Clearly, you've seen the footage on TV but never bothered reading about the events that led to it. (Sorry for the tone, but righteous wrongness always annoys me) The embassy evacuation occured in 1975, as Saigon was being overrun by regular North Vietnamese army units that had stormed blitzkrieg-style across the DMZ. Nixon, of course, had resigned over a year earlier, at which time there were hardly any US troops in South Vietnam anyway. The official American presence in South Vietnam had ended three years earlier, in an agreement that required North Vietnam to respect the right of South Vietnam to exist. Ford refused to supply any aid or assistance at all to protect our ally from a conventional invasion supported by foreign powers (China and the USSR). Understandable, perhaps, but no less shameful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clearly you've missed the entire point of my post (and I hate righteous attempts to nitpick little points).
The main assertion I was making (which you ignored) was that who ever I was originally replying to (can't recall right now) was incorrect in the claim that Ford's policies effectively conceded Nixon's supposed 'victory'. I was arguing that Nixon had in fact pulled out troops long before this, which you post as claiming that I didn't know.
<strong>Why the hell is time up? what's up with this Micky Mouse language? What's gonna happen if you don't "do this thing", "go in and set up shop"....</strong><hr></blockquote>It is *exactly* this kind of rhetoric you quoted that has turned many (ordinary) people against America. Bush saying, "If you are not with us, you are against us", concisely sums it up, and apart from being rather presumtuous, is for most people (outside the U.S.?) just a little too gung-ho for comfort.
Turkey is not with the U.S. So what are the U.S. going to do? Invade Turkey?
It is a great worry that at this period of crisis, the world should be lumbered with a fool like Bush. Talk about someone being out of his depths. He reminds me of rabid dog on a leash, rearing to go, no matter what the consequences. I find looking into his eyes when he speaks a very disturbing experience indeed.
Unfortunately for all of us, it looks as if soon - for Bush obviously not soon enough - we are all going to find out, whether we like it or not, what the outcome of his policies will be. Heaven help us.
- T.I.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: The Installer ]</p>
Well, the three strikes laws have been a failure in California. They'll probably only be worse on an international scale.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't quite thinking of it so specifically. But as a general idea, having several chances seems like a reasonable expectation, and not acting seems like a reason to take this sort of approach. It doesn't have to be three strikes, but isn't this as a loose rule of thumb a reasonable response? Or is this more analogous to Tee ball where you get as many tries as you want until you make contact?
[quote]<strong>It may be but thats how it is. When looking at it from a pure diplomatic POV, disregarding all links to the outher world the way 1441 was formulated was "anything but giving carte blance for going to war without getting the approval from SC"</strong><hr></blockquote>
And right now the UN is still taking a "wait and see" attitude (the same one they've had for 12 years) while 1441 demands "immediate" "full" "unrestricted" "unconditional" cooperation. All 4 of those have been violated and they don't act. I realize the political machinations of global politics are slow as the seasons, but I think 12 years is long enough.
[quote]<strong>This is another issue than "should we go to war or not". Thats why I cut the second part of your post. It really doesn´t mean anything when we try to understand what the words in 1441 mean in themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then what is the point of the resolutions?
[quote]<strong> And BTW: No. 1441 is no grey area between those wanting to go to war without a new resolution and those who wont. It was a clear victory for those who wanted to have another session in the SC before giving a go for war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They've had almost 5 months of yet more Iraq non-compliance. If they need more than that they can just watch us do their job for them. Which is all they would do if they got behind us, it's not like Europe has the capacity for significant action anyway.
--
New:
[quote]<strong>1441 does not address the question of regime-change at all. The US has no UN mandate for this claim. And this is currently losing you the support of even our minority christian right government.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know the US has no UN mandate for regime-change, I never said we did and I don't really care about getting it.
[quote]<strong>Why the hell is time up? what's up with this Micky Mouse language? What's gonna happen if you don't "do this thing", "go in and set up shop"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will tell you what will happen:
- Saddam will continue to defy UN resolutions and sanctions.
- Saddam will actively seek proscribed weapons.
- The UN will continue slaughtering the Iraqi people with sanctions.
