What are the actual solutions? You can't answer because there is now only one option. War. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just a lie.
No matter what solution someone comes up with, if it's not war, it will fail your dogmatic litmus test.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is only one way. Others here are at least open minded enough to comtemplate the possibility that there are other solutions. I suggest you start working under the same principle.
We have the means to solve this problem without war. If YOU don't, it's YOUR short coming. If BUSH can't do it, it's because he has failed as a leader.
I've never even implied anything like 'peace at all costs', whatever that means. That's the conservative straw-man in action. I've stated that we need to follow a democratic process to solve the problem. War is not a democratic process, although a democratic process might lead to war. I can accept that. I can't accept unilateral thinking.
You want war. That's not hyperbole, that's not sarcasm. Take note groverat, he wants war. I want democracy. I want the world to make a decision and abide by it, for better or for worse. I want the democratic process to guide us to a solution, not a dictatorial 'we'll go it alone' decree.
'We'll go it alone' simply because we're scared of what the democratic process will bring. It's not under our control. I'm not scared; I'm willing to take that risk. By going to war Bush is taking the easy way out, subverting the democratic process set up in the U.N., and I'll spite him for it.
"monkeyboy, you are a friggin' loony! and I don't mean the currency! Step out of your unibomber hut and take a deep breathe."
I've had enough of your idiotic assertions.
Equating my anti-war sentiment with a unibomber is YOUR assertion and YOUR problem.
Go play with your guns or something, you've NOTHING to add here except for a contradictory position.
<To all except for inane members.>
As far as an alternative to war:
Diplomacy only appears to be failing because the United States as honourable as its citizens would hope the movement to be, is scraping against the grain of the rest of the world.
We'd be better off not taking ORDERS from the US, and having a global move toward increasing rights and freedoms, and banning these so-called weapons of mass destruciton (which indeed some are).
But out of no-where the US wants to smash Iraq up or pardon me "releive the people of Saddam's dangerous weaponry".
The US government needs to take a chill-pill (or some long lasting tranquiliser) and re-connect with its opposition before it can properly spawn removal of weapons.
Comments
<strong>
What are the actual solutions? You can't answer because there is now only one option. War. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just a lie.
No matter what solution someone comes up with, if it's not war, it will fail your dogmatic litmus test.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is only one way. Others here are at least open minded enough to comtemplate the possibility that there are other solutions. I suggest you start working under the same principle.
We have the means to solve this problem without war. If YOU don't, it's YOUR short coming. If BUSH can't do it, it's because he has failed as a leader.
I've never even implied anything like 'peace at all costs', whatever that means. That's the conservative straw-man in action. I've stated that we need to follow a democratic process to solve the problem. War is not a democratic process, although a democratic process might lead to war. I can accept that. I can't accept unilateral thinking.
You want war. That's not hyperbole, that's not sarcasm. Take note groverat, he wants war. I want democracy. I want the world to make a decision and abide by it, for better or for worse. I want the democratic process to guide us to a solution, not a dictatorial 'we'll go it alone' decree.
'We'll go it alone' simply because we're scared of what the democratic process will bring. It's not under our control. I'm not scared; I'm willing to take that risk. By going to war Bush is taking the easy way out, subverting the democratic process set up in the U.N., and I'll spite him for it.
<strong>Still waiting on the non-war plan that will get Saddam to disarm and make him follow the resolutions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's in process as we speak.
<strong>It must be a real doozy, it's been in the works for quite a while. I'm starting to think it's vaporware.
Motorola's G5 is the answer to the Iraqi question!
"monkeyboy, you are a friggin' loony! and I don't mean the currency! Step out of your unibomber hut and take a deep breathe."
I've had enough of your idiotic assertions.
Equating my anti-war sentiment with a unibomber is YOUR assertion and YOUR problem.
Go play with your guns or something, you've NOTHING to add here except for a contradictory position.
<To all except for inane members.>
As far as an alternative to war:
Diplomacy only appears to be failing because the United States as honourable as its citizens would hope the movement to be, is scraping against the grain of the rest of the world.
We'd be better off not taking ORDERS from the US, and having a global move toward increasing rights and freedoms, and banning these so-called weapons of mass destruciton (which indeed some are).
But out of no-where the US wants to smash Iraq up or pardon me "releive the people of Saddam's dangerous weaponry".
The US government needs to take a chill-pill (or some long lasting tranquiliser) and re-connect with its opposition before it can properly spawn removal of weapons.