Kiddy Leaders :-)

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Alan McKendree
>Subject: Re: Kiddy Leaders :-)
>
>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's an obvious point.  Are you implying I'm ignoring it?
If so, please don't.
I'm simply dealing with the situation at hand, not what could or would have
been.

>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.

Oh gee Alan, don't give up on me so quickly.
But please, take a pill for a moment, will ya?
You're starting to sound like The US at The UN.

Your argument above seems a bit flawed to me.
So, we can pick and choose, based on what is in our self-interest, who we
help free from persecution, and who we don't?  That's more than a bit
selfish, and may explain why we let Africans die by the thousands...........
Those lives aren't in our self-interest.
There's a national policy to be proud of.

>The debate is buying *Hussein* more time, not the inspectors.

Buying Hussein more time to do what?  Fill sand bags?  We're talking about
finding a way to avoid a war that will kill thousands of people Alan.
Isn't that "moral"?  Isn't that the noble thing to do?

>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.

It in no way strengthens Hussein.  If you mean strengthens Hussein by
weakening the US because of growing international descent, then hell, maybe
we should listen to them and see if there's a different way to skin this
cat.
But, we wouldn't be weakened (which we certainly are) if we hadn't
approached this thing like (insert echo effect) WE ARE THE GREAT US, WE WILL
DISARM YOU WITH OR WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.  WHY, BECAUSE WE ARE THE
GREAT US.
We are one country among many.

>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

These sorts of contracts were in place during the first go round, and it
didn't prevent countries like France from joining us then.
Could it be that perhaps these countries see something that is working (US
pressure at the boarders of Iraq along with inspections), and want to
continue down this road until completion or until brick wall?
Isn't that a possibility?
The French are not cowards.  They have and will fight.  But, they also would
like to avoid war if that possibility exists.
Yep, that's a bad thing alright.

>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.

There's nothing stopping us from proceeding except the knowledge that going
alone, under the weight of such strong opposition, will be incredibly
damaging.
Don't look now, but The UK is about to leave us too.

>>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.

I wasn't talking about Iraq, or Iran, or China, or N. Korea, or any other
country that abuses human rights and is under fascist dictatorial rule.
I was talking about those good members of The UN that are apposed to the US
going to war *now*.
They aren't saying they won't fight.  They are simply saying that a process
is in place *now* that *is* working.  Although working slowly, it's still
working.
If it's working, how can you justify ignoring that and killing those same
innocent civilians who you supposedly are going into Iraq to liberate??

Look, I'm not sold on the US and the world never having to go in and do this
job.  But, I firmly believe in trying to avoid war at all cost.  Right now,
there is perhaps a way to avoid this war and achieve our goals of disarming
Iraq.  Unless...............those aren't really our ultimate goals.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
I have to say it's starting to smell like stinky fish!  Actually it's
starting to look like Bush went too far and can't bring himself to admit he
was too hasty.

>>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.

WHAT??
A-MER-I-CAN INDIANS!  We took.  We conquested (I know, not a real word).
Then, for good measure, we conquested in Africa to help us have a better
time.
Yes, our ideal of freedom for the people is grand and one that deserves
respect and admiration.
But, it doesn't give us the right to go "fixing" the world without
permission.

>Equally important, that idea was the guarantee of individual rights.

See above how we guaranteed individual rights over the years.

>I think that counts for a lot,

Here at home.

>and yes, I chafe every day at the extent to which we've lost our original
direction.

Then vote Democratic next election.  ;-)

>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.

Here's this reference to morality again.  A clear religious term in my book.
So then let me ask *you*.....
How is it the Pope finds our actions to be immoral?
He's supported other wars, but finds this one not to be moral.

Alan, I've written before that I'm struggling with this whole issue.
But, I can't shake the thinking that if there is a possibility to avoid war
and death, than we should pursue it to it's fullest.
That doesn't mean turning our back from the situation, or giving up, or
calling it quits.  It means exploring and exhausting all options.
*THAT* is the moral thing to do.  Anything short of that is *not* moral.

Kevin in VT