"But the world isn't like that"

[jbor]

Otto wrote:

> Of course GWB isn't to compare to SH. But try to explain this to the poor
> Palestinian population (and all the millions of Muslims for example in
> Indonesia and elsewhere) terrorized by the IDF with American arms.

I don't think it is accurate or fair to identify the vast majority of
Muslims, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Indonesia, or elsewhere
across the world, with terrorist extremism. Most Muslims and most Muslim
nations deplore terrorism and these terrorist attacks in particular. Just
like most non-Muslims.

> F-16 and
> Helicopters with rockets are certainly weapons of mass destruction.

Using these weapons to stop terrorism is vastly different to using them to
initiate terrorism.

> Btw. the
> Afghanistan war killed more civilians than the original terror attack on the
> WTC.

But it's not just a matter of comparing death tallies.

> The better arguments were delivered by Pete Stark and others who hardly > can
> be called anti-American:
> http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/10/stark/index.html

I don't think the "I don't trust this President" argument holds much water.
What, so Pete Stark *does* trust Saddam Hussein?! In the end it was a
conscience vote and after the debate about 80 or 90 of the Democrats
supported the motion put to the US Congress. The alternative arguments which
were put forward were simply not convincing enough. And I don't think
there's a case that "careful and cautious diplomacy" works with terrorists.
Saddam still has the opportunity to comply with the UN and avert war.

> And there's still the unexplained fact the SH's WMD were good as long as
> they were used against America's enemys.

I don't think it's as simple as this either. But the question is what is the
best way to proceed now, not who did what to whom back then.

>> Talk of "America in decline", patently absurd, exemplifies the deep-seated
>> conservatism which lies at the heart of much of the caterwauling against
> the
>> international alliance against terrorism, and against the increasing trend
>> towards international mediation of world justice and equity issues. US
>> politics is irrelevant. The American economy and standard of living still
>> exceed those of anywhere else on the planet by truckloads, no matter how
>> badly that wealth is distributed domestically.

> This "no matter" is said too easily as long as people are homeless and dying
> of hunger. 

You misunderstood the statement. I was not saying that it doesn't matter
that the distribution of wealth is inequitable in the US. I agree that it is
inequitable, and that this is bad. But my point was that the total wealth of
the US, and that wealth calculated on a per capita basis, exceeds that of
any other nation. The US is not "in decline".

> On a statistical level the standard of living & welfare in
> Canada, Sweden, Finland and other European countrys exceeds the US.

I don't know if this is quite true either, in real terms, or by GNP anyway,
but I'm no economics expert. But I agree that the standard of living in
Western nations is much higher than elsewhere in the world and this is
something else which the UN has been trying to address and which the
anti-everything protesters have baulked continually over the last decade.

> SH certainly is no ally of Bin Laden. He must fear the fundamentalists as
> well as the pro-Western Arab governments. So there's a big difference
> between the war on terror and a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

I don't know that you can be so sure that Saddam and Bin Laden aren't
connected. (Where's the evidence?) But there will be no pre-emptive strike
on Iraq if Saddam lets the weapons inspectors in and complies with UN
requirements thereafter. That's the deal which is on the table.

> If SH
> doesn't follow his obligations there should be air strikes on his military
> bases. 

I agree.

> Certainly it's been a great mistake to attack the most powerful nation of
> the world with the most terrible terror attack the world has seen up to now.
> But one error cannot justify another one.

In my opinion the greatest error would be to sit back and do nothing at all.

>> Why doesn't somebody organise a protest march against terrorism. I'd bet
>> you'd get a whole lot more of us poor dumb sheep, from every nation in the
>> world, out and doing.

> I doubt that protest marches will help against either the terror or the
> planned war. 

My point is that the majority of people in the world are opposed to
terrorism, and eliminating the threat of terrorism should be and is the
primary objective at the current time. It's this issue which the UN is going
to make its decision on. I don't trust most of the anti-Bush lobbyists or
pre-emptive protesters on this point. They've got too many hidden agendas,
warped perspectives, are too ill-informed and ignorant, and they offer no
alternative solutions to the scourge which is terrorism.

best