----- Original Message ----- From: <billbartlett at dodo.com.au>
> At 6:12 PM -0500 15/2/03, Dennis Perrin wrote:
>
> >Apart from noises made on
> >behalf of the Iraqi people (and not all Iraqi people are opposed to Bush
> >toppling Saddam), there really isn't something even remotely positive for
> >anti-interventionists to grab onto. I mean, no war on Iraq? Okay. But
what
> >instead?
>
> Instead of waging war? I guess most people don't accept the notion that
>waging war will necessarily achieve "something even
>remotely positive". Many believe there are other alternatives.
To be fair, Dennis wasn't saying that war on Iraq would achieve something positive. He was arguing that if we STOP the war on Iraq, that is not 'something remotely positive', that 'no war on Iraq' is not a 'positive' demand.
I don't think that's a good position, but it's not as bad as what you seemed to be implying.
> But I suppose I'll answer your "what instead" question again. Try to get
your head around the idea of a system of international justice, the main
obstacle to which is the same US government that for entirely obvious
reasons would much prefer to stick to the concept of might makes right.
>
> Saddam Hussein is a gangster, but I think you'll find that most people
think George Bush is acting like a gangster too and many of us consider
George Bush to be a more imminent danger.
>
> The dichotomy is not war against Iraq or support for Saddam, the real
choice is between international justice and international gangsterism. That
explains why the opposition to Gulf War 2 is so much stronger than Gulf War
1, in 1 Iraq was the international gangster. This time around America,
appears to be the gangster (or a vigilante, which in many ways is more
dangerous) rather than the good guy.
>
> Bill Bartlett
I half fundamentally disagree with you and half believe that you are on to something very important. I will go into more detail when I can.
LP