[thechat] war phase 2

Erika Meyer emeyer at lclark.edu
Mon Nov 26 19:38:19 CST 2001

Seth wrote:

>You mean like this?
>"Bush issues strong warning to Iraq 
>Baghdad must allow weapons inspectors back - or else "
>I don't see this as an impossible choice - unless you are a ruthless 
>dictator unwilling to give up your arsenal of chemical and 
>biological weapons, oh, and your nuclear weapons program.

Probably not an impossible choice.
But I'm curious.  Is there any evidence that Iraq is producing these weapons?
Or is this just part of an ongoing harassment of Iraq?
Is Iraq being forced to follow rules other countries don't have to follow?

>  > And then we move on to the next country, the next manufactured situation.
>Maybe I'm a part of the brainwashed majority here, but I see no 
>manufactured situations.

What about here?

>  Only controversial decisions that have to be made, like wether to 
>risk the lives of American soldiers to confront threats that are at 
>the moment only perceived as "potential" threats.  Or do we wait 
>until Saddam has full-on nuclear capability before we confront him?

What about Pakistan, India, Israel...

& I never did get the reasoning why it was okay for the United States 
to have bunches of nuclear weapons, but not for anyone else...

>  > blitzkrieg is so intoxicating...  why stop when you're on a roll?
>I like the way you're thinking.  I hope this isn't sarcasm!  :)

If it wasn't okay for Hitler, or for Saddam, why is it okay for us?
Why do we so easily accept this relativistic thinking?

It interests me how people are thinking, to accept these things.
Only thing that is clear to me is my way of thinking is in the 
minority, at least in the US.  So it's interesting to hear the 
thought process everyone else is going through... what you accept, 
what you reject, and what you question.

>Take Care,

you too!


More information about the thechat mailing list