From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: V-I Day +1 - endgame scenarios? Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:09:21 -0800
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bryon Daly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 01:38 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: V-I Day +1 - endgame scenarios? > > > "Miller, Jeffrey" wrote: >
<snip>
> > > > international court -- on what charges? "gassing his > own people"? > > > > There's enough clouds around this charge to make it > difficult to > > > > stick, and it would highlight US involvement in both this > > > and Kuwait > > > > (our military assistence to Iraq and greenlighting the Kuwait > > > > invasion.) Is that something we really want to remind the > > > region of? > > > > > > Do you really think Saddam's not that bad a guy? Just > some bad PR? > > > How would Saddam's gassing the Kurds after the Gulf War > highlight US > > > military assistance to Iraq? > > > > I didn't claim he wasn't. Again I ask - what charges? > > I thought the "gassing his own people" was a good place to start.
..except that the "gassing his own people" episode most refer to happened years ago, and there's been no outcry about it until now. (Not that it is invalidated by the lag time, but it doesn't quite rise to a major human rights violation, as dispicable as it is)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'no outcry', but UNSCOM has been peacefully trying to get him to eliminate his chemical weapons stores since the end of the Gulf War, mostly as a direct reaction to his use of those same weapons against the Iranians and Kurds in the 80's. There's a timeline and some figures here: http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/Factsheet/unscom.html
In other words, the UN has been trying very hard to handle the situation peacefully to no avail. This isn't sudden: it's been going on for over a decade.
<snip>
Why do you think I disagree with a war? :) Not only do I think wars are perfectly legitimate means of accomplishing goals, I think that oil is a perfectly valuable thing to spill blood over.
Speaking off-the-cuff - war should always be the last resort of a peace-loving nation. It should be wielded as a credible threat, but not until other options are played out - unless or until there is a credible, legitimate, and urgent threat that can only be overcome in a timely fashion by the application of force. I don't see that situation existing today.
I know you were talking in abstractions, but...... 12 years have gone by since the end of the Gulf War. How much more time should we give them, in your opinion? We're pushing Hussein to do the same thing we were pushing him to do immediately after the Gulf War -- at what point do you believe our non-military options will have run out? Since our current plans don't appear to be effective, do you have any realistic suggestions as to how we might correct the situation without armed conflict?
I'm genuinely curious about your opinion. If I thought there was a snowball's chance in heck waiting would help I'd agree with it, but I just can't bring myself to believe that things are going to suddenly change now.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
