This is the second part of a response to Gautam. > [JDG?] But, beyond that, we worked with Stalin to get > rid of Hitler. Stalin was worse than Hussein. > > > >[D] Not the same degree of threat to the US at all - >the Nazis were a direct threat to us. Saddam was not. > > Hitler had the ability to kill millions of Americans > with a suitcase?
Um, could you cite the evidence that Saddam did? :) <setting myself up for karmic slappage here> > Furthermore you are, very conveniently, ignoring the > immense scale of the threat that was perceived at > the time. When the Iranian Revolution happened... <snip> Well, guilty of ignorance here: I was a student then, and more concerned about passing calculus etc. (and dating, as I was still quite new to that <winces and ruefully shakes head>); I'm afraid that I never caught up on world events later either, as 80++ hour study/work weeks were my lot for 7 years... > >[D] If you're going to use a rabid dog to guard your > > yard <snip, cut & paste>...in this case a bullet > > might have saved a lot of suffering. > > >[G] This seems to be a proposal that we invade Iraq in > 1989. I'm guessing that's not what you meant... <cut & paste> ...I think that this is an allusion to >the idea that we > could have somehow just killed Saddam. That's a > fantasy... <snip> No to the former, but yes to killing him in (or before?) 1989; I did read your posts about how it wasn't possible to do so post-Gulf War I -- does that apply post-Iran as well? (This opens another can of worms, of course - because if assassination became a 'known viable option' of US policy, I'll bet unsavory characters would be less likely to 'do our proxy work' for us. And it's certainly not moral.) > > > <snip>[G] ...to contain him. > > > [D] I will take your word for this (was it because of > > Russia that we couldn't intervene?). > > It's partly because of the Russians. It's more > because we're reinvented our military into something > the likes of which the world has ever seen. An > invasion with 1980s technology would have cost > thousands of American lives (and tens, or even > hundreds, of thousands of civilian lives) with no > guarantee of success. We're a lot better now. Had > toppling Saddam involved the death of hundreds of > thousands with no chance of success, I wouldn't have > been in favor of it now. Only because the American > military is so astonishingly capable did we have the > real option of freeing the people of Iraq. Thanks for the information. <snip, snip> > > Uh-oh, is this a Roseanne Rosannadana moment? I > > didn't oppose the war on purely humanitarian > > grounds, but for lack of evidence of threat to the > >US, lack of early- > > Yahoo can't seem to handle messages any longer than > this in replies - so the rest of what you wrote got > cut off, but I don't know what a "Roseanne > Rosannadana moment" is. <grin> Ouch! Showing my age. Someone's probably answered this already, but in case not: that was a character played by Gilda Radner on SNL; she would be on a crusade about something that she'd completely misunderstood: frex, 'What is it with these Crustaceans and their taking up arms?!' 'Roseanne, that was "Croatians." Not "crustaceans."' '.....Oh....Never mind...' It seemed to me that I might have been responding to an incorrect interpretation of your position, which is why I wondered if I'd "pulled a Roseanne." :) Rest of my statement: "lack of early diplomacy/coalition-building/under-the-table-arm-twisting, lack of legitamacy - and for motives of the administration. Although I _was_ afraid (hmm, more like sure) that there would be massive civilian casualties, so that might qualify..." [Re-posting the part that got truncated:] [G]> You condemn the motives of the Administration, > Debbie. OKay. Those malign, hypocritical, two->faced men and women just toppled one of the worst >dictators in human history. The morally pure anti->war folks - they would > have kept Saddam in power. If those are the options > - and they were - I know which side I want to be on. [My response:] "Again with the Black And White. (And was Rice a member of the Reagan-Bush team?) Nor do I have anything but respect for our armed forces members who risk their lives daily. I certainly don't claim to be morally pure (and think that anyone who states they are is either deluded or hypocritical). If useful efforts/attitude on the part of this administration had been in place from the beginning, this might have been a UN/world-approved war; if despite genuine efforts on their part, obstruction from certain Security Council members remained, then at least that hypocrisy would justify taking "oligolateral" action. "What's important now is the restructuring of Iraq into a fair and free nation. It will take hard work and firm commitment - and resources/aid/help from the UN shouldn't be turned away. "<sigh> Then it looks like we might need to work on restructuring the UN..." I will add that the "Black And White" referral above is only WRT your seemingly uncritical praise of the Bush Administration; on other topics you clearly see a range, or have a very practical approach. I should have made that clear the first time. Technical point/question: I know that others got the entire message; at how many K does your server cut things off? And curiously, I've gotten messages from you that are 11 or 12K; I have a Yahoo account and have gotten messages as large as 400K (pix). The original response that was truncated was, according to my account, 10K. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
