Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00299)

Mic, I do hope you will take the time to respond to my initial post on
this thread. Even if I agreed with everything you say below (which I
don't), nothing you say addresses a better way to "oust" Saddam. More
comments below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mic Forster" <micforster@yahoo.com>
To: <Blavatskiana@yahoogroups.com>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:04 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: [Blavatskiana] The issue before us


>
> --- rodakjl <rodakjl@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The focus seems to
> > be solely on what the
> > current American policy is perceived as and the
> > demonization of George W.
> > because he is trying, in his own way, to do what his
> > conscience dictates to
> > relieve the pain and suffering of the Iraqi
> > citizenry.
>
>
> But that IS exactly the issue before us. No one is
> disagreeing that Saddam is evil and needs to be
> ousted; it is the means of ousting that is causing
> world-wide concern. Why:


Can we talk honestly with each other about other "means of ousting"? For
instance, would you support his assassination by US covert operatives?

>
> i) if the US does go to war unilaterally then it opens
> itself to unprecedented terrorism. Going to war will
> merely fuel the flames of extremists;

It is hardly a "unilateral" effort. Your own country is supporting the US
along with more than 60 other countries. The flames of extremists are
already fueled. We cannot allow fear of them to dictate our policy. Going
to war will do far more than "merely" fuel extremists. What else will it
do? Look at all the places in the world that we have been to war. What is
our track record? How many places are better off after the war than before?
How many democracies have we helped establish?


>
> ii) the Iraqi army is a spent force and poses
> absolutely no direct threat to US security. If the
> argument is that Saddam has WMD and he will be willing
> to give these to terrorists, and he is in contact with
> such terrorists, then why don't these terrorists have
> these weapons already?


Who says they don't? You seem to be saying "lets wait until a WMD is used
that we can trace back to Saddam before we do anything." I am asking what
can we do now to keep him from using his vast oil resources on the black
market to obtain nuclear capability?

>
> iii) if the US goes to war without UN backing, what
> will the US do if China (as a hypothetical) decides to
> claim back Taiwan?

I do hope that we will get UN backing. It is a back and forth affair and
there are still some surprises left. If we don't go with a coalition of the
willing and Saddam decides to test his newly acquired nuclear capability on
Israel, what will the US and Australia do then?



>
> iv) the US is the only super power left on this
> planet. In the past its power was checked by the USSR.
> Who, in the future, will be willing, or even have the
> capability, to stop any other US military action? Some
> may say China which then begs the question: would you
> rather deal with the UN or a China that has finally
> attained a position of world-wide power? And don't
> laugh because China is quickly catching up to the
> US......
>
I'm not laughing. The US has a window of opportunity to reduce the arsenal
of evil. We can act boldly are we can let the opportunity pass. Either
way we will be the subject of ridicule and derision from many.

Bill




>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003