[quote]<strong>What's this? an international continuation of your silly "three strikes and your out", justice policy? My God, the most powerful nation in the world can only speak about foreign policy in baseball terms...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those aren't 3 strikes, those are 3 options for Saddam Hussein. Try addressing the point.
He had (and still has) the following choices:
Choice #1: Full, immediate and unconditiional disarmament.
Choice #2: Exile.
Choice #3: Forced disarmament.
Not chances, choices, learn to read better.
1441 laid it out for the 17th time, and to the US (we made it very clear at the time) "serious consequences" meant "forced disarmament". If you want to look at it in baseball terms, Saddam has had 17 strikes.
[quote]<strong>Your government is setting a good example theese days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comparable! You're clever!
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>1441 means "if and when Saddam fails, we get back together and decide on a mutually agreeable solution (most likely war.)"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam broke 1441 and no repercussions have even been discussed, so it obviously doesn't mean that, either.
[quote]<strong>And you were attacking me personally because I said in so many words that you wanted war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Way to take it out of context. You made a statement that I wanted war as the first option and was merely looking for excuses to get it. It's a typical attack, "you bloodthirsty warmonger! *sniffle*"
<strong>Bunge and Anders are absolutely correct. Just go back and read the news from the day the resolution was passed. I can't belive you didn't catch this. Can it have something to do with what kind of press you read?
You say you understand 1441 and yet you write stuff like
[quote] 1441 laid it out for the 17th time, and to the US (we made it very clear at the time) "serious consequences" meant "forced disarmament"<hr></blockquote>
And your comments to my post: You are not commenting the core of my post (that 1441 doesn´t give US the right to attack Iraq) but use your energy to critise the UN resolution which is completly other question altogether.
<strong>And your comments to my post: You are not commenting the core of my post (that 1441 doesn´t give US the right to attack Iraq) but use your energy to critise the UN resolution which is completly other question altogether.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1441 doesn't give the US the right to attack under the UN flag, no, but that grows less and less important to me with every passing day. I've never claimed the US can say "aha, they violated 1441!" strap on some UN blue, fly UN flags on their Hummers and go into Iraq.
The problems that 1441 and the previous 16 resolutions deal with exist outside of the resolutions themselves, and since the US has been charged with being the global peace-keeper in large-scale conflict we will address those problems with or without the UN.
To the US 1441 meant that real action would finally be taken against Saddam. If certain members of the EU continue to defend Saddam from his rightful punishment we will simply go without them. Such is life, I'm afraid, for those whose only significant weapons are shrill leaders crying "But we ARE important!" in the wind.
I can't think of a modern US president who required a UN stamp of approval for military deployment. Hell, Chirac isn't averse to it, either.
1441 doesn't give the US the right to attack under the UN flag, no, but that grows less and less important to me with every passing day. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then quit defending Shrub and just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion and deserves whatever military repercussions occur after acting outside of a democratic process.
EDIT: And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy.
" And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy. "
Er, no they don't, no they're not and no they're not again. How does putting "their lives on the line ' defend the democratic process, and how is groverat seeking to destroy it ?
<strong>How does putting "their lives on the line ' defend the democratic process[?] </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to be snide, but if you have to ask then I don't think you'll ever understand.
[quote]Originally posted by Alex London:
<strong>
and how is groverat seeking to destroy it? </strong><hr></blockquote>
His willingness to act unilaterally, or just simply outside of UN support, would set a precedent for that destroys the democratic process the UN upholds. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Our nation is founded on democracy. It's utterly appaling that we would shun those principles now, under these conditions.
Then quit defending Shrub and just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion and deserves whatever military repercussions occur after acting outside of a democratic process.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unilateral, as in going to the UN and going to the UN again? Unilateral, as in consulting allies? If that is what unilateral means, I guess the US does deserve any repersussions. As they do if they are acting multilaterally.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
EDIT: And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy.
The only thing they are defending is the regime of Saddam. They would place themselves there, with or without a UN mandate for war. Until of course they thought they were actually at risk, then they seem to bail out.
