost to San Franciscans for this
melee is a mere half million dollars a day, but what the heck, at
least the police are fighting its own citizens rather than doing
anti-terrorist work that might, just might, be more profitable. With
schools, AIDS, and social services being threatened to be cut by 50%,
it's nice to know protestors don't give a damn that they may make the
cuts even steeper.
Then there is evil being exposed as the war begins. War is messy, but
Iraqi soldiers take messy to appalling. Iraqi militants dress in
civilian garb, wave the flag of surrender, and then butcher their
would-be captors. The coalition's POWs that are captured by the Iraqi
are being butchered, shot in the head if they are lucky, or being
tortured by amputations of limbs, and then, when nothing more
dastardly can be done, the resorts to showing their lifeless bodies on
television. Such war crimes, crimes against humanity, and contempt for
the Geneva Convention makes one SO sympathetic for those who crush
their own people through large plastic shredders, acting like the
animals that they are. Then, what about the mass of chemical and
biological weapons that U.S. forces have uncovered at a plant in An
Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad? Where they going to butter
their toasts with the stuff? How about the soldier being described as
a Muslim and identified as Army Sgt. Asan Akbar, who is now in custody
for alleged complicity in the grenade and small-arms attack on members
of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division encamped in Northern
Kuwait, which injured 16 soldiers, one of whom has died? What ethic
led this soldier to kill his own? Being Muslim?
If these first few days don't persuade all those anti-war protestors
of the diabolical, evil, and malevolent nature of the Iraqi leaders,
of the ulterior motives of many of them, then they are closed to any
and all civil rationality. It's disgusting. All of it.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4712.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://groups.queernet.org> for details.
-
Help keep QueerNet and OPG lists on the air and advertising-free --
see <http://groups.queernet.org#donate> to donate.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Roger B.A. Klorese
>After much negotiation and diplomacy, the United Nations once again
>faltered in its ability to do anything right.
>
We don't get to sit in judgment on the UN. We're a member, not the boss
of it.
>France all but nullified any and all efforts to do this,
>despite a majority of Europe and 20 other nations supporting Bush's
>regime change.
>
A small minority at best out of how many members, 191 at present? And,
of course, most of those are blackmailed by American aid.
>...make
>people late for work and their appointments, and prevent people from
>doing their daily basis.
>
Awww, poor babies.
When something is this important, you can't allow people "business as
usual."
>...at
>least the police are fighting its own citizens rather than doing
>anti-terrorist work that might, just might, be more profitable.
>
Like there's any to be done. Another big myth: the great burden of
anti-terrorism.
>Then, what about the mass of chemical and
>biological weapons that U.S. forces have uncovered at a plant in An
>Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad?
>
Cite a reference, please?
>How about the soldier being described as
>a Muslim and identified as Army Sgt. Asan Akbar, who is now in custody
>for alleged complicity in the grenade and small-arms attack on members
>of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division encamped in Northern
>Kuwait, which injured 16 soldiers, one of whom has died? What ethic
>led this soldier to kill his own?
>
The same things that motivated all of the fragging incidents in Viet
Nam: being forced into evil acts by our chain of command.
--
This is message #4713.
Eric Payne
D. Stephen Heersink wrote:
><snip>
>
>If these first few days don't persuade all those anti-war protestors
>of the diabolical, evil, and malevolent nature of the Iraqi leaders,
>of the ulterior motives of many of them, then they are closed to any
>and all civil rationality. It's disgusting. All of it.
>
Stephen,
I've taken the liberty of snipping all of your posting, preferring to
respond to simply the last paragraph.
The reason? I agree with your statements concerning those that head the
government in Iraq; they are truly evil people. They need to be displaced.
That being said.... there's the inevitable "however."
However, by sending in troops, George Bush has done something no other
President in American history has done: He has, effectively, invaded
another, sovereign nation, without provocation. He's made a national
policy of "pre-emption," based solely on the whims of the person
occupying the Oval Office, and what threat that person may believe a
foreign nation may be to the United States at some point in the future.
In pursuing his action, he's also turned the majority of the world
against the United States - we are now seen as an "aggressor nation;" a
label with which we had never been saddled. In the powder keg of the
Middle East - or in any area/region where government and religion (any
religion) are linked - we are now no better than Israel. In past,
foreign wars, we've only stepped in when there was a direct
threat/attack against America or Americans. Iraq's presumed weapons
(which, neither the inspectors nor the advancing troops have found, by
the way) may have posed a threat at some future time. Maybe. But it's
beginning to look more and more like they just didn't have them.
How's this for a "what-if" scenario: Hussein and Kim ally themselves?
North Korea publicly admits to having nuclear warheads, capable of
reaching the United States, and targeted on the US West Coast and
Alaska. Iraq has oil to offer; would North Korea accept such a deal?
And what of the future? Will future presidents have to launch
"pre-emptive strikes" against nations that have turned against the US
because of Bush's actions? Turkey. Afghanistan. Pakistan. India. China.
All have the technology, or are in a mad dash to acquire the technology,
of "weapons of mass destruction." What happens if they acquire them, or
our foreign intelligence organizations - as they have in this situation
- mistakenly believe they've acquired those weapons based on faulty
data? In 16 years, will the President, then seated, feel justified in
launching a pre-emptive strike based on Bush's actions? Of course he/she
will. The precedent has been set.
Bush's claims that this is "Operation Liberate Iraq" are easily
dismissed; in his own coutnry, Bush has rolled back civil rights from
almost the moment he took office. As it stands right now, the Federal
Government can, legally, simply by asking an ISP, for a complete record
of one of their subscribers' internet habits, as well as complete copies
of all e-mail sent/received by that subscriber. Libraries that receive
federal funding are now required, if the government asks, to turn over a
list of all books borrowed by a library user. Neighbors have been urged
to spy upon neighbors and "report any suspicious activity." In the
coming months, according to the "Homeland Security Bill's" timetables,
simply purchasing an airline ticket will generate a complete background
information file on the purchaser. Foreign born citizens - those that
have gone through the legal process in order to obtain the rights this
country supposedly guarantees to it's citizenship - are being
questioned/detained for no reason other than being foreign born. The
government - most noticeably the President himself, via Executive Order
and the establishment of a new Cabinet Department - has planted and
fostered a fear in the populace far more malignant than the Red
Scare/McCarthy-ism of the 1950s. Now, by the Feds own standards, it IS
enough to be branded "traitorous" or "suspicious" based solely on
physical appearance, or by simply engaging in the Constitutional right
of free speech by disagreeing with the decisions/statements of the
President.
Domestically? We have no idea the cost of this incursion; citing
security reasons, the Executive Branch flatly refuses to release any
type of cost analysis. Coming into office with a budget surplus of over
one trillion dollars, in two years we're now in a deficit of over $300
billion, and is expected to reach over 1 trillion in just under 7 years.
Women are finding their right to reproductive choices narrowed. Minority
students are finding their access to universities curtailed. Medicare
recipients are looking at, essentially, having their right to challenge
Medicare decisions for health care stripped away; Bush having submitted
a plan in which independent Administrative Law Judges are removed from
the loop and Medicare decision appeals are heard, and judged, by
Medicare officials. Unemployment is reaching record levels - at least as
far as anyone can tell, since Bush did away with the unemployment
indicator once compiled by the government. In December, 2002,
unemployment simply stopped; the Branches of government simply went on
their holiday without bothering to renew benefits until January.
It's getting scary out there, and there's no end in sight. And, more and
more every day, the "out there" is getting to be "right here."
Eric Seright-Payne
Glendale, AZ
--
This is message #4714.
Bruce Garrett
In response to dsh...@intergate.com (D. Stephen Heersink)
> However, by sending in troops, George Bush has done something no
> other President in American history has done: He has, effectively,
> invaded another, sovereign nation, without provocation. He's made
> a national policy of "pre-emption," based solely on the whims of
> the person occupying the Oval Office, and what threat that person
> may believe a foreign nation may be to the United States at some
> point in the future.
Good column along those lines by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in
today's Los Angeles Times.
NEW YORK -- We are at war again -- not because of enemy attack, as in
World War II, nor because of incremental drift, as in the Vietnam War
-- but because of the deliberate and premeditated choice of our own
government.
Now that we are embarked on this misadventure, let us hope that our
intervention will be swift and decisive, and that victory will come
with minimal American, British and civilian Iraqi casualties.
But let us continue to ask why our government chose to impose this
war. The choice reflects a fatal turn in U.S. foreign policy, in
which the strategic doctrine of containment and deterrence that led
us to peaceful victory during the Cold War has been replaced by the
Bush Doctrine of preventive war. The president has adopted a policy
of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the
policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor on a date which,
as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who
live in infamy...
If the Los Angeles Time's invasive registration policy bothers
you, you can read the rest of it on:
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com
From the happy expression on their faces you might
have supposed that they welcomed the war. I have met
with men who loved stamps, and stones, and snakes,
but I could not imagine any man loving war.
-Margot Asquith
--
This is message #4715.
D. Stephen Heersink
<rog...@queernet.org> writes:
>D. Stephen Heersink wrote:
>
>>After much negotiation and diplomacy, the United Nations once again
>>faltered in its ability to do anything right.
>>
>
>We don't get to sit in judgment on the UN. We're a member, not the boss
>of it.
The UN is basically a defunct organization that makes resolutions it
doesn't intend to enforce. The UN is useless.
>>...make
>>people late for work and their appointments, and prevent people from
>>doing their daily basis.
>
>Awww, poor babies.
>
>When something is this important, you can't allow people "business as
>usual."
Who ARE you to decide these things for the 70% who DO support the war?
>>...at
>>least the police are fighting its own citizens rather than doing
>>anti-terrorist work that might, just might, be more profitable.
>>
>
>Like there's any to be done. Another big myth: the great burden of
>anti-terrorism.
Maybe you don't care that one-half million dollars is diverted daily
from education and AIDS to control the maniacs in the street, but I
think education and AIDS are more important that street parties
established to make future dates.
>>Then, what about the mass of chemical and
>>biological weapons that U.S. forces have uncovered at a plant in An
>>Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad?
>Cite a reference, please?
Yes, any news providers, specifically ABCNEWS.com. I presume you have
a browser that can point the way?
>>How about the soldier being described as
>>a Muslim and identified as Army Sgt. Asan Akbar, who is now in custody
>>for alleged complicity in the grenade and small-arms attack on members
>>of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division encamped in Northern
>>Kuwait, which injured 16 soldiers, one of whom has died? What ethic
>>led this soldier to kill his own?
>>
>
>The same things that motivated all of the fragging incidents in Viet
>Nam: being forced into evil acts by our chain of command.
Islamacists may be YOUR friends, but they've proven themselves no
friend of the US, NYC, or GAYS.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4716.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>The UN is basically a defunct organization that makes resolutions it
>doesn't intend to enforce. The UN is useless.
>
Well, I totally disagree. Just as the police can decide when to press
charges on an offense, as can a prosecutor, it's up to the UN to decide
how to enforce the UN's resolutions, and our not liking that doesn't
give us the right to do otherwise.
Clearly, many members believe that not only were inspections working
fine, but even being trapped in a state of permanent inspection would
keep Iraq sufficiently off-balance that no further action need be taken.
Sovereignty is like right-of-way: best observed in its yielding.
>>>...at
>>>least the police are fighting its own citizens rather than doing
>>>anti-terrorist work that might, just might, be more profitable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Like there's any to be done. Another big myth: the great burden of
>>anti-terrorism.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe you don't care that one-half million dollars is diverted daily
>from education and AIDS to control the maniacs in the street, but I
>think education and AIDS are more important that street parties
>established to make future dates.
>
You've changed the subject. You were talking about anti-terrorism, and
when I said that was a bogus concern, you shifted to education and
AIDS. Does this mean you accept that anti-terrorism is a bogus concern?
>>>Then, what about the mass of chemical and
>>>biological weapons that U.S. forces have uncovered at a plant in An
>>>Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Cite a reference, please?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, any news providers, specifically ABCNEWS.com. I presume you have
>a browser that can point the way?
>
Yes, when I asked for a citation I had checked both CNN.com and
MSNBC.com and no such reference appeared. Meanwhile, ABCNEWS.com
describes it as a "potential" goldmine, "appearing" to be a chemical
weapons plant, and a "potential: discovery. As I recall, the aspirin
plant we bombed in Afghanistan was also "a chemical weapons plant."
>>>How about the soldier being described as
>>>a Muslim and identified as Army Sgt. Asan Akbar, who is now in custody
>>>for alleged complicity in the grenade and small-arms attack on members
>>>of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division encamped in Northern
>>>Kuwait, which injured 16 soldiers, one of whom has died? What ethic
>>>led this soldier to kill his own?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The same things that motivated all of the fragging incidents in Viet
>>Nam: being forced into evil acts by our chain of command.
>>
>>
>
>Islamacists may be YOUR friends, but they've proven themselves no
>friend of the US, NYC, or GAYS.
>
>
They don't have to be my friends -- what they are, however, is clearly a
jingoistic slogan.
You didn't respond to my point at all. But that's not surprising.
--
This is message #4717.
D. Stephen Heersink
> > However, by sending in troops, George Bush has done something no
> > other President in American history has done: He has, effectively,
> > invaded another, sovereign nation, without provocation. He's made
> > a national policy of "pre-emption," based solely on the whims of
> > the person occupying the Oval Office, and what threat that person
> > may believe a foreign nation may be to the United States at some
> > point in the future.
Corrections. There is a melieu of provocations. The mass mutilation,
torture, and massacre of one's own people is a provocation that
President Clinton used to justify US involvement in Kosovo and which
is the same provocation that President Bush has used to intervene in
Iraq, such as UN resolutions, the threat of weapons of mass
destruction, and comfort and aid given to those terrorist who seek our
harm. Unlike Clinton, who received only NATO support from its Defense
Division, because France is not a member of it and therefore could not
veto his intended action, only twelve nations supported Clinton's
actions, whereas Bush has the consent and approval of more than forty
five nations, and like Clinton, has Britain and Australia actually
supporting military action. The crimes against humanity, the terror
perpetrated on its own people, the genocide, and the potential for
further destruction justified Kosovo, and justifies Iraq.
The Doctrine of Pre-emption is not a new doctrine. True, it hasn't
been used frequently -- often to our discredit (talk to holocaust
survivors of WWII), but the Just War Doctrine actually speaks to
pre-emption and considers it a legitimate and licit reason among many
for a just war. Ethicists are in accord that if Person A knows that
Person B intends to kill him, and that he has made threats that are
credible stating this objective, Person A is fully permitted to
pre-empt Person B from acting against him. It is form of self-defense,
and self-defense is the most fundamental means of a just war. Indeed,
self-preservation, which underlies the just war doctrine, is the most
basic instinct humans share with all others in the animal kingdom.
One doesn't have to wait to be attacked to initiate self-defense;
indeed, to wait in full view of an imminent threat is itself immoral.
If Army A develops weapons, makes threats, and supports the enemies of
Army B, the latter does not have to wait to be attacked and terrorized
before taking action. For Person A to stand idly while Person B
intends to harm Person C makes Person A immoral, if and only if,
Person A has the means to prevent the harm. Substitute the United
States, Western Civilization, etc., for Person A and Person B, and
substitute Iraq, Islamicists, etc., for Person C and we have the
temporal conditions to the moral logic.
The next time someone comes running at you with a knife in a fit of
rage after making threats against you, and after you have seen him/her
knife others, I dare you to stand still and let him knife you first
~before~ you act. Or, if such a person is no less bent on killing a
loved one, I dare you to stand by and watch. Such is patently absurd
and stupid. Not to use the doctrine of pre-emption would be equally
stupid and idiotic.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4718.
D. Stephen Heersink
<rog...@queernet.org> writes of his agreement with me about the
uselessness of the United Nations. He seems confused here, however:
>>Maybe you don't care that one-half million dollars is diverted daily
>>from education and AIDS to control the maniacs in the street, but I
>>think education and AIDS are more important that street parties
>>established to make future dates.
>
>You've changed the subject. You were talking about anti-terrorism, and
>when I said that was a bogus concern, you shifted to education and
>AIDS. Does this mean you accept that anti-terrorism is a bogus concern?
No I haven't. The subject is that corralling anti-war protestors, and
in San Francisco, having to arrest 1,400 of them in one day, because
they behaved in a juvenile, violent, and assaulting manner, means that
money that could be used to educate our children, detour our
terrorists, and finance AIDS and HIV relief is being diverted to
police being fully deployed and work overtime. It cost the City
$500K/day on Thursday, and who knows what the Friday cost is. When the
City is contemplating cutting ALL social services in half ~before~ the
riots, because of Governor Davis' complete mismanagement of State
affairs, these antics COST me and others who depend on social services
where we can least afford it.HIV people already are wait-listed for
critical services because of state and local mismanagement, now the
protestors can only offer further delay. What's really galling is that
it's one thing to express your dissent, which I can even share, but
not use violence for peace. The hypocrisy and the cost to all of us
for a minority erupting in a temper tantrum is just pathetic.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4719.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>He seems confused here, however:
>
>
Only to you.
>No I haven't. The subject is that corralling anti-war protestors, and
>in San Francisco, having to arrest 1,400 of them in one day, because
>they behaved in a juvenile, violent, and assaulting manner, means that
>money that could be used to educate our children, detour our
>terrorists, and finance AIDS and HIV relief is being diverted to
>police being fully deployed and work overtime.
>
Priorities. Stopping the war has to take precedence.
>What's really galling is that
>it's one thing to express your dissent, which I can even share, but
>not use violence for peace.
>
Really?!
Then we shouldn't be using violence for peace in Iraq, either. Goose,
meet gander.
--
This is message #4721.
D. Stephen Heersink
<rog...@queernet.org> writes:
>
>Priorities. Stopping the war has to take precedence.
This is YOUR priority and the priority of a mere 30% of Americans.
Seventy percent believe the persecution of this war is not only in our
self-interests, national interests, and world interests, but necessary
for our very survival. I regret you do not see it that way, but why
must I pay and keep paying to finance your minority opinion which is
already passe?
>>What's really galling is that
>>it's one thing to express your dissent, which I can even share, but
>>not use violence for peace.
>>
>
>Really?!
Yes, really! I find the use of violence in the advocacy of peace to be
typical hypocrisy of the anti-war demonstrators. Those who don't see
the hypocrisy of the contradiction obviously lack critical thinking
skills to understand what it is they are doing.
>Then we shouldn't be using violence for peace in Iraq, either. Goose,
>meet gander.
We are NOT using violence for peace, and no one in this administration
has ever suggested such. The prosecution of this war serves several
purposes that include freedom from tyranny, defeat of terrorism and
the spread of WMD, the dethronement of the butcher of Baghdad before
he butchers hundreds and thousands of others. It's a humanitarian and
self-defense measure, with peace being the fruit, but not the war's
purpose.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4723.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Seventy percent believe the persecution of this war is not only in our
>self-interests, national interests, and world interests, but necessary
>for our very survival.
>
I think you mean "prosecution," though your slip is quite accurate.
> I regret you do not see it that way, but why
>must I pay and keep paying to finance your minority opinion which is
>already passe?
>
Truth is never passe. A majority believed in slavery. A majority
believe(d) gay men and lesbians are perverted. Majority rule doesn't
mean a majority is right.
--
This is message #4724.
Mathemagician
>Who ARE you to decide these things for the 70% who DO support the war?
Who ARE these "70% who DO support the war"?
They certainly don't live in the United States.
Less than half the population of the US supports a unilateral war without
the blessing of the UN.
It's only 70% if we get UN approval.
We didn't get it.
Ergo, less than half the US population supports the war.
> >Like there's any to be done. Another big myth: the great burden of
> >anti-terrorism.
>
>Maybe you don't care that one-half million dollars is diverted daily
>from education and AIDS to control the maniacs in the street, but I
>think education and AIDS are more important that street parties
>established to make future dates.
Non sequitur.
The issue put before you is the threat of terrorism. Not the question of
AIDS or crime but of terrorism.
What nobody has managed to do is link Hussein to al Qaida or any act of
terrorism against the US homeland.
> >>Then, what about the mass of chemical and
> >>biological weapons that U.S. forces have uncovered at a plant in An
> >>Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad?
>
> >Cite a reference, please?
>
>Yes, any news providers, specifically ABCNEWS.com. I presume you have
>a browser that can point the way?
Sorry, I can't find any such reference. It would help if you would provide
an actual link. I found reference to a "chemical plant," but there is no
indication that it was a "chemical weapons" plant. They're looking into it.
If you're asked for a reference, "any news provider" is not a
reference. That is simply another way to say, "It's common knowledge."
Well, obviously it isn't since you're being asked for a reference.
See, you do it like this:
http://www.msnbc.com/local/kmol/d-2b349b0b-61a8-468c-bf0e-26393a7619cb.asp
"US Finds Suspected Iraq Chemical Plant"
--
Brian P. Evans | I used to work for Bill Gates...
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
--
This is message #4725.
Mathemagician
>This is YOUR priority and the priority of a mere 30% of Americans.
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the lie, Stephen. It
won't make it true.
Less than half the US population supports the war.
The only way to get 70% is if the US had the UN's blessing.
We didn't get the UN's blessing.
To go to war unilaterally, as we have done, has less than 50% approval.
>Seventy percent believe the persecution of this war is not only in our
>self-interests, national interests, and world interests, but necessary
>for our very survival.
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the lie, Stephen. It
won't make it true.
Less than half the US population supports the war.
The only way to get 70% is if the US had the UN's blessing.
We didn't get the UN's blessing.
To go to war unilaterally, as we have done, has less than 50% approval.
>I regret you do not see it that way,
Indeed. I prefer to see reality while you prefer to see something else.
>but why
>must I pay and keep paying to finance your minority opinion which is
>already passe?
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the lie, Stephen. It
won't make it true.
Less than half the US population supports the war.
The only way to get 70% is if the US had the UN's blessing.
We didn't get the UN's blessing.
To go to war unilaterally, as we have done, has less than 50% approval.
> >Then we shouldn't be using violence for peace in Iraq, either. Goose,
> >meet gander.
>
>We are NOT using violence for peace, and no one in this administration
>has ever suggested such. The prosecution of this war serves several
>purposes that include freedom from tyranny, defeat of terrorism and
>the spread of WMD, the dethronement of the butcher of Baghdad before
>he butchers hundreds and thousands of others. It's a humanitarian and
>self-defense measure, with peace being the fruit, but not the war's
>purpose.
Um, what is "peace" if not "freedom from tyranny, defeat of terrorism and
the spread of WMD, the dethronement of a butcher before he butchers
hundreds and thousands of others"?
If we're not fighting for these specific things which are the hallmarks of
peace, then what on earth are we fighting for? You say we're not fighting
for peace, but everything you have said is precisely what is meant by "peace."
Simple question: If we don't find any WMD, what should the comments of the
US be? Since the entire justification for this war has been that Hussein
had WMD and was about to get a nuclear bomb Real Soon Now (C), what should
be the attitude of the US if we find out that there weren't any and that
there was no hope of getting nukes?
Be specific.
--
Brian P. Evans | I used to work for Bill Gates...
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
--
This is message #4726.
Mathemagician
>>I regret you do not see it that way, but why
>>must I pay and keep paying to finance your minority opinion which is
>>already passe?
>
>Truth is never passe. A majority believed in slavery. A majority
>believe(d) gay men and lesbians are perverted. Majority rule doesn't mean
>a majority is right.
But the thing is, Heersink's position is not the majority.
The only way there was a majority opinion in favor of war was if the UN
gave approval.
The UN did not give approval.
Therefore, why does anybody still think that the amount of support for the
war is the same when it seems less than half of the country supported the
war without UN approval?
--
Brian P. Evans | I used to work for Bill Gates...
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
--
This is message #4727.
Eric Payne
D. Stephen Heersink wrote:
<snip of invalid argument>
>One doesn't have to wait to be attacked to initiate self-defense;
>indeed, to wait in full view of an imminent threat is itself immoral.
>If Army A develops weapons, makes threats, and supports the enemies of
>Army B, the latter does not have to wait to be attacked and terrorized
>before taking action. For Person A to stand idly while Person B
>intends to harm Person C makes Person A immoral, if and only if,
>Person A has the means to prevent the harm. Substitute the United
>States, Western Civilization, etc., for Person A and Person B, and
>substitute Iraq, Islamicists, etc., for Person C and we have the
>temporal conditions to the moral logic.
>
>The next time someone comes running at you with a knife in a fit of
>rage after making threats against you, and after you have seen him/her
>knife others, I dare you to stand still and let him knife you first
>~before~ you act. Or, if such a person is no less bent on killing a
>loved one, I dare you to stand by and watch. Such is patently absurd
>and stupid. Not to use the doctrine of pre-emption would be equally
>stupid and idiotic.
>
Look at your own example for a second or two. Do you see the
inconsistency of your logic?
Bush has launched a pre-emptive strike... he's become the first
President in history to start a war with a foreign, sovereign nation
based not on actions taken against this country... but on what he THINKS
might happen at some point in the future.
You say "if you see someone rushing toward you... or a loved one...",
but that didn't happen here. In fact, Iraq wasn't even sabre rattling.
At some point since 9/11, Bush convinced himself, through forged
documentation and faulty intelligence, Iraq posed an imminent threat to
the United States and began his chest beating.
There were, and have been, no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq,
by either the UN inspectors or advancing troops. Thankfully, as the
troops advance, a large percentage of the Iraq army is simply
surrendering. Yet, while we're advancing through the country, we're also
bombing the hell out of Baghdad... and, so far, we've not been given any
"body count." How many civilians have already been killed? How many
children? Though it's being presented that way on television, this
"shock and awe" display is not a fireworks show. Those are bombs
exploding, not pop-rockets.
Going back to your analogy, however, North Korea HAS been brandishing a
knife, waving it in the face of the United States and her allies. Yet...
nothing. Bush's answer to a very real scenario of nuclear attack from
North Korea is to attack Iraq.
And, I notice, you chose not to respond to any comment concerning Bush's
domestic agenda and performance in office, and the absolutely horrible
ramifications of his agenda to the economy and civil rights at home.
Much like our President, you're single issue focused, but the solution
of "kill Sadaam" isn't going to solve the problems of record
unemployment, Medicare, Social Security, reproductive rights, equal
opportunity issues or record deficits caused by the President.
Remember "Every Child Counts"? The first of Bush's promises? There are
now schools in this country that can't afford to teach a full day due to
federal budget cuts. There are children who are looking at having their
school lunches - for many, the only meal they get per day - eliminated.
There are children, complete innocents, who face an immediate future of
loss of Welfare benefits to their mothers if their mothers are unmarried.
As I said: It's getting scary out there... but the "out there" is very
quickly becoming the "right here."
Eric Seright-Payne
Glendale, AZ
--
This is message #4728.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<<
As I've expressed before now, I understand, and in many ways sympathize, with those who are truly against the war in Iraq.
>>
Your preface to trivializing many brave citizens dissenting against a foolhardy war.
<<
Well, war has come, and thus far has gone remarkably well for the U.S.
and its allies.
>>
Well, that might have been true when you posted your message; but if you're up to the latest news, this is surely no longer the case.
<<
But the streets of San Francisco have become a
wellspring for angry, violent protestors of the war -- or so it would seem. These protestors are not content to act civilly and tell us of
their minority position; no, they have to line up in the streets, turn
over police vehicles, utter epithets at and spit on passerby, make
people late for work and their appointments,
>>
Since when has not massive demonstration been without a violent fringe? And how can you say that this fringe is not a product of intentional sabotage by CIA war hawks? Easy to hate San Francisco, especially with all those "liberal faggots", eh? So what if you're queer, too...everyone else is throwing stones, so what the hey.
As for people being late for work, as a result of public demonstrations: well, la de da. What a shame. Ghandi's non-violent tactics of dissent definitely MANDATED that business as usual should be halted, in order to disrupt the flow of workers who'd prefer to ignore everything that upsets them. This is how dissent against the Vietnam War started...and who do you think turned out to be right all along?
The anti-war resistors...whose courage was just as great as any soldier, for not only did some die in the name of justice, but most of the dissenters took a stand IN THE FACE OF imminent danger to their own lives and livelihood. There are no fewer heroes on the side of pacifist dissenters than there are among soldiers. In fact, permit me to claim that there are many MORE.
In a nutshell: your macho braggadocio is plain boring.
---
Lavender-Velvet Revolution
http://www.gay-bible.org/
--
This is message #4736.
Roger B.A. Klorese
>These protestors are not content to act civilly and tell us of
>their minority position; no, they have to line up in the streets... make
>people late for work and their appointments, and prevent people from
>doing their daily basis.
>
I'm alive today because ACT UP used these tactics, showing the New York
Stock Exchange theat "business as usual" was unacceptable.
--
This is message #4739.
Rachel Johnson
reply to each in separate emails.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What ethic
>>led this soldier to kill his own?
>>
>
>The same things that motivated all of the fragging incidents in Viet
>Nam: being forced into evil acts by our chain of command.
Islamacists may be YOUR friends, but they've proven themselves no
friend of the US, NYC, or GAYS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Islamacists? I hope you aren't implying that this one man represents all
of the followers of Islam. That's like saying that <all> Christians are the
enemies of gays (which I think some of these people might be a little upset
to hear: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm ) because of some
crazy nutcase Christian gay bashers.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm ... if you scroll down, you
will see that there are mailing lists and support sites for Muslims who
identify themselves as gay or lesbian. Given, I haven't really researched
this too much (it took me what? 2 minutes to find these links and briefly
survey the webpages?) but it seems that you may be in the wrong here. Not
to mention...the bit you said about the U.S. and Muslims.
Links about how many Muslims are in the U.S. ...(perhaps you think that all
of these people are terrorists? that all of them are anti-American?)
http://www.jannah.org/articles/usmuslims.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/
http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/islam/fact2.htm
(got bored after this...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I totally disagree. Just as the police can decide when to press
charges on an offense, as can a prosecutor, it's up to the UN to decide
how to enforce the UN's resolutions, and our not liking that doesn't
give us the right to do otherwise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Really! (agreed) It's like U.S. citizens getting up and taking care of
laws themselves. It's still illegal for me to kill a murderer, even if my
state laws allow for the person to be killed *by* the state. I can be tried
for any crime that I commit, even if it is a crime that I committed trying
to take the place of police. This should be an obvious point, and I'm glad
you said it! You just can't attack someone and claim you're doing it
because of some rule...if the people who made the rule say you can't attack.
It has to be justified outside of the framework of the law. In other words,
we have to be invading Iraq because we want to...or need to or whatever, not
because the UN said so a while ago and they won't do anything about it.
Ridiculous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > However, by sending in troops, George Bush has done something no
> > other President in American history has done: He has, effectively,
> > invaded another, sovereign nation, without provocation. He's made
> > a national policy of "pre-emption," based solely on the whims of
> > the person occupying the Oval Office, and what threat that person
> > may believe a foreign nation may be to the United States at some
> > point in the future.
Corrections. There is a melieu of provocations. The mass mutilation,
torture, and massacre of one's own people is a provocation that
President Clinton used to justify US involvement in Kosovo and which
is the same provocation that President Bush has used to intervene in
Iraq, such as UN resolutions, the threat of weapons of mass
destruction, and comfort and aid given to those terrorist who seek our
harm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Yeah, not to mention the less recent past...South/Central America and
communism for instance. Would it not be pre-emptive of the U.S. to take a
democratically elected leader who is "soft on communism" out of office and
replace him with a barbarous conservative anti-communist dictatorial
butcher? It *did* happen on several occasions.
On another note, thumbs up to Mathemagician for the link on the chemical
plant. Thank you for clearing that up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Um, what is "peace" if not "freedom from tyranny, defeat of terrorism and
the spread of WMD, the dethronement of a butcher before he butchers
hundreds and thousands of others"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Really! (no sarcasm here) Sounds peaceful to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>I regret you do not see it that way, but why
>>must I pay and keep paying to finance your minority opinion which is
>>already passe?
>
>Truth is never passe. A majority believed in slavery. A majority
>believe(d) gay men and lesbians are perverted. Majority rule doesn't mean
>a majority is right.
But the thing is, Heersink's position is not the majority.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--However, the comment on the logic of the original email I think is in
line. Majority rule does not always mean morally pristine rule. So what if
the majority supports something? Given, I understand what was said about
there not being a majority supports this...but even *if* they did, nothing
is proven about whether or not it is a good idea. Hell, the mode of many
sets of data that conform to a normal curve is smack dab in the middle, but
that's not where I want to be!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yet, while we're advancing through the country, we're also
bombing the hell out of Baghdad... and, so far, we've not been given any
"body count." How many civilians have already been killed? How many
children? Though it's being presented that way on television, this
"shock and awe" display is not a fireworks show. Those are bombs
exploding, not pop-rockets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--This is one of the things I'm most concerned about in relation to the war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Going back to your analogy, however, North Korea HAS been brandishing a
knife, waving it in the face of the United States and her allies. Yet...
nothing. Bush's answer to a very real scenario of nuclear attack from
North Korea is to attack Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Funny, isn't it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
Much like our President, you're single issue focused, but the solution
of "kill Sadaam" isn't going to solve the problems of record
unemployment, Medicare, Social Security, reproductive rights, equal
opportunity issues or record deficits caused by the President.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Actually, it might help unemployment. I haven't been taking
macroeconomics for long, but I seem to remember someone telling me that wars
tend to pull economies out of depressions...although I don't know how tax
cuts would affect that. *shrugs* Yesterday stocks fell terribly...quite
scary...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
America-haters, however, domestic and abroad, want the UN to be
like the Senate, where South Dakota is equal to California, so as to
effectively impede the global leadership of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Ahem? If you'll recall, we aren't legally the rulers of the world...nor
do we own it. It makes sense to me that other countries have a say,
especially when the U.S. tries to do something as incredibly stupid as this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We need the United States to say kiss my ass to the rest of the world
because we don't just live there, WE OWN THE FUCKER.
Might makes right. No exceptions. Besides, we have the biggest dick.
White queens should ALWAYS make US foreign policy. I mean, who knows more
about abusing power and privilege?
