[quote]<strong>We both agree on one thing, that when all else fails war is going to be needed to oust Saddam. I just think you're lying/ignorant/blind/something when you say all else has already failed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'm crazy. 12 years later I'm the one who is blind/ignorant/lying/something.
[quote]<strong>You even agree that the sanctions are now working/improving because of the credible threat of force, but somehow you can argue that war is still necessary. So, if you admit sanctions are working but still say we must go to war, you want war. How else could the logic work?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the sanctions aren't working because they have absolutely nothing to do with inspections.
Inspections are producing more results than usual but I don't think they're working because all the questions aren't answered and Iraq hasn't made a decision to make it really happen. They're still not providing all the information they're supposed to. Read Blix's report, please!
It's just about pointless arguing the matter with anyone who still actually believes sanctions and inspections are "working". "Working" to them must mean Saddam says anything but flatly, "No, I won't do that."
The first sets of inspections were meant to disarm Iraq, with the threat that non-compliance with the inspections would equate to a violation of the cease fire and result in strong military responses. They worked for a time, till Baghdad realized they could stop cooperation and suffer few consequences. They realized the resolve of the UN wasn't there to do jack shit, accused the inspectors of being spies and used that as grounds to kick them out. They kicked out the UN officials and suffered no additional consequences. They realized that even after invading Kuwait and being punished by the UN, the UN was unwilling to enforce their punishment. So, those original inspections, everyone will agree failed in the end because of UN inaction and Saddam?s willingness to flout the UN. By the inspector?s admission, they failed to totally disarm Saddam.
The original and current sanctions have done little but kill Iraqis. Saddam still builds his palaces and continued to produce banned weapons and buy equipment to build weapons. When the inspectors left, he built and developed more. So, the current sanctions are failures that have resulted in thousands of innocent deaths. Sanctions can at best, only limited how Saddam is able to produce and obtain weapons, how can they cause him to destroy them? If sanctions aren?t causing their destruction, they aren?t disarming him and therefore aren?t working. At best they would diminish his ability to procure equipment and weapons, but they wouldn?t hinder his ability to produce what he already has equipment and materials for, and sanctions sure as hell don?t destroy weapons. So, how do sanctions disarm Saddam? That is the point, to disarm him. Hindering him from procuring new weapons only slows his ability to re-arm, not a method of disarming him.
The current inspections have produced little results in the way of actual disarmament. Saddam violates res. 1441 everyday, and releases trickles of information when he thinks it serves a purpose. The purpose if obvious, it is delay and division. If the current 'cooperation' wasn't a ruse, it would be full. It is far from full. It serves one purpose and that is delay and division. The only reason he even goes this far, is the credible threat of US force. Not UN force, as he knows they were impotent before and are even more so now. If not for the US threat, he would not even have the concerns of delay and division, he would just reduce cooperation to 0% instead of 5% (or whatever imaginary level you wish to insert). Either way, he is currently in violation of 1441. It is Saddam?s responsibility to produce and destroy the weapons, not the UN inspector?s job to find them. So long as he is not disarmed, something he must prove, he is violation. People seem to think the inspectors are there to prove if he has weapons or not. They are not. They are there to verify compliance with 1441. So longs as he is not openly producing and destroying the weapons, he is not doing his job and is violating 1441.
No matter how the sec council votes on the new resolution, Saddam has little reason to cooperate. If they pass it, then he knows attack is imminent and he is left with a choice of coming 100% clean and giving up his toys (and so long as he is in charge, full compliance could never be verified fully, and he is well aware of this fact) or he digs in and keeps what he has. This real threat of imminent attack is the only thing that has a possibility to convince him to co-operate, perhaps he will abide surviving, even if not as dictator. If it fails, he knows the UN will do nothing and he will keep everything, regardless of attack by US coalition. If the US coalition attacks, of course he tries to hold on to them and use them, if they don?t attack, then he has totally lost incentive to give them up. Either way the vote goes, he has no incentive to do more than leak out miniscule information now that does nothing to really disarm him, or stop the mini leaks and just keep it all in event of war. There is nothing currently before him that seems to have encouraged him to fully cooperate and fully disarm. Why would removing the imminent threat of war cause him to cooperate more?
New sanctions and full coverage no-fly zones, as presented in the original post would serve little. First, increased inspectors with UN soldiers: How many soldiers? Too few and they serve no purpose, as they couldn?t back up their duties of protection. Too many and they are essentially an occupying force. But an occupying force fails for a number of reasons. It would, as outright war also would, give people like OBL recruitment material (?another Muslim land occupied by the Crusaders?). And as we see in other areas, occupying armies are often the target of attack by locals. This results in deaths/injuries of UN soldiers over an extended period of time. This would also put the UN in the position of having to answer for how it handles and deals with the locals through use of force?ask Israel how well that goes over with the press. Do you think the UN wants to be seen as an occupying power? Does the UN want to subject their soldiers and personnel to suicide bombers? Does the UN want to become a worldwide target for martyr attacks? Occupy a Muslin nation militarily and see how long it takes someone to convince followers it is a worthy target. Chances are they would opt for a smaller than needed force, making them a more tempting target for locals. Too big, and they are an imperialist occupying power (or agents thereof), too small and they invite attacks that endanger their own troops and Iraqis, and could lead to full conflict in the end anyway. Regardless, even with this occupying force, the premise is Saddam still in charge, and that means continued attempts to keep his weapons. Unless this UN force is willing to and strong enough to force co-operation, why would he co-operate? And if they are willing to use force and are strong to enough to use force, then hey, it?s disarmament through force?sounds familiar. But, some will say, that would be UN mandated force and therefore OK?as it will be if the new resolution passes. So, if anyone would support the UN in a vote in favour of UN military force to back up and enforce inspections and disarmament, as presented in the original post, then they are in effect in support of the new resolution as they are effectively the same: UN mandated forcible disarmament.
How many inspectors? Inspections have failed to provide full co-operation, let alone full disarmament. More robust inspections have no reason to have more success. How will more inspectors encourage Saddam to reveal all his weapons and information about the weapons? Even surprise inspections can be delayed by the regime through confrontations with the inspectors, allowing time to remove what they wanted, as they did in the past. The regime has the advantages of being on home turf, years of planning, an understanding of the inspection techniques and routines, and being 1 step ahead.
New ?smart? sanctions: Sanctions have only managed to kill Iraqis. They did not cause Saddam to be disarmed. Ok, so these new ?smart? sanctions would be different from the current ones. Why should they produce different results? Again, sanctions can?t disarm a country; only hinder procurement of equipment and weapons. Limiting his ability to re-arm is not disarming him. Shall we place sanctions on all rogue nations that aid Iraq? Wouldn?t that simply create an axis of countries even more sympathetic to the Iraqi regime?
Increase containment: The no-fly zone approach has worked only to protect enclaves of people opposed to Saddam from military air-borne attacks. What good does increasing the no-fly zone to all of Iraq to? He could still abuse his people. He could still move his equipment at will. Containment of Iraq has failed utterly. How could increased containment disarm Saddam?
Anyway, that?s it for my run-on thought on the matter. Feel free to pick them apart.
Yes, read the post. I don't particularly care if captured Islamic Revolutionaries who are captured by the military accidentally die. They're not from a nation/state army, and they are not protected by the Geneva convention.
I am more concerened with American life (strike that, life in Western Civilization). People like you have historically failed to recognize the seriousness of the threat against the nation and world. This is nothing more than a battle for the Western world and its way of life. If you think our enemy is concerned with any of "us" accidentally dying, think again.
Nice. You're blood lust is pretty stupid too. I can't believe you're too dumb to see any way out of this situation without war, I just think you don't care. That's worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There he goes again! bunge has to turn to insults to prove his weak, unsupported point.
We have been through the options. These are: (and please feel free to add to these...because I'm pretty stupid).
1. 1991 Aagreement to disarm. Result=Failed
2. Sanctions. Result=Failed.
3. Oil for Food: Result=Failed.
4. 17 UN resolutions. Result=Failed.
5. Weapons inspections. Result=Deception and Failure.
6. Limited military strikes. Result=Failed.
7. Weapons inspections round two: Result: Failed. Successful if you define success as them finding things that aren't supposed to be there.
I assume we can all agree that containment is historically a bad idea. I haven't heard to many argue against that point.
Now, tell me bunge, pfflam, giant, Digital Monkey Liberal and others:
<strong>Yes, I think you could say that bunge has a pretty mean blood lust for Iraqi citizens if he wants to simply keep on doing what the UN has been doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This just shows how blind you (and groverat) are being. We're not talking about 'doing what the UN has been doing', we're talking about something new.
<strong>12 years later I'm the one who is blind/ignorant/lying/something. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you're blind/ignorant/lying/something. Are you really going to argue that everything was tried? Because if you do it's a lie. We're doing things now that we didn't do in the preceding 12 years. Does that mean we've finally found the last thing to do? Of course not. It means we're getting closer to the best solution.
We're moving from too weak towards the perfect system. War is the extreme answer on the other end. It's as good of an answer right now as doing nothing.
So the Muslim world IS correct to fear and hate us. Great! We ARE in a war against Islam now, that makes things SO much simpler.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
If by Islam, you mean the Islamists who feel the need to destroy America and have attacked America and declared war on America, then yes. And since his comparison, of whom he cares if they are killed/injured was betwen Americans and Islamic Revolutionaries, that must be who you meant. His post obviously didn't refer to the Islamic peoples worldwide.
If by Islam, you mean the Islamists who feel the need to destroy America and have attacked America and declared war on America, then yes. And since his comparison, of whom he cares if they are killed/injured was betwen Americans and Islamic Revolutionaries, that must be who you meant. His post obviously didn't refer to the Islamic peoples worldwide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. Notice that bunge still sticks to his rhetoric and useless dismissals of his opponents opinions. I said "Islamic Revolutionaries"....as in "extremeists". I never said "all islamic people" or "all people other than Westerners".
Why don't you two go ahead and prove the guilt of the two dead Muslims. Then prove that they were given a death sentence (by beating no less.) Then I guess you'll have a case.
You see: it's not really a choice between killing and not killing. It's a choice about who will die and what purpose will those deaths serve. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the inspections are producing results because we have 200,000+ troops poised to attack.
It's funny but I've been saying something similar to you. I'm pretty certain that no matter what road we take to disarm Iraq, we'll end up at war. I just think there is a better way to go then war right now. It's the motive and means that are important, not the result (since the result will be rougly the same.)
Ouch. The article, not spaceman's comments (which are a bit melodramatic). The article just shows why Bush has the right idea in some sense, but didn't present the arguments this well, nor do we have a good idea about what will be the aftermath to bring order and justice.
Still amazed me how close some of use are in our thinking, but how we simple can't seem to reconcile our differences. Frankly, I think politics on both sides both here and in the UN is what's hindering that resolve.
<strong>Why don't you two go ahead and prove the guilt of the two dead Muslims. Then prove that they were given a death sentence (by beating no less.) Then I guess you'll have a case.
Wow, bunge. This isn't a trial. They don't have the same rights you and I do. They are part of a militant, extremist group hell-bent on destroying the Western world. They are not U.S citizens. They don't even reside here. Prove their guilt? What, I suppose you want to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's ridiculous. One cannot apply our judicial standards regarding burden of proof.
They didn't rob a bank or steal a car, bunge. I suppose our military just goes out in the streets of Karachi and starts rounding up people that look like they did something wrong?
Yes, the big, bad, anti-civil rights United States of America under President Bush. I know, bunge, I know.
One more thing:
[quote]t's funny but I've been saying something similar to you. I'm pretty certain that no matter what road we take to disarm Iraq, we'll end up at war. I just think there is a better way to go then war right now. It's the motive and means that are important, not the result (since the result will be rougly the same.) <hr></blockquote>
So, we should and will go to war....but not right now? What possible reason would there be to wait if you think we are going to war anyway? To wait for the right moment in the public opinion polls? Perhaps Bush should wait until two days before election 2004....perhaps that would make you happy.
<strong>We're not talking about 'doing what the UN has been doing', we're talking about something new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...not prior to this topic. It was all about "inspections and containment are working". Little lapse in memory there? Now this "new" idea comes out, which is just a veiled version of a full bore invasion- worse yet, protracted and with no clear endgame. It seems clear that the antiwar gang will suggest just about anything so as long as not to appear as they are "agreeing" with the other side. This latest gesture is just a picture perfect example of your concession that maybe force is necessary (welcome to 2003!), but even then you want to split hairs over what "force" really means. You say you don't want another "Vietnam", but what is being proposed here is very close to exactly that (but it seems to be OK now since the antiwar crowd is suggesting it? [chokes on the irony])
Worse yet, you have no hesitations over expending a years worth of casualties to "find out" that war is necessary. Except that won't be what happens. A year later, the UN will simply rationalize that things are working- just got to keep on doing it until the job is finished. So this goes on for 4-5 more years? 10 years? All the while casualties are mounting in an "operation" that really isn't a war, but evidently has the human costs of one. Welcome to the meatgrinder? Just keep sending our boys in...it's not a "problem" because we aren't really at war...
You do yourselves greater integrity by just sticking to your guns and keep saying, "inspections and containment are working". Now you are just jumping on any and all bandwagons.
Comments
<strong>Well, there goes bunge again. More tired, "my opponent just hates Iraqis and sand people" rhetoric.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, groverat has admitted that the current sanctions are working. He also states that we should go to war.
Why go to war if the sanctions are working?
Yeah, I'm crazy. 12 years later I'm the one who is blind/ignorant/lying/something.
[quote]<strong>You even agree that the sanctions are now working/improving because of the credible threat of force, but somehow you can argue that war is still necessary. So, if you admit sanctions are working but still say we must go to war, you want war. How else could the logic work?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the sanctions aren't working because they have absolutely nothing to do with inspections.
Inspections are producing more results than usual but I don't think they're working because all the questions aren't answered and Iraq hasn't made a decision to make it really happen. They're still not providing all the information they're supposed to. Read Blix's report, please!
The original and current sanctions have done little but kill Iraqis. Saddam still builds his palaces and continued to produce banned weapons and buy equipment to build weapons. When the inspectors left, he built and developed more. So, the current sanctions are failures that have resulted in thousands of innocent deaths. Sanctions can at best, only limited how Saddam is able to produce and obtain weapons, how can they cause him to destroy them? If sanctions aren?t causing their destruction, they aren?t disarming him and therefore aren?t working. At best they would diminish his ability to procure equipment and weapons, but they wouldn?t hinder his ability to produce what he already has equipment and materials for, and sanctions sure as hell don?t destroy weapons. So, how do sanctions disarm Saddam? That is the point, to disarm him. Hindering him from procuring new weapons only slows his ability to re-arm, not a method of disarming him.
The current inspections have produced little results in the way of actual disarmament. Saddam violates res. 1441 everyday, and releases trickles of information when he thinks it serves a purpose. The purpose if obvious, it is delay and division. If the current 'cooperation' wasn't a ruse, it would be full. It is far from full. It serves one purpose and that is delay and division. The only reason he even goes this far, is the credible threat of US force. Not UN force, as he knows they were impotent before and are even more so now. If not for the US threat, he would not even have the concerns of delay and division, he would just reduce cooperation to 0% instead of 5% (or whatever imaginary level you wish to insert). Either way, he is currently in violation of 1441. It is Saddam?s responsibility to produce and destroy the weapons, not the UN inspector?s job to find them. So long as he is not disarmed, something he must prove, he is violation. People seem to think the inspectors are there to prove if he has weapons or not. They are not. They are there to verify compliance with 1441. So longs as he is not openly producing and destroying the weapons, he is not doing his job and is violating 1441.
No matter how the sec council votes on the new resolution, Saddam has little reason to cooperate. If they pass it, then he knows attack is imminent and he is left with a choice of coming 100% clean and giving up his toys (and so long as he is in charge, full compliance could never be verified fully, and he is well aware of this fact) or he digs in and keeps what he has. This real threat of imminent attack is the only thing that has a possibility to convince him to co-operate, perhaps he will abide surviving, even if not as dictator. If it fails, he knows the UN will do nothing and he will keep everything, regardless of attack by US coalition. If the US coalition attacks, of course he tries to hold on to them and use them, if they don?t attack, then he has totally lost incentive to give them up. Either way the vote goes, he has no incentive to do more than leak out miniscule information now that does nothing to really disarm him, or stop the mini leaks and just keep it all in event of war. There is nothing currently before him that seems to have encouraged him to fully cooperate and fully disarm. Why would removing the imminent threat of war cause him to cooperate more?
New sanctions and full coverage no-fly zones, as presented in the original post would serve little. First, increased inspectors with UN soldiers: How many soldiers? Too few and they serve no purpose, as they couldn?t back up their duties of protection. Too many and they are essentially an occupying force. But an occupying force fails for a number of reasons. It would, as outright war also would, give people like OBL recruitment material (?another Muslim land occupied by the Crusaders?). And as we see in other areas, occupying armies are often the target of attack by locals. This results in deaths/injuries of UN soldiers over an extended period of time. This would also put the UN in the position of having to answer for how it handles and deals with the locals through use of force?ask Israel how well that goes over with the press. Do you think the UN wants to be seen as an occupying power? Does the UN want to subject their soldiers and personnel to suicide bombers? Does the UN want to become a worldwide target for martyr attacks? Occupy a Muslin nation militarily and see how long it takes someone to convince followers it is a worthy target. Chances are they would opt for a smaller than needed force, making them a more tempting target for locals. Too big, and they are an imperialist occupying power (or agents thereof), too small and they invite attacks that endanger their own troops and Iraqis, and could lead to full conflict in the end anyway. Regardless, even with this occupying force, the premise is Saddam still in charge, and that means continued attempts to keep his weapons. Unless this UN force is willing to and strong enough to force co-operation, why would he co-operate? And if they are willing to use force and are strong to enough to use force, then hey, it?s disarmament through force?sounds familiar. But, some will say, that would be UN mandated force and therefore OK?as it will be if the new resolution passes. So, if anyone would support the UN in a vote in favour of UN military force to back up and enforce inspections and disarmament, as presented in the original post, then they are in effect in support of the new resolution as they are effectively the same: UN mandated forcible disarmament.
How many inspectors? Inspections have failed to provide full co-operation, let alone full disarmament. More robust inspections have no reason to have more success. How will more inspectors encourage Saddam to reveal all his weapons and information about the weapons? Even surprise inspections can be delayed by the regime through confrontations with the inspectors, allowing time to remove what they wanted, as they did in the past. The regime has the advantages of being on home turf, years of planning, an understanding of the inspection techniques and routines, and being 1 step ahead.
New ?smart? sanctions: Sanctions have only managed to kill Iraqis. They did not cause Saddam to be disarmed. Ok, so these new ?smart? sanctions would be different from the current ones. Why should they produce different results? Again, sanctions can?t disarm a country; only hinder procurement of equipment and weapons. Limiting his ability to re-arm is not disarming him. Shall we place sanctions on all rogue nations that aid Iraq? Wouldn?t that simply create an axis of countries even more sympathetic to the Iraqi regime?
Increase containment: The no-fly zone approach has worked only to protect enclaves of people opposed to Saddam from military air-borne attacks. What good does increasing the no-fly zone to all of Iraq to? He could still abuse his people. He could still move his equipment at will. Containment of Iraq has failed utterly. How could increased containment disarm Saddam?
Anyway, that?s it for my run-on thought on the matter. Feel free to pick them apart.
