The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Fwd: Sums it up quite well

There was a debate last night at Georgetown University on the Iraq war,
sponsored by the Muslim Students Association and several other groups
including the College Republicans.  Stephen Zunes and Mark Lance represented
the anti-war side while a professor from the Georgetown's security studies
program and a heritage foundation fellow represented the pro-war.  The whole
thing was shown on CSpan , and a tape is available from them.  Below are
comments made by Mark Lance.

In the movie Casablanca, the inimitable Claude Rains, a gambling prefect,
closes down Rick’s Café at the request of the Nazis, stating that, “I am
shocked, shocked to find that gambling is taking place at this café.”  The
U.S., it seems, is also shocked, shocked to find that Saddam Hussein is
seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Consider this.

1. The U.S.A. possesses roughly half the world’s supply of nuclear

2. The U.S.A. is responsible for over half of the world’s arms trade.

3. The U.S.A. has done more than any other country to develop and
disseminate weapons of mass destruction.

4. The U.S.A. has often been aligned with local despotic regimes.

5. The U.S.A. is the major financial support for Israel, which possesses
some 200 nuclear weapons and has violated more UNSC
resolutions than any other country.

Shocked, indeed.

Suppose we eliminate Saddam Hussein.  Hypocrisy notwithstanding, isn’t that
better than allowing one more tyrant with advanced weaponry free reign?

Oddly, the answer is no.  Our hypocrisy creates enemies, particularly among
those who suffer because of it.  If we do invade Iraq, killing tens of
thousands of innocent civilians along the way, who will be blamed for this?
Saddam Hussein?  Only in the U.S.  Others understand our motives and see
through the moralistic rhetoric to the economic reality behind our policies.
  That will not decrease the willingness to support terrorism.  Quite the

The entire debate taking place at the UN – over unilateralism, the details
of inspections, and the precise conditions of invasion – is myopic. The
choice facing the U.S., and the United Nations, is not between containment
and invasion.  It is between hypocrisy and consistency.  Consistency is not
merely good morals; it is good policy.

We can try to police, imprison, and monitor the world.  We can forever
invade last month’s ally in order to destroy last month’s arms shipment.  Or
we can build a world free of weapons of mass destruction and arms sales, a
world of verification and human rights, a world where everyone has a chance
at a decent life.  We can offer a Marshall Plan instead of a martial plan.
That is our choice.  A great deal depends on it.

Mark Lance
associate professor of philosophy
associate professor of justice and peace
Georgetown University (for identification only)

"Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul"  -Edward Abbey

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world" -Mahatma Gandhi

"The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live.
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles
and misguided men."
Martin Luther King, Jr., in "Strength to Love"

Help stop slaughter of Yellowstone bison:

Help save rainforest or feed orphaned chimpanzees with Redjellyfish Long

Protect your PC - get VirusScan Online

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]