Which Arab government would qualify as legitimate?
Good question. I would say those recognized by the UN as having a legitimate government. Democracy has nothing to do with whether a government is legit or not.
Hey, how many WAR boards does this site need? Dang!
Who can keep up with WOT thread? There's some interesting stuff there but I don't have the time.
What beggars description is why then does Bush ask for a regime change in Iraq ? :)
I think that is just the starting point. Once other countries see a free Iraq, I think Iran will soon follow with no involvement by the U.S. They are cloes to doing it on their own now. When that happens I think you will see a domino effect take place from there. BTW, just my opinion.
I couldn't have answered Bill better myself. Thanks for posting would have been close to what I would have. Also thanks for posting those polls. I was going to do that when I got home from work. You stole my thunder! =)
If you want to see America become weak and completely unable to defend itself, it's citizens and our freedoms .. just buy into the Pope's theory of the United Nations as last word.
Remember .. this is the same United Nations that did nothing to stop the massacre of over one million people in Rawanda and the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It's also the same United Nations that:
(a) Puts Iran and Iraq in charge of a U.N. disarmament conference,'
(b) Removes the United States from the Human Rights Commission, to be replaced by Syria, and
(c) Then proceeds to makes Libya the chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Yeah we can and when we cannot act to defend our own interests.- Neal Boortz
Hey Wolvie, did we have U.N approval in Kosovo ? Nope. ;) Clinton went around the U.N because he knew Russia was going veto it in a heart beat. Apparently Bush should have done the same thing. People bitch about him disregarding the U.N. It's nonsense. If he engages them and lobbies to get them to support their OWN resolutions he's being unilateralist. If he hadn't even consulted the U.N ala Clinton and just gone in from the get go I can't imagine what the argument would be. Probably the same. He should have taken Clinton's lesson and just go in.
I agreed with us going into Kosovo BTW on a purely human level, As much as I disliked Billy C, genocide like that shouldn't go unchecked (as the U.N allowed in Rwanda). And I supported the effort. What threat were the serbs to us ? Well I'm hearing that now. What threat is Iraq ? If you don't see it so be it. Kosovo wasn't either.
So why didn't you go "around the U.N" to save those millions in Rwanda? Something to do with the skin pigmentation of the people there or the lack of oil in that part of the globe?
So why didn't you go "around the U.N" to save those millions in Rwanda?
Since I have no power, I could do nothing about it.
Something to do with the skin pigmentation of the people there or the lack of oil in that part of the globe?
Is it just me or is this a sly way of implying racism? Any way I will answer your question. We should have went in to stablize the region. Anytime there is genocide it needs to be stopped. Why didn't the U.N. do anything about it then? Was it because of the skin pigmentation of the people there or the lack of oil in that part of the globe? Why doesn't the U.N. do anything about North Korea?
On the U2 flights. Iraq scrambled MIG's to intercept the U2 flights. Any disruption in the U2 flights is suppose to be reported to the U.N. security council immediately. Of course the U.N. answer to this is that they are investigating this.
Sorry THX, but I have to borrow something from you....
Bill, I don't think you can blame GW for the downfall of Tony Blair. He is a passionate advocate of war against Iraq, against the will of his own people. He's supporting Bush because of his own beliefs.
Yes, yes... when asked the question IN THAT NARROW FORM, I agree. I have seen that ONE question and the resulting poll numbers, used by Repubs, over and over and over again.
Really ? The poll was just out yesterday so I',m not sure where you heard Reps, quoting it over and over but There was another that said the same thing or had numbers very similar. That's the exact reason I don't like polls. There's a million different ways to skew them. That's the exact reason we don't legislate or govern by them, thank God, because they're wrong. Another one released yesterday said the same thing. I brought it up because you mentioned them. There's others that say the exact oposite as well. It depends on whom and how you ask. You can find some that support your posistion and I can find some that suport mine.
“The economic risks go far beyond the airline industry–the stakes for the entire U.S. economy are extremely high,” said ATA President and CEO James C. May. “Airlines have supported decisions taken by the U.S. government in the past, and we do so now. Yet, we know from the first Gulf War that there will be serious economic consequences for the airline industry.
I got news for you Wolvie... There is only ONE Mig that can even REACH the altitude of a U2, and Iraq doesn't have that model. They still have the "Bi-Plane" Mig models. If they HAD any such MIGS, they would have shot down one of our U2's by this time, don't you think?
The planes can't reach that altitude, the missles can. And who is selling parts to Iraq for their planes which are used to fire those missles ?
Also, when the time DOES come to deal with N. Korea, there won't BE any U.N. support for any action, because GDubbya will have destroyed our partnerships within that organization and ANY chance to work within the Security Council, to stop the madness going on in that country.
And just where are the same handwringers when it comes to N.Korea ? The same ones who are in a hissy over removing a guy like Hussein are suddenly MIA. Have you seen Kofi, Mr.Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, or Putin and co. Calling for U.N action ? Nope. Hmmm wonder why that is ? So you're saying we shouldn't upset those same folks because we might need them in N.Korea, where are they now ? They have no problem with us dealing alone with N.Korea, but yet we are being unilateralist with Iraq. Even though to this day we are trying to work within the U.N to enforce it's own regulations.
LOOK... I am FOR the removal, assasination, destruction and/or Burning-At-The-Stake of this madman in Iraq. The only thing I am against is the way in which GDubbya has gone about it, with his "Damn the Torpedoes" approach to doing it and the resulting "Insignificance" that HE has caused the U.N., as a direct result of his intransigence and his "Play My Way or I'll Take My Bat And Ball" attitude in going about it.
O.K at what point do you not listen to the U.N ? Why is it that inspectors are in Baghdad ? Was it the U.N who put pressure on ? Nope. One minute you chastize Bush for not knowing the French and Germans were opposed and the next accuse him of damning the torpedo's anyway. Clinton didn't bother with the U.N in Kosovo becasue he knew Russia would veto it. Perhaps Bush should have done that, but when you're calling somone unilateral when he IS consulting the U.N I can only imagine what would be said if he had done what Bill did. And some wonder why the U.N is washed up ?
The fallout from THIS war,(especially if we have high casualties and chem/bio weapons use against neighboring countries and/or Israel), will be with us for many years to come and will destroy your boy's chances at EVER being re-elected. The PEOPLE cannot and do not agree, and history should teach us that THAT, is the WORST time to proceed with such a War, don't you think?
First of all I don't care about re-election. I care about doing what's right for the country. His job is to do what he sees best for the country NOT for France, Not for Germany. He works for us. Do you take others views into consideration ? You bet, if he didn't we'd probably would already be in Bagdhad. I can only imagine the crys then. Perhaps he should have, next time I doubt he will. DO you think France and Co. would ever get to the point of actually supporting force ? I doubt it and if they did it would only be after something horrible happened. As far as history is concerned it's history that's the exact reason we should be going in. From the appeasement of Hitler whom by the way many in the world were OPPOSED to doing anything about to the current day when we've done very little after being attacked numerous times. So yes, let's look at history.
