[CLUE-Talk] Sure its 'Not About Oil' was: Why Iraq? Why now?

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday,  4 February 2003 at 22:32:03 -0700, Alex Young <ayoung at email.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Had you been alive, would you have been equally opposed to war against
> > Hitler?  I _DO_NOT_ mean that to equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler.  I am
> > simply trying to find the point at which you would concede that war and
> > the associated "collateral damage" (i.e. the death of innocent civilians, 
> > enemy and allied soldiers, etc.) would be justified to stop an evil 
> > dictator.
> </snip>
> 
> I can't speak for Jeffery, but I'll bite.     I, like many others, have problems
> with any war.
 
I have problems with war, too.  They are horrible. But denying that war may be 
the only resolution in certain cases doesn't make it go away.

 <---SNIP--->

> Whether or not you believe that Iraq has the power or the intent to cause 
> damage to the US, I believe the only reasonable course of action is to make 
> Peaceful nations have (at least recently,) historically existed longer than 
> the war-making states. 

Peaceful does not equal pacifism.  I can't recall a single pacifist nation,
now or in history.  I'd like to hear about any, if there are or were.

Even peacful nations have means for self-defence (ie Switzerland).
Thus, while peace and nutrality is Switzerlands first objective, they
acknowledge that violence sometimes is required to stop an aggressor.

> It is in our best interest to be cautious in our international affairs.

Yes, of course.  Who's against caution?
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20030205/53fca37a/attachment.bin