Thank you for perhaps the most thoughtful response I've heard on-list
regarding our having gone to war. 

I'm curious, Tom.  What would it take to convince you that Bush's aggression
is warranted?  Or is it too late, since he didn't effectively enough seek to
garner popular support?  Should that be a bar for any military action?  It
seems you may be saying no, if your point about world opinion is at all
comparable to domestic opinion.

And if we find Saddam's plans had included the use of nuclear or germ
weaponry, would that justify a nuclear or germ response?  It seems your 
action proportionate to the threat" line might approve of such an action.

I realize it's not a good idea to play semantics with a lawyer, but your
idea seems, at least to those convinced of the need for war, to actually
overstep the degree to which we are responding.

Justin Blessinger

-------Original Message-------
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.
Date: Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:20:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT--GOOD TO KNOW/Disanalogous
Precisely because he (no longer) has any divisions, the Pope must rely on
his moral authority and the cogency of his arguments. Bush, by contrast,
need not bother about convincing people, because he has the means to force
his will on Iraq whether or not people are persuaded he should do so. And,
by the way, I think he would be derelict in his duty if he failed to act,
regardless of world opinion, in the face of a real threat to the US.

But, the action should be proportionate to the threat. I disagree with his
judgment about the extent of Iraq's threat to the US and the absence of
alternatives to war. Moreover, I worry that, if he is consistent, he will be
unable to stop with Iraq. Iran, Syria, North Korea are just the most obvious
next targets. I fear Iraq will either be a half-measure, or the first step
toward a ten-to-thirty year war. Which it would be our duty to pursue, if
necessary, but terribly misguided if, as I believe, it is not necessary.

Tom K

In a message dated 3/21/2003 6:44:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jacek Niecko
<[log in to unmask]> writes:

>And, by the way, as morally superior and impeccable as the present
incumbent is: "How many divisions has the Pope?", as one of "certified"
dictators once inquired.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jacek Niecko
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:27 PM
> Subject: Re: OT--GOOD TO KNOW/Disanalogous
> More power to you Kate Troy, whoever and wherever you are!
> All those (pseudo)intellectual ninnies who lecture us all the time from
ivory towers where no real-life experience is available, tend to forget that
had it not been for the democracy they take for granted but are not prepared
to defend on the battlefield, they would be sitting in a dungeon supervised
by a Saddam Hussein who, indeed, hasn't had a chance YET to murder six
million people--in that sense, Adolf Hitler is much superior in comparison
with him and he much inferior to Hitler.
> Let us not forget that in the first decade of the 21st century evil people
don't commit mass murder EXACTLY in the same way as in the fourth and fifth
decades of the 20th.
> But there'll always be SANCTIMONIOUS DUPES ready and willing to swallow a
dictator's propaganda
> Jacek Niecko
> Washington DC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kate Troy
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: OT--GOOD TO KNOW/Disanalogous
> In a message dated 3/21/2003 12:19:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, ngish@USM
MAINE.EDU writes:
> to attack and dismiss those
> who hate this war is to deal with the fact that it is also opposed by
> Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, the Pope, and nearly all of the American
> Council of Churches.
> You mean the same Pope who tells people not to use birth control, that it
s a sin. The more significant names are the ones you didn't cite. More than
70% of not famous Americans support the War and that number has probably
gone up now that our boys are on the ground fighting with their lives in
> .