Re: Anti-Militarism Posters?
Daniel C. Burton (dan@antispam.autobahn.org)
16 Feb 1998 05:15:17 GMT
Kevin Dempsey Peterson <peterson@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.980215201325.12952A-100000@apocalypse>...
> On 14 Feb 1998, George J. Lee wrote:
> Hussein is the problem, not the soldiers in his armies. Kill Saddam and
> there is no need for war. But, when we start admitting that the best
> solution to something that would escalate into a war is to kill the
> leaders, then the leaders here start sweating. War as it's currently
> fought give the leaders exemption from any inconvenience. "No, no, we
> can't assasinate Saddam", but we can kill thousands of soldiers who
> aren't actually doing anything but defending their country from
> invasion.
Of course, killing Saddam Hussein is not necessarily superior to sitting
back and minding our own business. During the Persian Gulf War, we openly
tried to kill Saddam Hussein many times, but it was natural then because we
were at war. If we're not at war, it's more likely to be viewed as an act
of terrorism, and it would be even more likley to result in acts of
terrorism against American citezins than a war itself would. They would
probably target civilians because they're easier to take out than World
leaders. (Imagine anthrax let loose on New York city -- cheap, effective,
and very ugly.)
I don't really like Harry Browne's campaign piece about putting a bounty on
Saddam Hussein's head anymore. As you might be able to tell, I've been
influenced a lot by reading anti-war sites lately....