[CLUE-Talk] Going to war, how much to pay people

[Kevin Cullis]

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 21:47, David Anselmi wrote:
> Kevin Cullis wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 22:48, Matt Gushee wrote:
> > 
> >>On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:36:53PM -0700, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> >>
> >>>The fact that Hussein has proven to be brutal is one thing, but times
> >>>have changed so that today we're NOT like 1940's.  Hussein can now
> >>>deploy a dirty bomb anywhere in the US since our borders are so open!! 
> >>>Is this a good enough argument!!
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>First of all, we don't know that Iraq has any such weapons. And even if
> >>it does, the fact that it *could* deploy them in the US doesn't mean
> >>that it would. Saddam Hussein is not Osama Bin Laden. For one thing, he
> >>has a lot to lose. He's got all that oil, and perhaps more importantly
> >>for him, he has several million people under his thumb. Maybe he's a bit
> >>mad, but I doubt he is so mad as to not realize what would happen to him
> >>and his country if he actually attacked the United States.
> >>
> > 
> > You actually TRUST Hussein?  Do you think that he may have had ties to
> > Osam bin Laden?  On tonight's PBS about the Gulf War, Hussein was elated
> > that he would stay in power and that the US was not coming after him. 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > It seems you always find places to support Hussein rather than ask the
> > Iraqie people what they want.  That's what's so disturbing about your
> > logic to me: you seem to trust tyrants but fail to trust, even a little
> > bit, our own government (I trust it about as much as the next person,
> > but our system is the best to offer people).
> 
> I think you misunderstand Matt.  I agree with him that we have little to 
> worry about from Hussein's WMD.  If he has them, if he had a means to 
> deliver them to the U.S., he would not.  The PBS show you mention stated 
> that he did not use chemical warheads on Israel because he feared 
> nuclear retaliation.  Deterrence works.

Yes, deterrence works in most cases and possibly/probably with Hussein
because he has the greatest to lose if he were to use WMD, but bin Laden
and other terrorists don't think of deterrence because they didn't have
much at all to lose or will bet their farm for what they want to
achieve.

> 
> Terrorism is a different issue, perhaps, but I see little to suggest 
> that preemptive military action will do anything to curb terrorism.

True, but it depends on the scope of the military action: big like the
Gulf War of little like CIA or Special Operations like the Seals.  In
any case, we're using force to change a course of action: protecting the
citizens of the US.

> 
> Seems to me that Matt is not supporting Hussein as much as questioning 
> the benefit of war against him.  War seems to do little to make America 
> safer.  It seems that our goals have little to do with benefit to the 
> Iraqi people (and they will be the ones closest to the sharp end of the 
> spear, as they say).  But when we pull the trigger, people will die. 
> Will it be worth it?

I totally agree that the question of war at the moment is not as strong
as the Gulf War was, but that's where we on this list and elsewhere in
the US are drawing the lines.  You draw it one place, Matt another, and
I another, but the issue is to try and find common ground on which to
agree and support?

> 
> On the question of wisdom who is more wise, the Pope or the President? 
> We know what the President says.  What does the Pope say?
> 
> (How's that for stirring the pot?)
> 

Dig away!  But I think this President is a lot closer to the Pope and
the Man upstairs that the last one was ;-)


Kevin

-- 
Kevin Cullis <kevincu at orci.com>