Excuse me. Who knows more about abusing power and privilege, BITCH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--The kind of humor I can appreciate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Germany had not attacked us.
Germany, as I recall my history lessons, declared war on us, after we
declared war on Japan. There's a difference between Bush's axis of evil,
and the axis we fought back then. That axis was not merely some
politician's rhetorical device.
Furthermore, again as I recall my history lessons, Germany was actively
engaged in a war of conquest against most of Europe.
*(and)*
Germany had not attacked us. Only Japan had done that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--Yes, Japan attacked us. Then we declared war on Japan, and Germany
declared war on us. What's also important to note here is Japan and Germany
were allied. Bin Laden's task force and Hussein are not, if what you were
trying to imply by "Germany had not attacked us, only Japan had done that"
that we have some justification in attacking Iraq because of 9/11. If you
didn't mean that, then forget what I said about it. I only thought you
might have meant something by it because of the other statement a few lines
later: "Were we stupid and criminal to start waging war on a country that
had not attacked us, especially at a time when another country *had*
attacked us?" The answer there is no, but the answer for our current
situation is yes, we are stupid and criminal for attacking Iraq if the
reason is some unrelated, unallied terrorists attacked us.
I think that's it...sorry for so much typing!
Rachel
--
This is message #4744.
D. Stephen Heersink
writes:
>Stephen,
>
>I've taken the liberty of snipping all of your posting, preferring to
>respond to simply the last paragraph.
>
>The reason? I agree with your statements concerning those that head the
>government in Iraq; they are truly evil people. They need to be displaced.
>
>That being said.... there's the inevitable "however."
>
>However, by sending in troops, George Bush has done something no other
>President in American history has done: He has, effectively, invaded
>another, sovereign nation, without provocation.
Two responses: (1) The Iraqi National Congress has requested our
intervention, and Bush is not alone is circumventing the United
Nations; President Clinton did the same with Kosovo. In both cases,
for different reasons, France was the obstacle to relieving the world
of genocide, torture, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, etc. (2)
Besides, ~all~ the nations that were under the yoke of the USSR
support our prosecution of war; they, only recently freed themselves,
cannot be financial and military supporters, but they wholly support
our endeavor in principle and practice. Most of the mideast nations
also support our intervention, though they want their support kept
quiet for understandable reasons. Indeed, at least forty-five nations
have endorsed our prosecution of war against Saddam.
Perhaps some readers are under the illusion that only the United
Nations' conveys legitimacy; but its constitution and behavior are
largely a non-democratic, supercratic, and monopolistic. Having Libya
the chief nation for Human Rights is beyond absurd, and having Iraq in
a position of leadership is no less absurd. Trying to get approval
from the U.N. can be blocked by China, Russia, or France, and all
three, but especially France, made it clear it would not support
Resolution 1441 it approved only six months earlier. The whole ordeal
was absurd from the onset, and done only to placate Tony Blair. These
three nations have vested financial interests in keeping Hussein in
power; so does Germany, insofar as this "group" of the unwilling has
sold, repaired, and entered contractually into military operations
with Saddam. Iraq is France's largest trading partner. They didn't
care what happened in Kosovo, and they don't care what atrocities
Saddam has done in Iraq. They simply want the status quo; hence, their
acerbic efforts to veto ~any~ enforcement of Resolution 1441 -- the
seventeenth resolution over twelve years that went unenforced by the
U.N.
Many people chided President Clinton for Kosovo, while I supported him
wholeheartedly. Mutatis mutandis, Bush and Iraq. Sometimes a
super-power must act like a super-power in relieving other countries
from the yoke of tyranny, oppression, and torture. I understand and
even sympathize with isolationists, but sometimes we cannot avert our
eyes from crimes against humanity. As a superpower, we should use our
good fortune for the good of others whenever and wherever possible.
Not everyone agrees, but this parable of the Good Samaritan applied
internationally, as I believe it should apply to our daily
acquaintances.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4786.
D. Stephen Heersink
writes:
>Roger Klorese responds to D. Stephen Heersink:
>
>>>I regret you do not see it that way, but why
>>>must I pay and keep paying to finance your minority opinion which is
>>>already passe?
>>
>>Truth is never passe. A majority believed in slavery. A majority
>>believe(d) gay men and lesbians are perverted. Majority rule doesn't mean
>>a majority is right.
>
>But the thing is, Heersink's position is not the majority.
70% support is a clear majority.
>The only way there was a majority opinion in favor of war was if the UN
>gave approval.
That was Great Britain. Recent polls show only contempt for the U.N.
>The UN did not give approval.
Of course not; France has too many financial interests in Iraq to see
the applecart upset.
>Therefore, why does anybody still think that the amount of support for the
>war is the same when it seems less than half of the country supported the
>war without UN approval?
The U.N. is irrelevant. It's always been, and has proven itself again.
Every president, including Clinton, that needed something done, except
Bush I, has avoided the U.N. rightly.
Kind regards,
___________________
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@intergate.com
--
This is message #4787.
Mathemagician
> >But the thing is, Heersink's position is not the majority.
>
>70% support is a clear majority.
And where is this 70% support?
Remember, the only time the US population shows 70% support is if we get
the UN support.
We didn't get UN support, therefore we don't have 70% support.
Instead, if the UN does not give support, US support drops to below half.
> >The only way there was a majority opinion in favor of war was if the UN
> >gave approval.
>
>That was Great Britain. Recent polls show only contempt for the U.N.
No, that was the United States.
ABCNews Nightline Poll from August 11 showed a 69% to 54% support in the US
for attacks against Iraq if the US got allied support versus not getting
allied support.
On August 29, those numbers had dropped to 56% and 39%. Not only did more
people not want to go to war if the UN didn't come on board, but the number
of people who wanted to go even without the support of the UN dropped.