The WOT already HAS the backing of EVERYONE that "matters" in the world-community. But the prospect of an all-out war in Iraq has caused NATO to become dis-unified,
NATO is disunified ? Seems we have a majority in agreement there as well.
and our own citizens are FAR from agreement on how or even IF we proceed.
Are you basing that on polls ?
I call that a FAILURE, of our Chief Executive, the fact is that if the table was turned, and he was a DEMOCRAT, you guys WOULD be saying the same thing.
B.S, I'd be supporting him as I did Clinton in Kosovo because it was the right thing to do regardless of what Jaque Chirac thought.
If you choose to call this potential debacle a "Triumph" of foriegn policy or that we are somehow "Unified" in this fight, then you are dreaming, and this has become just "Politics".
Yea, politics, that would be like someone opposing doing the right thing just because of the person doing it.
3. "When it comes to Iraq, do you think the United States should do what it thinks is right no matter what its allies think...
This question is misleading. People could interpet that to mean ALL our allies, ie The British. If they would have phrased the question this way, " no matter what France, Germany, and Russia think" , I think you would see a totally different result. 85% to 90% of our allies are WITH us on this.
THAT, is EXACTLY what I have been saying about the polls that LUV quoted, Wolvie.
O.K, what about the polls you posted or referred to ? Or is it only those 2 polls that were skewed ?
It all depends on how it's asked. So when you say as you have been about polls saying that America doesn't want to go it alone or without allies it depends on how the question was asked. That's why polls are a waste of time, they're wrong constantly.
The recent menu change in the U.S. House of Representative's cafeterias in Washington is, at best, an infantile response to France's current opposition to war in Iraq ("French is toast at House eateries," March 12).
I am sure the French would be delighted with the change. (They have never understood the connection between these fries and their country anyway.)
However, the Republicans forgot one thing. Wouldn't it be more fitting to call them "freedom to be fat" fries?
"DOHUK, Iraq: The woman living across the street from Dr. Abdul Saeed here in northern Iraq wakes every day before dawn to pray and prepare breakfast for here husband and eight children. Then she peers through her lace kitchen curtains at Dr. Saeed's home, seeking reassurance: the sight of his car in the garage, his children playing, his wife on the balcony -- any sign that he and his family are still present.
'"When I see the doctor's family, I know that we are safe," says Payman Sams al-Din a 36-year-old schoolteacher. "'The day he sends his wife and children away, we will get in our cars and drive to the mountains.'"
"Dr. Saeed (proounced sah-YEED) is the director of the Department of Public Health for Dohuk province, which is under the control of the Kurdistan Democratic Party. He is responsible for preparing the 817,000 residents of this mostly rural area for war and mayhem, including the possibility of a chemical-weapons attack by Saddam Hussein's military. Dohuk sits so close to hostile Iraqi territory that Mr. Hussein's border guards a visible in the distance. It is also the nearest city to the Turkish border, and would almost certainly be part of the battleground if the US attacks Iraq."
The world stands on the cusp of war - or peace. Each day the Bush Administration becomes more isolated in the United Nations and in the court of world opinion. Now, their one major ally, Tony Blair, is losing his grip on power and it is very unlikely the U.S. can win even a symbolic majority in the UN Security Council.
It would be foolish of us, however, to become too hopeful, to feel any certainty that we can stop a blizzard of "precision-guided munitions" raining down on innocent Iraqi families. The president and his advisors have gambled so much on this disastrous strategy that they may go to war simply to save face.
What can we do to tip the balance? Three days ago, on March 9, United for Peace and Justice convened an emergency national meeting in Washington, DC, attended by 100 people from over 40 national organizations and local coalitions, to answer this question. We agreed on a short-term program, including coordinated local actions, strong responses if Bush does go to war, and doing the work needed to strengthen United for Peace and Justice and build a permanent campaign.
Most importantly, we enthusiastically united around an Emergency Action Plan to Stop the War--over the next two weeks. The highlight of the plan is a national campaign of civil disobedience in Washington DC, and throughout the country, starting on March 17.
To be successful, we need your help to carry it out. If every one of the 31,000 people receiving this email takes at least one of the actions below, and forwards it to everyone they know, we can begin to reclaim our democracy as we generate a storm of protest and visible outrage aimed at Congress and the media.
NOW IS TO THE TIME TO DO ALL WE CAN TO STOP THIS WAR.
A. Immediate Congressional Pressure
This week, on Thursday, March 13 and Friday, March 14, call, email, fax or visit the office of your Congressional Representative and Senators. Demand their immediate action to block the president's rush to war. Tell them you will be at their office on Monday, March 17 and will stay as long as necessary to get their agreement. What kind of action should they take? Sign on to Rep. Peter DeFazio¹s HJ Res. 20, to repeal the war resolution, or Senators Kennedy's and Byrd's S.Res. 32, to require the President to return to Congress for authorization to use force.
B. Join Anti-War Protests in Washington, DC this Weekend.
If you can, come to Washington, DC for the March 15 rally organized by International ANSWER at the Washington Monument, and stay over for March 17. On that day, United for Peace and Justice will blockade the Capitol. The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, the Iraq Pledge of Resistance and the National Peace Lobby Project (all part of United for Peace and Justice) have taken a lead role in organizing this important action. We will demand that Congress rescind its war resolution of last October and call for a peaceful resolution of the Iraq situation. Contact reclaimthecapitol@yahoo.com and see www.unitedforpeace.org
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> for more information on this emergency nonviolent direct action protest, including the time and location of the civil disobedience training on March 16. We also urge you to participate in the worldwide candlelight vigil at 7 PM on March 16, organized by Win Without War and MoveOn (go to http://www.globalvigil.org
If you cannot come to Washington, convene your local coalition - or create one right now - and plan to sit-in at your Member of Congress' office this coming Monday, March 17. And right away post your action on the United for Peace and Justice website: www.unitedforpeace.org
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> The power of our collective action is magnified one hundred times by our ability to bring it all together and "project" it out to the mass media. The media want to hear from us, so please let us know what you're doing.
D. Make a Much Needed Donation
Go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=160and make an immediate donation to United for Peace and Justice. We've set up an Action office in Washington DC, we're mobilizing nationwide to make March 17 the loudest possible cry of distress, and we're working to ensure the best media coverage possible. Your financial support is critical to the success of this campaign. Send whatever you can, as much as you can--$5 or $50 or $500, but please send something today.
Time is very short, and we're counting on you. Think about our responsibilities, as the people of this country, to the rest of the world and to the children of Iraq. Let us not waste a moment to do all we can to stop this war.
In peace and hope,
Andrea Buffa Leslie Cagan Bill Fletcher, Jr. Co-Chairs, United for Peace and Justice
Hillbilly;None of this is Nonsense as U put it,Yu're just another brainwashed bully that reeks of innocent blood.Licking blood off Dubya's boots can be deadly. Think for yu're self moronic asswhipe.Stop being brainwashed. Sorry forgot U have been spoonfed hate when U were born.
Hillbilly;None of this is Nonsense as U put it,Yu're just another brainwashed bully that reeks of innocent blood. I expect nonsense from someone that apparently admires John Walker Lindh. That boy was one dumb s***.Licking blood off Dubya's boots can be deadly. Someone needs to have the balls to do what the UN really wants done but is to damned afraid to do.Think for yu're self moronic asswhipe. What makes you believe that I don't? I would have said "think that I don't," but I don't THINK that you are capable of that mental process.Stop being brainwashed. Brainwashed? By who? I am not wearing a kufi, dude?Sorry forgot U have been spoonfed hate when U were born. Hate? You and your cronies seem to have the market cornered on that commodity.
Let it be known he is a Pakistani , born in Karachi who has been living in the US for 5 years. By the way Hammer, I am a Hindu from India who has been here over 2 decades.
I too am opposed to obliterating Iraq - and one of the many reasons is that Iraq has always been a secular State where Muslims and Christians and even Hindus have lived for ages in harmony. Ironically, the animosity there has been between Shiites and Sunnis - Islamic brothers who have killed and maimed each other.
I think the real war is a clash of civilizations - between an Islam that has been usurped by its extreme elements and the rest of the world. Being radical myself, I feel that the only feasible and optimal solution is to go after Islam globally and destroy its leadership, its clergy, its theologians and all nations that declare themselves Islamic. What will be left are the benign Muslims in India and the sects like the Sufis, the Ahmadiyyas and the Bahais. Iraq of course will be pounded into the stone age very soon and will end up as an oil well for us Americans.
Can you make a case for Islam being to allowed to reform itself?? You think it will happen?
UNITED NATIONS — The fissure in the U.N. Security Council deepened Thursday when France rejected a British compromise on Iraq, infuriating London and prompting the United States to consider postponing a vote on an ultimatum against Baghdad until next week.
Iraq, reveling in the turmoil at the council, dismissed Britain's plan, which lists six disarmament requirements Baghdad would have to meet or else face "serious consequences."
Britain proposed the list in a bid to win votes on the council for a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing war unless Baghdad meets a deadline. To sweeten the offer, British officials also suggested pushing back the deadline from Monday, as originally proposed by the United States.
France's flat rejection of the proposals clearly angered British leaders. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called the French attitude "extraordinary."
Ari Fliesher had a good line. he said, The French rejected it before Iraqis did.
Prime Minister Tony Blair feels the French "have become completely intransigent and have literally threatened to veto almost anything that is put forward to the U.N. Security Council," Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith said after meeting with Blair in London.
And that is my exact point about France, Germany & Co. Tey won't authorize force at any time. Germany pretty much said it today. They didn't say never, but short of something catastrophic happening, forget it.
So in short it's those factions who really aren't or don't have the fortitude to hold Hussein accontable. It should be obvious to anyone that they don't want to hold him accountible. They don't even want to authorize a vote on the matter or even make yet another resolution telling him that we really really really mean it this time. And people wonder why or who is making the U.N irrelevant.
I am beginning to think that France might have something to hide in all this. They have had a lot of dealings with Iraq and a lot of those seem illegal or in violation of U.N. Sanctions. Is it possible they are a little afraid of what ew might find after we go in?
The Bush administration, acknowledging today that its drive to build support for a new United Nations resolution on Iraq had bogged down, said it was willing to postpone the vote until next week, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell even suggested thatWashington might simply drop its push for a vote altogether
the facade seems to be coming down. All this bluster about seeing who are our friends and enemies are with a vote was just that - verbal pyro.
we have entered the relam of unilateralism and must be ready to face the consequences.
When you have the backing of a majority of European countries, the majority of NATO and some 90+ nations backing your actions, how in the hell are you acting unilaterally? We will not be doing this alone. Seems to me only a select few countries are balking.
you are going to see the denizens of distortion wax eloquent if this happens.
Either the world body to which we went to for approval - the UN - should sanction a war, or a European body with vested interests like NATO should agree to shoulder the American burden and see common cause or the nations of the region who will be most affected represented by the Arab League should concur with the decision. Then it becomes multilateral.
I have as much to fear as other Americans that my security and that of my family will be adversely affected if we did not institute regime change in Iraq. I am not convinced.
The backing of a coterie comprising solely of disaffected leadership - sans the public - which includes the UK, Spain a nation with a very recent fascist leadership history, Eastern block nations who have only recently emerged from being vassal states to the USSR and have not had time to mature into democracies is a woefully flimsy coalition.
The American descent into global hegemony has commenced. Its peoples -and that includes me - will bear the onerous burden.
Either the world body to which we went to for approval - the UN - should sanction a war, or a European body with vested interests like NATO should agree to shoulder the American burden and see common cause or the nations of the region who will be most affected represented by the Arab League should concur with the decision. Then it becomes multilateral.
Have you even read U.N. resolution 1441? The U.N. did sanction a war. What else can be meant by"serious consequences" if it failed to disarm? What we are seeing is a lack of will of the U.N. to back up its own resolutions over the past 12 years. Enough is enough and Saddam will be disarmed.
The backing of a coterie comprising solely of disaffected leadership - sans the public - which includes the UK, Spain a nation with a very recent fascist leadership history, Eastern block nations who have only recently emerged from being vassal states to the USSR and have not had time to mature into democracies is a woefully flimsy coalition.
You also forgot to mention Japan, Austrlia, Italy and a whole host of others. Talk about spin. It is a lot easier to name countries that are not on board.
Either the world body to which we went to for approval - the UN - should sanction a war, or a European body with vested interests like NATO should agree to shoulder the American burden and see common cause or the nations of the region who will be most affected represented by the Arab League should concur with the decision. Then it becomes multilateral.
I have as much to fear as other Americans that my security and that of my family will be adversely affected if we did not institute regime change in Iraq. I am not convinced.
I understand where you are coming from I just disagree. Fact, we went in to Kosovo without the U.N. They stood by and did nothing as Milosevic slaughtered people wholesale. I agreed with the decision to go in as I do now if not only for humanitarian reasons alone. Now before you go off on me, hear me out. I'm not saying for one second that a humanitarian mission is what Iraq is about. It would however rid the Iraqi people of this murderous scum. And I do think if done correctly can be a springboard for democracy throughought the M.E. A tall order, no dobut. What I am also saying is that Kosovo posed no threat to the U.S. either.
Clinton didn't go to the U.N because he knew Russia would veto it. There was no way they would not veto so he didn't bother. Perhaps we should have done so this time as well. I can only imagine the unilateralist whine then. The U.N should have taken action 2 years before we went in. They stood idly by and told Slobodan he was naughty and to knock it off or they were gonna get really mad. Perhaps we should have followed suit and done the same this time. Of course the folks who cried unilateralism now and said nothing about Kosovo would have had a downright tizzy if we were really being unilateral and just gone in. We could be in Bagdhad right now if we were.
Which brings me back to the French. Perhaps Wolvie is right. I mean hell they're already selling Mig parts to Saddamn. Perhaps that's why they're going nuts. Me dost think thou protest too much. It will be interesting to see what is found when we go in. What it truly showed is this. For one they pretty much said today that no matter what they will not vote to use force probably ever. They didin't even entertain the British proposal. They rejected it before Iraq did! So why bother? We sure as hell wouldn't be doing all this if we didn't want some consensus or majority. If we're unilateralist they are at the least obstructionist. France needs a spinal implant if the U.N is to survive. For all a despotic dictator needs to do is get Jaque on thier side and their set. Jaque will protect em'.
I don't think people see the signifigance of today's events and what their posostion does to their relationship with us and ours with the U.N. I think it's officially dead.
"The people have forgotten the path to victory. Take the light of guidance to be a soldier for the sake of Allah
We have seen what your "soldier for the sake of Allah" is cappable of. The U.S.S. Cole, first attempt to take down the Trade Center, 9/11, various suicide bombings, etc. What a peaceful being this Allah of yours must be.
Hillbilly;None of this is Nonsense as U put it,Yu're just another brainwashed bully that reeks of innocent blood.
I get it now, we should just send suicide squads in to kill people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe a person with a bomb on a bus would be better in your eyes? Perhaps a plane hijacker who would be willing to crash it into a large building full of men, women and children? Allah would be happy with that wouldn't he? We know that he likes the blood of innocent people and apparently the blood of his own people as well. It is all red to him I guess.
Licking blood off Dubya's boots can be deadly.
Interesting threat. How do you plan to carry it out?
Think for yu're self moronic asswhipe.Stop being brainwashed. Sorry forgot U have been spoonfed hate when U were born.
I am sure that Allah is proud to have such a fowl mouth person on his side.
By the way, United for Peace and Justice was founded by members of the Communist Party of USA and they still work with them. Nice group of people you choose to associate with
In my philosophy class in engineering school back in India we were taught Kantian ethics or deontology, a moral system of rules of duty. It emphasized a rational principle that would stand as a categorical imperative grounding all other ethical judgments. I am citing textbook definitions but the essence is it judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved.
We have goals to achieve – the prime one being protecting our citizenry, enhancing the quality of life for our nations peoples and then exporting our value system. Going to war with Iraq demeans, threatens and will render useless all these goals.
In Kosovo we had NATO who were aghast at Milosevic and needed our firepower. Clinton did not therefore need the UN – the affected populace and region gave us the green signal.
Clinton and more specifically the UN did nothing in Rwanda – even though they knew the horrors there. They were documented and not made immediately public. The moral imperative would have been to go into Rwanda even without any consent. I despise Kofi Annan – because he was an African who knew but did not feel the outrage to stop it. And , pardon my extremism , I think that Kofi the Ghanaian lost his soul because he married a Caucasian Swede and lived in New York among the privileged. He lost touch with his Africa and the bloody divisions.
Not one of Iraq’s neighbors wants the US there. Not even archenemy Iran. And in Kuwait the US GI’s are being shot at – the popular sentiment there I bet is anti-American.
You use sound bites like France rejects before Iraq. The US arrogantly went to the UN thinking the 15-0 vote gave it a mandate that would not be challenged. No one has been convinced. It is the world against the US – whatever spin you may want to put on it.
The UN may be dead – but it will emerge in a new avatar. We have to do it with our so-called allies only and resurrect the cold war mentality and lack credibility. If we ask for another truly global body we will be relegated to the urinals for seating.
My response to you ties in with Bill's a little bit. We do have a majority in NATO as well. As Bill pointed out most of those nations don't have a military anyway so they can't do a whole lot militarily. Same with the U.N. I'm not saying from a diplomatic standpoint either I am talking strictly militarily that their contributions would be quite small or nonexistant anyway. Here's why I think in one way from a military standpoint it can be an advantage. With a larger coalition of troops from different nations language, cultural and political considerations can hinder the force in many ways. In fact that exact same coalition coupled with the U.N and the mentioned considerations is one of the reasons we didn't finish off Saddamm. Which leads me to my next point.
Not one of Iraq’s neighbors wants the US there. Not even archenemy Iran. And in Kuwait the US GI’s are being shot at – the popular sentiment there I bet is anti-American.
None of them want Saddamm either. But he plays a usefull roll for them. For one they want the status quo, that's why they don't want him removed. They get free defense from us being stationed in their countries. Not to mention the huge rent payments we pay. They have a neighbor who's trade is also limited meaning they aren't completely free to enter the same oil markets they are in. It's a win win situation for them with Saddamm in power so of course they don't want him removed, they're making millions and getting free defense from him anyway. Also they sure as hell don't want any democracy taking place on their borders lest it spread into their "kingdoms"
If you were Sheik Ahmad bin Saeed al Maktoum, you wouldn't want anybody threatening your gig either.
A sheik never has to say, "hey, wait up." Everyone waits for him. His limo runs constantly in stifling heat, so he never has to spend much time outside of air conditioning.
We have goals to achieve – the prime one being protecting our citizenry, enhancing the quality of life for our nations peoples and then exporting our value system. Going to war with Iraq demeans, threatens and will render useless all these goals.
I disagree. I think it does exactly do that.
In Kosovo we had NATO who were aghast at Milosevic and needed our firepower. Clinton did not therefore need the UN – the affected populace and region gave us the green signal.
We have a majority this time as well. France plays a roll in that as well so it's the same story. I assume you were in favor of going in to Kosovo as I was. On a purely human scale I think we should have as well.
So let's look at Iraq. Here we have a dictator whose murdered thousands as Milosevic has. Saddamm has the added trait of wanting and having WMD's and using them. They are/were both brutal murderous dictators. Saddamm not only threatens his own people but others as well. They are both horrid men. So removing them both is I think imperative, he's a thug. I've heard you echo similar sentiments. But you think we should leave him in power and have taken out Milosevic ?
Do you know who wants him out of there in that region ? The Iraqis ! I don't hear people from the other side mention them much. I'm not taalking about the ones interviewed by Brokaw in Bagdhahd with a "ahem" Govt. tour guide watching them. One of the most vocal groups in favor of going in is Iraqis who fled and live here now and still have family there and alot at stake. Listen to their stories and what we've seen and tell me he shouldn't be removed. Let me ask you this. In Kosovo we went in without U.N approval. Let's say NATO didn't have a majority either. Should we have gone in still ? I think so. We have the power to end the suffering we should. We should have gone into Rwanda too regardless of what Kofi wanted.
Clinton and more specifically the UN did nothing in Rwanda – even though they knew the horrors there. They were documented and not made immediately public. The moral imperative would have been to go into Rwanda even without any consent. I despise Kofi Annan – because he was an African who knew but did not feel the outrage to stop it. And , pardon my extremism , I think that Kofi the Ghanaian lost his soul because he married a Caucasian Swede and lived in New York among the privileged. He lost touch with his Africa and the bloody divisions.
I'd agree other than your analysis on Kofi's marriage. And that's the exact reason the U.N is dead. It was dead long before this. When a world body that some are so eager to cast their fate to allows genocide in Rwanda, Kosovo and Iraq and do nothing but writing a scathing letter, I'd say it has and should become irrelavent. When they turned into a debate club instead of backing that debate and mandates they sealed their fate. We of course will be blamed for their demise even though hundreds of thousands of dead were overlooked by Kofi and co. Yesterday I think was the official un-official end of it.
In Iraq, Saddam's government exulted in the diplomatic turmoil.
The allies "have lost the round before it starts while we, along with well-intentioned powers in the world, have won it," the popular daily Babil, owned by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's son, Odai, said in a front-page editorial.
Don't know Bill, His troops know the way to Kuwait, they were there once. I think he's stupid to put troops right at the gate though. It's failry open terrain.
From what I've read, Hussein really believes that the UN and most namely France and Russia will somehow stop action from being taken. They don't call him Sodumb for no reason.
THX 1138 3/11/03 9:46am
Legitimate or not, they sure are making a fast buck because of the war. ;)
Which Arab government would qualify as legitimate?
Good question. I would say those recognized by the UN as having a legitimate government. Democracy has nothing to do with whether a government is legit or not.
Hey, how many WAR boards does this site need? Dang!
Who can keep up with WOT thread? There's some interesting stuff there but I don't have the time.
Legitimate or not, they sure are making a fast buck because of the war. ;)
Yeah, but in 100 years when they run out of oil........
Certainly.
What beggars description is why then does Bush ask for a regime change in Iraq ? :)
What beggars description is why then does Bush ask for a regime change in Iraq ? :)
I think that is just the starting point. Once other countries see a free Iraq, I think Iran will soon follow with no involvement by the U.S. They are cloes to doing it on their own now. When that happens I think you will see a domino effect take place from there. BTW, just my opinion.
L2F,
I couldn't have answered Bill better myself. Thanks for posting would have been close to what I would have. Also thanks for posting those polls. I was going to do that when I got home from work. You stole my thunder! =)
If you want to see America become weak and completely unable to defend itself, it's citizens and our freedoms .. just buy into the Pope's theory of the United Nations as last word.
Remember .. this is the same United Nations that did nothing to stop the massacre of over one million people in Rawanda and the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It's also the same United Nations that:
(a) Puts Iran and Iraq in charge of a U.N. disarmament conference,'
(b) Removes the United States from the Human Rights Commission, to be
replaced by Syria, and
(c) Then proceeds to makes Libya the chairman of the United Nations
Human Rights Commission.
Yeah we can and when we cannot act to defend our own interests.- Neal Boortz
Well said!
Hey Wolvie, did we have U.N approval in Kosovo ? Nope. ;) Clinton went around the U.N because he knew Russia was going veto it in a heart beat. Apparently Bush should have done the same thing. People bitch about him disregarding the U.N. It's nonsense. If he engages them and lobbies to get them to support their OWN resolutions he's being unilateralist. If he hadn't even consulted the U.N ala Clinton and just gone in from the get go I can't imagine what the argument would be. Probably the same. He should have taken Clinton's lesson and just go in.
I agreed with us going into Kosovo BTW on a purely human level, As much as I disliked Billy C, genocide like that shouldn't go unchecked (as the U.N allowed in Rwanda). And I supported the effort. What threat were the serbs to us ?
Well I'm hearing that now. What threat is Iraq ? If you don't see it so be it. Kosovo wasn't either.
Wolvie 3/11/03 2:47pm
So why didn't you go "around the U.N" to save those millions in Rwanda? Something to do with the skin pigmentation of the people there or the lack of oil in that part of the globe?
So why didn't you go "around the U.N" to save those millions in Rwanda?
Since I have no power, I could do nothing about it.
Something to do with the skin pigmentation of the people there or the lack of oil in that part of the globe?
Is it just me or is this a sly way of implying racism? Any way I will answer your question. We should have went in to stablize the region. Anytime there is genocide it needs to be stopped. Why didn't the U.N. do anything about it then? Was it because of the skin pigmentation of the people there or the lack of oil in that part of the globe? Why doesn't the U.N. do anything about North Korea?
See those kind of questions can go both ways.
On the U2 flights. Iraq scrambled MIG's to intercept the U2 flights. Any disruption in the U2 flights is suppose to be reported to the U.N. security council immediately. Of course the U.N. answer to this is that they are investigating this.
Sorry THX, but I have to borrow something from you....
:::SLAMS HEAD ON DESK::::
Bill, I don't think you can blame GW for the downfall of Tony Blair. He is a passionate advocate of war against Iraq, against the will of his own people. He's supporting Bush because of his own beliefs.
Bill,
Really ? The poll was just out yesterday so I',m not sure where you heard Reps, quoting it over and over but There was another that said the same thing or had numbers very similar. That's the exact reason I don't like polls. There's a million different ways to skew them. That's the exact reason we don't legislate or govern by them, thank God, because they're wrong. Another one released yesterday said the same thing. I brought it up because you mentioned them. There's others that say the exact oposite as well. It depends on whom and how you ask. You can find some that support your posistion and I can find some that suport mine.
The poll was just out yesterday
:-)
Airlines In Crisis: The Perfect Economic Storm.
“The economic risks go far beyond the airline industry–the stakes for the entire U.S. economy are extremely high,” said ATA President and CEO James C. May. “Airlines have supported decisions taken by the U.S. government in the past, and we do so now. Yet, we know from the first Gulf War that there will be serious economic consequences for the airline industry.
Bill,
The planes can't reach that altitude, the missles can. And who is selling parts to Iraq for their planes which are used to fire those missles ?
And just where are the same handwringers when it comes to N.Korea ? The same ones who are in a hissy over removing a guy like Hussein are suddenly MIA. Have you seen Kofi, Mr.Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, or Putin and co. Calling for U.N action ? Nope. Hmmm wonder why that is ? So you're saying we shouldn't upset those same folks because we might need them in N.Korea, where are they now ? They have no problem with us dealing alone with N.Korea, but yet we are being unilateralist with Iraq. Even though to this day we are trying to work within the U.N to enforce it's own regulations.
O.K at what point do you not listen to the U.N ? Why is it that inspectors are in Baghdad ? Was it the U.N who put pressure on ? Nope. One minute you chastize Bush for not knowing the French and Germans were opposed and the next accuse him of damning the torpedo's anyway. Clinton didn't bother with the U.N in Kosovo becasue he knew Russia would veto it. Perhaps Bush should have done that, but when you're calling somone unilateral when he IS consulting the U.N I can only imagine what would be said if he had done what Bill did. And some wonder why the U.N is washed up ?
First of all I don't care about re-election. I care about doing what's right for the country. His job is to do what he sees best for the country NOT for France, Not for Germany. He works for us. Do you take others views into consideration ? You bet, if he didn't we'd probably would already be in Bagdhad. I can only imagine the crys then. Perhaps he should have, next time I doubt he will. DO you think France and Co. would ever get to the point of actually supporting force ? I doubt it and if they did it would only be after something horrible happened. As far as history is concerned it's history that's the exact reason we should be going in. From the appeasement of Hitler whom by the way many in the world were OPPOSED to doing anything about to the current day when we've done very little after being attacked numerous times. So yes, let's look at history.
