Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (21533)	2/19/2003 10:17:16 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27766

Michael Kelly February 19, 2003 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelkelly/mk20030219.shtml Protests: Give tyranny a chance PARIS--Last weekend, across Europe and America, somewhere between 1 million and 2 million people marched against a war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. All protests against war are ultimately ethical in nature, and Saturday's placard-wavers did not break with tradition: ``Give Peace a Chance," ``Make Tea, Not War," ``Bush and Blair--The Real War Criminals.'' These are statements of sentiment, not power politics, and the sentiment is, or is meant to be, a moral one. Of course, not all the marchers can be counted as 99.9 percent pure moralists. Some--perhaps many--marched out of simple reactionary hatred: for the United States, for its power, for its paramount position in a hated world order. London's paleosocialist Mayor ``Red Ken" Livingstone, a featured speaker at that city's massive demo, comes to mind. His enlightened argument against war consisted chiefly of calling George W. Bush ``a lackey of the oil industry,'' ``a coward," and ``this creature." But doubtless, hundreds of thousands of marchers--and many more millions who did not march--believe quite sincerely that theirs is a profoundly moral cause, and this is really all that motivates them. They believe, as French President Jacques Chirac recently pontificated, ``war is always the worst answer.'' The people who believe what Chirac at least professes to believe are, at least as concerns Iraq, as wrong as it is possible to be. Theirs is not the position of profound morality, but one that stands in profound opposition to morality. The situation with Iraq may be considered in three primary contexts, and in each, the true moral case is for war. The first context considers the people of Iraq. There are 24 million of them, and they have been living (those that have not been slaughtered or forced into exile) for decades under one of the cruelest and bloodiest tyrannies on earth. It must be assumed that, being human, they would prefer to be rescued from a hell where more than a million lives have been so far sacrificed to the dreams of a megalomaniac, where rape is a sanctioned instrument of state policy, and where the removal of the tongue is the prescribed punishment for uttering an offense against the Great Leader. These people could be liberated from this horror--relatively easily and very quickly. There is every reason to think that an American invasion will swiftly vanquish the few elite units that can be counted on to defend the detested Saddam; and that the victory will come at the cost of few--likely hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands--Iraqi and American lives. There is risk here; and if things go terribly wrong it is a risk that could result in terrible suffering. But that is an equation that is present in any just war, and in this case any rational expectation has to consider the probable cost to humanity low and the probable benefit tremendous. To choose perpetuation of tyranny over rescue from tyranny, where rescue may be achieved, is immoral. The second context considers the security of America, and indeed of the world, and here too morality is on the side of war. The great lesson of Sept. 11 is not that terrorism must be stopped--an impossible dream--but that state-sanctioned terrorism must be stopped. The support of a state--even a weak and poor state--offers the otherwise deeply vulnerable enemies of the established order the protection they need in their attempts to destroy that order--through the terrorists' only weapon, murder. To tolerate the perpetuation of state-sanctioned terror, such as Saddam's regime exemplifies, is to invite the next Sept. 11, and the next, and the next. Again, immoral. The third context concerns the idea of order itself. The United Nations is a mightily flawed construct, but it exists; and it exists on the side (more or less) of law and humanity. Directly and unavoidably arising from the crisis with Iraq, the U.N. today stands on the edge of the precipice of permanent irrelevancy. If Iraq should be allowed to defy the law, the U.N. will never recover, and the oppressed and weak of the world will lose even the limited protection of the myth of collective security. Immoral. To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil. This cannot be the moral position. ©2003 Washington Post Writers Group