You are saying that by signing to the Agreed Framework that meant that we had them by the balls. Well, the NPT predated that treaty. Why didn't their signature on that treaty give us similar leverage?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The disarming of Iraq will come only at the point of a gun. And it won't be the world that disarms him but the U.S. led coalition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point of a gun? That's fine. That doesn't negate the need for a treaty. Put a country in that position without them having broken a treaty and I hope whatever fascist country is doing it is wiped off the face of the earty.
The US will do it? Gee, that's great. And if the US were willing to work with the UN it would be a UN sponsored disarming. What's your point?
The NPT wasn't with the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So? According to you the beauty of the current situation was the way the world would have to agree on NK's failing. Supposedly their signature meant we had them by the balls. How was their signature in 1994 more important than their signature in 1968? Why wouldn't the world also agree that NK had failed to abide by the NPT?
Point of a gun? That's fine. That doesn't negate the need for a treaty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it does.
[quote]<strong>The US will do it? Gee, that's great. And if the US were willing to work with the UN it would be a UN sponsored disarming. What's your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the U.N. that's proved itself unwilling to work with the U.S.
How was their signature in 1994 more important than their signature in 1968? Why wouldn't the world also agree that NK had failed to abide by the NPT? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Take your pick. We were talking about the deal Clinton brokered. If you want to discuss the NPT and the UN's action/inaction we can talk about that instead.
<strong>The problem is that at the moment it doesn't look like there ARE any serious democrat challengers who would ask that question. Instead it's the same old raft of mealy-mouthed folks. No one exciting or smart or charming. And THAT is a serious problems, considering the dems seem to think that any old southerner will do. Trust me, and I speak as a southerner here, that is not the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>How many southerners are running? Edwards. Graham is from Florida. Most are from the midwest and northeast. Most people believe that Lieberman (my guy) and Kerry are pretty serious candidates, but I know that's a subjective call. Does anyone even exist who would fit your criteria? Remember who won the last election.
<strong>How many southerners are running? Edwards. Graham is from Florida. Most are from the midwest and northeast. Most people believe that Lieberman (my guy) and Kerry are pretty serious candidates, but I know that's a subjective call. Does anyone even exist who would fit your criteria? Remember who won the last election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I nominate "bunge" for the next 3 election cycles. That should give the republicans enough time to restore some Law and Order in the world.
[quote] And so it was also God's plan for Clinton to be President before Bush, God's plan for France to oppose us at the UN now, and God's plan for Saddam to be the leader of Iraq, and it was God's plan for Hitler to kill six million Jews, and God's plan for the local hardware store to have a two-for-one sale on ten packs of sandpaper, and God's plan for Desmond Mindersol, 37, of 437 Sandpiper Lane to gain 40 lbs. after a six month binge on beer and twinkies, and God'd plan for that particular sparrow to fall.. <hr></blockquote>
Yes, it was.
pfflam and company: You proceed from a false assumption. Most Christians beleive that there IS such a thing as free will. We CAN alter world affairs and we CAN make mistakes. God gave us free will. What Bush (I imagine) prays for is the wisdom to make the correct decisions and the strength to carry them out. He's not saying "I'm a puppet of God and therefore I can do no wrong". He is saying that he has analyzed the situation and prayed for guidance to deal with it. He then came to a decision that he feels comfortable with and confident about.
Anyone who does not believe God speaks to us in some way is NOT a Christian. Don't misunderstand, I'm not evangelizing. I'm don't even consider myself "religous". But, I do consider myself a Christian. There is a difference.
Anyone who openly mocks what the President said the other night simply doesn't get it. God does speak to people and yes, most things in this world are part of "the plan". That's a belief of mine and of millions across the nation and world. You don't have to share it. I used to think the same way you do.
So a man on the street robbing you with a gun negates the need for the police or laws? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We aren't talking about a man on the street robbing me with a gun. We are talking about the disarming of Iraq.
[quote]<strong>The UN is unwilling to work with the US? That's the funniest thing I've read all day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. has tried it the U.N.'s way for 12 years. The result? Iraq is not disarmed. Now when we press for the U.N. to back up their words, we can't get a resolution. Or maybe we can but the French will veto it anyway. Those are the facts and there's nothing funny about it.
Take your pick. We were talking about the deal Clinton brokered. If you want to discuss the NPT and the UN's action/inaction we can talk about that instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You were the one who talked about how the world would have to agree on NK's failing. They didn't do it with respect to the NPT. What was so special about the Agreed Framework that it would cause the world to respond differently than it responded to NK's violation of the NPT?
We aren't talking about a man on the street robbing me with a gun. We are talking about the disarming of Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Going to war with a country without international law behind you is equated with robbing someone.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
The U.S. has tried it the U.N.'s way for 12 years. The result? Iraq is not disarmed. Now when we press for the U.N. to back up their words, we can't get a resolution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's resolution 1441? You don't want a resolution, you want war. Anything short of a carte blanche for war and you believe it means that the U.N. is unwilling to work with the U.S.
It's the U.S. that's taken the immobile stance. It's the U.S. that's unwilling to work with the U.N. War or nothing.
<strong>How many southerners are running? Edwards. Graham is from Florida. Most are from the midwest and northeast. Most people believe that Lieberman (my guy) and Kerry are pretty serious candidates, but I know that's a subjective call. Does anyone even exist who would fit your criteria? Remember who won the last election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. Think of it this way: in my book, Edwards is the top dog, and he's the real hopeful for the DLC. Lieberman won't get very far because of the stigma of the last election. Kerry? Maybe serious. But he's from MA, and has the association with the Kennedys around his neck.
When was the last time a non-Southerner democrat was elected? Johnson? (He's a Texan, not a Southerner). Kennedy?
Who meets my criteria? At the moment, only <a href="http://www.house.gov/ford/"; target="_blank">Harold Ford, Jr.</a> out of Tennessee. He's going to make a stunning presidential candidate one of these days.
You were the one who talked about how the world would have to agree on NK's failing. They didn't do it with respect to the NPT. What was so special about the Agreed Framework that it would cause the world to respond differently than it responded to NK's violation of the NPT?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When NK broke the agreement with the U.S., it gives us a grounds for a response be it in the courts or ultimately (hopefully not) on the battlefield.
Pray tell what we would do without this? We would be in the same place we are with Iran. Iran is producing 'electricity' and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. North Korea is producing 'electricity' and there IS a damn thing we can do about it.
Good question. What is it? Iraq is in material breach of the resolution. Ergo, serious consequences are to ensue. But apparently to you that is just boilerplate.
[quote]<strong>It's the U.S. that's taken the immobile stance... War or nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well we've had 12 years (why does that not register with you? 12 freaking years!!!) of nothing so I guess you are right.
Anyone who does not believe God speaks to us in some way is NOT a Christian. Don't misunderstand, I'm not evangelizing. I'm don't even consider myself "religous". But, I do consider myself a Christian. There is a difference.
Anyone who openly mocks what the President said the other night simply doesn't get it. God does speak to people and yes, most things in this world are part of "the plan". That's a belief of mine and of millions across the nation and world. You don't have to share it. I used to think the same way you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think that the way that you disuss this shows a shallow understanding of God, of Christianity and of Religion.
God speaks throught the Bible, Yes?
When God starts talking to you in your bedroom its time to either go to a monestery or the pharmacy in order to get some Lithium.
"The Plan" . . . . is that the same plan that Bush is following?
And by the way, what's the difference between being "Religious" and being a Christian? . . . are you not Religious if you think of yourself as a Christian?
I am not mocking Bush . . . I worry about his brand of particular Religiousity . . . it has the air about it of a brand of Providentialist religion that runs thick over here in America, its not just Christianity its a particular kind of "Christian Soldiering" that believes that because the believer has expressed faith and repented then their decisions are virtually infallible . . . they are doing God's work . . . . the human element of fallibility (which is absolutely and always present if you listen to the words of the Big JC himself "Not One Is Righteous") is nearly forgotten because what is taking place is God's work, the "Plan"
I get worried about Providentialist thought because it has motivated a number of tragic historical moments . . . and hell, we're not necessarily above repeating history . . .
Comments
<strong>
Well I'd say the signatures have helped get the world into a position to disarm him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The disarming of Iraq will come only at the point of a gun. And it won't be the world that disarms him but the U.S. led coalition.
<strong>
You are saying that by signing to the Agreed Framework that meant that we had them by the balls. Well, the NPT predated that treaty. Why didn't their signature on that treaty give us similar leverage?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The NPT wasn't with the US.
