Dove feathers in the President's mouth etc

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Dove feathers in the President's mouth etc


> 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.
>

Very much appreciated. They could decide to send Blue Helmets to the
Southern and Northern parts of Iraq.

> > 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.
>

But M. has never been our guy when he committed those crimes. The double
standard is that our governments had nothing to object to back then when
Saddam did it. It simply isn't enough to justify a war.

> > 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?
>

I'm against any unilateral action by members bypassing the UN or
blackmailing the world community. Wasn't it Mr. Bush who has threatened to
declare it irrelevant? The UN has only put out a resolution that Iraq has to
disarm or to face consequences if in material breach of 1441. I don't think
that the UN-Charta allows to declare war on any member who isn't actually
threatening its neighbours.

If any left politician would say something like "Left is right and Right is
wrong, better decide which side you're on" I would refuse that too.

> > 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?!
>

Not if it comes to decide if there's a war in the spring of 2003. I know
other countries who are non-compliant and not cooperating. Nobody threatens
them with war even if they've got illegal weapons of mass destruction.
That's double standard too.

>
> > 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.
>

It's a question of timing and in the case of Saddam Hussein the timing is
very bad. The ME-conflict isn't solved at all, Bin Laden still free. All
this doesn't strengthen my confidence that a war on Iraq will be short,
decisive and in the end even better for the majority of the Iraqui people.

> > 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.
>

To quote you: luckily I did not do that in my post. Please note the "if".
And neither Chirac nor Fischer are advocating appeasement. Maybe I'm very
restraint with those Hitler-comparisons, but I think for a German this is
appropriate.

I think it's not good critisising those who are critical of any war plans
for "appeasement" or being responsible for Saddam's future crimes. Many
people are really worried about what might happen to the whole region. They
don't turn a blind eye.

> 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.

I absolutely agree, but I guess with the veto-right of those big five we
will never get an effective UN. It's simply no democratic structure.

>If and
> when Bush goes against the UN then I'm with you 100%.

I cannot imagine that he will do that mistake.

>Until then the focus
> is, and has to be, Saddam.
>

I don't think that turning the major interest from the war on terror to
Saddam Hussein has been the very best idea. The Middle East should get the
focus.

> best
>

Have to go the elections now, Lower Saxony's governor Sigmar Gabriel
(Schröder's successor at Hanover) most likely will be voted out of office
today.

Otto


__________________________________________________________________

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