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

[Kevin Cullis]

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. 
Both the North and South uprising that occurred right after the Gulf War
was squashed by Hussein and when the Kurds in the North we being invaded
by the Republican Guard, almost one million people left Iraq for the
border of Iran/Turkey for safety and were civilians were killed by
Husseins goons until the US military established a No Fly zone.  Also on
the program, and remember it's Frontline/PBS, the US gunship pilots
stated that the Iraqie army had white flags on their AK-47 and were
shooting at the US troops.

You want to see who'll take over after he leaves:

http://www.maximonline.com/articles/article_4211.html

(even if part of the article is true, it's still sickening)

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 would also point out that your logic could apply to any number of
> adversaries, actual and potential, known and unknown. Who might bomb us?
> It could be a radical Palestinian faction that decides they've had
> enough of our continuing support of Israel. It could be whichever group
> of Colombian drug lords we are currently targeting for destruction. It
> could be another Tim McVeigh type. And then there's the fugitive Bin
> Laden himself.

There is always a potential, slim or great, dirty bomb or money
laundering, take your pick.  Since there is evil in the world and the
US, there is always the potential.

> 
> Should we wage preemptive war on every country that might someday
> threaten us? If so, where does it stop? How many millions, or billions,
> do we have to kill before all the terrorists are gone? Where do you
> draw the line, Kevin?

That's the debate, you have to draw a line somewhere!!  This becomes a
judgement call and as David said, you have to have wise people at the
top to do that.

> 
> Or have you bought into Mr. Bush's Manichaean delusion, that the world
> is divided into good countries and evil ones (the US being among the
> good, of course), and that the good ones have the right and
> responsibility to, as he puts it, "rid the world of evil?"
> 

There are good, better, and best countries in terms of providing for the
health and welfare of it's people and compared with Iraq, I'll pick the
US anyday.  It still has it's problems, but it's the best at the moment.

> > Is 9/11 a good enough argument to
> > prevent another one?  Are you saying we shouldn't go after Hussein UNTIL
> > another 9/11?
> 
> President Bush hasn't explained what 9/11 has to do with Iraq. Would you
> like to do so?

See above ORL. it's enough for me.

> 
> > Matt, the game rules have been changed by the terrorists.  Before 9/11,
> > most airline hijackers wanted money or something else so the typical
> > response by airline pilots was to go along with their captors.  Just as
> > when airline hijacking first began changed the rules for flying, so has
> > the new MO for the terrorists after 9/11.
> 
> New rules? Do you mean the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz rules for foreign
> relations, and the Ashcroft rules for domestic policy? The rules that
> amount to "destroying the village in order to save it?" The rules that,
> in the case of the USA PATRIOT act, our so-called representatives
> approved without having read them?
> 

I'm in agreement with some of these issues you're advocating.

> New MO? Are you referring to the tactic of flying planes into buildings?
> How does attacking Iraq address that terrorist tactic? How does anything
> the Bush administration has done address that tactic?
> 

You're clouding the issue, it's not the tactics, but WHO does it

> I heard an interesting comment by Gary Hart on the radio the other day.
> To paraphrase:
> 
>   Is America prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks if we
>   invade an Arab country? I know for a fact that we are not prepared.
> 

And to a certain extent I agree

> Nor can we ever prepare for every possible risk and still have lives
> worth living. I believe we can and should take rational measures against
> terrorism. If part of the problem is, as you say, open borders, then
> maybe we should make the borders a little less open. If part of the
> problem is Osama Bin Laden, then let's bloody well catch him and bring
> him to justice.

Finally, we agree.

> 
> But if we are to remain a country worth fighting for, we need two things
> (at least). We need the *informed* consent of the governed for any
> anti-terrorist measures. And we need a sense of proportion. It's hard to
> calculate our chances of dying in a terrorist attack, but I think most
> rational people would estimate them as far less than our chances of
> dying in a car accident.

But that's why it's called terrorism, it strikes FEAR into people. If
guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. 

> 
> I am not trying to say that terrorism is just another risk, or that the
> attack on the World Trade Center was not a terrible tragedy. Of course
> it was. America feels shock, horror, anger, and I share those feelings,
> as I am sure you do. But nothing we feel gives us license to pick out
> enemies and invade their countries at will. We have claimed to be a
> civilized nation, and we have aspired to be a democracy. Let's prove it.
> A truly civilized nation must insist that its leaders pursue justice,
> not vengeance. And a democratic nation must not tolerate leaders who
> manipulate the citizens' fears to pursue the hidden agendas of a wealthy
> few.

But sometimes, the bully needs to have his/her nose punched to make
him/her stop!!  Otherwise, we nad and others remain victims.

Kevin

-- 
Kevin Cullis <kevincu at orci.com>