From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 12:29:17 MDT
On 15 Aug 2002 at 20:08, Blunderov wrote:
> 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!
>
You forget that Iraq is nominally a secular government, not an Islamic
one, and is ruled by a secular fascist expansionist dictator who only a
few years ago was poised to overrun the Muslim Holy Land. How can
removing him, and thus granting a reprieve to the oppressed Shiite and
Kurdish Muslims within Iraq (as well as the Sunnis in the center of the
country) be seen as anything other than a GOOD thing for Islam? It
could only be portrayed as a bad thing by those autocratic rulers of
Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Syria, etc.) who
would feel threatened by the existence of another more democratic
alternative within the region, and thus feel constrained to offer their
solidarity with a fellow despot.
>
> Warm regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT