I completely support France in everything that they do and I think that Chiraq's detractors are absolutely wrong to label him as a modern day Joan of Arc in drag.
I've fixed my signature to reinforce my love for all things French. I'm shopping for a poster of that Z guy who plays soccer right now to place alongside my Tony Parker autographed jersey.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Down with Napoleon!
As punishment you are to pronounce Unilateralistan 10x in fast consecutiveness for each of your 5 daily prayers to Satan.
Bunge, would you then say that the US would require UN approval to take action? (assuming military action here)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so.
Whenever you go to war though, a full all out war, I think you're supposed to have an 'air tight case' to present to the U.N., even if you don't show it up front. So after the fact we could show the world that we had to go to war for X,Y & Z.
As for just a military action, like bombing the reactor, I think that might already be justifiable because of the treaty.
[quote]As punishment you are to pronounce Unilateralistan 10x in fast consecutiveness for each of your 5 daily prayers to Satan.<hr></blockquote>
I am a Unilateralistani who happens to be an oppressed religious minority here in the United States of Unilateralistan. You may have heard of us, we are ignorant apathetic environmentalist atheists. Or you can use the acronym, IAEA if you like. We pray only to the glowing box from which all Unilateralistani culture eminates (in particular via the Fox News Channel); and secondarily only to the Supreme Leader, Shubbery.
[quote]Oh, and I dissagree, a degree in theology would probably make you understand a great deal better . . . but then perhaps that's one thing that differes in our religious belief, you think that its all about thoughtless acceptance of voices I think that it involves intellegent introspectiona and critical thinking <hr></blockquote>
Thoughtless acceptance...no. Faith...yes.
[quote] o you mean he gets a feeling that could be a misfireing synapse or something from his own subconcious?
As a matter of fact it could be his own selfish motivations speaking to him. <hr></blockquote>
Could be.
Bunge:
[quote] Perhaps it would have been better for Bush to leave the troops here so the UN would see absolutely no progress? As it stands now, most people do see some progress, enough to avoid war. So, perhaps the troops in some way are backfiring for Bush. <hr></blockquote>
There is also absolutely no reasonable argument that inspections are "working". THEY KEEP FINDING ILLEGAL WEAPONS THAT SADDAM SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE. How is that "working"?
One great line that the President had in his State of the Union was "The idea of weapons inspections was not for the inspectors to conduct a scavenger hunt for weapons". The only way weapons inspections would be "working" would be if Saddam gave the full accurate disclosure, then destroyed everythting he had left. No omisisons. No "I forgot about those". No tapes of Iraqi military saying things like "move that" or "I can't believe they missed that". No videos of chemical plants and illegal drone planes.
The only relevant question is if the man is fully cooperating. Can you honestly say with a straight face that he is? "Good progress" isn't enough, bunge. Not even close. We must have TOTAL cooperation. That's what 1441 and the 16 other resolutions call for. If there are any significant obstacles, he is in breach of the resoltution.
We know he isn't cooperating and won't. We know for that for sure. You know, I know it, and Saddam knows it. The only option left with this man is force.
<strong>False. "Most people"...what is that? Have you seen <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html"; target="_blank">This Recent Poll? </a></strong><hr></blockquote>OMG. Check out some of the questions in that poll. It's about as close to a push poll as I've ever seen from a news organization.
[quote]16. Who do you think should make the final decision on security matters for the United States ?- the United Nations or the United States?
In the last few weeks, have you:
17. Said a prayer for peace?
18. Said a prayer for President Bush?
21. Do you think anti-war protests are: An effective way to stop war, or Just a way to make the participants feel better?
22. Who do you think is doing more to achieve real peace in Iraq ?- war protesters or soldiers?
26. If the United Nations fails to enforce its resolutions that require Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction, do you think the United Nations will have become irrelevant? <hr></blockquote>
The only relevant question is if the man is fully cooperating. Can you honestly say with a straight face that he is? "Good progress" isn't enough, bunge. Not even close. We must have TOTAL cooperation. That's what 1441 and the 16 other resolutions call for. If there are any significant obstacles, he is in breach of the resoltution.
We know he isn't cooperating and won't. We know for that for sure. You know, I know it, and Saddam knows it. The only option left with this man is force.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First the poll. I don't know if that's an internet poll (that's my guess) but I was speaking about worldwide support. "Most people" meant "most people", not "most fox news viewers." (had to get a swipe in on Fox... )
He's never going to fully cooperate.
I'm just saying we can disarm him even if he doesn't cooperate 100%. Yeah, he's in violation of 1441, but we can still disarm him without a war. Regime change is a different issue, but disarm can potentially be done without war.
[quote] So if every single thing that happens, good or evil, monumental or mundane, is part of God's Plan, unfolding just as God wants it too, just what exactly are we able to do with our free will? Choose what color shirt we wear today?... <hr></blockquote>
It's not a black and white issue. If your asking my opinion, then fine. I believe that "most" everything happens for a reason. Does God care if you drop your fork in the sink? Probably not. Does it matter? Probably not. What I am saying is that God gives us the will to make choices. And yes, they can be bad choices. That's where the free will comes in. Could Bush be wrong? I suppose. But God also gives us the ability to listen to him, and Bush feels he has done that and has made his decision. I don't knwo that it can be said that "God told the President to attack". I don't think it works like that. He may have "told" him to disarm Saddam. Bush may pray for guidance on what to do in the event diplomacy fails. i don't know...I'm just supposing.
[quote] Ah, just the way the 9/11 highjackers prayed and prayed and felt confident that they were doing God's Will when they slammed into the WTC.
Oh, but wait... Bush has Good Religion? guiding him, while the highjackers were using Bad Religion?, so I can feel safe and comfortable that all of those warm feelings of confidence that Bush gets when he prays are guiding him down The Righteous Path. No need for me to worry at all that it's just, like, George's own preconceptions and desires about what he should do doing the talking. <hr></blockquote>
Wow. you have just compared George W. Bush to the 9/11 hijackers. The hijackers used religion as a justification for destroying life and for their own hatred. Bush isn't doing that. He knows people will die. I'm sure he doesn't think there wil be 72 virgins waiting for him when he attacks and kills Saddam. I'm sure his goal is not to kill civilians, aren't you? And yes, I do think the hijackers had "bad religion" on their side. In fact, I know they did. It's called militant Islamicism.
[quote] Wait a moment. It's only most things? Are you sure it's not all things? What's the deep theological distinction between what is and is not part of The Plan? How do we tell which is which? Can we do anything that goes against The Plan, or is our free will confined to inconsequential meanderings from otherwise fixed events? <hr></blockquote>
Good question. Figuring out what we can change and what we can't, as well as figuring out what should and shouldn't be changed? If you can figure that out you are smarter than I.
[quote] I have to ask you this: You seem to get all worked up over these damned lefties who can't see the clear, obvious TRVTHS you see. If you really believe everything is working out according to God's Plan, why get riled up about anything? It seems to me at most you might use your own free will to be one of the Good Guys or the Bad Guys in The Plan, but war will happen or not regardless of what you say, people will think well or ill of our Illustrious Leader regardless of what you say... In short, why all the anger instead of the Beatific Happiness that should come from accepting that God's got it covered? <hr></blockquote>
Because as a faulted human I too must remember that God takes care of things. It's not in my nature to just sit back and accept what happens. I admit I get too fired up.
On a side note: I would say you are most definitely not a "believer", correct?
oh man, SDW, you're starting a religious debate with Shetline?
I've always respected Shetline's theological postings here, very intelligent person, though I usually strongly disagree. If you really want to continue a debate, you might want to start a new thread though...they have a habit of growing way out of control.
[quote]First the poll. I don't know if that's an internet poll (that's my guess) but I was speaking about worldwide support. "Most people" meant "most people", not "most fox news viewers." (had to get a swipe in on Fox... )
He's never going to fully cooperate.
I'm just saying we can disarm him even if he doesn't cooperate 100%. Yeah, he's in violation of 1441, but we can still disarm him without a war. Regime change is a different issue, but disarm can potentially be done without war. <hr></blockquote>
This kind of thinking will not stand up to any critical analysis whatsoever. It may sound nice to say that War is not required, but it isn't reasonable.
