Erik Reuter wrote: > > At least that option has to be excercised. Dismissing it out of the > > hand seems a bit extreme to me. > > It has been exercised. Repeatedly. It does not work. It is > ludicrous to > call it "dismissing it out of hand".
Well, I guess whether one chooses to call it ludicrous or not depends on how eagerly one wants war. > > How do you define doing their part? > > You deleted it. I suggested more aid in building something out of > Afghanistan. Another example would be acting serious about > enforcing the > treaty made with Iraq rather than saying "nice doggie" to Saddam as he > repeatedly makes a mockery of the treaty and the UN. I deleted the parts to do with your suggestion to re-build Afghanistan. You have completely ignored my questions regarding what exactly 'their part instead of just watching US protect the world from terrorism' comprises of when a country's risk-assessment of a threat differs from America's. Y'see, just from my perspective, the world really hasn't become safer place since 9/11 and the following events...none of the great 'threats' that have been handled [let's even forget the efficacy of these attempts] were 'threats' in my life. I live in a country that has been suffering from cross-border terrorism for decades. There is ample proof as to who is behind this. I haven't seen any interest on the part of the US officials, pre or post 9/11, to address these concerns...even though they are very well aware of them. Even though half of the clinching evidence stems from the efforts of the US Intelligence agencies. So, pardon me if I do not buy this image of America being the sole champion of freedom and democracy, battling it out alone, while the rest of the ungrateful world watches quietly from the side-lines. <chuckle> And no, I don't want to buy a bridge either. > > <chuckle> > > Our military resources are sufficient for the task at hand. > > Sufficient to remove all WoMD from Iraq while minimizing civilian > casualties? <chuckle> Yeah, right. <g> Now I wonder what makes you assume that the only task at hand is neutralising Saddam. That might be a priority with the US govt. today, but it is certainly not what I was referring to. Let's backtrack a moment - you said that other countries ought to do their part in fighting terror..and then you said , 'Granted no other country has the military resources to do it'.... Now, I repeat, our military resources *are* sufficient for the task at hand...the task being keeping our portion of the world comparitively safer and freer from the terrorists. [Okay, now, this is only to the extent of following the precedent set by the US after 9/11 - what I think of the efficacy and logic of these methods is a different issue altogether]. Please do not assume that my country's threat perceptions and security concerns are the same as those of the US of A's. :) > > You accept Iraq's offer not because you trust Saddam or > have faith in > > him, but because there is a 'due process of law'. > > Which has been followed and defied repeatedly. You seem to think that > if you keep talking politely to a thief, eventually he will change his > ways. Meanwhile, he is robbing you blind. <chuckle> Well, if that course of action [talking politely to a thief...] is good enough to be recommended to India by the US govt. with regard to Pakistan, why isn't it good enough for the US when the issue of Saddam is considered? > > Or should be, anyway. You can not > > summarily decide that someone is a threat, demand that > he/they surrender > > sovereignity, refuse all counter-offers, declare an intention to > > attack...and still hope to be considered reasonable. > > Yes, you can. It is called enforcing a broken treaty. If your children > are sent to their room for punishment for misbehaving, and they sneak > out the window, and you find out, do you just send them back to their > room to sneak out again, and then when they sneak out the > window and you > see them outside, you just send them back again and they > sneak out again > and then.... If it was UN doing the punishing, I wouldn't mind. But when the US suddenly decides to abrogate the role of the parent in the world body for itself and starts deciding [without any consistency of ideals and principles, I might add] which 'child' country to punish, for what, and to which extent...well, frankly, that makes me uncomfortable. And uneasy. > > Why is my questioning of your assumption illogical? Or emotional? > > That is not illogical. What is illogical is that if you are oppressed > by an insane fascist dictator and have no means of fighting him, that > you would refuse help because of pride. Well, yes, that *is* illogical. But I have always found that factors like pride, nationalism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, habits of thought, emotional dependancy etc., etc. often influence people to act illogically. Just because something is logical doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. Especially where human behaviour and reactions are concerned. > Your argument is > therefore that > the Iraqi people would foolishly continue to live in poverty, famine, > and disease, being killed and oppressed by an insane despot, > rather than > accept outside help. If that outside help is coming from Uncle Sam, I'd say that my concerns are reasonably valid. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