[QB][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, read the post. I don't particularly care if captured Islamic Revolutionaries who are captured by the military accidentally die. They're not from a nation/state army, and they are not protected by the Geneva convention.
I am more concerened with American life (strike that, life in Western Civilization). People like you have historically failed to recognize the seriousness of the threat against the nation and world. This is nothing more than a battle for the Western world and its way of life. If you think our enemy is concerned with any of "us" accidentally dying, think again.
<strong>
Nice. You're blood lust is pretty stupid too. I can't believe you're too dumb to see any way out of this situation without war, I just think you don't care. That's worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There he goes again! bunge has to turn to insults to prove his weak, unsupported point.
We have been through the options. These are: (and please feel free to add to these...because I'm pretty stupid).
1. 1991 Aagreement to disarm. Result=Failed
2. Sanctions. Result=Failed.
3. Oil for Food: Result=Failed.
4. 17 UN resolutions. Result=Failed.
5. Weapons inspections. Result=Deception and Failure.
6. Limited military strikes. Result=Failed.
7. Weapons inspections round two: Result: Failed. Successful if you define success as them finding things that aren't supposed to be there.
I assume we can all agree that containment is historically a bad idea. I haven't heard to many argue against that point.
Now, tell me bunge, pfflam, giant, Digital Monkey Liberal and others:
WHAT ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS?
<strong>Yes, I think you could say that bunge has a pretty mean blood lust for Iraqi citizens if he wants to simply keep on doing what the UN has been doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This just shows how blind you (and groverat) are being. We're not talking about 'doing what the UN has been doing', we're talking about something new.
<strong>12 years later I'm the one who is blind/ignorant/lying/something. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you're blind/ignorant/lying/something. Are you really going to argue that everything was tried? Because if you do it's a lie. We're doing things now that we didn't do in the preceding 12 years. Does that mean we've finally found the last thing to do? Of course not. It means we're getting closer to the best solution.
We're moving from too weak towards the perfect system. War is the extreme answer on the other end. It's as good of an answer right now as doing nothing.
<strong>Inspections are producing more results....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks.
<strong>
I am more concerened with American life (strike that, life in Western Civilization). </strong><hr></blockquote>
So the Muslim world IS correct to fear and hate us. Great! We ARE in a war against Islam now, that makes things SO much simpler.
BOMBS AWAY!
[QB]
So the Muslim world IS correct to fear and hate us. Great! We ARE in a war against Islam now, that makes things SO much simpler.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
If by Islam, you mean the Islamists who feel the need to destroy America and have attacked America and declared war on America, then yes. And since his comparison, of whom he cares if they are killed/injured was betwen Americans and Islamic Revolutionaries, that must be who you meant. His post obviously didn't refer to the Islamic peoples worldwide.
<strong>
If by Islam, you mean the Islamists who feel the need to destroy America and have attacked America and declared war on America, then yes. And since his comparison, of whom he cares if they are killed/injured was betwen Americans and Islamic Revolutionaries, that must be who you meant. His post obviously didn't refer to the Islamic peoples worldwide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. Notice that bunge still sticks to his rhetoric and useless dismissals of his opponents opinions. I said "Islamic Revolutionaries"....as in "extremeists". I never said "all islamic people" or "all people other than Westerners".
It's just easier for bunge to think that.
Until then, it's just two dead Muslims.
EDIT: That would be two MURDERED Muslims. Sorry.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
<strong>
Inspections are producing more results than usual...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it isn't the inspections that are producing results but the 200,000 troops poised to take out Saddam's regime.
Another "pro-kill" (as bunge would say) voice speaks up: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html"; target="_blank">If Antiwar Protesters Succeed</a>
You see: it's not really a choice between killing and not killing. It's a choice about who will die and what purpose will those deaths serve.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
Actually, it isn't the inspections that are producing results but the 200,000 troops poised to take out Saddam's regime.
Another "pro-kill" (as bunge would say) voice speaks up: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html"; target="_blank">If Antiwar Protesters Succeed</a>
You see: it's not really a choice between killing and not killing. It's a choice about who will die and what purpose will those deaths serve. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the inspections are producing results because we have 200,000+ troops poised to attack.
It's funny but I've been saying something similar to you. I'm pretty certain that no matter what road we take to disarm Iraq, we'll end up at war. I just think there is a better way to go then war right now. It's the motive and means that are important, not the result (since the result will be rougly the same.)
<strong>Another "pro-kill" (as bunge would say) voice speaks up: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html"; target="_blank">If Antiwar Protesters Succeed</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Ouch. The article, not spaceman's comments (which are a bit melodramatic). The article just shows why Bush has the right idea in some sense, but didn't present the arguments this well, nor do we have a good idea about what will be the aftermath to bring order and justice.
Still amazed me how close some of use are in our thinking, but how we simple can't seem to reconcile our differences. Frankly, I think politics on both sides both here and in the UN is what's hindering that resolve.
<strong>
Actually, it isn't the inspections that are producing results but the 200,000 troops poised to take out Saddam's regime.
Another "pro-kill" (as bunge would say) voice speaks up: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html"; target="_blank">If Antiwar Protesters Succeed</a>
You see: it's not really a choice between killing and not killing. It's a choice about who will die and what purpose will those deaths serve.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I like to see people die but what makes us the ones to decide?
<strong>
Not that I like to see people die but what makes us the ones to decide?</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of the <a href="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030308-100622-7817r"; target="_blank">great</a> evidence we have?
<strong>Why don't you two go ahead and prove the guilt of the two dead Muslims. Then prove that they were given a death sentence (by beating no less.) Then I guess you'll have a case.
Until then, it's just two dead Muslims.
EDIT: That would be two MURDERED Muslims. Sorry.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, bunge. This isn't a trial. They don't have the same rights you and I do. They are part of a militant, extremist group hell-bent on destroying the Western world. They are not U.S citizens. They don't even reside here. Prove their guilt? What, I suppose you want to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's ridiculous. One cannot apply our judicial standards regarding burden of proof.
They didn't rob a bank or steal a car, bunge. I suppose our military just goes out in the streets of Karachi and starts rounding up people that look like they did something wrong?
Yes, the big, bad, anti-civil rights United States of America under President Bush. I know, bunge, I know.
One more thing:
[quote]t's funny but I've been saying something similar to you. I'm pretty certain that no matter what road we take to disarm Iraq, we'll end up at war. I just think there is a better way to go then war right now. It's the motive and means that are important, not the result (since the result will be rougly the same.) <hr></blockquote>
So, we should and will go to war....but not right now? What possible reason would there be to wait if you think we are going to war anyway? To wait for the right moment in the public opinion polls? Perhaps Bush should wait until two days before election 2004....perhaps that would make you happy.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>We're not talking about 'doing what the UN has been doing', we're talking about something new.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...not prior to this topic. It was all about "inspections and containment are working". Little lapse in memory there? Now this "new" idea comes out, which is just a veiled version of a full bore invasion- worse yet, protracted and with no clear endgame. It seems clear that the antiwar gang will suggest just about anything so as long as not to appear as they are "agreeing" with the other side. This latest gesture is just a picture perfect example of your concession that maybe force is necessary (welcome to 2003!), but even then you want to split hairs over what "force" really means. You say you don't want another "Vietnam", but what is being proposed here is very close to exactly that (but it seems to be OK now since the antiwar crowd is suggesting it?
Worse yet, you have no hesitations over expending a years worth of casualties to "find out" that war is necessary. Except that won't be what happens. A year later, the UN will simply rationalize that things are working- just got to keep on doing it until the job is finished. So this goes on for 4-5 more years? 10 years? All the while casualties are mounting in an "operation" that really isn't a war, but evidently has the human costs of one. Welcome to the meatgrinder? Just keep sending our boys in...it's not a "problem" because we aren't really at war...
You do yourselves greater integrity by just sticking to your guns and keep saying, "inspections and containment are working". Now you are just jumping on any and all bandwagons.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>