Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Tim Cole, Feb 5, 2003.
Thoughts anyone? Smash?
Powell and the administration never claimed that they were going to be presenting a "smoking gun." In fact that made a point to say that they were NOT going to present a "smoking gun," but rather a series of clues, data and evidence that would provide a compelling argument that Iraq has not complied with UN regulations and does not intend to comply with UN regulations. Based on what I've seen they did exactly what they said they would do.
They made a point to say however that they wouldn't be sharing any "smoking gun" evidence. Just want to clear that part up before a debate gets started about it.
hmmm... my random thoughts as a 25 year old musician/teacher, moderate conservative...
If this were the mid 1900's and we were talking about a guy named Hitler that might be doing such and such to whomever... and the "security council" wanted to give him more time... we would be speaking German.
I do not like the USA being the policemen of the world, but it appears the world put us in that position.
Does our security come from the U.N. watching over the U.S.? No.
Would you rather have New York blasted off the map by a dirty bomb, or should we send a message that we will not be messed with in ANY way to those that oppose us?
No one wants war, but sometimes it is necessary.
Im not surei f we should go to war, but I can say this. I definetly dont think the UN is the answer to any problems the world is seeing at this point. If the US needs to go in and the UN sits an watches then the UN will lose any validity it has left.
It has been my belief for some time that France, owing to its extensive business relationship with the Hussein regime, should abstain from using its veto power on this matter. I'm fine with the Chinese and Russians having trepidation over this matter; that the nation that has provided Iraq with the bulk of its military hardware and infrastructure over the past 20 years (much more so in dollar value than the US) to claim the absolute moral high ground in the situation is insulting.
Moreover, I find France's permanent position on the Security Council to be troubling. If France is going to have a veto, Japan, India, and possibly even Brazil should each have one as their international significance is equal to that of France (and in Japan's case, inarguably greater).
I don't want this war. I would prefer that Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime be "bought out"--surely at a lower expense than the estimated $200 billion that a shooting war would entail--and the rest of the money spent on short-term economic stimulus in the US itself. Unfortunately, our (*ahem*) great Secretary of Defense, Mr. Donald "I love to go beyond the powers accorded me by my ministerial portfolio"* Rumsfeld, has pretty much closed the door on that option.
(*Seriously, why has the DoD had any public say in the diplomatic end of this matter? I always thought that the State Department should give the shooting orders to the DoD.)
I pretty much agree with Peter here...
But don't forget Iraq owes Russia about 7 billion...
There wasn't any new information.
Lots of indications, some even very strong. But no real hard evidence (which they claimed to have).
Russia is more concerned about its investments in Iran than Iraq. I would like to find out what things from the GWs goodie bag have been promised for Russias support.
The question is quickly becoming what are we going to do about North Korea?
I'm only guessing that Iraq will be the model for North Korea to observe. IE: "if you don't comply, this could happen to you". Blah Blah
Besides that, Pete summed it up pretty well.
The world does not see the USA as their policeman! I've seen this common misconception presented many times and it's simply not true. The USA meddles in such a way that it presents itself as the policeman whereas in reality they cause some of the trouble in the first place (who gave Iraq arms during the Iran-Iraq war?). America wants every thing its own way and is prepared to go to any lengths, even war to get it. Saddam wasn't even a threat until America decided he was. I just wish Tony Blair was strong enough to go along with public opinion instead of sucking up to George Bush. Vive la France! They have the right idea at least.
If the US goes in against the will of the UN and the UN then tag along to appease America then will have lost all credibility.
Come now, you can't be serious. I think everyone can agree Saddam is an imminent threat to all of his neigbors at the very least. You call a man that invades and attempts to take over an adjacent country not a threat?
Interesting comments, Peter, particularly your insights on France.
As to the quote above, interesting as well, although I don't know how feasible it is. It assumes that we're dealing with rational people who could be dealt with in a rational way, and I'm not sure that's the case.
Hitler couldn't have been bought out in 1937 (and yes, I know the comparison is somewhat shoprworn, but in this case I think it's apt.)
Anyway, definitely worth a try, but I don't hold out much hope it will work.
Dude, when the U.S. DOESN'T get involved in international issues, we're "not living up to our global responsibilities."
When we do, we're "meddling."
I guess it's true what they say about pleasing some of the people some of the time. I do sympathise, honestly, with America's position in that they simply can't win but I also disagree with the "worlds policeman", that might be how America views itself but it's not how most of the rest of us see them.
This whole thing would be more credible if not for the US track-record of outright lying when it comes to justifying a war. Between the Kuwaiti baby incubators and the Gulf Tonkin I worry about how much of this stuff may have been doctored. I would like to believe that that's not the case but the US government frankly has a credibility problem on this one...
This is the kind of hypocrisy that really sticks in my craw. On the one hand our government is telling us how bad the Iraqi regime is and on the other they are trying to get all cosy with a regime that is equally appalling. As far as i'm concerned this is wrong no matter what the political reasons are. Same goes for a few of our other current 'partners'.
How can we 'claim the moral high ground' when we are allied with countries and regimes who are every bit as bad as Saddam and his regime.
I agree and was just bringing up this point last night with my sister. Although I am buying all the evidence, there is definitely a history that presents a credibility problem. Read "Body of Secrets" for a look at some unsavory history on our Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as other eye opening facts.
Can we can the Hitler comparisons. Iraq has already been beaten in a war and subject to much harsher scrutiny than 1930's Hitler. This analogy would work if France and England had used a military response when Hitler had re-militarized the Rhineland in 1935 (violating the Treaty of Versailles) when the German Wehrmacht was still far from its full strength. Then England and France could have imposed their own inspections on Hitler and demanded that the Luftwaffe and the jet and rocket programs etc. be banned. We have not given Saddam a blank cheque the way one was given to Hitler.
Would you actually have to see Sadam personally gas a few hundred people before you "believe"? What's it gonna take?