NATO is disunified ? Seems we have a majority in agreement there as well.
Are you basing that on polls ?
B.S, I'd be supporting him as I did Clinton in Kosovo because it was the right thing to do regardless of what Jaque Chirac thought.
Yea, politics, that would be like someone opposing doing the right thing just because of the person doing it.
3. "When it comes to Iraq, do you think the United States should do what it thinks is right no matter what its allies think...
This question is misleading. People could interpet that to mean ALL our allies, ie The British. If they would have phrased the question this way, " no matter what France, Germany, and Russia think" , I think you would see a totally different result. 85% to 90% of our allies are WITH us on this.
Bill,
O.K, what about the polls you posted or referred to ? Or is it only those 2 polls that were skewed ?
It all depends on how it's asked. So when you say as you have been about polls saying that America doesn't want to go it alone or without allies it depends on how the question was asked. That's why polls are a waste of time, they're wrong constantly.
From Today's Strib:
French-fried fiasco
The recent menu change in the U.S. House of Representative's cafeterias in Washington is, at best, an infantile response to France's current opposition to war in Iraq ("French is toast at House eateries," March 12).
I am sure the French would be delighted with the change. (They have never understood the connection between these fries and their country anyway.)
However, the Republicans forgot one thing. Wouldn't it be more fitting to call them "freedom to be fat" fries?
Sarah Streitz, Minneapolis.
Another nanny weighs in. (Pun intended.)
Take comfort, Muskwa that in Minnesota she's a dying breed.
This state's on the road to rugged, rangy individualism.
Just like Texas.
I have no hope that Minnesota will ever become like Texas. :)
Portrait of Fear (Today's Wall Street Journal)
"DOHUK, Iraq: The woman living across the street from Dr. Abdul Saeed here in northern Iraq wakes every day before dawn to pray and prepare breakfast for here husband and eight children. Then she peers through her lace kitchen curtains at Dr. Saeed's home, seeking reassurance: the sight of his car in the garage, his children playing, his wife on the balcony -- any sign that he and his family are still present.
'"When I see the doctor's family, I know that we are safe," says Payman Sams al-Din a 36-year-old schoolteacher. "'The day he sends his wife and children away, we will get in our cars and drive to the mountains.'"
"Dr. Saeed (proounced sah-YEED) is the director of the Department of Public Health for Dohuk province, which is under the control of the Kurdistan Democratic Party. He is responsible for preparing the 817,000 residents of this mostly rural area for war and mayhem, including the possibility of a chemical-weapons attack by Saddam Hussein's military. Dohuk sits so close to hostile Iraqi territory that Mr. Hussein's border guards a visible in the distance. It is also the nearest city to the Turkish border, and would almost certainly be part of the battleground if the US attacks Iraq."
"I have no hope that Minnesota will ever become like Texas. :) "
Me, too. And no desire.
Dear Friends,
The world stands on the cusp of war - or peace. Each day the Bush
Administration becomes more isolated in the United Nations and in the court
of world opinion. Now, their one major ally, Tony Blair, is losing his
grip on power and it is very unlikely the U.S. can win even a symbolic
majority in the UN Security Council.
It would be foolish of us, however, to become too hopeful, to feel any
certainty that we can stop a blizzard of "precision-guided munitions"
raining down on innocent Iraqi families. The president and his advisors
have gambled so much on this disastrous strategy that they may go to
war simply to save face.
What can we do to tip the balance? Three days ago, on March 9, United
for Peace and Justice convened an emergency national meeting in
Washington, DC, attended by 100 people from over 40 national organizations and
local coalitions, to answer this question. We agreed on a short-term
program, including coordinated local actions, strong responses if Bush
does go to war, and doing the work needed to strengthen United for Peace
and Justice and build a permanent campaign.
Most importantly, we enthusiastically united around an Emergency Action
Plan to Stop the War--over the next two weeks. The highlight of the
plan is a national campaign of civil disobedience in Washington DC, and
throughout the country, starting on March 17.
To be successful, we need your help to carry it out. If every one of
the 31,000 people receiving this email takes at least one of the actions
below, and forwards it to everyone they know, we can begin to reclaim
our democracy as we generate a storm of protest and visible outrage
aimed at Congress and the media.
NOW IS TO THE TIME TO DO ALL WE CAN TO STOP THIS WAR.
A. Immediate Congressional Pressure
This week, on Thursday, March 13 and Friday, March 14, call, email, fax
or visit the office of your Congressional Representative and Senators.
Demand their immediate action to block the president's rush to war.
Tell them you will be at their office on Monday, March 17 and will stay as
long as necessary to get their agreement. What kind of action should
they take? Sign on to Rep. Peter DeFazio¹s HJ Res. 20, to repeal the war
resolution, or Senators Kennedy's and Byrd's S.Res. 32, to require the
President to return to Congress for authorization to use force.
B. Join Anti-War Protests in Washington, DC this Weekend.
If you can, come to Washington, DC for the March 15 rally organized by
International ANSWER at the Washington Monument, and stay over for
March 17. On that day, United for Peace and Justice will blockade the
Capitol. The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, the Iraq Pledge of
Resistance and the National Peace Lobby Project (all part of United for
Peace and Justice) have taken a lead role in organizing this important
action. We will demand that Congress rescind its war resolution of last
October and call for a peaceful resolution of the Iraq situation.
Contact reclaimthecapitol@yahoo.com and see www.unitedforpeace.org
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> for more information on this emergency
nonviolent direct action protest, including the time and location of
the civil disobedience training on March 16. We also urge you to
participate in the worldwide candlelight vigil at 7 PM on March 16, organized
by Win Without War and MoveOn (go to http://www.globalvigil.org
<http://w!
ww.globalvigil.org/> for more information).
C. Make Your Voice Heard at Home on March 17th
If you cannot come to Washington, convene your local coalition - or
create one right now - and plan to sit-in at your Member of Congress'
office this coming Monday, March 17. And right away post your action on the
United for Peace and Justice website: www.unitedforpeace.org
<http://www.unitedforpeace.org/> The power of our collective action is
magnified one hundred times by our ability to bring it all together and
"project" it out to the mass media. The media want to hear from us, so
please let us know what you're doing.
D. Make a Much Needed Donation
Go to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=160and make an
immediate donation to United for Peace and Justice. We've set up an Action
office in Washington DC, we're mobilizing nationwide to make March 17
the loudest possible cry of distress, and we're working to ensure the
best media coverage possible. Your financial support is critical to the
success of this campaign. Send whatever you can, as much as you can--$5
or $50 or $500, but please send something today.
Time is very short, and we're counting on you. Think about our
responsibilities, as the people of this country, to the rest of the world and
to the children of Iraq. Let us not waste a moment to do all we can to
stop this war.
