Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.

It does seem to be a grey area as to whether attacking Iraq without UN approval is against international law. Rightly or wrongly, it will be interesting to see whether Bush and Blair are tried for international war crimes.

Ironically I think Bin Laden and Saddam are close to achieving their objectives in starting a holly war and destroying the UN respectively, with Bush and Blair having helped them to achieve it.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>

This is going exactly to plan for both Bin Laden and Bush interestingly enough.

Bin Laden will have achieved the arrival of more recruits.

He will have achieved the tumbling of a secular regime in Iraq, replaced by a period of chaotic opportunity (for himself).

He will have achieved a greater crisis in Palestine, which fuels all of this -- only solving that solves international terror, not bombing a country Bin Laden thinks of as "infidel."

Bush (OK, Wolfowitz, because Dubya doesn't have a clue) will have achieved the end of a common foreign policy from the EU.

The US will have set the precedent for pre-emptive military action in support of "US interests" launched outside of international consensus.

They'll get to use their MOAB!!! Kew-el, eh Donald?

Astonishing how short-sighted Wolfowitz et al are. Gob-smackingly stupid.

Because obviously the lack of UN support = unilateral action.

In that case, the actions in the Balkans and Somalia were initially 'unilateral' too. Didn't seem to end Clinton's career... Hmm, how man countries has Bush inserted troops into in his first two years of office? What about Clinton? How many were backed by the UN? Yeah, that's right. :rolleyes:

Selective memories...

And in 1998, Clinton ordered missile strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. And also on Baghdad, Iraq. Why did he launch missiles into the Iraqi capitol without UN approval? Well you can take either explanation.

1) The Wag the Dog / Monica Theory.
2) Iraq didn't meet weapons inspections deadlines.

Gee, at least they had deadlines back then.

So we're asking for a deadline and the US haven't even touched Iraq yet this time around. Why's Bush such a bad man again? Relatively speaking, he's a saint!

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>

When I grow up... I want to be George Will...

It is a measure of the intellectual vertigo into which the U.N. has plunged "the international community" that America, which is going to war to enforce Resolution 1441, is said to be doing so "in defiance of the U.N." The war will be followed by a presidential election in which all candidates must answer this: "Do you believe that any use of U.S. military power lacks legitimacy unless approved by France, Russia and China?" The Republican candidate has already answered.

Hahahah he makes things so clear sometimes. I'm sure the Democratic candidates will win election as Tonton suggests by telling Americans they are better off being dictated to by leaders from abroad.

Nick

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>
Just one more quick note...isn't it great that the three biggest imperialists in the history of the world (Spain, Portugal, and England) are the only ones backing us up?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Biggest? What about France and Holland? Not to mention neoemerpialists like Russia and China?

You mean this paragraph?

[quote] If the US goes to war against the clear resolve of the rest of the world, it will mean the end of Bush's career (and a possible impeachment), the end of Powell's, Blair's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's careers, a significant increase in terrorism, further devastation of the US and world economies, many, many deaths of Americans in terrorist attacks on US and foreign soil, a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development, ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war, perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel and a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level. <hr></blockquote>

In summary, he says we should not go to war because:

1. It will be the end of Bush's career...possible impeachement.
--What? The end to Bush's career will only happen if the economy is still bad in 2004. Impeachement? Not quite. He has a clear cut congressional resolution on his side. It authorizes the President to use all means at his disposal, including military force to deal with Iraq...as he deems necessary.

2. It might end Blair's career, but not the others. The whole reason the most recent vote was delayed was to help Mr. Blair.

3. Terrorism increase.
--There is no evidence that this is true. We were targeted before, and we will be targeted again. 9/11 was unprovoked. If Al-Qaeda is willing to murder without provocation anyway, attacking Iraq will not change anything.

4. "Further devastation to US and world economy".
--First, we are in the middle of a global economic slowdown, this much is true. But the US economy is still growing by about 2% per year. That's not great, but it isn't "devastated" as you say. Second, there is no evidence you are correct. I for one believe a quick and successful war will help the economy tremendously. There is one hell of a lot of cash in money market funds and savings out there right now that is begging to be invested in the markets. The price of oil will drop...it has already started as a matter of fact. War jitters will disappear and the natural business cycle will take over. Mark my words.

5. "a strengthening of North Korea's argument for nuclear development"
--WHAT? Why? That doesn't even make sense. It is not connected to the Iraq situation.

6. "ejection of the US from Afghanistan leaving that country to revert to a system of oppressive governance and/or anarchic civil war,"
--HUH? Who is going to eject us? Are you even aware of how much that country has changed in the last year? there is no basis for that statement whatsoever.

7. "perhaps even a nuclear or biological attack against Israel"

--A possibility. But whose fault will that be? And, I assume you mean that Iraq in particular will be the aggressor? Oh wait, I thought Saddam didn't have any of those WMD, because inspections are "working"? Does he have them or not? Will he use them or not? Are you actually saying that if he uses his illegal weapons then WE will be responsible for it? Ok...I see...no, wait. I thought he wasn;t really a threat? It seems you are arguing to just let him be. After all, that way he won't be a threat. Please. HE IS A THREAT, he will CONTINUE to be a threat unless stopped.

8. "...a precedent for raising Israel's genocide of Palestinians to an entirely new level".

--Wow. Talk about showing your true colors. Now, I am not the biggest Sharon supporter, but Israel is surrounded by people that literally want to push it into the sea. They have people walking into shopping malls, bus stops and open markets that blow themselves up in the name of Allah. These attacks come from within their sovereign territory. They do not target civilians. Yes, civilians die. But "genocide"??. The group trying to practice genocide is the PLO and company. They just don't have enough resources to do it. While I am no fan of the "in again, out again" military policy they have developed under Sharon, they are not comitting genocide.

