Z-- I'm sorry, but I see no information from either you or Sun regarding the US exploitaition of Iraqi oil. None. Both make assumptions, e.g., Iraq has oil and the US needs oil. Altho correct, my question is either historically or projectively, do you see a policy of US exploitation? That Karzai worked for an oil company doesn't indicate that we are exploiting Afghani oil. You could make a case that we are securing cheap opium since production has increased with the elimination of the Taliban <bg>.
It seems to me that we do agree that Saddam is a bad guy. We don't agree whether he should be indicted. Sun wants a perfect world before indictment. We don't agree that the UN is the logical place for the promulgation of international law, and we don't agree whether the US has either the right or responsibility to act alone to stop Saddam, the bad guy.
There is also the very legitimate and difficult question of whether the cure of invasion may be worse than the illness of Saddam. Frankly, I agonize over this. I felt that the sanctions hurt Iraqis, especially children, while Saddam still jerked off in his palaces.
We also differ on our impression of the UN. I see them as a collection of self-serving states with no concern for human rights, while you don't. We also basically agree that Bush is a moron who has been distracting public opinion from his domestic catastrophies by deceiving Saddam's importance. We disagree that getting the UN in, even by threat, was a positive action that would not be done without Bush's bombast.
To me, I don't want the world to turn a blind eye to future holocausts as it has repeatedly in the past. BWAC places Bush in the same league as Saddam, and, IMO, there are profound and intolerable differences between them. To me, Saddam must be stopped.
fred |
