 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many hands are needed to tally the nations who, sensibly, refuse to go along on the misbegotten crusade to free Daddy Bush from the yoke of tyranny?
Let's see...there are 191 member states in the U.N. (plus several more that do not belong, such as neutral nations like Switzerland and the Vatican). Subtract the paltry few named by Eric, and divide by five, the number of fingers found on the average hand (increase the final quotient by 60% if you're counting on Boris Yeltsin's left hand)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 19, 2003 - 12:37 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
dragon53
(Member)
|
ERIC PADDON: I'm usually pretty hawkish about U.S. foreign policy. I agree that Saddam has to go, but invading Iraq gives me the willies. A certified megalomaniac/pyschopath with no respect for human life and an aresenal of biological and chemical weapons that he has already used against civilians ans soldiers--that scares me. I always hoped maybe the U.S. threat would intimidate Saddam into total disarmament, instigate a coup against him by his inner circle and/or let the Iraqi opposition in exile overthrow him. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to likely. Even if the war is short and victorious, the long-term hatred and consequences the U.S. will face in the Arab world could be what came out of Pandora's box. Obviously the public isn't fully aware of all U.S. intelligence on Iraq, but I've never seen anything made public which 100% persuades me that the only way to eliminate Saddam is the U.S. invading an Islamic country, even legally the U.S. is justified. The only somewhat mitigating circumstances, at least to me, is that Sec. of State Powell, a Vietnam vet and perhaps the most dovish on the Bush national security team, also is convinced the invasion is necessary after diplomacy failed. I hope there is unpublicized intelligence information that dictates the present course of action. Perhaps the reasoning that if someone had staged a pre-emptive invasion of Germany before 1939, World War II would not have occurred. I hope that reasoning is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 20, 2003 - 3:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JJH
(Member)
|
ERIC PADDON: I'm usually pretty hawkish about U.S. foreign policy. I agree that Saddam has to go, but invading Iraq gives me the willies. A certified megalomaniac/pyschopath with no respect for human life and an aresenal of biological and chemical weapons that he has already used against civilians ans soldiers--that scares me. I always hoped maybe the U.S. threat would intimidate Saddam into total disarmament, instigate a coup against him by his inner circle and/or let the Iraqi opposition in exile overthrow him. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to likely. Even if the war is short and victorious, the long-term hatred and consequences the U.S. will face in the Arab world could be what came out of Pandora's box.
First, Hussein is a man who shoots people dead when they give him bad info. he never hears bad news. This is a delusional man who thinks he can actually win against us.
Secondly, there are numerous reports that Arab leaders will be grateful when he's gone, because he's killed more Muslims than anyone.
I hope there is unpublicized intelligence information that dictates the present course of action.
this is not a personal slam on you, but what most cynics don't know would fill the ocean. At some point, one must put a little faith that the leaders of their elected government, on occasion, do know what they're doing, and have access to the info that people who actually DO intel work for a living -- all so they can be criticized by ingrates.
When the darkest secrets about Hussein's regime come out, I think there truly will be shock and awe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But JJH,
Do you really believe that the way Saddam treats his people is the true motive for Bush's war? I just heard on the news that the Kuwaitis have been waiting since the Gulf war to re-tap in to their vast supplies of oil. (I also remember reading that Saddam's justification for invading Kuwait was that they were tapping into Iraq's oil supplies...not that I believe that). The news that the Kuwaitis anxiously await is Saddam's ousting. With all of that oil at stake, and the U.S.'s long history of protecting IT'S economic interests in other countries, not to mention no one in the U.S. gave a damn about Saddam's treatment of his people when he and Daddy Bush (head of the C.I.A. at the time) were good friends,we backed him during his war with Iran and we let him resume power after the Gulf war...do you think that the oil might be even a teenie weenie, itsy bitsy motive for Bush's war now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...do you think that the oil might be even a teenie weenie, itsy bitsy motive for Bush's war now?"
In a word, N-O. If the US so much as gave a damn about Iraqi oil it would be cutting deals with Saddam. This argument has zero merit whatsoever.
"he and Daddy Bush (head of the C.I.A. at the time) were good friends"
Saddam Hussein came to power in 1980 (during the Jimmy Carter presidency). George H.W. Bush was gone as CIA director after 1977.
Once again, Eric, this is not a disagreement over timelines...I have a comma after the word "friends". Basically I believe our extreme differences on this subject are over your belief in what the Bush administration tells us vs. my disbelief. To be specific on one point however I believe it is precisely "the deals" you allude to above that have gone wrong here leading to our present situation. Back up?...For one, a long and painful history of U.S. foriegn policy predicated on U.S. economic interests first and foremost...i.e. Noriega, Saddam, even Osama are our friends first then our foes. And by the way, how about dispensing with that attitude of "love it or leave it"..."your either for us or against us" b.s. since obviously YOU are entitled to slam ANY government official U.S. or otherwise with stupid and offensive jokes and wrecklessly use terms like "bootlicking" as long as they are perceived by you as liberals.
Last but not least the question about oil was directed to someone else (but alas you're free to jump in).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 22, 2003 - 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
devin
(Member)
|
Peter Freundlich, freelance journalist for the New York.
--
All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We
are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam
Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage
war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle
is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to
subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too
important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the
democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor- bound to do that
too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped
by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot
afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against
Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are
sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that
might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does.
And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us
oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave
in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and
people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no
choice but to ignore them.
Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the
members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I
only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and
"Through the Looking Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and
illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign
policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We
must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,' but not amusing for
someone who actually commands an army to say that.
As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it
not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be
lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
