Re: Coalition of the willing (fwd)

> >On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, James Robertson wrote:

> >no. I've opposed sanctions for *years*. Do I prefer inspections to
> >continue in spite of the dangerous precedents and blatent sovergnty
> >violations instead of what's likely to be a horrific slaughter? Well, uh,
> >yes.
> 
> Sure, that's a plan.  It worked real well in the past.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it did. The previous inspection regime was 
able to destroy most of Iraq's WMD program before the inspectors were 
pulled out in late 1998 to make way for a US bombing campaign (which 
"just happened" to coincide with Bill Clinton's impeachment trial). 
Now if you're saying that the possibility they may not have found 
absolutely everything means that inspections "don't work" ... I don't 
know what to say to that, except that it sounds like you expect life 
to be like a TV show: bang bang, case closed, everyone lives happily 
ever after.

Or would you care to present some actual evidence that the 
inspections haven't worked?

> > > Opinion polls in 1938-1939 also showed great public reluctance in Europe to
> > > face evil.

As historical analogies go, comparing whoever you dislike to Hitler 
is about the cheapest shot there is. Now, I am willing to concede 
Saddam Hussein's character may resemble that of Hitler. So if you 
want to claim Saddam = Hitler, okay, I'm not going to fight that too 
hard. But the implied corollary, Iraq = Nazi Germany, just doesn't 
hold up. First of all, pre-WWII Germany was the world's leading 
industrial power. And there is no question that Germany started the 
war with unprovoked invasions of Poland, Czecholovakia, the 
Netherlands, and so on.

Contrast that with Iraq: a country in ruins, which hasn't attempted 
to invade anyone
for 12 years. This time, *we* are the ones planning an unprovoked 
invasion. That
doesn't necessarily make us equivalent to Nazis, but it is an 
enormous and unilateral change in the rules--one that undermines our 
claim to the moral high ground, and is likely to help make the world 
a significantly more dangerous place, as other countries start 
getting into the "preemptive war" act.

By the way, have you read this?

  http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Straight from the horse's mouth, it and other publications of the 
Project for the New American Century spell out quite clearly the 
intentions of our government in invading Iraq. For example,

  Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more 
permanent 
  role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with 
Iraq 
  provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial 
American 
  force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of 
Saddam 
  Hussein.
  
Even if there are good reasons for the proposed action against Iraq 
or for the broader program of consolidating American military 
dominance, doesn't it bother you at all that our government is 
manipulating our fears of terrorism to manufacture consent for war, 
and that there has been virtually no discussion in the mainstream 
media of the hawks' real motivations?

--
Matt Gushee
Englewood, CO USA