In early February of this year, the ABCNews poll showed the number who
would go without UN support was barely above half while only 58% thought it
was worth going to war over at all. A far cry from your 70% number.
In mid-February of this year, New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 59%
of Americans believed the UN should be given more time, 63% that the US
should not attack without allied support, and 56% that the US should not
attack without UN support.
The UK numbers, on the other hand, are even worse. In January of this
year, 81% of the British voters demanded a UN resolution.
Where do you get your information, Stephen? So far every single statement
of yours you have made that I have looked up has turned out to be false.
> >The UN did not give approval.
>
>Of course not; France has too many financial interests in Iraq to see
>the applecart upset.
Um, they had just as many financial interests in the former Yugoslavia and
yet they joined in on the fighting there. What's so different about
Iraq? They had just as many financial interests in Iraq the first time
around and yet they joined in there. What's so different about this time
around?
> >Therefore, why does anybody still think that the amount of support for the
> >war is the same when it seems less than half of the country supported the
> >war without UN approval?
>
>The U.N. is irrelevant.
So why is it when Bush the Elder came up with 28 countries including Syria
and Egypt to lend military support in the fight against Iraq, Bush the
Younger could only come up with 2.5 (yeah, Australia sent some troops, but
only 2,000...and by the way, the Australian Senate just voted no-confidence
in their Prime Minister for sending troops.)
Bush the Younger couldn't even get NATO on board the way Clinton did with
the former Yugoslavia.
>It's always been, and has proven itself again.
>Every president, including Clinton, that needed something done, except
>Bush I, has avoided the U.N. rightly.
Again, Clinton managed to get NATO involved (including the French who sent
troops) and Bush the Younger couldn't even do *that.*
--
Brian P. Evans | I used to work for Bill Gates...
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
--
This is message #4793.
Mathemagician
>President Clinton did the same with Kosovo. In both cases,
>for different reasons, France was the obstacle to relieving the world
>of genocide, torture, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, etc.
First: Clinton went to NATO.
Second: France came on board.
Clinton was able to do what Bush couldn't: Get a significant coalition of
forces together.
>(2)
>Besides, ~all~ the nations that were under the yoke of the USSR
>support our prosecution of war; they, only recently freed themselves,
>cannot be financial and military supporters, but they wholly support
>our endeavor in principle and practice.
You don't suspect that their financial needs might not play a part in their
decision?
But once again, you ignore the most obvious:
Clinton had more support for the action in the former Yugoslavia than Bush
the Younger does for this one.
Bush the Elder had more support for the action in Iraq than Bush the
Younger does for this one.
And where does this "wholly support" come from? Yeah, Tony Blair has
managed to put UK troops in the mix, but the vast majority of the
population of the UK does not support the war.
>Most of the mideast nations
>also support our intervention, though they want their support kept
>quiet for understandable reasons.
Oh, so you can read their minds?
When Bush the Elder went to war against Iraq, he managed to get Syria and
Egypt to provide military support. The governments of the Arab nations are
not loathe to provide their support if they think it's worth it. They did
it before, so why not do it now?
>Indeed, at least forty-five nations
>have endorsed our prosecution of war against Saddam.
Half of what Bush the Elder had.
And you're still ignoring the bigger picture: Nearly 10 times as many
countries lent military support including Arab countries.
If this war is so popular, why are we the only ones showing up?
>Trying to get approval
>from the U.N. can be blocked by China, Russia, or France, and all
>three, but especially France, made it clear it would not support
>Resolution 1441 it approved only six months earlier.
Incorrect.
What France and Russia said was that they would not support a military
invasion of Iraq as a resolution.
You have committed the logical error of False Dilemma. You seem to think
that the only choices are "invade Iraq" or "do absolutely nothing." There
are other options.
>These
>three nations have vested financial interests in keeping Hussein in
>power;
So why did France join in on the war in the former Yugoslavia when it had
just as strong a vestment in the financial interests of the area?
>so does Germany,
Same problem: Germany had a strong financial vestment in the former
Yugoslavia, so why did it join the US?
>insofar as this "group" of the unwilling has
>sold, repaired, and entered contractually into military operations
>with Saddam.
So did the US.
Where do you think Hussein got the anthrax?
>They didn't
>care what happened in Kosovo,
(*blink!*)
You didn't just say that, did you?
France certainly did care. They joined in the war. They sent troops.
>hence, their
>acerbic efforts to veto ~any~ enforcement of Resolution 1441
Logical error: False Dilemma.
There are other alternatives to enforcement of Resolution 1441 than active
military incursion.
>Sometimes a
>super-power must act like a super-power in relieving other countries
>from the yoke of tyranny, oppression, and torture.
Sometimes a super-power must learn that there are rules to be obeyed no
matter how much it thinks it knows the right way to do things.
>I understand and
>even sympathize with isolationists,
"Isolationists"? Who do you think enforced the no-fly zones over Iraq?
>but sometimes we cannot avert our
>eyes from crimes against humanity.
Yep.
Have you considered the possibility that the US will be considered the one
committing the crime by the rest of the world?
>As a superpower, we should use our
>good fortune for the good of others whenever and wherever possible.
Even if nobody else seems to think it's good?
>Not everyone agrees, but this parable of the Good Samaritan applied
>internationally, as I believe it should apply to our daily
>acquaintances.
Um, the point behind the Good Samaritan was that even somebody as lowly and
detestable as a Samaritan knew the value of charity. The Jews and the
Samaritans were rival tribes and often warred against each
other. Remember, the traveller had already been beaten, stripped, and left
for dead. The parable is not that the Good Samaritan was waiting behind a
tree for the bandits to come by and defeated them with his own mighty prowess.
You seem to have forgotten the direct commandment of Jesus regarding the
use of force: If someone strikes you upon the right cheek, turn and offer
him your left.
--
Brian P. Evans | I used to work for Bill Gates...
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
--
This is message #4794.