Unilateral, as in going to the UN and going to the UN again? Unilateral, as in consulting allies? If that is what unilateral means, I guess the US does deserve any repersussions. As they do if they are acting multilaterally. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN. We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN.
Had to say that twice.
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>
The only thing they are defending is the regime of Saddam. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think they give a crap about Saddam. They do give a crap about Iraqis though, unlike the US of A.
<strong>Go back and read the post, I said that the US pressure probably is what has made Saddam comply. And then I'm suggesting that there are ways of keeping up this pressure, like armed UN forces supporting the inspectors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that could work in a Disney movie, perhaps. Going back to Groverat's earlier remark, you should recall and consider that as soon as the looming threat of the US armada leaves, you will find the pressure dropping to zero once again, regardless of any "armed" UN forces trickling about the country. What are these UN forces going to do? "I see you are up to some dirty work again, Saddam. Why I ought to report you to the UN! Yeah, wait till I tell on you, Sir!"
no pressure ==> Saddam stops complying entirely ==> 12 more years of nothing accomplished
<strong> [quote]What does it matter if Saddam complies or not, if we're gonna have a war anyway? Suddenly its just a ploy to remove the last threats to US invading forces. That's pretty cowardly if you ask me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Complying" would entail Saddam suddenly standing up and saying, "Oh, I didn't realize you were that serious about this. OK, OK, I give. Here is the full documentation of weapons/chemicals/equipment that have been destroyed. Here are the coordinates of our remaining stockpiles. Once again, my apologies. Feel free to make yourself at home in the meantime at any one of my luxury palaces. Welcome! Welcome to FANTASY ISLAND! Ah, ah, ah, ah!" (OK, the last part was a bit gratuitous.)
Yeah, US victory is reliant on the destruction of these 100 missles, so this is a "coward's ploy"? Keep dreaming. This does give an interesting light as to how you are putting ideas together in your head, though.
...and this "3 strikes" bit?! Isn't it more like 17 strikes? I hardly think that is jumping the gun. How can you have a functional baseball game based on 17 strikes, anyway?
<strong>They do give a crap about Iraqis though, unlike the US of A.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think this is true. Everyone has these little blind spots or either naivite, stubborness, recalcitrance, cynicism, flat out bias or just to make a "point" however unreasonable.
[quote]<strong>Then quit defending Shrub and just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion and deserves whatever military repercussions occur after acting outside of a democratic process.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the US is not acting unilaterally by the very definition of the word. We have many allies willing to go with us. If France wants to attack us, the UK, etc... for this then feel free.
You're going to have a lot of nations to bring to the block. And we'll have to bring in Clinton and Chirac as well for sending out their military without UN approval. You're a wildman!
[quote]<strong>And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The human shields are idiots and those who aren't completely stupid are going home. They do nothing but defend Hussein. I find it amazing your zeal for the UN, how hypocritical.
We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN. We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN.
Had to say that twice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, what you said was "...just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion"
You didn't put it forward as a scenario, you put it forward as a statement of the current situation. And again I submit, going again and again to the UN and consulting and negotiating with allies is not, by definition, unilateral.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
I don't think they give a crap about Saddam. They do give a crap about Iraqis though, unlike the US of A. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the give a crap about Iraqi at all. Less than the US of A by any means. Any of these people in Iraq prior to all the current events, to try and ease the pain and suffering of the Iraqi's? Any of them going down and acting as shields between the Iraqi people and Saddam's savage actions? Any of them railing against the injustice of the Iraqi justice system? They don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people. They do care about 'taking a stand' against US policy, regardless of what the policy is. Until it's their ass on the line that is, then they catch the next flight home.
Comments
<strong>Agent302:
Clearly, you've seen the footage on TV but never bothered reading about the events that led to it. (Sorry for the tone, but righteous wrongness always annoys me) The embassy evacuation occured in 1975, as Saigon was being overrun by regular North Vietnamese army units that had stormed blitzkrieg-style across the DMZ. Nixon, of course, had resigned over a year earlier, at which time there were hardly any US troops in South Vietnam anyway. The official American presence in South Vietnam had ended three years earlier, in an agreement that required North Vietnam to respect the right of South Vietnam to exist. Ford refused to supply any aid or assistance at all to protect our ally from a conventional invasion supported by foreign powers (China and the USSR). Understandable, perhaps, but no less shameful.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clearly you've missed the entire point of my post (and I hate righteous attempts to nitpick little points).
The main assertion I was making (which you ignored) was that who ever I was originally replying to (can't recall right now) was incorrect in the claim that Ford's policies effectively conceded Nixon's supposed 'victory'. I was arguing that Nixon had in fact pulled out troops long before this, which you post as claiming that I didn't know.
Reading is fundamental.
<strong>So you think it's evident that "severest consequences" means "sit down for more talks"? </strong><hr></blockquote>
1441 means "if and when Saddam fails, we get back together and decide on a mutually agreeable solution (most likely war.)"
<strong>
No more talks....</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you were attacking me personally because I said in so many words that you wanted war?
<strong>Why the hell is time up? what's up with this Micky Mouse language? What's gonna happen if you don't "do this thing", "go in and set up shop"....</strong><hr></blockquote>It is *exactly* this kind of rhetoric you quoted that has turned many (ordinary) people against America. Bush saying, "If you are not with us, you are against us", concisely sums it up, and apart from being rather presumtuous, is for most people (outside the U.S.?) just a little too gung-ho for comfort.
Turkey is not with the U.S. So what are the U.S. going to do? Invade Turkey?
It is a great worry that at this period of crisis, the world should be lumbered with a fool like Bush. Talk about someone being out of his depths. He reminds me of rabid dog on a leash, rearing to go, no matter what the consequences. I find looking into his eyes when he speaks a very disturbing experience indeed.
Unfortunately for all of us, it looks as if soon - for Bush obviously not soon enough - we are all going to find out, whether we like it or not, what the outcome of his policies will be. Heaven help us.
- T.I.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: The Installer ]</p>
What's so silly about that?
<strong>
What's so silly about that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the three strikes laws have been a failure in California. They'll probably only be worse on an international scale.
<strong>
Well, the three strikes laws have been a failure in California. They'll probably only be worse on an international scale.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't quite thinking of it so specifically. But as a general idea, having several chances seems like a reasonable expectation, and not acting seems like a reason to take this sort of approach. It doesn't have to be three strikes, but isn't this as a loose rule of thumb a reasonable response? Or is this more analogous to Tee ball where you get as many tries as you want until you make contact?
[quote]<strong>It may be but thats how it is. When looking at it from a pure diplomatic POV, disregarding all links to the outher world the way 1441 was formulated was "anything but giving carte blance for going to war without getting the approval from SC"</strong><hr></blockquote>
And right now the UN is still taking a "wait and see" attitude (the same one they've had for 12 years) while 1441 demands "immediate" "full" "unrestricted" "unconditional" cooperation. All 4 of those have been violated and they don't act. I realize the political machinations of global politics are slow as the seasons, but I think 12 years is long enough.
[quote]<strong>This is another issue than "should we go to war or not". Thats why I cut the second part of your post. It really doesn´t mean anything when we try to understand what the words in 1441 mean in themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then what is the point of the resolutions?
[quote]<strong> And BTW: No. 1441 is no grey area between those wanting to go to war without a new resolution and those who wont. It was a clear victory for those who wanted to have another session in the SC before giving a go for war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They've had almost 5 months of yet more Iraq non-compliance. If they need more than that they can just watch us do their job for them. Which is all they would do if they got behind us, it's not like Europe has the capacity for significant action anyway.
--
New:
[quote]<strong>1441 does not address the question of regime-change at all. The US has no UN mandate for this claim. And this is currently losing you the support of even our minority christian right government.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know the US has no UN mandate for regime-change, I never said we did and I don't really care about getting it.
[quote]<strong>Why the hell is time up? what's up with this Micky Mouse language? What's gonna happen if you don't "do this thing", "go in and set up shop"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will tell you what will happen:
- Saddam will continue to defy UN resolutions and sanctions.
- Saddam will actively seek proscribed weapons.
- The UN will continue slaughtering the Iraqi people with sanctions.
[quote]<strong>What's this? an international continuation of your silly "three strikes and your out", justice policy? My God, the most powerful nation in the world can only speak about foreign policy in baseball terms...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those aren't 3 strikes, those are 3 options for Saddam Hussein. Try addressing the point.
He had (and still has) the following choices:
Choice #1: Full, immediate and unconditiional disarmament.
Choice #2: Exile.
Choice #3: Forced disarmament.
Not chances, choices, learn to read better.
1441 laid it out for the 17th time, and to the US (we made it very clear at the time) "serious consequences" meant "forced disarmament". If you want to look at it in baseball terms, Saddam has had 17 strikes.
[quote]<strong>Your government is setting a good example theese days.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comparable! You're clever!
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>1441 means "if and when Saddam fails, we get back together and decide on a mutually agreeable solution (most likely war.)"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam broke 1441 and no repercussions have even been discussed, so it obviously doesn't mean that, either.
[quote]<strong>And you were attacking me personally because I said in so many words that you wanted war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Way to take it out of context. You made a statement that I wanted war as the first option and was merely looking for excuses to get it. It's a typical attack, "you bloodthirsty warmonger! *sniffle*"
<strong>Bunge and Anders are absolutely correct. Just go back and read the news from the day the resolution was passed. I can't belive you didn't catch this. Can it have something to do with what kind of press you read?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Maybe it has to do with the kind of press you read?
News =! Spin =! Interpretation
[quote] 1441 laid it out for the 17th time, and to the US (we made it very clear at the time) "serious consequences" meant "forced disarmament"<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
And your comments to my post: You are not commenting the core of my post (that 1441 doesn´t give US the right to attack Iraq) but use your energy to critise the UN resolution which is completly other question altogether.
<strong>And your comments to my post: You are not commenting the core of my post (that 1441 doesn´t give US the right to attack Iraq) but use your energy to critise the UN resolution which is completly other question altogether.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1441 doesn't give the US the right to attack under the UN flag, no, but that grows less and less important to me with every passing day. I've never claimed the US can say "aha, they violated 1441!" strap on some UN blue, fly UN flags on their Hummers and go into Iraq.
The problems that 1441 and the previous 16 resolutions deal with exist outside of the resolutions themselves, and since the US has been charged with being the global peace-keeper in large-scale conflict we will address those problems with or without the UN.
To the US 1441 meant that real action would finally be taken against Saddam. If certain members of the EU continue to defend Saddam from his rightful punishment we will simply go without them. Such is life, I'm afraid, for those whose only significant weapons are shrill leaders crying "But we ARE important!" in the wind.
I can't think of a modern US president who required a UN stamp of approval for military deployment. Hell, Chirac isn't averse to it, either.
<strong>
1441 doesn't give the US the right to attack under the UN flag, no, but that grows less and less important to me with every passing day. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Then quit defending Shrub and just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion and deserves whatever military repercussions occur after acting outside of a democratic process.
EDIT: And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
Er, no they don't, no they're not and no they're not again. How does putting "their lives on the line ' defend the democratic process, and how is groverat seeking to destroy it ?
<strong>How does putting "their lives on the line ' defend the democratic process[?] </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to be snide, but if you have to ask then I don't think you'll ever understand.
[quote]Originally posted by Alex London:
<strong>
and how is groverat seeking to destroy it? </strong><hr></blockquote>
His willingness to act unilaterally, or just simply outside of UN support, would set a precedent for that destroys the democratic process the UN upholds. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Our nation is founded on democracy. It's utterly appaling that we would shun those principles now, under these conditions.
<strong>
Then quit defending Shrub and just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion and deserves whatever military repercussions occur after acting outside of a democratic process.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unilateral, as in going to the UN and going to the UN again? Unilateral, as in consulting allies? If that is what unilateral means, I guess the US does deserve any repersussions. As they do if they are acting multilaterally.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
EDIT: And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: bunge ] </strong><hr></blockquote>
The only thing they are defending is the regime of Saddam. They would place themselves there, with or without a UN mandate for war. Until of course they thought they were actually at risk, then they seem to bail out.
<strong>
Unilateral, as in going to the UN and going to the UN again? Unilateral, as in consulting allies? If that is what unilateral means, I guess the US does deserve any repersussions. As they do if they are acting multilaterally. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN. We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN.
Had to say that twice.
[quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:
<strong>
The only thing they are defending is the regime of Saddam. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think they give a crap about Saddam. They do give a crap about Iraqis though, unlike the US of A.
<strong>Go back and read the post, I said that the US pressure probably is what has made Saddam comply. And then I'm suggesting that there are ways of keeping up this pressure, like armed UN forces supporting the inspectors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that could work in a Disney movie, perhaps. Going back to Groverat's earlier remark, you should recall and consider that as soon as the looming threat of the US armada leaves, you will find the pressure dropping to zero once again, regardless of any "armed" UN forces trickling about the country. What are these UN forces going to do? "I see you are up to some dirty work again, Saddam. Why I ought to report you to the UN! Yeah, wait till I tell on you, Sir!"
no pressure ==> Saddam stops complying entirely ==> 12 more years of nothing accomplished
<strong> [quote]What does it matter if Saddam complies or not, if we're gonna have a war anyway? Suddenly its just a ploy to remove the last threats to US invading forces. That's pretty cowardly if you ask me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Complying" would entail Saddam suddenly standing up and saying, "Oh, I didn't realize you were that serious about this. OK, OK, I give. Here is the full documentation of weapons/chemicals/equipment that have been destroyed. Here are the coordinates of our remaining stockpiles. Once again, my apologies. Feel free to make yourself at home in the meantime at any one of my luxury palaces. Welcome! Welcome to FANTASY ISLAND! Ah, ah, ah, ah!" (OK, the last part was a bit gratuitous.)
Yeah, US victory is reliant on the destruction of these 100 missles, so this is a "coward's ploy"? Keep dreaming. This does give an interesting light as to how you are putting ideas together in your head, though.
...and this "3 strikes" bit?! Isn't it more like 17 strikes? I hardly think that is jumping the gun. How can you have a functional baseball game based on 17 strikes, anyway?
<strong>They do give a crap about Iraqis though, unlike the US of A.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think this is true. Everyone has these little blind spots or either naivite, stubborness, recalcitrance, cynicism, flat out bias or just to make a "point" however unreasonable.
[quote]<strong>Then quit defending Shrub and just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion and deserves whatever military repercussions occur after acting outside of a democratic process.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the US is not acting unilaterally by the very definition of the word. We have many allies willing to go with us. If France wants to attack us, the UK, etc... for this then feel free.
You're going to have a lot of nations to bring to the block. And we'll have to bring in Clinton and Chirac as well for sending out their military without UN approval. You're a wildman!
[quote]<strong>And admit that the Human Shields do now have a purpose and are acting in a morally positive fashion and are defending both the democratic ideal of the US as well as international law through their actions. They're putting their lives on the line to save the democratic process you're all too willing to destroy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The human shields are idiots and those who aren't completely stupid are going home. They do nothing but defend Hussein. I find it amazing your zeal for the UN, how hypocritical.
<strong>
We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN. We're talking about a scenario where the US 'bails' on the UN.
Had to say that twice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, what you said was "...just admit that the US is acting in a unilateral fashion"
You didn't put it forward as a scenario, you put it forward as a statement of the current situation. And again I submit, going again and again to the UN and consulting and negotiating with allies is not, by definition, unilateral.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
I don't think they give a crap about Saddam. They do give a crap about Iraqis though, unlike the US of A. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think the give a crap about Iraqi at all. Less than the US of A by any means. Any of these people in Iraq prior to all the current events, to try and ease the pain and suffering of the Iraqi's? Any of them going down and acting as shields between the Iraqi people and Saddam's savage actions? Any of them railing against the injustice of the Iraqi justice system? They don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people. They do care about 'taking a stand' against US policy, regardless of what the policy is. Until it's their ass on the line that is, then they catch the next flight home.