Preserved Topic: census: should the USA attack Iraq (Page 3 of 3)

i havnt seen it, is it like a really pro-america patriotic movie? i hate those.
Pearl Habour would have to be the worst movie ever made

*Insert your god(s) here* forbid they make a movie based on history.

Yeah, those pro-australian films really get on my nerves, too...

Just kiddin.

Well, apart from the untrue parts...the movie wasn't all that bad...though I don't see how a film on Pearl Harbor can really be pro-american...we got caught with our pants down.

But we are getting off the topic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_105

No problem! This thread is now completely unnecessary because "Saddam Hussein told the United Nations in a speech read Thursday by his foreign minister that Iraq is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

That's settles it we can all stop worrying now.

Bugs: Is that a hint of sarcasm there!!

Saddam's offer is just the next move in the game (and one I think most people were expecting) - it all depends on how the US (and the UK as number one ally) play it from here.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Iraq: "You cannot prove we have these weapons."

US: "Prove you don't."

yep.

Emps, sarcasm??? Me??? Be serious

I am far more concerned about the UN than I am Iraq. The Iraq situation will be dealt with one way or the other. What really bothers me is that a letter like the one in the article is met with enthusiastic applause from the UN assembly. I am just about ready to stop calling it the United Nations and begin a small protest and from now on refer to it as the United Governments. Do you get my point?

genis pretty much sums it up

-^^-
--::--
\___/

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 09-23-2002).]

Bugs, well of course it is the United Governments.
National boundaries are only defined by those powers which control their fate.

The UN isn't really anything more than a forum for governmental sabre-rattling.
This international court is no more relevant than a court without a bailiff or officer.

Iraq has already proven its 16 or so judgments or resolutions placed upon them mean nothing if someone doesn't force them to comply.

Once a man is sentenced in a courtroom who is to stop him from saying, "fuck that. I'm outie."
Well the guy with gun of course. Be that the bailiff, the sheriff, or a real citizen.

Guess who is the bailiff of the UN?
Well that'd be US of course. The #1 super power.

Our forefathers knew we needed checks and balances and so too does the international scene.
And Saddam has been writing checks his body can't cash. (Top Gun)

Great, The US has just been likened to the UN's Bouncer. Which we were until we decided the UN wasn't doing its job. The UN no longer serves its purpose, if it ever did. Perhapr it should be known as Unity Nullified. There is no common goal within the UN anymore. If membership to the UN was based on the acceptance of the long term goals and precepts set out at the UN's instigation things would be different. There wouldn't be this petty squabbling over what should/shouldn't be done. At this point I don't think the US gains anything from being a member of the UN.

Why we're waiting for the UN to agree with our terms is beyond my understanding. There's no reason for it. If we do it on our own it'll be our fault and people will blame us. If we push the UN into agreeing with us it will be our fault and people will blame us. If the UN out and out agrees with us, we'll still be the strong man and thus it will be our fault and people will blame us. We aren't and shouldn't be worried about people's viewpoints, we're the Top Dog. We don't need the UN and its bureaucratic BS. As Genis said, sanctions mean nothing if action isn't taken to enforce them.

This should have been settled years ago at the first infringement on the rules placed on Iraq. What we need to do is stop sending in 6 weapons inspectors at a time to this place or that place. Send in 6,000 weapon inspectors to look at every location we want to examine. Put an end to this shuffling of feet and transfer of materials. It's ridiculous the things that have been allowed to slide. It needs to happen and it needs to happen now. Saddam has used weapons of mass extinction in the past and will do so again, given the chance. He has also stated that he wants to destroy America. This is a simple matter of National Defense. While I agree with how things have gone so far, I would like to see it follow the forms and structures that are in place for these actions we want to take. A Formal Declaration of War, for instance. That would at least remove the BS surrounding prisoners that are taken(if any).

The UN refuses to take action, so we will. They've left us no choice.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

*sigh*

quote:

---

We aren't and shouldn't be worried about people's viewpoints, we're the Top Dog. We don't need the UN and its bureaucratic BS.

---

WTF??

You know, it's because we are 'Top Dog' (as you put it) that we need to be specifically careful as to our actions...because all are watching. And we don't want to give the impression that we are particularly hungry as Warmongers...this sends a rather bad signal to the rest of the world. Try putting yourself in other countries shoes for a minute...and picture in your mind how you would react to such a message. Also, just blatantly ignoring the UN is also a bad idea...it just gives precedence for others to do the same...and puts us in the same boat as Iraq.

Though I can understand the fustration...and though I do have some concerns about the worth of upholding the UN resolutions, I don't feel that totally ignoring the Un is appropriate, or in our best interests. One has to keep in mind that in the 60s and 70s the US had exactly this problem with the UN, and it brought nothing but problems...the UN gives the US many advantages...and, of course, some disadvantages.

Like it or not, the world is globally linked, today moreso than ever before. It is imperative that the world have an international forum to help 'iron out' problems...even when it doesn't always work. Otherwise, the alternative is posturing, threats, and downright war...

And once again, we are getting further and further away from the original thread...

The sooner there is one government on this earth, the sooner their will be world peace. Who would one government fight? How would there be wars if there was only one government? I say we kill them all.



-^^-
--::--
\___/

My reasons for citing the UN's negligence in my last post were to support my belief that we should attack Iraq. long winded perhaps but not the intended focus of the post. The specific point of support was that this should have been done at the first infringement of the UN sanctions against Iraq. It wasn't off topic. It was just justification for my statements.

If a 'Yes' or 'No' was all that was wanted... fine. Yes, I think the US should attack Iraq. I just thought that people might want to discuss the reasons to do so or not. The fact that this would have been done long ago had the UN been enforcing its sanctions is a valid point.

The UN never enforces its sanctions, just look at the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Think about an organization that is supposed to bring about a greater good for the world when it has a country like Syria on the Security Council and a country like Sudan on the Human Rights committee. That speaks volumes about some of the fundamental problems of the organization.

...and there's another country in the UN. It's on the Security Council.
It's the only country to ever be 'convicted' by the International Court of Justice (the so-called "World Court") for unlawful aggression. When instructed to cease the unlawful aggression it ignored the World Court, and increased the aggression. It also vetoed a resolution calling for, in very general terms, "all nations to observe international law".
Being on the Security Council, it also has been the sole veto'er of various proposed resolutions more than all other vetos of all other Security Council members combined.
It continues to supply weapons (even so-called weapons of mass destruction) to countries that refuse to follow UN resolutions -- countries that practice torture, collective punishment and terrorism.

You're all right. The UN is a worthless, corrupt, powerless entity.
Why in the world would the US ever want to be a part of such an organization?

When asked point blank the other night on CNN's Crossfire what new evidence has come forward to suggest Iraq has become a greater danger then last January, that we can't wait until next January or even after after the mid-term elections to intervene, a Republican Senator admitted that he didn't know. He did assure everyone though that Pres. Bush does have evidence, no one outside of his circle has seen it though.

That pretty much sums up the entire Bush II administration. Plenty of evdience to go around. It just so happens no one has ever seen it.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, the reason much of that evidence cannot be publicized is because doing so would mean the immediate death sentence for many of the sources of that information. I understand it seems too convenient for Bush/Blair to keep much of it under wraps and I'm not saying that they don't play the propoganda game to some degree, but I wanted to make sure you knew one of the legitimate reasons for witholding that type of information from public consumption.

mobrul, being convicted by the 'World Court' does not automatically mean much. On what possible grounds can we say that it should have the final word in world affairs? Who sits on that court? What kinds of political corruption guide it? There is no such thing as a perfect authority and there *never* will be on this earth. The best we can hope for is organizations that do the right thing most of the time to remain dominant on the world scene. America, with all it's problems, stands above Syria and Sudan in that regard.