You admit he is not cooperating. He is therefore in breach of 1441. Game Over. What other serious consequences are there? Sanctions haven't worked. Limited military strikes haven't worked. Inspections certainly haven't worked. He just keeps on making weapons. As we speak he has divided his city into 4 military zones and has dug a trench around Baghdad. Does that sound like someone who wants peace? I suppose it is Bush's fault for surrounding him with infidels? But wait...that doesn't hold up either, because you and others here have admitted that the only real reason he if offering ANY cooperation IS THE PRESENCE OF......wait for it.......BINGO! 300,000 troops!
It would be nice if he disarmed without war. Really nice! But it ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Why? Because, as you admit, he will not cooperate. Without cooperation, inspectors hav ZERO chance of finding all the weapons. In addition, he'll just keep making more. Without the aforementioned cooperation, how many inspectors will it take to do the job?
Let's see...we have about 120 now. What if we triple that number to say, 360. No wait, Iraq is about the size of California, so a group the size of some college marching bands probably isn't going to work. Let's make it, say, 1500 inspectors! That should do it. This represents a 1000% increase in the number of inspectors. Given that Iraq is 432,162 sq km (source: CIA World Fact Book 2002), that's 288 sq. km per inspector to find weapons....WITHOUT total cooperation. That means each inspector would have to look in every building, cave, house vehicle, mosque, etc in 288 sq. km's.
You see, bunge, there is simply no other option. By nature, weapons inspections cannot work without total cooperation. The man was supposed to bring his weapons out and destroy them. He was supposed to account for previously destroyed material. That is the only way, other than full-out war, to disarm him. If you can tell me how (speciffically) these inspections will succeed in disarming him without his cooperation, I'll eat my hat. Or, is there another way? It seems to me we have tried everything else. I'd love to avoid war too, but it isn't going to happen. We have tried every single option...repeatedly.
BTW, it was a Fox News poll. It was not an internet "instapoll" so to speak. It didn't say it was a poll of Fox News viewers. The thread I started earlier did contain internet polls....this poll wasn't one.
This kind of thinking will not stand up to any critical analysis whatsoever. It may sound nice to say that War is not required, but it isn't reasonable. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But inspections are working now. The U.N. is getting a tighter grip on the country, more surveillance, more knowledge, if this progress at this pace we'll be fine. Iraq will never be a threat again.
Ultimately move in U.N. monitors for an election and see what happens.
But inspections are working now. The U.N. is getting a tighter grip on the country, more surveillance, more knowledge, if this progress at this pace we'll be fine. Iraq will never be a threat again.
Ultimately move in U.N. monitors for an election and see what happens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Newsflash: whatever progress has occurred is not due to the inspections but to the troops massed on Iraq's border. Saddam isn't interested in cooperating with the UN to disarm. He is looking to dodge a bullet.
<strong>You see, bunge, there is simply no other option</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by everyone's admission, keeping 300,000 troops on his borders seems to be doing the trick. Notice I didn't say invading. I'm saying that keeping 300,000 troops on his borders is an alternative to war.
The problem, though, is that it's unbearably expensive to sustain this, and politically embarrassing for the Bush administration NOT to invade. And so we will invade.
<strong>Wow. you have just compared George W. Bush to the 9/11 hijackers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While no fan of George W., I do at least rate him a few steps above your average militant Islamic hijacker. Might point, however, was about people making claims that faith guides, and justifies, their actions.
I do not trust this reliance on faith, because it can clearly lead in any direction. It's a person's character that determines his actions as far as I can tell -- any claims about what someone says his faith guides him to do tend to simply be reflections of that person's character.
So maybe it gives you a warm feeling to hear about the President's reliance on faith, but me, it just makes me worried. It tells me he's less likely to think things through, more likely to feel things through, and I don't have any reason to think George's instincts are all that hot. I certainly don't think he's got any hotline to The Almighty leading him to always do The Right Thing.
[quote]<strong>Good question. Figuring out what we can change and what we can't, as well as figuring out what should and shouldn't be changed? If you can figure that out you are smarter than I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I claim no such knowledge, and I get worried when other people do. If you can't figure this Plan out, however -- what's part of it, what's not, what degree of freedom we have within it -- I submit that a statement like "Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President." is essentially meaningless.
From what you've said, perhaps someone merely like Bush in some way would have fulfilled this Plan. Perhaps even someone very different from Bush, but who still took certain key actions at certain times would do. Since you can't really no for sure what's part of the plan and what's not, doesn't talking about Bush and his faith and his part in The Plan merely become a speculative form of cheer leading, a way to point out and accentuate your own particular biases towards who the Good Guys are and what the best decisions are to make?