In peace and hope,
Andrea Buffa
Leslie Cagan
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Co-Chairs, United for Peace and Justice
More nonsense.
Hillbilly;None of this is Nonsense as U put it,Yu're just another brainwashed bully that reeks of innocent blood.Licking blood off Dubya's boots can be deadly.
Think for yu're self moronic asswhipe.Stop being brainwashed.
Sorry forgot U have been spoonfed hate when U were born.
I think jethro's found a worthy adversary! So eloquent.
LOL!
But the truth is, Hammerstorm, war protestors don't have the power to stop the war.
Saddam does, though.
Hillbilly;None of this is Nonsense as U put it,Yu're just another brainwashed bully that reeks of innocent blood. I expect nonsense from someone that apparently admires John Walker Lindh. That boy was one dumb s***.Licking blood off Dubya's boots can be deadly. Someone needs to have the balls to do what the UN really wants done but is to damned afraid to do.Think for yu're self moronic asswhipe. What makes you believe that I don't? I would have said "think that I don't," but I don't THINK that you are capable of that mental process.Stop being brainwashed. Brainwashed? By who? I am not wearing a kufi, dude?Sorry forgot U have been spoonfed hate when U were born. Hate? You and your cronies seem to have the market cornered on that commodity.
"truth is, Hammerstorm, war protestors don't have the power to stop the war."
Saddam does, though.
I just had to repost that
Saddam does, though.
preferably, this would be done by someone handing him a pistol and him removing the back of his head with it.
Hammerstorm,
Perhaps someone would listen to your message a bit more if you
A) didn't post a copy and pasted form letter that you or someone else wrote.
B) Didn't use a picture of an idiot like Taliban Johnny.
C) Aww nevermind.
hammer and anvil - Hammerstorm 3/13/03 8:20am
Let it be known he is a Pakistani , born in Karachi who has been living in the US for 5 years. By the way Hammer, I am a Hindu from India who has been here over 2 decades.
I too am opposed to obliterating Iraq - and one of the many reasons is that Iraq has always been a secular State where Muslims and Christians and even Hindus have lived for ages in harmony. Ironically, the animosity there has been between Shiites and Sunnis - Islamic brothers who have killed and maimed each other.
I think the real war is a clash of civilizations - between an Islam that has been usurped by its extreme elements and the rest of the world. Being radical myself, I feel that the only feasible and optimal solution is to go after Islam globally and destroy its leadership, its clergy, its theologians and all nations that declare themselves Islamic. What will be left are the benign Muslims in India and the sects like the Sufis, the Ahmadiyyas and the Bahais. Iraq of course will be pounded into the stone age very soon and will end up as an oil well for us Americans.
Can you make a case for Islam being to allowed to reform itself?? You think it will happen?
Britain Angered by French 'Intransigence'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80969,00.html
Ari Fliesher had a good line. he said, The French rejected it before Iraqis did.
And that is my exact point about France, Germany & Co.
Tey won't authorize force at any time. Germany pretty much said it today. They didn't say never, but short of something catastrophic happening, forget it.
So in short it's those factions who really aren't or don't have the
fortitude to hold Hussein accontable. It should be obvious to
anyone that they don't want to hold him accountible. They don't even want to authorize a vote on the matter or even make yet another resolution telling him that we really really really mean it this time. And people wonder why or who is making the U.N irrelevant.
I am beginning to think that France might have something to hide in all this. They have had a lot of dealings with Iraq and a lot of those seem illegal or in violation of U.N. Sanctions. Is it possible they are a little afraid of what ew might find after we go in?
NYT online headline and report
The Bush administration, acknowledging today that its drive to build support for a new United Nations resolution on Iraq had bogged down, said it was willing to postpone the vote until next week, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell even suggested that Washington might simply drop its push for a vote altogether
the facade seems to be coming down. All this bluster about seeing who are our friends and enemies are with a vote was just that - verbal pyro.
we have entered the relam of unilateralism and must be ready to face the consequences.
When you have the backing of a majority of European countries, the majority of NATO and some 90+ nations backing your actions, how in the hell are you acting unilaterally? We will not be doing this alone. Seems to me only a select few countries are balking.
spin it any which way you want - Wolvie 3/13/03 1:37pm
you are going to see the denizens of distortion wax eloquent if this happens.
Either the world body to which we went to for approval - the UN - should sanction a war, or a European body with vested interests like NATO should agree to shoulder the American burden and see common cause or the nations of the region who will be most affected represented by the Arab League should concur with the decision. Then it becomes multilateral.
I have as much to fear as other Americans that my security and that of my family will be adversely affected if we did not institute regime change in Iraq. I am not convinced.
The backing of a coterie comprising solely of disaffected leadership - sans the public - which includes the UK, Spain a nation with a very recent fascist leadership history, Eastern block nations who have only recently emerged from being vassal states to the USSR and have not had time to mature into democracies is a woefully flimsy coalition.
The American descent into global hegemony has commenced. Its peoples -and that includes me - will bear the onerous burden.
Either the world body to which we went to for approval - the UN - should sanction a war, or a European body with vested interests like NATO should agree to shoulder the American burden and see common cause or the nations of the region who will be most affected represented by the Arab League should concur with the decision. Then it becomes multilateral.
Have you even read U.N. resolution 1441? The U.N. did sanction a war. What else can be meant by"serious consequences" if it failed to disarm? What we are seeing is a lack of will of the U.N. to back up its own resolutions over the past 12 years. Enough is enough and Saddam will be disarmed.
The backing of a coterie comprising solely of disaffected leadership - sans the public - which includes the UK, Spain a nation with a very recent fascist leadership history, Eastern block nations who have only recently emerged from being vassal states to the USSR and have not had time to mature into democracies is a woefully flimsy coalition.
You also forgot to mention Japan, Austrlia, Italy and a whole host of others. Talk about spin. It is a lot easier to name countries that are not on board.
Naradar,
I understand where you are coming from I just disagree.
Fact, we went in to Kosovo without the U.N. They stood by and did nothing as Milosevic slaughtered people wholesale. I agreed with the decision to go in as I do now if not only for humanitarian reasons alone. Now before you go off on me, hear me out. I'm not saying for one second that a humanitarian mission is what Iraq is about. It would however rid the Iraqi people of this murderous scum. And I do think if done correctly can be a springboard for democracy throughought the M.E. A tall order, no dobut. What I am also saying is that Kosovo posed no threat to the U.S. either.
Clinton didn't go to the U.N because he knew Russia would veto it. There was no way they would not veto so he didn't bother. Perhaps we should have done so this time as well. I can only imagine the unilateralist whine then. The U.N should have taken action 2 years before we went in. They stood idly by and told Slobodan he was naughty and to knock it off or they were gonna get really mad.
Perhaps we should have followed suit and done the same this time. Of course the folks who cried unilateralism now and said nothing about Kosovo would have had a downright tizzy if we were really being unilateral and just gone in. We could be in Bagdhad right now if we were.
