--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced > > persuasive pro-war > > arguments that made me stop and think about my > > prejudices and fears. > > Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be seen. > > > > Marvin Long > > Why thank you Marvin.
Thank you as well. > But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right > now I can barely think straight. And let me second this as well. I know that I probably come off as pretty cavalier about US foreign policy, and the need for "liberation" in Iraq and elsewhere. This comes out of my strong moral conviction that we must do the right thing, and that sometimes the right thing brings with it not only great benefits (like a far more free and peacefull world) but also great costs. I probably don't say it often enough, but I truly believe that the US is in the middle of a Second World War-scale struggle, both in terms of the stakes (the survival of western civilization) and the costs (tremendous sacrifice by almost all Americans, including the lives of many soldiers.) Moreover, I think that Gautam used exactly the right word to describe my mood this moring - scared. I think that there is probably a better than even chance that Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons - perhaps on a massive scale. I expect them to be almost certainly used on US troops (particularly once we encircle Baghdad, as seems to be the current war plan), I expect it to be highly likely that they are used against Israeli civilians, and I think that there is a not insignificant chance that Hussein will use them on his own people (or at least try to do so), so as to create the US's worst nightmare: masses of humanity, possibly fleeing a chemical attack, running straight into our armed forces. I don't think words can express just how bad such a situation might become for us. I remain optimitic that this war can be won quickly and easily, but the *fear* of what could go wrong is definitely present. So for probably the first and only time in my life, I will quote US Sen. Arlen Specter: "The risks of going to war are great, the risks of not going to war are greater." > In my lifetime the stakes have > never been so high, for the US and the world. Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik - Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before it goes nuclear, the prospects for Western Civilization in the Terrorism Age look grim. JDG - Turning Point, Maru * - fails defined as paying such a heavy price, ala Vietnam, that the US would almost never consider engaging in such a disarmament anytime in the near-to-medium term. P.S. A question mostly for Gautam, since he seems to circulate in Poli Sci circles much more than most (its his degree after all), but is it just me, or is the Soviet Coup one of the least-studied and least-analyzed events of the last 15-25 years, or what? I mean, whatever happened to those guys? How did it happen? And how could it happen again? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