[quote]<strong>On a side note: I would say you are most definitely not a "believer", correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>If you really want to continue a debate [on God's plan vs. free will], you might want to start a new thread though...they have a habit of growing way out of control.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A separate thread devoted to a religious issue? What do you think this is? Fireside Chat? :eek:
<strong>OMG. Check out some of the questions in that poll. It's about as close to a push poll as I've ever seen from a news organization.
quote:
16. Who do you think should make the final decision on security matters for the United States ?- the United Nations or the United States?In the last few weeks, have you:
17. Said a prayer for peace?
18. Said a prayer for President Bush?
21. Do you think anti-war protests are: An effective way to stop war, or Just a way to make the participants feel better?
22. Who do you think is doing more to achieve real peace in Iraq ?- war protesters or soldiers?
26. If the United Nations fails to enforce its resolutions that require Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction, do you think the United Nations will have become irrelevant? </strong><hr></blockquote>
SDW...do you really take a poll with these kinds of ridiculously, blatantly loaded questions seriously? If I hadn't seen the source of the poll before reading it, I would have assumed it was something published by The Onion. It is just that ridiculous. This is absolutely mind-blowingly insane. How the hell does Fox News get off writing such a "poll" and yet claim to be fair and balanced and how the hell do people like you actually buy into it?
*bangs his head against the wall until he passes out into sweet sweet unconsciousness, escaping from the stupidity that continuously assaults him from all directions*
"10. Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Is that (support/oppose) strongly or just somewhat?"
Strongly Support: 54%
Somewhat Support 16%
TOTAL 71%
Strongly Oppose: 14%
Somewhat Oppose 6%
TOTAL: 20%
Notice there has still been no reasonable argument against war. bunge says inspections are working, despite my previous post regarding his very solution. He actually says "Iraq will never be a threat again".
Comments
<strong>
I completely support France in everything that they do and I think that Chiraq's detractors are absolutely wrong to label him as a modern day Joan of Arc in drag.
I've fixed my signature to reinforce my love for all things French. I'm shopping for a poster of that Z guy who plays soccer right now to place alongside my Tony Parker autographed jersey.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Down with Napoleon!
As punishment you are to pronounce Unilateralistan 10x in fast consecutiveness for each of your 5 daily prayers to Satan.
<strong>
Bunge, would you then say that the US would require UN approval to take action? (assuming military action here)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so.
Whenever you go to war though, a full all out war, I think you're supposed to have an 'air tight case' to present to the U.N., even if you don't show it up front. So after the fact we could show the world that we had to go to war for X,Y & Z.
As for just a military action, like bombing the reactor, I think that might already be justifiable because of the treaty.
I am a Unilateralistani who happens to be an oppressed religious minority here in the United States of Unilateralistan. You may have heard of us, we are ignorant apathetic environmentalist atheists. Or you can use the acronym, IAEA if you like. We pray only to the glowing box from which all Unilateralistani culture eminates (in particular via the Fox News Channel); and secondarily only to the Supreme Leader, Shubbery.
[quote]Oh, and I dissagree, a degree in theology would probably make you understand a great deal better . . . but then perhaps that's one thing that differes in our religious belief, you think that its all about thoughtless acceptance of voices I think that it involves intellegent introspectiona and critical thinking <hr></blockquote>
Thoughtless acceptance...no. Faith...yes.
[quote] o you mean he gets a feeling that could be a misfireing synapse or something from his own subconcious?
As a matter of fact it could be his own selfish motivations speaking to him. <hr></blockquote>
Could be.
Bunge:
[quote] Perhaps it would have been better for Bush to leave the troops here so the UN would see absolutely no progress? As it stands now, most people do see some progress, enough to avoid war. So, perhaps the troops in some way are backfiring for Bush. <hr></blockquote>
False. "Most people"...what is that? Have you seen <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html"; target="_blank">This Recent Poll? </a>
There is also absolutely no reasonable argument that inspections are "working". THEY KEEP FINDING ILLEGAL WEAPONS THAT SADDAM SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE. How is that "working"?
