From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 12:08:02 MDT
Casey [hidden@lucifer.com] Thu 2002/08/15 06:11 PM wrote:
<snip>
Rice Tries to Rally British Against Saddam
>From Associated Press
LONDON -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice called Iraq's
Saddam Hussein an "evil man" today in a broadcast interview, saying he
would wreak havoc on the world if the West does nothing to stop him.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-081502iraq_wr.story
"'Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of
my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is
exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy,'
Kaufman wrote."
This gentleman is truly a scholar. :)
<snap>
[Blunderov]
Thanks interesting link - I am now a subscriber to the LA Times. Next
thing I will be spelling in American.
The following fragments in particular struck me as significant:
<snip
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice called Iraq's Saddam Hussein
an "evil man...
In an apparent attempt to sway sagging British public support for any
U.S. move to oust the Iraqi president, Rice told the British
Broadcasting Corp. the U.S. believes it has a "moral case" for removing
the Iraqi leader...
Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal
Democrat Party, said Rice's arguments for removal of Saddam did not
stand up under international law.
"In international affairs it is not enough to claim a moral authority in
cases where the United Nations has been involved," he said.
"There will be no world order if the most powerful states are entitled
to remove other governments at will. There is no doctrine of
international law which justifies regime change."
<snap>
[Blunderov]
It would seem that the USA has abandoned the legalistic route and now
relies upon a "moral case".
I am sure there are many who feel as I do that this is very thin ice.
Whose morality are we talking about here exactly? The 911 flyers were
probably fully convinced of the morality of their actions.
How are we to tell the difference between "fundamentalist" moralists and
others, if any?
How many fundamentalists have the ear of the president? Is he one of
them?
He has made no secret of his apparently rather unsophisticated version
of Christianity after all.
How would such a war not, ultimately, be seen as war on Islam, futile
protestations to the contrary notwithstanding?
It the final analysis it would amount to nothing, morally speaking, more
than just another Crusade but with cruise missiles this time.
Verily I say unto you, do not pursue this folly!
Warm regards
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT