'Bomb Texas' The psychological roots of anti-Americanism

Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com
Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:07:26 +0000


John Hall:
>Well no, I said that anti-war == pro Saddam.
>
>Just as Orwell noted that anti-war == pro fascism in an earlier point of 
>history.

John, that's a pretty silly analogy, since it
posits Iraq vis-a-vis western nations as having
power, influence, and threat comparable to
Germany's or Japan's prior to WW II. It's pretty
easy to make a list of dictators around the
world whose regimes compare to Saddam's. By your
rule, everyone who opposes the US warring on
each and every one of them therefore is
supporting those dictators.

The good nations are not supposed to war on the
bad nations just because they are bad. They are
supposed to have compelling reasons before
launching an attack, such as "they first
attacked us," or "they first attacked one of our
allies," or "they are harboring the group that
first attacked us." No one has presented any
evidence that Saddam has allied with Al Queda.
While it might make some tactical sense for
these two enemies of the US to join forces, they
are not natural allies, given the direct conflict
of Saddam's Ba'ath ideology with Islamism. By
what we know to date, Al Queda receives most of
their support from an ideologically closer
nation: Saudi Arabia.

There is no evidence that Saddam would or could
pose a significant threat to the US or to
Europe, now or in the near future. What we are
planning to do with Iraq is really something
quite new, instituting international agreement
among the nations of the modern world to
pre-emptively attack a dictator who currently
poses small threat to Europe or the US, but
might sometime in the future. It is perfectly
reasonable to ask that this new policy is
defined, and what criteria are used to decide
which tyrants to depose. Who is next? Gaddafi?
Chong-Il? Castro? Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud?
Oh, wait -- he's one of ours.

In this case, questioning the war is NOT being
pro-Saddam. It is wondering what US foreign
policy is, and what the criteria are before we
go to war with a nation that currently poses
neither us nor Europe nor Japan any significant
risk. I'm NOT saying that pre-emptive attack
never makes sense, especially as technology
for WMDs progresses. But if that is the reason,
we need to put it into some kind of policy that
is more than just special pleading to attack
Iraq. So far, Bush has done more to explain how
Saddam went after his father.



_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail