In the rathouse 'o interpretation (WAS Re: politics and religion...)

[jbor]

on 24/2/03 4:32 AM, prozak at anus.com at prozak at anus.com wrote:

> 
>> It seemed to imply that it is proper and rightful, in your eyes, for
>> Saddam's regime to be left be.
> 
> There's several questions here:
> 
> 1. Should the US play world policeman?

Not vigilante-style. Never vigilante-style.
 
> 2. Contingent upon that, is global politics necessary?

Nationalism leads to World Wars. Surely "we" know that.

> 3. Is Hussein our first priority?

He's certainly the one in the international spotlight.
 
> 4. Would economic sanctions cutting him off from the west qualify as
> leaving him be, or...? (Different people will have different defs of
> sanctions being action or not, etc. etc.)

Sanctions didn't work. Saddam doesn't care if his people starve. Saves him
murdering them.

> Hussein seems to me - for a middle eastern leader (key relativistic
> words here) - to be pretty mellow!

With this I disagree vehemently.

best