Which brings me back to the French. Perhaps Wolvie is right. I mean hell they're already selling Mig parts to Saddamn. Perhaps that's why they're going nuts. Me dost think thou protest too much. It will be interesting to see what is found when we go in. What it truly showed is this. For one they pretty much said today that no matter what they will not vote to use force probably ever. They didin't even entertain the British proposal. They rejected it before Iraq did! So why bother? We sure as hell wouldn't be doing all this if we didn't want some consensus or majority. If we're unilateralist they are at the least obstructionist. France needs a spinal implant if the U.N is to survive. For all a despotic dictator needs to do is get Jaque on thier side and their set. Jaque will protect em'.
I don't think people see the signifigance of today's events and what their posostion does to their relationship with us and ours with the U.N. I think it's officially dead.
"The people have forgotten the path to victory. Take the light of guidance to be a soldier for the sake of Allah
We have seen what your "soldier for the sake of Allah" is cappable of. The U.S.S. Cole, first attempt to take down the Trade Center, 9/11, various suicide bombings, etc. What a peaceful being this Allah of yours must be.
Hillbilly;None of this is Nonsense as U put it,Yu're just another brainwashed bully that reeks of innocent blood.
I get it now, we should just send suicide squads in to kill people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe a person with a bomb on a bus would be better in your eyes? Perhaps a plane hijacker who would be willing to crash it into a large building full of men, women and children? Allah would be happy with that wouldn't he? We know that he likes the blood of innocent people and apparently the blood of his own people as well. It is all red to him I guess.
Licking blood off Dubya's boots can be deadly.
Interesting threat. How do you plan to carry it out?
Think for yu're self moronic asswhipe.Stop being brainwashed. Sorry forgot U have been spoonfed hate when U were born.
I am sure that Allah is proud to have such a fowl mouth person on his side.
Who has "been spoonfed hate when U were born"?
By the way, United for Peace and Justice was founded by members of the Communist Party of USA and they still work with them. Nice group of people you choose to associate with
L2F - Luv2Fly 3/13/03 4:41pm
In my philosophy class in engineering school back in India we were taught Kantian ethics or deontology, a moral system of rules of duty. It emphasized a rational principle that would stand as a categorical imperative grounding all other ethical judgments. I am citing textbook definitions but the essence is it judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved.
We have goals to achieve – the prime one being protecting our citizenry, enhancing the quality of life for our nations peoples and then exporting our value system. Going to war with Iraq demeans, threatens and will render useless all these goals.
In Kosovo we had NATO who were aghast at Milosevic and needed our firepower. Clinton did not therefore need the UN – the affected populace and region gave us the green signal.
Clinton and more specifically the UN did nothing in Rwanda – even though they knew the horrors there. They were documented and not made immediately public. The moral imperative would have been to go into Rwanda even without any consent. I despise Kofi Annan – because he was an African who knew but did not feel the outrage to stop it. And , pardon my extremism , I think that Kofi the Ghanaian lost his soul because he married a Caucasian Swede and lived in New York among the privileged. He lost touch with his Africa and the bloody divisions.
Not one of Iraq’s neighbors wants the US there. Not even archenemy Iran. And in Kuwait the US GI’s are being shot at – the popular sentiment there I bet is anti-American.
You use sound bites like France rejects before Iraq. The US arrogantly went to the UN thinking the 15-0 vote gave it a mandate that would not be challenged. No one has been convinced. It is the world against the US – whatever spin you may want to put on it.
The UN may be dead – but it will emerge in a new avatar. We have to do it with our so-called allies only and resurrect the cold war mentality and lack credibility. If we ask for another truly global body we will be relegated to the urinals for seating.
Naradar,
My response to you ties in with Bill's a little bit. We do have a majority in NATO as well. As Bill pointed out most of those nations don't have a military anyway so they can't do a whole lot militarily. Same with the U.N. I'm not saying from a diplomatic standpoint either I am talking strictly militarily that their contributions would be quite small or nonexistant anyway. Here's why I think in one way from a military standpoint it can be an advantage. With a larger coalition of troops from different nations language, cultural and political considerations can hinder the force in many ways. In fact that exact same coalition coupled with the U.N and the mentioned considerations is one of the reasons we didn't finish off Saddamm. Which leads me to my next point.
None of them want Saddamm either. But he plays a usefull roll for them. For one they want the status quo, that's why they don't want him removed. They get free defense from us being stationed in their countries. Not to mention the huge rent payments we pay. They have a neighbor who's trade is also limited meaning they aren't completely free to enter the same oil markets they are in. It's a win win situation for them with Saddamm in power so of course they don't want him removed, they're making millions and getting free defense from him anyway. Also they sure as hell don't want any democracy taking place on their borders lest it spread into their "kingdoms"
If you were Sheik Ahmad bin Saeed al Maktoum, you wouldn't want anybody threatening your gig either.
A sheik never has to say, "hey, wait up." Everyone waits for him. His limo runs constantly in stifling heat, so he never has to spend much time outside of air conditioning.
Naradar,
I disagree. I think it does exactly do that.
We have a majority this time as well. France plays a roll in that as well so it's the same story.
I assume you were in favor of going in to Kosovo as I was. On a purely human scale I think we should have as well.
So let's look at Iraq. Here we have a dictator whose murdered thousands as Milosevic has. Saddamm has the added trait of wanting and having WMD's and using them. They are/were both brutal murderous dictators. Saddamm not only threatens his own people but others as well. They are both horrid men. So removing them both is I think imperative, he's a thug. I've heard you echo similar sentiments. But you think we should leave him in power and have taken out Milosevic ?
Do you know who wants him out of there in that region ? The Iraqis !
I don't hear people from the other side mention them much. I'm not taalking about the ones interviewed by Brokaw in Bagdhahd with a "ahem" Govt. tour guide watching them. One of the most vocal groups in favor of going in is Iraqis who fled and live here now and still have family there and alot at stake. Listen to their stories and what we've seen and tell me he shouldn't be removed. Let me ask you this. In Kosovo we went in without U.N approval. Let's say NATO didn't have a majority either. Should we have gone in still ? I think so. We have the power to end the suffering we should. We should have gone into Rwanda too regardless of what Kofi wanted.
I'd agree other than your analysis on Kofi's marriage. And that's the exact reason the U.N is dead. It was dead long before this. When a world body that some are so eager to cast their fate to allows genocide in Rwanda, Kosovo and Iraq and do nothing but writing a scathing letter, I'd say it has and should become irrelavent. When they turned into a debate club instead of backing that debate and mandates they sealed their fate. We of course will be blamed for their demise even though hundreds of thousands of dead were overlooked by Kofi and co. Yesterday I think was the official un-official end of it.
BINGO!
LOL.
From the A.P.
Allies ? Of whom ?
Don't know Bill, His troops know the way to Kuwait, they were there once. I think he's stupid to put troops right at the gate though. It's failry open terrain.
Bill,
From what I've read, Hussein really believes that the UN and most namely France and Russia will somehow stop action from being taken. They don't call him Sodumb for no reason.