For some, what's "legal" is the highest form of morality. For others, what's "right" is. Ghandi did not do what was "legal", nor did Rosa Parks but they both did "right".

I'm not saying we always do "right" but that should be the standard for our actions and not necessarily following the dictums of some "world organization" that only knows what is "legal" without regard to "right".

legal?
right?
Even a very hawk-ish U.S. congress did not call the Contras in Nicaragua "right".

You ask, "On what possible grounds can we say that it should have the final word in world affairs?"
Well, very shortly before the World Court judgement I mentioned, the U.S. openly praised the court for ruling in the US's favor with regards to the Iran hostage crisis.
And shortly after the ruling I mentioned, the U.S. again praised the World Court and the General Assembly for its actions and decisions regarding the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and in Cambodia.
So it seems, at the time, the US was very happy with the court as a body of justice...until, that is, it ruled against torturing children, assassinating priests, raping nuns and 'disappearing' civilians in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

But, I suppose, that is the difference between 'legal' and 'right'.

[Rereading this, I notice it seems kinda harsh. Well, it is harsh.
Please don't take anything personally.
Do I write passionately? Yes.
Do I write to attack personally? No.
I hope you (Bugs, and anyone else) understand.]

Sorry Bugimus, that just isn't a good enough excuse for me. It's one thing to not be able to come public with specific sources, but it's a complete other to leave both Congress and the United Nations in the dark. If Saddam is as dangerous as the Bush administration is leading on, the evidence they present will only help in furthering a global effort to remove Saddam from power as well as give Bush the green light by both Congress and the citizens of the United States to invade. Bush maintains that this isn't about oil, which Iraq has, or elections, which are coming up. He insists its about protecting the United States. Well if thats thats the case maybe he needs to understand that there are going to be casualties in any war and as POTUS he has loyalty to the citizens of the United States, not a spy in Iraq.

Bush withholding evidence from the world is only limiting the support he's getting. When serious talk is being given to assassination attempts and sending in ground troops, the more help we can get the better.

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 09-25-2002).]

Why does there need to be 'new' evidence to support an attack on iraq? Saddam has publicly declared that he will attack and destroy the US. Isn't that evidence enough? Whether he makes his weapons or buys them, or pays a group to attack us or does it himself, he's proven himself to be a ruthless leader and willing to use chemical, biological, and mass destructive weapons. He probably has everything he needs to attack us or organize an attack against us.

This isn't an issue of proving that we should attack them now. It's an issue of trying to justify why we didn't attack them before. With everything that has happened because of the WTC disaster there may finally be enough support in congress to do what should have been done long ago, declare war on Iraq. Think about it, there may not be any more evidence to divulge nor any need to divulge it, the existing evidence is enough.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Whats to think about? He hasn't attacked us.



-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, please don't take this the wrong way but how much history have you read?

[edit]
It wouldn't have been good to leave it like that... what I mean is that if you wait for aggressors to make a move, they won't disappoint you. Hitler is an overused example but still a very good one. But you don't even need to go back that far.

Hussein attacked Iran. After that war, he attacked Kuwait. What makes you think he's done? In other words, I think the burden of proof should be more on your side to explain how someone like Hussein will be the first aggressor in human history to just decide to be nice one day.

Perhaps I'm just asking you to give a lesson from history that supports your proposal of wait an see.
[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-26-2002).]

Heh.

quote:

---

...explain how someone like Hussein will be the first aggressor in human history to just decide to be nice one day.

---

*Chuckles*

Man, Bugs, that was good...

Actually, you've got a good point there. Putting aside all the other reasons Mr. Bush has for what he is trying to get us into, that point is one that rings soundly.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm against war. I know what it is like, and it's just not a nice thing. Period. That aside, I do think that maybe the question of Iraq should be solved. Quite clearly, the UN resolutions (and all the 'embargos' against Iraq are just punishing the people, and not Saddam) are not having the desired result (and are largely just being ignored...or 'played' around with).

