Somehow that does not surprise me at all.<hr></blockquote></strong>
pfflam what is your take? What wisdom do you see by not being firm with Saddam? Is that a wise choice?
I think wisdom is something not all see at the begining but time gives the real evidence of wisdom.
I believe Bush has a greater wisdom than some give him credit for. Not just Bush but Tony Blair as well.
The long term wisdom is what matters. It is the Job of President Bush to do what is called of him to do in the US constitution. Not some "take a snapshot of what the rest of the world thinks" opinion poll.
I do not like war nor does anyone else. Sometimes it is used to achieve a greater good. Civil war anyone?
People died in it but we are better for the wisdom of those who saw the need for it.
[quote]Could you imagine wimplings in the olden days pre civil war times in the US who might say something like....
"We don't need war to keep the south from breaking away from the union or to get them to free their slaves."
"We can send inspectors and they will free their slaves and they will not break away from the Union."
Does that not scream Stupidity? I mean come on people.
Think about it.<hr></blockquote>
What a horrible example. I mean this is really awful.
The South broke away from the Union. They seceded. So would it have been a good idea to attack them before they seceded? The South also attacked various Union bases and was trying to start a coup. They started the attacks. At this point, the Union had no choice but to retaliate.
Would it have been a good idea to send Northern troops down to Southern states for an occupation before they seceded? What good would that have done? It would have made the situation much worse.
Plus, the Emancipation Proclomation was not made until 1863, so the South wasn't violating any Union laws on slavery up until then.
So would it have been a good idea to attack the South before they seceded? No. There was no justification for attacking them at that point in time.
Would the North have had justification to attack the South just because there was the chance they *might* secede? No, of course not. They believed that war was a last option.
Bush doesn't seem to feel that way. In this case, the question being asked is does the US have enough justification to attack Iraq just because there is a chance that at some point in time, they *might* attack us? The world community, so far, has said 'No'.
[quote]Fran was there a war? We both know the answer to that.
Real question is Was it worth it?
I think it was.
You?
My point is that war can actually believe it or not be worth it down the road.<hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that we should just attack people because it might be worth it down the road? Not all situations call for war Fellowship. We need to pick our battles or else we will repeat some of the mistakes suffered in Vietnam.
There is a reason that the US has only fought a few wars in it's history- Revolutionary, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The reason is that war is not always the option.
Just because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons didn't mean we should have attacked them. Instead, the Russian people took care of the problem for us. Containment worked. Yes, it took 40 years for the Cold War to end, but it *did* end without a major conflict and loss of life.
If we could beat the USSR with this method, the greatest threat to our country in the history of the United States, why can't we beat smaller countries with similar methods? Diplomacy works when you have competent people at the helm.
So you are saying that we should just attack people because it might be worth it down the road? Not all situations call for war Fellowship. We need to pick our battles or else we will repeat some of the mistakes suffered in Vietnam.
There is a reason that the US has only fought a few wars in it's history- Revolutionary, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The reason is that war is not always the option.
Just because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons didn't mean we should have attacked them. Instead, the Russian people took care of the problem for us. Containment worked. Yes, it took 40 years for the Cold War to end, but it *did* end without a major conflict and loss of life.
If we could beat the USSR with this method, the greatest threat to our country in the history of the United States, why can't we beat smaller countries with similar methods? Diplomacy works when you have competent people at the helm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran I agree with much of what you say in this post. Of course we must pick wisely who we go to war with. It is not something we would do just to do it. With Iraq and indeed North Korea the problem with containment these days is that these countries can export their WOMD. How exactly do we contain that?
I think we (in an ideal world the entire world should be in on this) should disarm countries who have these weapons as to export or to use to bully their neighbors and indeed the world at large.
To ignore the fact that WOMD are transportable is a vast risk we can not afford to overlook.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>Fran was there [an American Civil] war? We both know the answer to that.
Real question is Was it worth it?
I think it was.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with questions like this is that all you can know is how things have actually turned out. You can only guess how alternative histories might have turned out.
I can say that the costs of the Civil War were very high, in terms of lives lost, suffering, and economic damage to a young nation. The immediate rewards of Union victory were dubious. The post-bellum Jim Crow South was hardly much better for blacks than slavery had been. Freedom for the slaves, except for a rare few, was more of an abstraction than a practical reality. It took nearly a hundred years for any real progress to be made, a stretch of time during which racial enmities festered into problems which still face us today.
If somehow we'd manage to ride through the building tensions between North and South, triggered every time the question of whether a new state or territory would be free or slave, slavery might have died out over time without a war. Even with supposedly cheap slave labor, the free, more industrialized North was much stronger economically than the South. The spread of industrialization to the South, and mechanization of southern agriculture, might have greatly reduced the real or perceived economics of slavery. A growing shared American culture, with no enmity from a past war, might have turned against slavery, and might have resulted in laws which improved conditions for slaves until such time as slavery was abolished by popular sentiment, both North and South, instead of by force.
Am I saying that the Civil War was wrong? Well, it certainly didn't start on firm moral footing with freedom for slaves as a its goal. Wrong or right, however, the war was practically inevitable, and Lincoln probably made the best choice he could have under the circumstances, with both his strengths and his failings as a man of those times.
As for a war with Iraq... the best reason for it, if there's going to be a war, is to free Iraq's people from Saddam. But just like in the Civil War, the best reason isn't the primary reason we're heading into this mess. If it were the only reason we wouldn't even be considering war. Supposedly this war is intended to benefit the security of the US and of the Middle East, but whether we'll truly benefit or only make ourselves new and worse problems is far from clear, just as what Iraq and Saddam might do if not attacked is unclear. Whatever happens, we'll never know what else might have been.
I think the real reason why Americans want this war more than anyone else in the world is the illusion of control. People feel safer driving their own cars than they do as passengers in airplanes not because cars are safer -- by far, they aren't -- but because people feel safer when they believe they're taking charge of a situation, rather than being passive or at someone else's mercy.
Regardless of whether the UN approves an attack on Iraq or not, the world clearly perceives this pending war with Iraq as the US's war, Bush's war, a war which maybe or maybe not they'll stand by and let us fight. For people outside the US, there is little sense of buy-in for the feeling of taking control of the situation. If you're from France or Russia, it's like being afraid to fly, and only being given a choice of airlines rather than the option to drive.
<strong>There is a reason that the US has only fought a few wars in it's history- Revolutionary, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The reason is that war is not always the option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Throw in the Alamo, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, all of the battles with Native American tribes, Afghanistan, short operations like Grenada, proxy wars like in pre-Taliban Afghanistan (back when OBL was our friend) and funding the Contras... that's a whole lot of fighting going on.
The American past doesn't really set a great example for restraint on the use of force. However, taking a broader view of history, the US has certainly abused its power far less than it might have. The Pax Americana is indeed a kinder, gentler thing than the Pax Romana. We've grown more enlightened over our history (two steps forward, one step back) towards seeking our own security without seeking to conquer, settling for influence and economic advantage in the world rather than attempting to gain outright control.
ok, sorry to throw things off here and post ontopic and all, but back to the thread.
i wasn't intending to be a prick regarding that iraqi who ran into the car looking for asylum, i just didn't recall hearing about it. on any topic in this subject i want links, that's all.
[quote]He said the inspectors did not know the identity of the man pulled from the vehicle and were awaiting a report on the incident from the Iraqi authorities. The UN had not taken any other steps to ascertain whether the man might have been an Iraqi scientist or otherwise in possession of information he wanted to share with inspectors about Iraq?s secret weapons programmes.
?I?ve just talked to our security chief in Baghdad . . . and he said there was nothing in the booklet he seemed to be carrying,? Dr Blix said. He added that Iraqi scientists could find ?more elegant ways? of approaching UN inspectors.
Mr Al-Nuimi said that he had no idea whether Adnan, who works in a market, might have had information about Iraq?s weapons. ?I cannot say he had some information about weapons, but what was going on with the file??
Aziz Al-Taee, chairman of the Iraqi-American Council, said that the incident would discourage other dissidents from trying to seek sanctuary with UN inspectors. ?They did not even listen to him. They just pushed him to the security forces. The security forces took him away and he has disappeared,? he said. ?They should have taken him into the UN barracks and interviewed him to see if he has a case.?<hr></blockquote>
along those lines i'd have to say this is scary. they didn't know who this guy was at the time, and they boot him out of the car.
some guy comes running with a notebook and you turn him away, over to the iraqi authorities?
sheesh. that's terrible. he may not have been a scientist, but that doesn't mean he's not a janitor who works at a lab, or someone who has information via other means.
makes a lot more sense to me now that the US might not trust Blix and crew to get the job done. doesn't seem like they're really trying.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>[/qb]
pfflam what is your take? What wisdom do you see by not being firm with Saddam? Is that a wise choice?
I think wisdom is something not all see at the begining but time gives the real evidence of wisdom.
I believe Bush has a greater wisdom than some give him credit for. Not just Bush but Tony Blair as well.
The long term wisdom is what matters. It is the Job of President Bush to do what is called of him to do in the US constitution. Not some "take a snapshot of what the rest of the world thinks" opinion poll.
I do not like war nor does anyone else. Sometimes it is used to achieve a greater good. Civil war anyone?
People died in it but we are better for the wisdom of those who saw the need for it.
my take is, step up the old method till it almost becomes an invasion of inspectors
find something that we can really point to, that our allies can grasp
and then go in if need be at that point
my problem all along has been the handling by Bush and admin: the divisiveness and cock-suredness
What bothers me almost more than the lives that will be lost, as they probably would be trough sanctions, is that we seem to be deliberately driving a wedge through our relations with everybody
There is something absurd about the need for haste that bush has been driving . . . its just too much . . . it begs to be interpreted as something fishy
I do understand the war position, I just don't like the gracelessness with which it has been approached and that approach has set the event as something that people around the world can not see past
They've almost yelled out: "HEY, don't respect us or our goals . . . we don't respect your ideas, so there!"
my take is, step up the old method till it almost becomes an invasion of inspectors
find something that we can really point to, that our allies can grasp
and then go in if need be at that point
my problem all along has been the handling by Bush and admin: the divisiveness and cock-suredness
What bothers me almost more than the lives that will be lost, as they probably would be trough sanctions, is that we seem to be deliberately driving a wedge through our relations with everybody
There is something absurd about the need for haste that bush has been driving . . . its just too much . . . it begs to be interpreted as something fishy
I do understand the war position, I just don't like the gracelessness with which it has been approached and that approach has set the event as something that people around the world can not see past
They've almost yelled out: "HEY, don't respect us or our goals . . . we don't respect your ideas, so there!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
One reality we all must face is that not all people agree on everything. Nothing is different about the situation with Iraq and North Korea. I can live with that.
While what happened on 9/11 can be understood as nothing new to some such as Israel it is new to America after Pearl Harbor of course. If 9/11 is not a wake up call I don't know what is.
I don't really "know" what the answer is. I will admit that. I just think the world should take action against hot spots the world over that seek only to provide for terror or carry out terror. The world does not need terror and measures taken to prevent more terror is not a wild idea as far as I can tell. Again I do not want war. I want peace. How we get peace is the question.
"So knowledgeable"....well I don't know. But I'll try:
It is a common misconception that Christianity rebukes all violence, even killing. It doesn't. Funny enough, the church I attended today focused, in part, on this topic.
Bush believes that
1) Saddam is a threat.
2) Saddam will not disarm peacefully.
3) Someone must disarm him.
Not everyone agrees. Bush believes he is doing this with the greater good in mind...namely ridding the earth of Saddam. I suppose it is fun for his opponents to spew out the tired "No war for oil" and "Bush wants venegence" lines. He knows people will die. That doesn't make his actions "unholy".
On other issues, Bush is guided by a set of principles (as with the Iraq issue). I'd be interested to know what you think he has done that "goes against Christian teachings".
It seems to me that it is quite convenient for one to attack him on this issue simply because one disagrees with many of his positions. It is further disingenous for one to make the charge when one ADMITS she isn't a Christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you haven't answered her question at all.
Would Jesus vote for George Bush? Parables, sermons, actions, please. Because I simply don't, and for the life of me can't, see it. I'm quite serious.
That's the first thing.
Secondly, on the question of George being guided by God: well. He's not the first military leader to have God on his side. But this is 2003, he's the the most powerful man on the planet, and now he's claiming exactly the same moral and spiritual assurance as that claimed by the people he wants to defeat (and this war on Iraq is, as we have been assured, a means to an end, a way to defeat international Islamic terrorism- that's why we're fighting it.)
This is dangerous. [I] Right now we need someone in charge clear-sighted enough to keep faith OUT OF THIS[/I.] I would far, far rather the most powerful man on the planet was a humanist with a clear understanding of the politcal and cultural history that made the mess in the Middle East than a committed Christian driven by some subjective 'moral purpose'. It ain't enough for us to be 'fighting evil'.
Let's keep God out of this. ESPECIALLY if we're going to be fighting zealots. The politics of this war / these wars are ****ed up enough and if we're going to untangle some of this mess with military force we're going to need every ounce of reason we can scrape together. We have to be scrupulously, meticulously, clear about what we're trying to do.
At first, he said, Iraq told the inspectors that it was designed as a conventional cluster bomb, which would scatter explosive submunitions over its target, and not as a chemical weapon. A few days later, he said, the Iraqis conceded that some might have been configured as chemical weapons.
Let's keep God out of this. ESPECIALLY if we're going to be fighting zealots. The politics of this war / these wars are ****ed up enough and if we're going to untangle some of this mess with military force we're going to need every ounce of reason we can scrape together. We have to be scrupulously, meticulously, clear about what we're trying to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought Saddam was a secular democratically elected leader. And since when have *you* joined *our* fight? Oh yes, you were marching in the streets of London so as to topple Saddam and the other Arab Islamic/fascist regimes. How silly of me to forget..
I thought Saddam was a secular democratically elected leader. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, no, he's a tyrannical despot who regularly gets 100% of the vote. Do keep up.
[quote] And since when have *you* joined *our* fight? Oh yes, you were marching in the streets of London so as to topple Saddam and the other Arab Islamic/fascist regimes. How silly of me to forget..
<hr></blockquote>
No, I haven't joined 'your' fight, as much as I want to see an end to the reign of the Moustache of Tikrit and Islamic terror as even you. But there is going to be a fight whatever I'd prefer and I'd rather it doesn't turn into 'Us' (meaning the West, where I live) versus 'Them' (meaning the Islamic world.) I think this is less likely without an Old Testament fundamentalist who opens cabinet meetings with a prayer session for the most powerful man on the planet.
I thought Saddam was a secular democratically elected leader. And since when have *you* joined *our* fight? Oh yes, you were marching in the streets of London so as to topple Saddam and the other Arab Islamic/fascist regimes. How silly of me to forget..
Hassan thinks Bush is bad look at Saddam trying to pretend he is a good Muslim. Building mosques around the country. Why? Because Iraqis will not stand up for Saddam alone but if Saddam has the look and feel of a "good" muslim then they will fight for the cause of their good prophet. Saddam is a manipulator. Bush has true convictions and I agree with Bush. Hassan says Bush needs to know what has made the Middle East into this Mess. Bush does know. The middle east is a mess. Have you heard the Hammas leader lately? He is saying Hammas is the real leader of the palestinian people not the PA. He also went on to say they will destroy Israel. Why is this?
Islam is not peaceful. These terrorists have not currupted Islam they are reading it for what it is. Today Islam is not peace.
No, I haven't joined 'your' fight, as much as I want to see an end to the reign of the Moustache of Tikrit and Islamic terror as even you. But there is going to be a fight whatever I'd prefer and I'd rather it doesn't turn into 'Us' (meaning the West, where I live) versus 'Them' (meaning the Islamic world.) I think this is less likely without an Old Testament fundamentalist who opens cabinet meetings with a prayer session for the most powerful man on the planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
Somehow that does not surprise me at all.<hr></blockquote></strong>
pfflam what is your take? What wisdom do you see by not being firm with Saddam? Is that a wise choice?
I think wisdom is something not all see at the begining but time gives the real evidence of wisdom.
I believe Bush has a greater wisdom than some give him credit for. Not just Bush but Tony Blair as well.
The long term wisdom is what matters. It is the Job of President Bush to do what is called of him to do in the US constitution. Not some "take a snapshot of what the rest of the world thinks" opinion poll.
I do not like war nor does anyone else. Sometimes it is used to achieve a greater good. Civil war anyone?
People died in it but we are better for the wisdom of those who saw the need for it.
Fellowship
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
"We don't need war to keep the south from breaking away from the union or to get them to free their slaves."
"We can send inspectors and they will free their slaves and they will not break away from the Union."
Does that not scream Stupidity? I mean come on people.
Think about it.
Of course nobody likes war but to sit there and say " I don't like war" does not solve problems.
Fellowship
"We don't need war to keep the south from breaking away from the union or to get them to free their slaves."
"We can send inspectors and they will free their slaves and they will not break away from the Union."
Does that not scream Stupidity? I mean come on people.
Think about it.<hr></blockquote>
What a horrible example. I mean this is really awful.
The South broke away from the Union. They seceded. So would it have been a good idea to attack them before they seceded? The South also attacked various Union bases and was trying to start a coup. They started the attacks. At this point, the Union had no choice but to retaliate.
Would it have been a good idea to send Northern troops down to Southern states for an occupation before they seceded? What good would that have done? It would have made the situation much worse.
Plus, the Emancipation Proclomation was not made until 1863, so the South wasn't violating any Union laws on slavery up until then.
So would it have been a good idea to attack the South before they seceded? No. There was no justification for attacking them at that point in time.
Would the North have had justification to attack the South just because there was the chance they *might* secede? No, of course not. They believed that war was a last option.
Bush doesn't seem to feel that way. In this case, the question being asked is does the US have enough justification to attack Iraq just because there is a chance that at some point in time, they *might* attack us? The world community, so far, has said 'No'.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Real question is Was it worth it?
I think it was.
You?
My point is that war can actually believe it or not be worth it down the road.
Fellowship
Real question is Was it worth it?
I think it was.
You?
My point is that war can actually believe it or not be worth it down the road.<hr></blockquote>
So you are saying that we should just attack people because it might be worth it down the road? Not all situations call for war Fellowship. We need to pick our battles or else we will repeat some of the mistakes suffered in Vietnam.
There is a reason that the US has only fought a few wars in it's history- Revolutionary, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The reason is that war is not always the option.
Just because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons didn't mean we should have attacked them. Instead, the Russian people took care of the problem for us. Containment worked. Yes, it took 40 years for the Cold War to end, but it *did* end without a major conflict and loss of life.
If we could beat the USSR with this method, the greatest threat to our country in the history of the United States, why can't we beat smaller countries with similar methods? Diplomacy works when you have competent people at the helm.
<strong>
So you are saying that we should just attack people because it might be worth it down the road? Not all situations call for war Fellowship. We need to pick our battles or else we will repeat some of the mistakes suffered in Vietnam.
There is a reason that the US has only fought a few wars in it's history- Revolutionary, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The reason is that war is not always the option.
Just because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons didn't mean we should have attacked them. Instead, the Russian people took care of the problem for us. Containment worked. Yes, it took 40 years for the Cold War to end, but it *did* end without a major conflict and loss of life.
If we could beat the USSR with this method, the greatest threat to our country in the history of the United States, why can't we beat smaller countries with similar methods? Diplomacy works when you have competent people at the helm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran I agree with much of what you say in this post. Of course we must pick wisely who we go to war with. It is not something we would do just to do it. With Iraq and indeed North Korea the problem with containment these days is that these countries can export their WOMD. How exactly do we contain that?
I think we (in an ideal world the entire world should be in on this) should disarm countries who have these weapons as to export or to use to bully their neighbors and indeed the world at large.
To ignore the fact that WOMD are transportable is a vast risk we can not afford to overlook.
Fellowship
<strong>Fran was there [an American Civil] war? We both know the answer to that.
Real question is Was it worth it?
I think it was.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with questions like this is that all you can know is how things have actually turned out. You can only guess how alternative histories might have turned out.
I can say that the costs of the Civil War were very high, in terms of lives lost, suffering, and economic damage to a young nation. The immediate rewards of Union victory were dubious. The post-bellum Jim Crow South was hardly much better for blacks than slavery had been. Freedom for the slaves, except for a rare few, was more of an abstraction than a practical reality. It took nearly a hundred years for any real progress to be made, a stretch of time during which racial enmities festered into problems which still face us today.
If somehow we'd manage to ride through the building tensions between North and South, triggered every time the question of whether a new state or territory would be free or slave, slavery might have died out over time without a war. Even with supposedly cheap slave labor, the free, more industrialized North was much stronger economically than the South. The spread of industrialization to the South, and mechanization of southern agriculture, might have greatly reduced the real or perceived economics of slavery. A growing shared American culture, with no enmity from a past war, might have turned against slavery, and might have resulted in laws which improved conditions for slaves until such time as slavery was abolished by popular sentiment, both North and South, instead of by force.
Am I saying that the Civil War was wrong? Well, it certainly didn't start on firm moral footing with freedom for slaves as a its goal. Wrong or right, however, the war was practically inevitable, and Lincoln probably made the best choice he could have under the circumstances, with both his strengths and his failings as a man of those times.
As for a war with Iraq... the best reason for it, if there's going to be a war, is to free Iraq's people from Saddam. But just like in the Civil War, the best reason isn't the primary reason we're heading into this mess. If it were the only reason we wouldn't even be considering war. Supposedly this war is intended to benefit the security of the US and of the Middle East, but whether we'll truly benefit or only make ourselves new and worse problems is far from clear, just as what Iraq and Saddam might do if not attacked is unclear. Whatever happens, we'll never know what else might have been.
I think the real reason why Americans want this war more than anyone else in the world is the illusion of control. People feel safer driving their own cars than they do as passengers in airplanes not because cars are safer -- by far, they aren't -- but because people feel safer when they believe they're taking charge of a situation, rather than being passive or at someone else's mercy.
Regardless of whether the UN approves an attack on Iraq or not, the world clearly perceives this pending war with Iraq as the US's war, Bush's war, a war which maybe or maybe not they'll stand by and let us fight. For people outside the US, there is little sense of buy-in for the feeling of taking control of the situation. If you're from France or Russia, it's like being afraid to fly, and only being given a choice of airlines rather than the option to drive.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
What a joy to read a well articulated viewpoint. Great points all the way around.
Fellowship
<strong>There is a reason that the US has only fought a few wars in it's history- Revolutionary, 1812, Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The reason is that war is not always the option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Throw in the Alamo, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, all of the battles with Native American tribes, Afghanistan, short operations like Grenada, proxy wars like in pre-Taliban Afghanistan (back when OBL was our friend) and funding the Contras... that's a whole lot of fighting going on.
The American past doesn't really set a great example for restraint on the use of force. However, taking a broader view of history, the US has certainly abused its power far less than it might have. The Pax Americana is indeed a kinder, gentler thing than the Pax Romana. We've grown more enlightened over our history (two steps forward, one step back) towards seeking our own security without seeking to conquer, settling for influence and economic advantage in the world rather than attempting to gain outright control.
i wasn't intending to be a prick regarding that iraqi who ran into the car looking for asylum, i just didn't recall hearing about it. on any topic in this subject i want links, that's all.
[quote]He said the inspectors did not know the identity of the man pulled from the vehicle and were awaiting a report on the incident from the Iraqi authorities. The UN had not taken any other steps to ascertain whether the man might have been an Iraqi scientist or otherwise in possession of information he wanted to share with inspectors about Iraq?s secret weapons programmes.
?I?ve just talked to our security chief in Baghdad . . . and he said there was nothing in the booklet he seemed to be carrying,? Dr Blix said. He added that Iraqi scientists could find ?more elegant ways? of approaching UN inspectors.
Mr Al-Nuimi said that he had no idea whether Adnan, who works in a market, might have had information about Iraq?s weapons. ?I cannot say he had some information about weapons, but what was going on with the file??
Aziz Al-Taee, chairman of the Iraqi-American Council, said that the incident would discourage other dissidents from trying to seek sanctuary with UN inspectors. ?They did not even listen to him. They just pushed him to the security forces. The security forces took him away and he has disappeared,? he said. ?They should have taken him into the UN barracks and interviewed him to see if he has a case.?<hr></blockquote>
along those lines i'd have to say this is scary. they didn't know who this guy was at the time, and they boot him out of the car.
some guy comes running with a notebook and you turn him away, over to the iraqi authorities?
sheesh. that's terrible. he may not have been a scientist, but that doesn't mean he's not a janitor who works at a lab, or someone who has information via other means.
makes a lot more sense to me now that the US might not trust Blix and crew to get the job done. doesn't seem like they're really trying.
<strong>[/qb]
pfflam what is your take? What wisdom do you see by not being firm with Saddam? Is that a wise choice?
I think wisdom is something not all see at the begining but time gives the real evidence of wisdom.
I believe Bush has a greater wisdom than some give him credit for. Not just Bush but Tony Blair as well.
The long term wisdom is what matters. It is the Job of President Bush to do what is called of him to do in the US constitution. Not some "take a snapshot of what the rest of the world thinks" opinion poll.
I do not like war nor does anyone else. Sometimes it is used to achieve a greater good. Civil war anyone?
People died in it but we are better for the wisdom of those who saw the need for it.
Fellowship
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its late Im tired. . . .
my take is, step up the old method till it almost becomes an invasion of inspectors
find something that we can really point to, that our allies can grasp
and then go in if need be at that point
my problem all along has been the handling by Bush and admin: the divisiveness and cock-suredness
What bothers me almost more than the lives that will be lost, as they probably would be trough sanctions, is that we seem to be deliberately driving a wedge through our relations with everybody
There is something absurd about the need for haste that bush has been driving . . . its just too much . . . it begs to be interpreted as something fishy
I do understand the war position, I just don't like the gracelessness with which it has been approached and that approach has set the event as something that people around the world can not see past
They've almost yelled out: "HEY, don't respect us or our goals . . . we don't respect your ideas, so there!"
<strong>
Its late Im tired. . . .
my take is, step up the old method till it almost becomes an invasion of inspectors
find something that we can really point to, that our allies can grasp
and then go in if need be at that point
my problem all along has been the handling by Bush and admin: the divisiveness and cock-suredness
What bothers me almost more than the lives that will be lost, as they probably would be trough sanctions, is that we seem to be deliberately driving a wedge through our relations with everybody
There is something absurd about the need for haste that bush has been driving . . . its just too much . . . it begs to be interpreted as something fishy
I do understand the war position, I just don't like the gracelessness with which it has been approached and that approach has set the event as something that people around the world can not see past
They've almost yelled out: "HEY, don't respect us or our goals . . . we don't respect your ideas, so there!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
One reality we all must face is that not all people agree on everything. Nothing is different about the situation with Iraq and North Korea. I can live with that.
While what happened on 9/11 can be understood as nothing new to some such as Israel it is new to America after Pearl Harbor of course. If 9/11 is not a wake up call I don't know what is.
I don't really "know" what the answer is. I will admit that. I just think the world should take action against hot spots the world over that seek only to provide for terror or carry out terror. The world does not need terror and measures taken to prevent more terror is not a wild idea as far as I can tell. Again I do not want war. I want peace. How we get peace is the question.
Fellowship
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>
"So knowledgeable"....well I don't know. But I'll try:
It is a common misconception that Christianity rebukes all violence, even killing. It doesn't. Funny enough, the church I attended today focused, in part, on this topic.
Bush believes that
1) Saddam is a threat.
2) Saddam will not disarm peacefully.
3) Someone must disarm him.
Not everyone agrees. Bush believes he is doing this with the greater good in mind...namely ridding the earth of Saddam. I suppose it is fun for his opponents to spew out the tired "No war for oil" and "Bush wants venegence" lines. He knows people will die. That doesn't make his actions "unholy".
On other issues, Bush is guided by a set of principles (as with the Iraq issue). I'd be interested to know what you think he has done that "goes against Christian teachings".
It seems to me that it is quite convenient for one to attack him on this issue simply because one disagrees with many of his positions. It is further disingenous for one to make the charge when one ADMITS she isn't a Christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you haven't answered her question at all.
Would Jesus vote for George Bush? Parables, sermons, actions, please. Because I simply don't, and for the life of me can't, see it. I'm quite serious.
That's the first thing.
Secondly, on the question of George being guided by God: well. He's not the first military leader to have God on his side. But this is 2003, he's the the most powerful man on the planet, and now he's claiming exactly the same moral and spiritual assurance as that claimed by the people he wants to defeat (and this war on Iraq is, as we have been assured, a means to an end, a way to defeat international Islamic terrorism- that's why we're fighting it.)
This is dangerous. [I] Right now we need someone in charge clear-sighted enough to keep faith OUT OF THIS[/I.] I would far, far rather the most powerful man on the planet was a humanist with a clear understanding of the politcal and cultural history that made the mess in the Middle East than a committed Christian driven by some subjective 'moral purpose'. It ain't enough for us to be 'fighting evil'.
Let's keep God out of this. ESPECIALLY if we're going to be fighting zealots. The politics of this war / these wars are ****ed up enough and if we're going to untangle some of this mess with military force we're going to need every ounce of reason we can scrape together. We have to be scrupulously, meticulously, clear about what we're trying to do.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/international/middleeast/10WEAP.html"; target="_blank">U.S. Says Iraq Retools Rockets for Illicit Uses</a>
[quote]...
At first, he said, Iraq told the inspectors that it was designed as a conventional cluster bomb, which would scatter explosive submunitions over its target, and not as a chemical weapon. A few days later, he said, the Iraqis conceded that some might have been configured as chemical weapons.
...<hr></blockquote>
Material Breach.
<strong>
.
.
Let's keep God out of this. ESPECIALLY if we're going to be fighting zealots. The politics of this war / these wars are ****ed up enough and if we're going to untangle some of this mess with military force we're going to need every ounce of reason we can scrape together. We have to be scrupulously, meticulously, clear about what we're trying to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought Saddam was a secular democratically elected leader. And since when have *you* joined *our* fight? Oh yes, you were marching in the streets of London so as to topple Saddam and the other Arab Islamic/fascist regimes. How silly of me to forget..
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
I thought Saddam was a secular democratically elected leader. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, no, he's a tyrannical despot who regularly gets 100% of the vote. Do keep up.
[quote] And since when have *you* joined *our* fight? Oh yes, you were marching in the streets of London so as to topple Saddam and the other Arab Islamic/fascist regimes. How silly of me to forget..
<hr></blockquote>
No, I haven't joined 'your' fight, as much as I want to see an end to the reign of the Moustache of Tikrit and Islamic terror as even you. But there is going to be a fight whatever I'd prefer and I'd rather it doesn't turn into 'Us' (meaning the West, where I live) versus 'Them' (meaning the Islamic world.) I think this is less likely without an Old Testament fundamentalist who opens cabinet meetings with a prayer session for the most powerful man on the planet.
<strong>
I thought Saddam was a secular democratically elected leader. And since when have *you* joined *our* fight? Oh yes, you were marching in the streets of London so as to topple Saddam and the other Arab Islamic/fascist regimes. How silly of me to forget..
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hassan thinks Bush is bad look at Saddam trying to pretend he is a good Muslim. Building mosques around the country. Why? Because Iraqis will not stand up for Saddam alone but if Saddam has the look and feel of a "good" muslim then they will fight for the cause of their good prophet. Saddam is a manipulator. Bush has true convictions and I agree with Bush. Hassan says Bush needs to know what has made the Middle East into this Mess. Bush does know. The middle east is a mess. Have you heard the Hammas leader lately? He is saying Hammas is the real leader of the palestinian people not the PA. He also went on to say they will destroy Israel. Why is this?
Islam is not peaceful. These terrorists have not currupted Islam they are reading it for what it is. Today Islam is not peace.
Fellowship
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>
No, I haven't joined 'your' fight, as much as I want to see an end to the reign of the Moustache of Tikrit and Islamic terror as even you. But there is going to be a fight whatever I'd prefer and I'd rather it doesn't turn into 'Us' (meaning the West, where I live) versus 'Them' (meaning the Islamic world.) I think this is less likely without an Old Testament fundamentalist who opens cabinet meetings with a prayer session for the most powerful man on the planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are a biggot to say that. What good is that?
Fellowship