Dove feathers in the President's mouth etc

[jbor]

on 2/2/03 1:25 AM, Otto at ottosell at yahoo.de wrote:

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

It's lucky I didn't say that then, isn't it. I don't support Bush's
unilateral war plans. I support whatever resolution and plan of action the
UN comes up with. 
 
> 2. No, it is precisely the other way round, *because* lives over there
> matter the old Europeans are trying to delay the war.

The history and extent of Saddam's atrocities are so much worse than
Milosevic's. There's a double standard operating here.
 
> 3. If someone says "either you're with or against us" I'm automatically
> against him.

What if Nelson Mandela, or someone else you already agree with, says it?
Being against the UN means you condone Saddam. Are you "with or against" the
UN?

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

It's the non-compliance and non-cooperation which is the issue. But are you
arguing that those past atrocities don't matter?!

> Do you really think you can justify a
> war for this more than 12 years later?

The atrocities have continued, and the number of refugees fleeing from Iraq
during the 90s and 00s is into the tens of millions.

> what's the alternative to sanctions?

Good question. If sanctions don't work, if they do more harm than good to
the oppressed and suffering people in the country they are imposed upon,
what is the alternative? Turning a blind eye? Sorry, that's just not good
enough. 

> Please leave those historical
> comparisons

Says you, trying to blame Bush for the Vietnam War. The difference is that
Saddam is the leader responsible for the atrocities: he's still in power,
the persecutions and killings have been ongoing, and the very great
likelihood is that they will continue. The comparison with Hitler and those
advocating appeasement is a valid one.

The collapse of the League of Nations after 1926 was disastrous for the
world, and the reason it collapsed was because the US did not ratify the
Versailles Treaty and the member nations put national interests before
international ones. A strong and effective UN is the only solution. If and
when Bush goes against the UN then I'm with you 100%. Until then the focus
is, and has to be, Saddam.

best


>> 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.
>>>