I also don't think (and according to my sources) that Saddam currently has the ability to really be a threat to the US. However, that could change, and very quickly. That he has real reasons to want to hurt the US, and as badly as possible, should be clear to any and everyone. Removing him would erase any future threat from him, that is clear. It would probably also be better for the people of Iraq, in the long run.

Now, whether or not Saddam has direct ties to Al-Quida is not clear to me. That said, it would be better to make absolutely certain that he cannot give such an organization any weapons of mass destruction...esp. not nuclear ones. And the only way to guarantee that is by removing him.

So to answer the threads original question, though I am against war, I see no other real alternative than to remove Saddam from power.

And I hate the idea that Mr. Bush is leading the charge...I know for certain that I will vote against him in the upcoming elections...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-26-2002).]

quote

"For some, what's "legal" is the highest form of morality. For others, what's "right" is. Ghandi did not do what was "legal", nor did Rosa Parks but they both did "right"."

Not sure how to do that line thing, but ahh. Yea. Thats a good quote. I like.

Also, um yea. I am pretty sure everyone already knows this, but about 80% of Americans do not support the views of our Government.
We just support America and its general views.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Bugimus - So let me get this straight. The overwhelming evidence that your presenting is that Iraq has invaded both Iran and Kuwait, so clearly we're next? C'mon Bugimus maybe you should catch up on your own history. Does Saddam Hussein hate us? With a good majority of the world, of course. That isn't an indication that he's about to nuke us. Generally nations who have become nuclear haven't used this new found weapon to conquer the world as the Bush Administration would like us to believe. In fact it's been used for peace. As Pat Buchanan points out, what makes Saddam so evil is that he's used weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Of course gas attacks against the Kurds fails in comparassion to dropping two atom bombs, killing 140,000 Japanese. Am I mistaken in Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy stockpiling H-bombs and putting them on 15 minute alerts to drop on the Soviet Union if they coughed? Throughout WWII did we not out stockpile Germany in poisonous gas?

So where does that leave us now? The likelihood of Saddam even having nuclear weapons is slim to none. The likelihood of Saddam ever using them against the United States is almost non-existent. This entire war comes back to what people have been saying since Bush was elected. Oil and finishing his fathers work.

-Jestah
Cell 277

*Butts in...sorry Bugs*

Jestah, I don't think it is a question of Saddam 'nuking' the US...or anything else, directly. That is, namely, as far as I know (and as far as my sources are saying), not possible at the moment. However, it is possible, that Saddam could give an organization weapons of Mass Destruction, to use against the US. Such a threat as that cannot go ignored...I think the rammifications of 9-11 have showed what can happen when we let our guard down...and there are organizations that would just love to take a shot at us...and Saddam would like to, as well, esp. if he thought that he could get away with it...

Who wouldn't?

That logic just astounds me.

Why would a man who sleeps in a different bed every night, and is reported to have three doubles, risk giving nuclear weapons to a terrorist group only so it can come about that Saddam has given the nukes or other weapons of mass destruction out? Not to mention the fact that there are several countries who are nuclear and dislike us, just as much as Iraq. So does that mean it's only necessary that we burn each country to the ground and occupy them, just like we're planning to do with Iraq? In some opinions a very strong yes and I just think thats absurd. If the Bush administration took more insentive not to piss off everyone, we wouldn't need to worry about so many countries disliking us.

-Jestah
Cell 277

quote:

---

If the Bush administration took more insentive not to piss off everyone, we wouldn't need to worry about so many countries disliking us.

---

That would work Jestah if they weren't already pissed off at us. The fact is that they are pissed off at us and want retribution. They have taken retributive actions against the US and will continue to do so.

I mentioned this once before in an above post but the other nuclear nations understand the responsibility of having nuclear weapons. They care about how they are treated and used. Can you say the same about Saddam? He has proven that killing tons of people isn't an issue for him. He's proven that he doesn't really care what the consequences are for causing so many deaths. Sounds like someone that I don't want in a position to attack the US or supply those who can.

