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

[Alex Young]

> > <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.

That is true.    The question however is whether their declaration of self-defense has helped them.    There seems to be little to measure them against.
One must however agree that by not participating in conflict, even when it is at their doorstep, Switzerland has greatly benefited from its non-aggression.

India was for a short time something approximating a pacifist state.    Unfortunately, when Gandhi died, the populace reacted in fear, dividing the country along religious lines and producing two bitter enemies.     I wonder what would have happened if the Hindus and Muslims had chosen to live peacefully together?

> 
> > It is in our best interest to be cautious in our international affairs.
> 
> Yes, of course.  Who's against caution?

It looks to me like the state department is.     The term ‘throw caution to the wind’ comes to mind.
Unilateral action seems very ill advised for a democratic state.

If the “President” decides to risk the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, I for one will stand in protest.    

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I urge everyone who opposes this war, or is undecided, to investigate the issue and participate.

Some resources can be found here:

Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace 
http://ccmep.org/ 


Alex


-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Meet Singles
http://corp.mail.com/lavalife