From: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 13:58:29 +0800
To: Missouri FreeNet Administration <measl@mfn.org>
Subject: Re: I must admit. . .
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981223061138.00acf7b0@205.83.192.13>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981224151942.0388eb40@205.83.192.13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 08:18 PM 12/22/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
>:>Hrmm... And we have never "sanctioned" (gotta love those innocuous
>:>euphemisms) any soveriegn State?  What good for the goose is not good for
>:>the gander?  I repeat, *what gives us the RIGHT* to determine his weaponry
>:>or lack thereof?
>:
>:Perhaps if you cited a few examples, your counter-point would have some
>:weight. 
>
>How about Iraq itself???

Do you view our bombing Iraq as sanction? Or as retaliation for their
sanction of Kuwait? Later, is our bombing of Iraq sanction, or follow
through on our warning in light of Husseins continued thwarting of UN
inspectors? 

I don't think Iraq measures up as an example of a sovereign nation the US
sactioned. You would have been better off listing the anti-terrorist
strikes in the Sudan and Afghanistan, but even those were not "sanctions"
in the same sense that Iraq-Kuwait were.

>:>:Your arguments would be better applied to Somalia and Bosnia than they are
>:>:to Iraq. Our presence in those countries was of a slightly different
>:>:character than it is in Iraq now isn't it???
>:>Yes indeed.  In these two countries we were there only to watch over the
>:>slaughter, not to perpetuate it ourselves.  Mustv'e ruined your Military
>:>Day (tm), huh Reeza?
>:
>:(yawn) not really. Actually, any involvement we have with the UN gets on my
>:nerves. Interesting, the way you ignore the differences between "internal
>:conflict" and "aggression against a sovereign neighbor".
>
>I don't see any difference when *we* are the ones injecting ourselves into
>it.  Why don't you point them out to me?

Lead the horse to water, and make him drink? The evidence is there to be
seen, one need only be willing to see. Yes, that knife cuts both ways.
Boils down to ideological differences. 

I believe in defense through a strong offense (threat of retaliation) and
carrying out that retaliation when provoked. I do not see eye to eye with
everything the UN does, that does not mean I'm willing to allow one
expansionist dictator to sanction another country and gain control of
enough of the worlds oil supply to impact the well-being of my country. Nor
does it mean we (the US) should become totally isolationist. With the hue
and cry from the world community, I believe our/the UN retaliation against
Iraqs sanction of Kuwait is, and always will be justifiable.

I view Somalia and the Bosnia fiascos differently, they are internal
conflicts. In Bosnia, there is the added factor of "ethnic cleansing". 

I'm reminded of the truisms about how a drowning man will accept help from
any source, and that a wild animal will bite the hand that feeds it. I'm
personally leary of any involvement with those internal conflicts because
it is interfering with that 'survival of the fittest' thing. 

Reeza!
============================================================================
DH Key available upon request.


The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.


	"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."

				-- my older sister