Dove feathers in the President's mouth etc

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Dove feathers in the President's mouth etc


> And it's a shame that anyone who is critical of Saddam's regime, and who
> dares to believe and hope that the UN can prevent him and other murderous
> tyrants like him from continuing to kill tens and hundreds of thousands of
> innocent people, automatically gets labelled a war-mongerer or
> Bush-supporter, as if lives in places "over there" aren't worth a cracker.
>

1. Being against Bush's unilateral war-plans isn't being pro-Saddam, to say
this is just propaganda.

2. No, it is precisely the other way round, *because* lives over there
matter the old Europeans are trying to delay the war.

3. If someone says "either you're with or against us" I'm automatically
against him.

> It's a pity that the anti-Bushies have to keep trying to deny the evidence
> of Saddam's past atrocities and the blatant obviousness of his future
> intentions to keep their propagandism and party political flags afly.
>

So the "evidence of Saddam's past atrocities" replaces the evidence the
inspectors are unable to find?

Those "past atrocities" you are talking about are the ones he committed when
he was still "our man" in Bagdad, the ones he only could do because our
intelligence provided the information. Do you really think you can justify a
war for this more than 12 years later?  If I would judge upon America's
future intentions by solely looking at the Vietnam-era we should immediately
attack Washington, but when I see it in the light of the historical
circumstances back then, the East-West conflict and the Cold War, I just
criticise it as a wrong policy.

You may be right about his future intentions, but you cannot be sure.

> What was Howard Zinn's argument? Sure Saddam's a tyrant, but there's lots
of
> other tyrants around too, so it's more "moral" for the international
> community to sit back, do nothing, and give them all a free hand because
it
> would be unfair to single out just one of them. It's the exact same policy
> the US was following from 1933-1942, a pretty solid ten year stretch there
> when "American forces were not engaged in some war or other around the
> globe". Yeah, that worked out just great.
>
> best
>

1. No doubt about that it would be good if Saddam, Gaddafi, Mugabe, Castro,
Sharafat and some others were gone but what's the alternative to sanctions?
Kill them all one by one - and in ten years we're at war with China.

2. Please leave those historical comparisons, I think it's been good that
Mrs. Däubler-Gmelin has lost her job for comparing Bush to Hitler.

3. To judge that WW-2 isolationism: I think America did a great job by
supporting Great Britain until Berlin -from my perspective now: luckily -
declared war on Washington.

>From our own airwar experience we think the inspectors should get all the
time they need before thousands of innocent Iraqui civilians are killed on
"A-Day plus one". I'm very much with Mr. Fischer in this like I agreed to
his argumentation in the Balkan- and Afghanistan cases.

Otto

>
> on 1/2/03 2:41 PM, Otto at ottosell at yahoo.de wrote:
>
> > It's really a shame that everbody who's critical of Mr. Bush's policy
> > immediately is called a knee-jerk liberal, a cowardly leftist or is
> > considered as anti-American, as if the freedom those who lightheartedly
call
> > for war claim to defend isn't based upon the freedom of speech and
different
> > opinions.
> >
> > It's a pity that the war-coalition is unable to answer questions
honestly
> > (for example: "where's the evidence" or "isn't this war really about
oil?")
> > in public.
> >


__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de