[thechat] Getting closer

[kristenannfrey at yahoo.com]

From: "Elfur Logadottir":
> In my opinion, weapons of mass destruction shouldn't be used, period.
> Who's to judge what is a just cause?
> And when you say it's just cause, is it really, or is it only for your
> side?
> And couldn't it then be argued that *that's* exactly the argument of the
> other side?

Absolutely.

I don't claim to know what would be defined as a just cause, but here's a
thought

What if Party A is about to fire a Weapon of Mass Destruction on civilians?
And what if the only thing that can stop this is if Party B fires their
Weapon of Mass Destruction to take out Party A's Weapon?  What should Party
B do? - without assuming that party A and B represent any particular
countries.

>  don't many Americans want Bush gone

I do.  And if making that statement were to bring harm to myself or my loved
ones, I'd want help from other countries to get him out.

> Oh, please, the war against Iraq has nothing to do with human suffering
and
> everything to do with cheap oil supply or other interests of isolated
group

It has A LOT to do with oil.  But if your going to try and make a case for
war you better have other reasons.   George Bush's "public case" for war
tries to focus on the actual and potential human suffering.  His "real"
reasons for wanting to invade Iraq...Oil is right up there...and...hmmm...
Saddam tried to kill daddy.  Hell, I'm not defending him.

> Doesn't the same apply to China or many nations in Africa,
> haven't the humans there suffered as much, if not more than the Iraqis? by
> using the same argument, shouldn't China have been invaded years ago?

Unfortunately the portrayal of human suffering is controlled mostly by
politics and the media.  In the U.S. we have news shows like 20/20, Dateline
NBC, 60 Minutes ... shows on human suffering in Africa and China don't bring
in high ratings right now.  Yeah, it sucks.

:-) Kristy