Re: 'prepare' njc

[sl . m]

Azeem, were you opposed to the West's intervention in Bosnia? Most of the Left, in Europe anyway, were angry that the West took so long to intervene there, and the argument was that it was because "only" Moslems were being killed, and the West's failure to act faster was in part racist etc.

Yet the Taliban waged a brutal war against women for years, and you're saying that wasn't justification for intervention? These women had no possible way of defending themselves, no way to acquire arms or train people how to use them, no organization that was able to reach out effectively to the West (although they did very bravely try). Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is appalling too, I agree. But the Taliban took it twenty steps further, and institutionalized a hatred of women that was virtually psychotic. In my view, that was grounds for war, definitely, and I wish we'd airlifted in a bunch of American women soldiers to blow their stupid heads off.

We went to war against Hitler because of his failure to recognize borders and because of his contempt for human rights. Are you also saying that wasn't a just war? If you are, then you're saying war is never justified. That's a respectable view, so long as you're consistent and are prepared to stand by and let any dictator terrorize his fellow countrymen and, if he chooses to invade, his neighbours too.

With respect, there IS evidence that the Iraqi government was involved with al-Qaeda before September 11th (although not conclusive) just as they were or are involved with the Abu Nidal group and all the Palestinian rejectionist groups. Saddam Hussein is a financial backer of most of the major terrorist groups in the Middle East.

You can't know that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. I don't think anyone outside Iraq and al-Qaeda will know that until after the regime has broken up - then people who were close to Saddam might begin to speak out.

Those who oppose war against Iraq must offer a realistic alternative. We can't pretend to live in a moral vacuum. If the West is in a position to help the Iraqi people, but chooses not to, then we are responsible in part for their situation, particularly as it was the West that strengthened Saddam's regime as a bulwark against the Islamists.

Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction. I'll send you an article I wrote recently if you're interested. He is torturing his own people. He employs so-called "offical rapists" to deal with women who are disloyal, or whose husbands are suspected of political crimes. So if not war, then what? The sanctions can't continue because they're causing horrible poverty among ordinary people and not affecting Saddam at all. We can't do nothing and wait until he threatens someone with a nuclear weapon. So what do we do?

Sarah