On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:17:23AM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: > But I see the thinking as wonderfully clear.
I don't, and even Marvin said he didn't. > Your logic misses the point that we have elevated Sadaam to a much > higher level of importance than is necessary or desirable. No, it IS necessary if something is to be done about him. > You suggest that we should "Promote a world organization that only > allows membership to liberal democratic states" but apparently fail > to see that the present administration has squandered the best > opportunity to establish such an institution. This is fuzzy thinking on your part. The latter does not follow from the former. > The way we are forcing a solution down the worlds throat has > repercussions far beyond the immediate situation, and may set back the > establishment of any truly effective world organization for decades. And you believe that by opposing the war to remove Saddam, you will improve the chances of establishing such an organization? I think that you are right that Bush could have done a much better job of building support among many democratic countries for action against Saddam, and this might have formed the beginnings of a League of Democratic States, but I disagree that by not doing it he has set things back a great deal. If there is a war in Iraq, afterwards there will be another chance to start building such a coalition, during the efforts of reconstruction and nation-building. Rather than spending efforts protesting the war, such efforts could be better spent lobbying for such a policy. A grass-roots organization lobbying for this sort of thing would be a lot more effective than the war protestesters and anti-globalization crowd, I think. And if that opportunity is missed, then we should create another one after that. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