<strong>
The disarming of Iraq will come only at the point of a gun. And it won't be the world that disarms him but the U.S. led coalition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point of a gun? That's fine. That doesn't negate the need for a treaty. Put a country in that position without them having broken a treaty and I hope whatever fascist country is doing it is wiped off the face of the earty.
The US will do it? Gee, that's great. And if the US were willing to work with the UN it would be a UN sponsored disarming. What's your point?
<strong>Maybe we can use our puppet govt in Iraq to finish off the Syrians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
cool. it's about f*cking time!
<strong>
The NPT wasn't with the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So? According to you the beauty of the current situation was the way the world would have to agree on NK's failing. Supposedly their signature meant we had them by the balls. How was their signature in 1994 more important than their signature in 1968? Why wouldn't the world also agree that NK had failed to abide by the NPT?
<strong>
Point of a gun? That's fine. That doesn't negate the need for a treaty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually it does.
[quote]<strong>The US will do it? Gee, that's great. And if the US were willing to work with the UN it would be a UN sponsored disarming. What's your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the U.N. that's proved itself unwilling to work with the U.S.
<strong>
How was their signature in 1994 more important than their signature in 1968? Why wouldn't the world also agree that NK had failed to abide by the NPT? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Take your pick. We were talking about the deal Clinton brokered. If you want to discuss the NPT and the UN's action/inaction we can talk about that instead.
<strong>
Actually it does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So a man on the street robbing you with a gun negates the need for the police or laws? No.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
It's the U.N. that's proved itself unwilling to work with the U.S.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN is unwilling to work with the US? That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
<strong>The problem is that at the moment it doesn't look like there ARE any serious democrat challengers who would ask that question. Instead it's the same old raft of mealy-mouthed folks. No one exciting or smart or charming. And THAT is a serious problems, considering the dems seem to think that any old southerner will do. Trust me, and I speak as a southerner here, that is not the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>How many southerners are running? Edwards. Graham is from Florida. Most are from the midwest and northeast. Most people believe that Lieberman (my guy) and Kerry are pretty serious candidates, but I know that's a subjective call. Does anyone even exist who would fit your criteria? Remember who won the last election.
<strong>How many southerners are running? Edwards. Graham is from Florida. Most are from the midwest and northeast. Most people believe that Lieberman (my guy) and Kerry are pretty serious candidates, but I know that's a subjective call. Does anyone even exist who would fit your criteria? Remember who won the last election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I nominate "bunge" for the next 3 election cycles. That should give the republicans enough time to restore some Law and Order in the world.
Yes, it was.
pfflam and company: You proceed from a false assumption. Most Christians beleive that there IS such a thing as free will. We CAN alter world affairs and we CAN make mistakes. God gave us free will. What Bush (I imagine) prays for is the wisdom to make the correct decisions and the strength to carry them out. He's not saying "I'm a puppet of God and therefore I can do no wrong". He is saying that he has analyzed the situation and prayed for guidance to deal with it. He then came to a decision that he feels comfortable with and confident about.
Anyone who does not believe God speaks to us in some way is NOT a Christian. Don't misunderstand, I'm not evangelizing. I'm don't even consider myself "religous". But, I do consider myself a Christian. There is a difference.
Anyone who openly mocks what the President said the other night simply doesn't get it. God does speak to people and yes, most things in this world are part of "the plan". That's a belief of mine and of millions across the nation and world. You don't have to share it. I used to think the same way you do.
<strong>
No SDW, YOU win the prize. This post pretty much destroyed any credibility you ever had.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how is that?
<strong>
So a man on the street robbing you with a gun negates the need for the police or laws? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We aren't talking about a man on the street robbing me with a gun. We are talking about the disarming of Iraq.
[quote]<strong>The UN is unwilling to work with the US? That's the funniest thing I've read all day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S. has tried it the U.N.'s way for 12 years. The result? Iraq is not disarmed. Now when we press for the U.N. to back up their words, we can't get a resolution. Or maybe we can but the French will veto it anyway. Those are the facts and there's nothing funny about it.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
Take your pick. We were talking about the deal Clinton brokered. If you want to discuss the NPT and the UN's action/inaction we can talk about that instead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You were the one who talked about how the world would have to agree on NK's failing. They didn't do it with respect to the NPT. What was so special about the Agreed Framework that it would cause the world to respond differently than it responded to NK's violation of the NPT?
<strong>
We aren't talking about a man on the street robbing me with a gun. We are talking about the disarming of Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Going to war with a country without international law behind you is equated with robbing someone.
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>
The U.S. has tried it the U.N.'s way for 12 years. The result? Iraq is not disarmed. Now when we press for the U.N. to back up their words, we can't get a resolution. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's resolution 1441? You don't want a resolution, you want war. Anything short of a carte blanche for war and you believe it means that the U.N. is unwilling to work with the U.S.
It's the U.S. that's taken the immobile stance. It's the U.S. that's unwilling to work with the U.N. War or nothing.
<strong>How many southerners are running? Edwards. Graham is from Florida. Most are from the midwest and northeast. Most people believe that Lieberman (my guy) and Kerry are pretty serious candidates, but I know that's a subjective call. Does anyone even exist who would fit your criteria? Remember who won the last election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. Think of it this way: in my book, Edwards is the top dog, and he's the real hopeful for the DLC. Lieberman won't get very far because of the stigma of the last election. Kerry? Maybe serious. But he's from MA, and has the association with the Kennedys around his neck.
When was the last time a non-Southerner democrat was elected? Johnson? (He's a Texan, not a Southerner). Kennedy?
Who meets my criteria? At the moment, only <a href="http://www.house.gov/ford/"; target="_blank">Harold Ford, Jr.</a> out of Tennessee. He's going to make a stunning presidential candidate one of these days.
Cheers
Scott
<strong>
You were the one who talked about how the world would have to agree on NK's failing. They didn't do it with respect to the NPT. What was so special about the Agreed Framework that it would cause the world to respond differently than it responded to NK's violation of the NPT?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When NK broke the agreement with the U.S., it gives us a grounds for a response be it in the courts or ultimately (hopefully not) on the battlefield.
Pray tell what we would do without this? We would be in the same place we are with Iran. Iran is producing 'electricity' and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. North Korea is producing 'electricity' and there IS a damn thing we can do about it.
<strong>
Going to war with a country without international law behind you is equated with robbing someone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's good thing that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
[quote]<strong>What's resolution 1441?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good question. What is it? Iraq is in material breach of the resolution. Ergo, serious consequences are to ensue. But apparently to you that is just boilerplate.
[quote]<strong>It's the U.S. that's taken the immobile stance... War or nothing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well we've had 12 years (why does that not register with you? 12 freaking years!!!) of nothing so I guess you are right.
<strong>
Anyone who does not believe God speaks to us in some way is NOT a Christian. Don't misunderstand, I'm not evangelizing. I'm don't even consider myself "religous". But, I do consider myself a Christian. There is a difference.
Anyone who openly mocks what the President said the other night simply doesn't get it. God does speak to people and yes, most things in this world are part of "the plan". That's a belief of mine and of millions across the nation and world. You don't have to share it. I used to think the same way you do.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think that the way that you disuss this shows a shallow understanding of God, of Christianity and of Religion.
God speaks throught the Bible, Yes?
When God starts talking to you in your bedroom its time to either go to a monestery or the pharmacy in order to get some Lithium.
"The Plan" . . . . is that the same plan that Bush is following?
And by the way, what's the difference between being "Religious" and being a Christian? . . . are you not Religious if you think of yourself as a Christian?
I am not mocking Bush . . . I worry about his brand of particular Religiousity . . . it has the air about it of a brand of Providentialist religion that runs thick over here in America, its not just Christianity its a particular kind of "Christian Soldiering" that believes that because the believer has expressed faith and repented then their decisions are virtually infallible . . . they are doing God's work . . . . the human element of fallibility (which is absolutely and always present if you listen to the words of the Big JC himself "Not One Is Righteous") is nearly forgotten because what is taking place is God's work, the "Plan"
I get worried about Providentialist thought because it has motivated a number of tragic historical moments . . . and hell, we're not necessarily above repeating history . . .
<strong>
When NK broke the agreement with the U.S., it gives us a grounds for a response be it in the courts or ultimately (hopefully not) on the battlefield.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why did the Agreed Framework create these grounds and NK's violation of the NPT did not?