One great line that the President had in his State of the Union was "The idea of weapons inspections was not for the inspectors to conduct a scavenger hunt for weapons". The only way weapons inspections would be "working" would be if Saddam gave the full accurate disclosure, then destroyed everythting he had left. No omisisons. No "I forgot about those". No tapes of Iraqi military saying things like "move that" or "I can't believe they missed that". No videos of chemical plants and illegal drone planes.
The only relevant question is if the man is fully cooperating. Can you honestly say with a straight face that he is? "Good progress" isn't enough, bunge. Not even close. We must have TOTAL cooperation. That's what 1441 and the 16 other resolutions call for. If there are any significant obstacles, he is in breach of the resoltution.
We know he isn't cooperating and won't. We know for that for sure. You know, I know it, and Saddam knows it. The only option left with this man is force.
<strong>False. "Most people"...what is that? Have you seen <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html"; target="_blank">This Recent Poll? </a></strong><hr></blockquote>OMG. Check out some of the questions in that poll. It's about as close to a push poll as I've ever seen from a news organization.
[quote]16. Who do you think should make the final decision on security matters for the United States ?- the United Nations or the United States?
In the last few weeks, have you:
17. Said a prayer for peace?
18. Said a prayer for President Bush?
21. Do you think anti-war protests are: An effective way to stop war, or Just a way to make the participants feel better?
22. Who do you think is doing more to achieve real peace in Iraq ?- war protesters or soldiers?
26. If the United Nations fails to enforce its resolutions that require Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction, do you think the United Nations will have become irrelevant? <hr></blockquote>
<strong>
False. "Most people"...what is that? Have you seen <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html"; target="_blank">This Recent Poll? </a>
The only relevant question is if the man is fully cooperating. Can you honestly say with a straight face that he is? "Good progress" isn't enough, bunge. Not even close. We must have TOTAL cooperation. That's what 1441 and the 16 other resolutions call for. If there are any significant obstacles, he is in breach of the resoltution.
We know he isn't cooperating and won't. We know for that for sure. You know, I know it, and Saddam knows it. The only option left with this man is force.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First the poll. I don't know if that's an internet poll (that's my guess) but I was speaking about worldwide support. "Most people" meant "most people", not "most fox news viewers." (had to get a swipe in on Fox...
He's never going to fully cooperate.
I'm just saying we can disarm him even if he doesn't cooperate 100%. Yeah, he's in violation of 1441, but we can still disarm him without a war. Regime change is a different issue, but disarm can potentially be done without war.
[quote] So if every single thing that happens, good or evil, monumental or mundane, is part of God's Plan, unfolding just as God wants it too, just what exactly are we able to do with our free will? Choose what color shirt we wear today?... <hr></blockquote>
It's not a black and white issue. If your asking my opinion, then fine. I believe that "most" everything happens for a reason. Does God care if you drop your fork in the sink? Probably not. Does it matter? Probably not. What I am saying is that God gives us the will to make choices. And yes, they can be bad choices. That's where the free will comes in. Could Bush be wrong? I suppose. But God also gives us the ability to listen to him, and Bush feels he has done that and has made his decision. I don't knwo that it can be said that "God told the President to attack". I don't think it works like that. He may have "told" him to disarm Saddam. Bush may pray for guidance on what to do in the event diplomacy fails. i don't know...I'm just supposing.
[quote] Ah, just the way the 9/11 highjackers prayed and prayed and felt confident that they were doing God's Will when they slammed into the WTC.
Oh, but wait... Bush has Good Religion? guiding him, while the highjackers were using Bad Religion?, so I can feel safe and comfortable that all of those warm feelings of confidence that Bush gets when he prays are guiding him down The Righteous Path. No need for me to worry at all that it's just, like, George's own preconceptions and desires about what he should do doing the talking. <hr></blockquote>
Wow. you have just compared George W. Bush to the 9/11 hijackers. The hijackers used religion as a justification for destroying life and for their own hatred. Bush isn't doing that. He knows people will die. I'm sure he doesn't think there wil be 72 virgins waiting for him when he attacks and kills Saddam. I'm sure his goal is not to kill civilians, aren't you? And yes, I do think the hijackers had "bad religion" on their side. In fact, I know they did. It's called militant Islamicism.
