Sure there is. But I'll try to purge myself of my
preconceptions so we could discuss this adults. Let's
weigh the cost in life (and quality of life) of
preserving Iraq's current regime (I'll even throw in 6
more months of inspections at no extra charge) with
going to war to uproot the regime.
Sadly, we run a risk of loss of innocent
civilians. I cannot deny this expectation is valid
because it has happened before in the Gulf War. But
other things have happened before. Hussein has invaded
an adjacent country. Hussein has in his custody
weapons of mass destruction he has either omitted from
his original declaration, minimized or denied outright
in future statements. I believe he said "there are no
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." The possession
of them violates a 12-year UN agreement and the denial
speaks volumes about the character of the leader and
raises suspicions. And then there are the routine or
what some of you may call the "benign" atrocities in
Iraq, the ones no one wants to discuss, the ones
Hussein perpetrates upon his own people. Now I'll
agree that sanctions have also cost lives and reduced
quality of life, but these would also come to an end
after a war. So clearly I see a need for a regime
change, since that is the only way to insure this
country will not have weapons of mass destruction. We
have attempted to acheive disarmament politically and
diplomatically. No deal. In the process we learned
given the deception and the atrocities mentioned that
a regime change is necessary to create a zone of
reassurance with respect to disarmament. There have
been attempts to achieve a regime change, a peaceful
exile for Hussein, without success. So war is the only
As for compliance with weapons inspections?
Powell said it most succinctly, "Concessions are not
compliance." There is reason to believe that he is
rebuilding his weapons as fast as he is destroying
them. He destroys them late (he's had 12 years by one
interpretation and 6 months by another) and at a
snail's pace. And he destroys just enough to divide
the international community.
No, I'm sorry. "The People" would be better served
by this war than by no war.
--- Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The list title is not just "Science," it also
> includes "for the people,"
> which mandates using the list for what currently is
> the most flagrant
> attack on the people of the world, u.s. foreign
> policy as a whole.
> Being for the people and for the war is utterly
> incoherent. There should
> be no need to debate that on a progressive list.
> Carrol Cox
> "J. Wyatt Ehrenfels" wrote:
> > I for one support the war. This trend of
> > co-opting discussion groups for political purposes
> > questionable relevance to the group is getting old
> > fast.
> > J. Wyatt
> > http://www.fireflySun.com/news.html
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more