From: Dylan Sunter (dylan.sunter@fisystem.com)
Date: Fri Aug 23 2002 - 05:58:02 MDT
<JOEDEES>
The very possibility of catastrophic nuclear devastation means that one
cannot afford not to act, even on a probability rather than on a certainty;
the stakes are just simply too high.
<DYLAN>
The problem then is Catch-22. For as long as the US and any other nation
attacks another nation which is inferior in both military might and
technological ability, then there will be no peace, for those nations, and
their allies (in this case, arab states who have specific reasons for
opposing action against a nation regarded as "one of their own", even if not
best mates at the time) will continue to regard the US as enemies of islam,
leading, naturally to increased tensions and hostile intent towards the
"imperialistic aggressor".
This leads to the raw hatred which is symptomatic of the response of smaller
children to the school bully. And we all know what we tell our kids about
the school bully...His time will come, and in a sense I dont think this
analogy is too far off the mark. The US is seen as a big bully. George Bush
is regarded by most people I know in the UK as a complete dickhead with the
intellectual capacity of a brick, and I tell you this, if Mr Blair thinks
the UK should be off to war with America, he is likely to lose the support
of the people who put him in office. According to a MORI poll carried out in
March 2002:
"The balance of British opinion is firmly against stepping up American
military action against Iraq. Only 35% say the U.S. government would be
right to attack Saddam Hussein's regime, while 52% think such a move would
be wrong. The figures are similar for attitudes to British involvement in
any American escalation in Iraq. Only about one in three Britons (34%),
think their government would be right to join the Americans in any increased
action, while 56% think it would be wrong." (Time Poll Reveals Declining
British Support For The War Against Terror -
http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/time.shtml )
The world has yet to see any evidence which points to the fact that saddam
is:
a) rebuilding stockpiles of chem and bio weapson
b) working on the creation of, or attempting to buy, a nuclear weapon
c) intent on attacking the United States homeland
d) ready or willing to START a war with the US
So, the world once again asks the question...WHERE is the proof that Iraq
poses a significant threat, and WHAT are the moral, political, legal and
economic justifications for attacking a country which has been devastated by
UN imposed sanctions for 10 years. Mr Bush would like to keep us focussing
on one individual- saddam...But war is not just about 1 person is it? Its
about civilian deaths, its about the loss of required infrastructure, and
its about who controls the region after the successful deposition of saddam.
Until these questions are answered, the EU and other US allies should
attempt to keep a tight leash on the bulldog that is currently the US
administration.
Regards.
Dylan.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT