Re: Kiddy Leaders :-)

[Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:07:46 -0500
> From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>
>
> With inspectors and increased international scrutiny, he can't 
> continue anything.
IF Hussein were cooperating as he agreed to do back in '91, we would 
need FEWER inspectors, not more.  I'm amazed at how many people 
ignore this point.

> It *would* be nice to have a regime change, and all the Iraq folk 
> cheer us, and thank us, and the world in that region be stabilized, 
> etc.
> But, we don't know for sure that will be the outcome.
> Plus, what gives us the right?
Iraq doesn't recognize individual rights.  So anything, including 
force, which frees Iraqis from their government is moral.  And Bush 
has decided that, besides being moral, ending Hussein's power is also 
in the U.S.'s self-interest.  If that explanation doesn't work for 
you, nothing I can say will.

> Containment would be a very tough sell.
> No, I don't know that containment would work. 
> But, right now the debate is in buying inspectors more time to 
> uncover things that will bring international support.
The debate is buying *Hussein* more time, not the inspectors.  The 
inspectors' job is NOT to play hide-and-seek with Hussein.  It is his 
obligation to bring ALL weapons (which he's not even supposed to have 
any more), or evidence of their destruction, to their attention. 
Every day that the inspectors play this "Where's Waldo?" game 
strengthens Hussein.

> Although, while The French are angering me too with how hard and 
> active they are lobbying against US policy, it takes courage to 
> stand up for what you believe.
Or for what you've paid for (Iraqi oil)...or for what's paying you:

Iraq strengthens air force with French parts [in recent months]
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

> Me, I believe that all countries involved are honestly looking at 
> this from a "let's weigh the cost of war" perspective.
That's fine.  Then let the unwilling get out of the way while the 
U.S. and those who see the danger achieve what they're willing to pay 
for.  Which, incidentally, will benefit all countries that value 
individual rights and freedoms.

> We...are...no...better...than...other countries in the world.
The U.S. isn't necessarily morally better than every other country in 
the world, but unless you reject the very concept of standards, then 
some countries are better than others.  The U.S. is better than many 
by the standard of individual freedoms, and that includes Iraq.

> We are far from saint-hood too.
The U.S. is the only country in the history of the world to be 
founded on an idea rather than an accident of geography or conquest. 
Equally important, that idea was the guarantee of individual rights. 
I think that counts for a lot, and yes, I chafe every day at the 
extent to which we've lost our original direction.  There's no 
guarantee we'll play out the Iraqi situation as we should, but 
removing Hussein's government if it won't disarm proactively is the 
moral move to make.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
   --Howard Stern, 5/25/00