So far as I know there aren't any plans to 'occupy' Iraq. We want to change the leadership. You know, put somebody a little more stable in power. Someone who doesn't kill their own family to make sure that he stays on the throne.

If Saddam think even half like the Al Qaeda do then war is the correct course of action.

Check this out Al Quaeda Training Manual.

Now tell me that these are people that can be reasoned with. They are trained to give no quarter and to never give up unto their dying breath. Their ultimate goal is to throw off the yoke of western influence and then after that to utterly destroy the US. Even if Saddam isn't like the Al Qaeda he is harboring them and he has the ability and motive to arm them.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 09-27-2002).]

Well Jestah, you do have a point...that violence just spawns violence. That is true. Al Queda used violence, and it is spawning more. So did Saddam. I'm sure that a war in Iraq will spawn more, as well.

However, in the wake of 9-11, we have learned that with current technology, nobody is really safe, anymore. Someone with the will, can attack anybody, anywhere. They just need the will to do it, and the people to follow (and money, for training and weapons).

So let's take a look at the big picture...

After WWII, we had the cold war...which spawned all kinda of 'hot spots' in the so-called third world countries around the Globe. At that time, as the 'Big boys on the block' were positioning for a more 'favorable' position, many of these countries were used to 'duke it out' so to speak. Of course, this spawned a lot of enmimity against both the west, and east. Well, the east fell (they still exist, but lost, for all means and purposes). That means that the west is the only 'target' left to really express the hate and disgust that was spawned (and the east is still dealing with countries within their old borders that feel this way, too).

The west was relieved that it was finally over (though the 'old guard' wasn't). As the west struggled to re-align their goals and national interests in a post-cold war ara, others used this time to get mobilized. Then came Iraq...well, actually it came close before the 'end' of the cold war...and so was 'ignored' by the world as a whole (there was bigger fish to be concerned about). Iran paid a heavy price for that war. Nobody cared. Then came the russian invasion of Afghanistan, which reduced that country to shambles...and we supported the 'defenders'...well, kinda. Then came the Iran hostage situation...our first 'clue' that all was not good and well in those 'third-world' countries...we basically 'ignored' that threat...and let it build, take shape, until it is what it is today. In fact, we probably 'fueled' the fires...

Then came the 'second' Gulf war (we arrogantly call it the 'first'...beginning to get the picture here?). Then came 9-11...'seemingly' out of nowhere...but the seeds and signs were there...we just totally ignored them (they are no real threat...the USSR and China are, so the thinking of the 'old guard'). Well, they proved that wrong, didn't they? They are a threat, a real one. We are just 'waking up' to the fact that the cold war 'spawned' a real hatred of the 'victors' of the cold war...and their willingness to express that.

So, an adjustment to the post-cold war mentality. No 'golden ara' yet...instead, a 'cleaning up' of the 'problems' that the cold war instigated. We still have no real 'direction' in this post-cold war ara...

I'm pretty sure there is more coming...it seems that the world is moving towards...something. What that is, I'm not sure. What I am sure of, is that Mr. Bush is most likely not the right person to have in power at this time...but he is, and that is something we have to deal with.

The question is, how do we wish to deal with all these 'problems' left over from the cold war? Do we wish to make peace, or war? What is the best course of action? Is it even possible to make peace anymore? With Mr. Bush in power, I think not. Peace means dialogs being opened and ways being found to 'disfuse' the tensions, hatreds and animosities. Not shaking a big stick and saying 'Be nice, or else...'. To be on top, is to be scrutinized by all, every action under suspicion and distrust. Even doing nothing has a price. We need to decide on what our role is, and how we wish to present ourselves in this 'new' ara...