[quote] Wait a moment. It's only most things? Are you sure it's not all things? What's the deep theological distinction between what is and is not part of The Plan? How do we tell which is which? Can we do anything that goes against The Plan, or is our free will confined to inconsequential meanderings from otherwise fixed events? <hr></blockquote>
Good question. Figuring out what we can change and what we can't, as well as figuring out what should and shouldn't be changed? If you can figure that out you are smarter than I.
[quote] I have to ask you this: You seem to get all worked up over these damned lefties who can't see the clear, obvious TRVTHS you see. If you really believe everything is working out according to God's Plan, why get riled up about anything? It seems to me at most you might use your own free will to be one of the Good Guys or the Bad Guys in The Plan, but war will happen or not regardless of what you say, people will think well or ill of our Illustrious Leader regardless of what you say... In short, why all the anger instead of the Beatific Happiness that should come from accepting that God's got it covered? <hr></blockquote>
Because as a faulted human I too must remember that God takes care of things. It's not in my nature to just sit back and accept what happens. I admit I get too fired up.
On a side note: I would say you are most definitely not a "believer", correct?
I've always respected Shetline's theological postings here, very intelligent person, though I usually strongly disagree. If you really want to continue a debate, you might want to start a new thread though...they have a habit of growing way out of control.
[quote]First the poll. I don't know if that's an internet poll (that's my guess) but I was speaking about worldwide support. "Most people" meant "most people", not "most fox news viewers." (had to get a swipe in on Fox... )
He's never going to fully cooperate.
I'm just saying we can disarm him even if he doesn't cooperate 100%. Yeah, he's in violation of 1441, but we can still disarm him without a war. Regime change is a different issue, but disarm can potentially be done without war. <hr></blockquote>
This kind of thinking will not stand up to any critical analysis whatsoever. It may sound nice to say that War is not required, but it isn't reasonable.
You admit he is not cooperating. He is therefore in breach of 1441. Game Over. What other serious consequences are there? Sanctions haven't worked. Limited military strikes haven't worked. Inspections certainly haven't worked. He just keeps on making weapons. As we speak he has divided his city into 4 military zones and has dug a trench around Baghdad. Does that sound like someone who wants peace? I suppose it is Bush's fault for surrounding him with infidels? But wait...that doesn't hold up either, because you and others here have admitted that the only real reason he if offering ANY cooperation IS THE PRESENCE OF......wait for it.......BINGO! 300,000 troops!
It would be nice if he disarmed without war. Really nice! But it ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Why? Because, as you admit, he will not cooperate. Without cooperation, inspectors hav ZERO chance of finding all the weapons. In addition, he'll just keep making more. Without the aforementioned cooperation, how many inspectors will it take to do the job?
Let's see...we have about 120 now. What if we triple that number to say, 360. No wait, Iraq is about the size of California, so a group the size of some college marching bands probably isn't going to work. Let's make it, say, 1500 inspectors! That should do it. This represents a 1000% increase in the number of inspectors. Given that Iraq is 432,162 sq km (source: CIA World Fact Book 2002), that's 288 sq. km per inspector to find weapons....WITHOUT total cooperation. That means each inspector would have to look in every building, cave, house vehicle, mosque, etc in 288 sq. km's.
You see, bunge, there is simply no other option. By nature, weapons inspections cannot work without total cooperation. The man was supposed to bring his weapons out and destroy them. He was supposed to account for previously destroyed material. That is the only way, other than full-out war, to disarm him. If you can tell me how (speciffically) these inspections will succeed in disarming him without his cooperation, I'll eat my hat. Or, is there another way? It seems to me we have tried everything else. I'd love to avoid war too, but it isn't going to happen. We have tried every single option...repeatedly.
BTW, it was a Fox News poll. It was not an internet "instapoll" so to speak. It didn't say it was a poll of Fox News viewers. The thread I started earlier did contain internet polls....this poll wasn't one.
<strong>
This kind of thinking will not stand up to any critical analysis whatsoever. It may sound nice to say that War is not required, but it isn't reasonable. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But inspections are working now. The U.N. is getting a tighter grip on the country, more surveillance, more knowledge, if this progress at this pace we'll be fine. Iraq will never be a threat again.
Ultimately move in U.N. monitors for an election and see what happens.
<strong>
But inspections are working now. The U.N. is getting a tighter grip on the country, more surveillance, more knowledge, if this progress at this pace we'll be fine. Iraq will never be a threat again.
Ultimately move in U.N. monitors for an election and see what happens.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Newsflash: whatever progress has occurred is not due to the inspections but to the troops massed on Iraq's border. Saddam isn't interested in cooperating with the UN to disarm. He is looking to dodge a bullet.
<strong>You see, bunge, there is simply no other option</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by everyone's admission, keeping 300,000 troops on his borders seems to be doing the trick. Notice I didn't say invading. I'm saying that keeping 300,000 troops on his borders is an alternative to war.
The problem, though, is that it's unbearably expensive to sustain this, and politically embarrassing for the Bush administration NOT to invade. And so we will invade.
Cheers
Scott
<strong>Wow. you have just compared George W. Bush to the 9/11 hijackers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While no fan of George W., I do at least rate him a few steps above your average militant Islamic hijacker. Might point, however, was about people making claims that faith guides, and justifies, their actions.
I do not trust this reliance on faith, because it can clearly lead in any direction. It's a person's character that determines his actions as far as I can tell -- any claims about what someone says his faith guides him to do tend to simply be reflections of that person's character.
So maybe it gives you a warm feeling to hear about the President's reliance on faith, but me, it just makes me worried. It tells me he's less likely to think things through, more likely to feel things through, and I don't have any reason to think George's instincts are all that hot. I certainly don't think he's got any hotline to The Almighty leading him to always do The Right Thing.
[quote]<strong>Good question. Figuring out what we can change and what we can't, as well as figuring out what should and shouldn't be changed? If you can figure that out you are smarter than I.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I claim no such knowledge, and I get worried when other people do. If you can't figure this Plan out, however -- what's part of it, what's not, what degree of freedom we have within it -- I submit that a statement like "Anyone who believes in the Almighty knows it was, in fact, His plan for Bush to be President." is essentially meaningless.
From what you've said, perhaps someone merely like Bush in some way would have fulfilled this Plan. Perhaps even someone very different from Bush, but who still took certain key actions at certain times would do. Since you can't really no for sure what's part of the plan and what's not, doesn't talking about Bush and his faith and his part in The Plan merely become a speculative form of cheer leading, a way to point out and accentuate your own particular biases towards who the Good Guys are and what the best decisions are to make?
[quote]<strong>On a side note: I would say you are most definitely not a "believer", correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An astute observation.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
<strong>If you really want to continue a debate [on God's plan vs. free will], you might want to start a new thread though...they have a habit of growing way out of control.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A separate thread devoted to a religious issue? What do you think this is? Fireside Chat? :eek:
<strong>
A separate thread devoted to a religious issue? What do you think this is? Fireside Chat? :eek:
NOOOOOO :eek:
<strong>OMG. Check out some of the questions in that poll. It's about as close to a push poll as I've ever seen from a news organization.
quote:
16. Who do you think should make the final decision on security matters for the United States ?- the United Nations or the United States?In the last few weeks, have you:
17. Said a prayer for peace?
18. Said a prayer for President Bush?
21. Do you think anti-war protests are: An effective way to stop war, or Just a way to make the participants feel better?
22. Who do you think is doing more to achieve real peace in Iraq ?- war protesters or soldiers?
26. If the United Nations fails to enforce its resolutions that require Iraq to give up weapons of mass destruction, do you think the United Nations will have become irrelevant? </strong><hr></blockquote>
SDW...do you really take a poll with these kinds of ridiculously, blatantly loaded questions seriously? If I hadn't seen the source of the poll before reading it, I would have assumed it was something published by The Onion. It is just that ridiculous. This is absolutely mind-blowingly insane. How the hell does Fox News get off writing such a "poll" and yet claim to be fair and balanced and how the hell do people like you actually buy into it?
*bangs his head against the wall until he passes out into sweet sweet unconsciousness, escaping from the stupidity that continuously assaults him from all directions*
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
The only relevant one is:
"10. Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Is that (support/oppose) strongly or just somewhat?"
Strongly Support: 54%
Somewhat Support 16%
TOTAL 71%
Strongly Oppose: 14%
Somewhat Oppose 6%
TOTAL: 20%
Notice there has still been no reasonable argument against war. bunge says inspections are working, despite my previous post regarding his very solution. He actually says "Iraq will never be a threat again".
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
Notice there has still been no reasonable argument against war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's balderdash. If you haven't seen a reasonable argument against war it's because you can't read.