[thechat] war phase 2

[Hugh Blair]

(And I told myself I was going to stay out of this one...)

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:thechat-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Erika Meyer
> Subject: RE: [thechat] war phase 2
>
> Seth wrote:
>
> >You mean like this?
> >"Bush issues strong warning to Iraq
> >Baghdad must allow weapons inspectors back - or else "
> >http://www.msnbc.com/news/663215.asp
> >
> >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?

Yes.  If not, then why do they so adamantly resist inspections?

> Or is this just part of an ongoing harassment of Iraq?

Probably - but <opinion> probably also justified.</opinion>

> Is Iraq being forced to follow rules other countries don't have to follow?

Yep.  Question for your thoughts.
You have 2 children and one is a constant problem. Let's say
that the problem one always horded cookies under her bed. Wouldn't
you treat that one child differently (because of her history)
and search her room more often than the other (sweet) child?

> >  > 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?
> http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm

Just another opinion.  Just because it's published on the web
doesn't make it real.  But of course you knew that.

> >  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...

Stay on subject.  Answer the direct "Saddam" question.  Deflecting
a question with another doesn't reduce the value of the original
issue - "do we wait...".

> & 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...

I think you'll find that our leaders have advocated the reduction of
our weapons piles.  But I hope you don't think we should be totally
without them.  When we can verify that *ALL* other nations have
destroyed *ALL* their nuclear weapons, I believe that the US would
eliminate its stockpile.

> >  > 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?

Again with the "Hitler" & "Saddam" comparisons - yet with no answer
to the question.  IMHO I think the scope & details of the problem(s)
mentioned are different.

> 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.

Yes, it is.  We (you and I) won't change each other's views, but
at least you make me re-think the issue.  I hope it's mutual.
>
> >Take Care,
> >
> >Seth
>
> you too!
>
> Erika

Y'all take care too.

-Hugh