Mr. Bush seems to think that 'cleaning up' these problems can be solved militarily...I think that will span just more violence, mistrust, hatred. However, the case of Iraq is...tricky. We ignored the 'threat' of Iran...and they used that time to 'build' their networks, and to spread their propaganda...and we are reaping that now. We ignored the plight of the Palestinians...and still do. And then there is still Libya. Mr. Quadafi has reasons to hate us, as well. He's been remarkably silent in the 'Modern ara'...what is he planning?

Now, if it was possible to 'reason' our way out of this...then that is the path I would suggest. I don't think that we can reason with a man like Saddam...not only has he attacked his neighbors twice, but he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people...I don't think that he would hesitate to do the same to us if he thought he could get away with it!. 9-11 showed that it is possible. Bin Laden still exists, Al Queda also. Who knows what other 'organisations' are out there, waiting, planning...for the'right' moment and the 'right' weapons to fall into their hands...with nuclear weapons, the control factor is a bit easier...but biological? Imagine the death toll of a bilogical agent in downtown Los Angeles...or in the water supply...or whatever. So how do we protect ourselves from such a threat? A real threat, mind you...

At this point, I'm not sure...and I'm sure that goes for most of the west at this point in time...

Do we risk more, by removing Saddam? or do we risk more, by not removing him...

Only history shows us that waiting is most of the time a bad idea. Hitler comes to mind...

Therefore, though it sickens me to my bones, removing Saddam may be necessary. I really don't wish to take the chance of leaving him in power, only to wake up one morning with the report on the news that an atomic bomb has been exploded somewhere on our territory by a terror organisation...do you?

A choice between two evils...*sigh* This is what we are left with...do it now, or wait for a possible situation like I just suggested...

And believe me, the threat is real...more than ever. The 'cat is out of the bag' so to speak. With the fall of the USSR, nuclear material is easier than ever to become...and nuclear material is easier then ever to produce. Just takes a Madman to wish to use it...or very strong hatreds...and the chance of getting away with it. We won't even discuss the biological, chemical, element, because it's almost a childhoods game to produce them...one just needs someone either crazy enough, or convinced enough to use them. And 9-11 has proved that such exists...they exist now. They are more than willing to use them, if they can get them. Where shall they get them? That is the question...if we ignore this, it will surely happen. If we don't, it may happen anyway. It could be that we will drive more to actually do this, with action. But to do nothing...that is surely wrong.

So what do we do? Answer this in good 'faith'...

Here is a bit of 'side' information...in the past couple of years (I don't know if it actually made it's way into the American media...), the German border patrols have siezed weapon grade uranium 3 times...the last time a few days ago. In each case, the uranium was enough to make a 'dirty' bomb...all was from the USSR.

I don't even want to think about how much may have made it through...or gone through other routes...

So the threat is very real...and people are trying it...

Wherever there is enough money, and desire...there is usually a way. And since the US is a main target...if it happens, it will be there, most probably. Scary thought....isn't it?

WS - You make plenty of valid points. For the record I'm not against going into Iraq, I'm against going into Iraq uninformated. Theres a rather large difference between a dirty bomb and an actual nuclear weapon. Most expererts believe a dirty bomb will do little more then cause panic. Theres also a huge difference between being idle while Hitler invaded countries and being idle while Saddam is rumored to be mounting a nuclear weapon against the United States. Saddam hasn't shown aggression towards the United States, and has little insentive to do so. Rather then Bush getting up in front of the camera's and threaten the latest 'axis of evil' we need to gather more information and figure out whats going on. Rumors aren't enough for me to place my trust in an assassination attempt and rumors is about all we have.

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, does attempting to assasinate Bush (Dubya's dad) count as agression towards the U.S. because that really happened. Or do you just see that as 'something personal'?

[edit] Oh, and WS those are all very good points. We may not agree about God but it seems our geopolitical views are pretty darn close. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 09-30-2002).]

Bugimus - That depends. Do you honestly consider the security of the United States to be in jeopardy of a nuclear attack because of a 1993 car boming in Iraq?

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 09-30-2002).]

