On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:07:28 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
<snip> > In my country this was once long ago the case. > Hitler thought that we need more land ... and he invaded "some countries" to > make more land available. > A clear case where the goal (more land for germany) was "less important" than > the collateral damage. Regardless of who invades whom, both sides will call the other the "aggressor". Neither side wants to be thought of by world opinion as being the "aggressors". Countries which go to war against each other will often employ "agents-provocateurs" to make things appear as though the other country is the aggressor. This is what Hitler did just prior to his invading Poland. The operations he pulled off in an attempt to frame the Polish people as aggressors were planned and conducted in a very foolish manner. Hitler's "agent provocateur" tricks didn't work out at all well for him because the staged scenes were discovered and exposed for what they really were. When Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were conducting their "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in Kososvo, the US went to war against the Serbs. The US went to war against the Serbs just because their leader, Milosevic, was being seen as a very evil man in world opinion because he was committing genocide. Although he was doing very evil things, he wasn't threatening the US or any of those European nations which teamed up in a military coalition to stop his genocide campaign and to overthrow him. During the Kosovo-Bosnia war we were not hearing from the countries of our NATO allies any protests about US "aggression" against Milosevic. It was considered perfectly OK to go after Milosevic and put him out him out of business. This was seen as perfectly OK simply on the grounds that Milosevic is an evil man and that the world would be a lot better off without his genocide campaigns. Nearly all Europeans know that Saddam Hussein also is a very evil man. He can be compared to Milosevic. Saddam Hussein commits genocide campaigns against the Kurds living in Iraq. It is very well known that he has killed thousands of Kurds by attacking them with chemical agents. These Kurds whom he kills are his own people. If Saddam remains in power he will kill more Kurds, and he will likely use chemical agents against them again. Even if he doesn't have any more weapons of mass destruction to kill them with, I am sure he has other means of killing them. Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to conduct a war of alleged aggression against Saddam Hussein? If it is OK to attack Milosevic to stop genocide, then why isn't it OK to attack Saddam Hussein for the same reason? The issue isn't really about aggression or weapons of mass destruction. It is about genocide and the need to get rid of a ruthless and evil dictator. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
