[CLUE-Talk] a new note in the usa/iraq tune \\ "barbarians"

[Nate Duehr]

Randy Arabie wrote:

> I know the US isn't infallible.  There is always room for improvement.  We've 
> certainly made mistakes, and I'm sure we will make more.  But we aren't 
> barbarians.

Yeah agreed.  What's barbaric to one man, isn't to another.  I guess my 
point was that many SEE us as barbarians and uncivilized and we forget 
that, just as we see them as barbarians also.  We've really accentuated 
that position (for them) in the last year or so, meaning we'll have to 
reap what we have sown.  ("have sown"?  Is that correct grammer? Ugh.)

After reading Randy's reply to my earlier lengthy missive, in the 
discussion Randy turned my use of ICBM's/nuclear weapons which was meant 
as an *example* of one type of WMD into the topic of discussion in his 
reply.  I wasn't clear that I was using real world examples to discuss a 
much larger point.  My intent there again was as an example.  I could 
argue on and on about the so-called "disarmament"... we have enough 
weapons to kill every human on the planet, so disassembling the 
"stockpiles" is almost the truest form of self-flattery in politics I've 
ever seen.  Yes, it's good that we have taken apart most of our nukes, 
but it doesn't really matter -- we could still wipe every human off the 
globe with what we have today in the arsenal.  And if not us, those we 
SOLD weapons to could do major damage to the planet. 
(http://www.fai.org for some interesting reading along those lines.)

What I was trying to say was that we can't hold more WMD than everyone 
else on the planet and expect the world to not notice that fact when we 
tell others they can't have them.  It's absurdly two-faced of us.  (Thus 
my use of the old "adage".. "Might makes right".)

Not only do we do that, but we're the world's largest exporter of WMD! 
How ironic!  (And if we don't agree on the definition of WMD, consider 
that any weapon we sell will be used to take a human life.  A human life 
in our culture used to be THE most precious thing we held dear.)

I just think overall we should set the example and come from high 
ground, not undermine organizations like the U.N. and go around them to 
do as we please.  Yes, it's more painful to wait on that process, but I 
do NOT think the majority of the American people are barbaric or rude or 
otherwise insensitive to International issues and cultural differences, 
and most would understand if our leadership had chosen that route and 
said it was the only way to maintain peace.  However I *do* think the 
Bush Administration had an agenda -- and an opportunity presented itself 
to fix a number of their perceived problems with the world (Iraq) when 
9/11 happened.  It gave them the media hysteria and hype necessary to 
market a war to the American public and have it sound like a good idea.

If we've completely exhausted diplomacy AND there's a REAL imminent 
danger to our sovereignty... yes, blow 'em up.  Whoever it is.  I can 
live with that.  But there's no evidence Iraq was coming to the U.S. to 
harm our people.  They certainly could harm our INTERESTS (oil 
production in the Middle East) but not our nation directly.  9/11 was 
probably condoned and maybe even partially financed by Saddam, but the 
passion -- the original drive and plan for 9/11 was from non-Iraqi's.

(And just where *is* that darn Osama bin Laden, anyway?  Notice Bush's 
speechwriters have always been careful not to mention him.  The "evil 
satan" -- hmm where have I heard that before? -- was Saddam.  Not Osama.)

I think we simply couldn't PROVE to the U.N. that Iraq posed any 
imminent danger.  We just landed troops and took over because the Bush 
Administration wanted to.  For a whole lot of reasons, maybe even 
somewhat noble ones, but we blew off the opinion of all our fellow 
civilized countries in the process... thus, not living up to our true 
potential as one of the most powerful countries in the world -- the 
potential to help maintain peace through ORDERLY processes and true 
leadership.  That's my position.

Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com