Well, not if that were the only fact we were dealing with. Keep in mind that this guy has a track record. His MO is pretty clear. You should read Tony Blair's dossier.

Also consider why we do nothing when other people all around the world slaughter each other in civil wars. Ruwanda is a good example, the fighting between the Hutus and the Tootsies was horrendous but in the words of C*****n's former campaign advisor, Dick Morris, Americans wouldn't support intervention for African blacks like we would for white Northern Europeans in Bosnia. Sickening but true. But the point being that Hussein has turned his aggression outward and that is a huge step up in threatening what we like to maintain which is stability.

Personally, I would consider taking action against Iraq to be justified if we could stave off the deaths of thousands of Isrealis. Remember how may scuds he shot at them during the Gulf War.

But there is another angle to this and that is if he gets real nukes with minimum range capability, he doesn't need to be able to hit the continental US to be able to keep us from doing anything. Can you imagine what we would be facing if we were talking about invading a country that we knew had tactical nukes??? Do you have any idea how many soldiers we would lose in a situation like that?

I actually heard a US congressman respond to that possibility with saying we would just nuke Iraq because we have more. I won't even tell you his name because of his utter brainlessness. We would never nuke Iraq as a first strike which is all we would have left as an option in a case like that. So we would be effectively blackmailed in that situation and it would be too late to do much even if he wanted to retake Kuwait. Because we probably wouldn't risk a war at that point because the stakes would be too high.

So, in other words, there are plenty of reasons to act against him now before he gets these weapons. We already know for a fact he has chemical weapons and we are 99% sure he has small pox and other biological agents. We also know he has had contact with Al Qaeda. He's worked real hard to conceal it but he would love any way to "get back" at us for what we did to him.

Now why is it incredibly good for us that Bush and Blair, and now Berlusconi, are saber rattling? Precisely because Hussein understands action backed up with force. Read up on his upbringing to get an understanding of where he is coming from on that. Anyway, the only way the UN inspectors have any chance of getting back in and avoiding an actual attack is if Hussein thinks his only choice is to allow them unfettered access. He will *never* do it unless he is forced to. And it's unlikely he'll do it even with the threat of attack but at least that has the best chance.

WS, I was thinking about the phrase, "violence only begets violence". I don't agree with that at all. The use of violence has brought about all sorts of tremendous good. Several terrible regimes have been defeated with violence. We live in a world governed by the use of force... might makes right is the actual way of the world. That's a fact and it will never change. That is why I support some use of violence when you have less bad forces opposing worse bad forces. I see it as necessary to maintain a higher ratio of order over chaos. (order being preferable to chaos)

Well Bugs (yes, though we do have very different beliefs, it is somewhat surprising that we 'agree' on many fronts...) this

quote:

---

WS, I was thinking about the phrase, "violence only begets violence". I don't agree with that at all. The use of violence has brought about all sorts of tremendous good. Several terrible regimes have been defeated with violence. We live in a world governed by the use of force... might makes right is the actual way of the world. That's a fact and it will never change. That is why I support some use of violence when you have less bad forces opposing worse bad forces. I see it as necessary to maintain a higher ratio of order over chaos. (order being preferable to chaos)

---

I think you need to think a little more about "violence only begets violence". Because it is true. All those 'terrible regimes' have come out of violence. Hitler 'rose' from the ashes of WWI, and wasn't taken all that seriously by the rest of the world until it was too late. Cambodia...well, the Vietnam war comes to mind...doesn't it? We don't even need to talk about Africa...all products of the Cold War (and, of course, hostilities from the Zulu Empire days...).

Violence is a last resort in my book. There are few exceptions to this rule. Stopping a 'Madman' before he can do more damage is, for me, an acceptable reason to use force. However, one must be prepared for the consequences. Violence breeds violence, always...I need only to bring up the Isreali/Palestinian conflict (which is very, very old, now, isn't it?) as proof of this...

That's also why it is known under the name of 'The Circle of Violence'...

This is getting kinda long...so continued here