----- Original Message ----- From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:24 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism
> > Dan Minette wrote: > > > Why I can see being opposed to attacking Iraq, I'm rather > > surprised by your > > language. > > Could you specify the exact portions please? Its been mentioned, but sure. "No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no." Given the fact that the cease fire was based on the assumtion that Hussein's tenure as leader was contingent on him abiding by the terms of the cease fire, and given that we agree that he is material breach, how is the US "provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner" I could understand an arguement that the war really isn't wise. I posted a link to an article listing the difficulties in handling post war Iraq. But, even if you took out the word unprecedentedly, it stands as a strong statement. How is carrying through on a previous agreement provoking a war? Didn't Hussein provoke the war when he threw the inspectors out? Given the potential for WMD, and given the potential for blackmail, why is going in now irrational? I think that the criterion for your sentence, even without that one word, must be a very strict one, because you have essentially stated that no responsible people could possibly be involved in planning such a war. It gives the impression to me of a bunch of trigger happy cowboys who don't care how many civilians get killed. If you remember just two years ago, there was an outcry concerning the "hundreds of thousands of Iraquies killed by the privation caused by the sancitons." While I am sure this is hyperbola, it is true that, with the limited oil sales allowed by the sanctions, the military and WMD programs get the lion share of all income, and there is mass privation among the people. This must be weighted against the civilian deaths that are unavoidable in any war; as well as the potential for violence in the future. In short, I think you have, by your wording, set your self the standard of it being self evident to any thinking individual that fighting Iraq is unreasonable at this time. > > 4) Do you think the sanctions should be continued? > > Until an acceptable alternative is found, I guess they are needed. OK, just keeping the sanctions is one option. However, it is likely that they will simply slow down the acquiring of WMD. > > However, I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 > > dictatorships are > > able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their > > leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power. > > Is a part of that sentence missing? Seems like it. Yup, typed that too late. It should have read "I'm not really sure that a world I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 dictatorships are able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power is one I wish to live in. I think that we run the risk of this, unless something is done. Right now, it appears to me that North Korea has some potential to blackmail Japan, if not the US. I shudder to think what 4 A-bombs hitting Japanese cities would do. > > As far as I can see, the protection of the UN is virtually worthless. > > Examples of this include Israel and Kosova, and While, at > > the same time, > > there is some validity in protection offered by the US. > > Examples of this > > are Israel, S. Korea, Bosnia, and Taiwan. > > Certainly. I wouldn't disagree with that. And I'd have no problems if > the rest of the world chooses to opt for US protection. But, what if the UN doesn't OK it, as happened in the Balkans? It appears that the rest of the world wants the US to take all responsibility for protecting other countries while reserving the right to tell the US what to do and what not to do; including actions to protect the US. In that sense, given the many failures of the UN, it would be reasonable for the US to say that, since it has sole responsibility for world security, and since the UN has failed to keep its promises concerning the Gulf War, the US has no choice but to fulfill those promises all by itself. Now, it might not be wise, that's a totally different question, but I don't think it is inherently wrong for the US to bypass the UN as useless. I don't think the UN is useless, its just that it should be accepted for what it is, not a quasi world government. Given the history of the UN, why shouldn't governments consider it a useful place to talk, and a good tool for coordination but an organization who's pronouncements are meaningless? Finally, I am sympathetic to the idea that one country shouldn't play world policeman by itself. However, the real alternative to this, IMHO, is for other countries to become involved, not for the US to promise to do all the work, but to only act when given permission. Authority and responsibility should go together. Since the US seems to have all the responsibility, it should not be surprising that many are considering the idea that it really has sole authority too. Dan M. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
