From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Raid Started
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:41:43 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1juu0nINNm1n@morrow.stanford.edu> BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu writes:

> In article <727731421.AA08134@csource.oz.au>,
>    I think it's an index of how really indefensible our armed forces'
> actions in Iraq are that the only way people can figure out how to
> defend them is by coming up with two classic statements of moral
> cowardice:  we're helpless not to kill innocent people because the other
> side won't do what we say, and besides even if we're murderers we're
> nearly not so big murderers as our opponent.

  Well actually, I can think of a couple of others:  Saddam has been shown
to consistently act against the terms of the UN resolutions and the
cease-fire accords.  The only things that have made him obey have been
force or the threat of force.  When military actions are taken, people
tend to die in any number of messy ways.  All too often, these people are
civilians are otherwise not really involved.  The only sure way to prevent 
these deaths is to do nothing.  Doing nothing may well result in even
more deaths and unpleasantness further down the road.

>    I'm not a pacifist. There is legitimate need for waging war some
> times, but this is not one of them.  And there is a morally respectable
> defense for inflicting civilian casualties in time of necessary war.
> That defense is:  civilian deaths are regrettable and should be
> minimized, but they are acceptable and justifiable because they are an
> unavoidable consequence of military action which we must undertake to
> prevent our country from being ...  [supporters of the current vicious
> insanity are invited to try to complete this sentence for the present
> case in some way that makes convincing sense.]

  I will not, because your statement is so limited as to be frightful.  It 
refuses to take into account actions such as the invasion of Kuwait.  The 
danger to the US was somewhat peripheral, IMO (Saddam still had to sell his
oil), but ONLY military action, vigorously pursued, would have removed
Saddam from the country.  So far only military force has had any effect on
him and his actions.  I believe that is the only thing that will work.  Saddam
is a brutal dictator and a semi-sophisticted bully -- such creatures are
rarely affected by moral suasion.

  I challenge you to develop a workable way of forcing recalcitrant leaders
to not throw their weight around that does not include recourse to military
action.  I doubt you will find one (note, sanctions have STILL not produced
the desired effects, even after all this time (only food and medicine are al-
lowed into Iraq).


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************