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

[prozak at anus.com]

> >> 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.

Absolutism.

> > 2. Contingent upon that, is global politics necessary?
> 
> Nationalism leads to World Wars. Surely "we" know that.

Globalism might also :) or worse, something that's not as evident in 
its destruction.

Further, let me submit this: "I believe in tragedies" - some great 
sadness, destruction, and World Wars are necessary for our growth as 
a species, much as skinned knees and a few bad relationships are part 
of youth.

> > 3. Is Hussein our first priority?
> 
> He's certainly the one in the international spotlight.

Yet this is most probably an artifact of our media.

IMO the North Koreans tweaked the USA's nose on this issue pretty 
hardcore because they knew they could.

> > 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.

Are there differing degrees of sanctions? He still seems to be 
getting things from the West.

> > Hussein seems to me - for a middle eastern leader (key relativistic
> > words here) - to be pretty mellow!
> 
> With this I disagree vehemently.

Well...

Ariel Sharon is a mass murderer.

Don't know who's in Command in Iran, but...

Syria? Hmm.

Jordan? Hmm.

It's on the line, perhaps.

-- 
Backup Rider of the Apocalypse
www.anus.com/metal/
DEATH AND BLACK METAL