From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 03:07:09 MST
John K Clark wrote:
>"Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com> Wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why on earth do you prattle on as if the only alternative
>>to doing whatever we please, whenever we please is to
>>be a total non-entity?
>>
>>
>
>Why settle for second best, it seems to me the ability to do whatever we
>please whenever we please is quite wonderful,
>
Careful. So spoke those who have worn iron mail and tramped on all
those who disagreed throughout history. Might does not make right. We
either act wisely or we head mightily toward our own undoing.
> especially if the things we
>do are good, like getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan a year ago.
>As for Iraq, there is no doubt that having Saddam assume room
>temperature would be a good thing for Iraq and the world.
>
A lot depends on how a thing is done and on why and especially on what
comes next. Things are seldom so simple as just smiting the current
symbol of all that is wrong. What happens after we go invade Iraq and
depose Saddam? Is the likely long protracted holding action worth it?
Is the number of dead worth it? Is the great fear and animosity added
to immensely worth it? Is this "good"?
>There
>is only one question worth asking, is the price to do that is too high?
>I don't know the answer.
>
>
>
This is a good question and I am glad you ask it. Here is another good
question and a harder one to face and answer. Are we becoming that
which we would very much not wish to be and losing that which we
considered most precious in the name of vengeance and "safety"? Are
we becoming that which we have always abhorred elsewhere, a police state
with autocratic powers toward any and all who offend it anywhere in the
world? We are the only super-power (more or less). But with great
power comes not only great responsibility but great danger of its abuse.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:54 MST