In summary, his statments are wholly unsupportable. There will be nothing unilateral about this. I challenge even ONE person here to show me how we will be acting unilaterally. We will have the support of quite few nations. That means it is not unilateral. Go look up the definition.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

Biggest? What about France and Holland? Not to mention neoemerpialists like Russia and China?</strong><hr></blockquote>

France and Holland don't come close to England, Spain, or Portugal...nor do China or Russia. Open a history book, will ya?

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>The second part of the above question puzzles me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, it puzzles you because it is intellectual honesty coming from a fellow republican...not that democrats are intellectually honest either, but you get the point.

Ugh, a republican?

arrows through my heart...

PS, by snake, I mean only possessed of the requisite political accumen, it sounds bad, but isn't really.

The problem is that Bush/Blair created this on a grand scale and on the world's stage, playing right into Sadaam's hand.

Could the removal of Sadaam not have been achieved through the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?

Atsaright, democrats often confues me with a republican and vice versa.

Matsu:

A Democrat is a Republican leaning a tiny bit left and minus the spine.

Does that make a Republican a Democrat leaning a tiny bit to the right minus the Heart?

;)

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>
France and Holland don't come close to England, Spain, or Portugal...nor do China or Russia. Open a history book, will ya?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Russia doesn't come close? Open a geography book, will ya?

[quote]Originally posted by satchmo:
<strong>The problem is that Bush/Blair created this on a grand scale and on the world's stage, playing right into Sadaam's hand.

Could the removal of Sadaam not have been achieved through the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?</strong><hr></blockquote>

After reading through all of these posts, and having been influenced in life through the Military (NAVY for many years), I think this last statement ("the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?") makes the most sense to me. After-all, we are trying to tupple the "Man" here, not the "Nation"
With him gone, such is his empire and followers.
Mark "My" words ... ;)

I used to be an Independent. Then I moved to a city that had eight Democrats for every one Republican. So I registered Republican just to spite the boneheads that run this town. Philosphically, I'm well to the right of the kind of Republicans we have in this state.

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>
Oooh...a vast wasteland! TREMBLE BEFORE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT RUSSIA POSSESSES! Dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Vaste wasteland or no, just before it's breakup the Soviet Union was also the third most populous country in the world. This, of course, doesn't take into account the populations of Eastern Europe which can also be said to have been a part of the the Soviet Empire. Dumbass.

[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>
I don't believe in either political party. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Trust me, they both exist. They're not figments of your immagination.

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>I notice that you forget to include China. Be careful, or may be opening yourself to accusations of hypocrisy (slavish following of party line at expense of facts and all that.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.

When one can't argue with the logic, they nitpick a detail. :rolleyes:

[quote]<strong>Most nations certainly are opposed to the the war: or certainly, their citizens are. Like the Spanish. And these 'waverers' on the Security Council are only 'wavering' because, although their citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to action, these nations have a) have been promised all sorts of trade and aid benefits in the last three weeks or so of negotiations as 'inducements' to vote, but b) see no reason why they should put themselves in domestic political trouble in agreeing to vote as the Americans and British are asking them when France and Russia will use their vetoes anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you will dismiss the pro-war sentiment as tainted by accept the anti-war sentiment as acceptable? Laughable.

What nations have we paid off? I'm curious.

And since when do protests determine policy? I'd hate to live in the world you seem to be advocating.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
well, you've been bombing every day for several weeks now...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Must be those invisible bombs, effectless bombs. Don't worry, the bombs will be dropping soone enough.

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
Most nations certainly are opposed to the the war: or certainly, their citizens are. Like the Spanish. And these 'waverers' on the Security Council are only 'wavering' because, although their citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to action, these nations have a) have been promised all sorts of trade and aid benefits in the last three weeks or so of negotiations as 'inducements' to vote, but b) see no reason why they should put themselves in domestic political trouble in agreeing to vote as the Americans and British are asking them when France and Russia will use their vetoes anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>Bosnia was not wrong even if it didnt get UN approval. And there are several people I would kill in a heartbeat even if I would get convicted for murder and most of the rest of the world would see it as a wrong act.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, now detail the reasons why US military action in the Balkans was legitimate.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>

?4??iginally posted by thegelding:
<strong>
Taking a brain vacation
</strong>[/QUOTE]

I think that we need both a brain vacation, in fact everybody need them from time to time :D

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.

When one can't argue with the logic [snip].
.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.

The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

What nations have we paid off? I'm curious.

And since when do protests determine policy? I'd hate to live in the world you seem to be advocating</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.

2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.

3) I'm not "advocating" any kind of world. I'm arguing with you, because I believe your position is wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

hahaha

Can you name any military action that *wasn't* "unilateral"? How about a Security Council resolution that *wasn't* "unilateral"?

Christ, bunge, you're a riot.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ha. He is indeed.

[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>

Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"

You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps we bomb them because they target our aircraft? Hmmm.

[quote]The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. <hr></blockquote>

That's for a variety of reasons, mostly their support in the war on Al Queda. Musharraf's govt has put a lot on the line in their support for the war on terrorism. And they could use all the propping up that they can get, pseudo-dictatorship or not. Especially when you consider that they have nukes. Pakistan has an immense capacity to mess things up bigtime- perhaps more so than any other country in the world- for US, for the West, for India, for Afghanistan etc.

Unfortunately the Bush administration ****ed them in the first textiles "negotiations" so that Bush didn't have to lose a few voters in the Carolinas textiles industries. :rolleyes:

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

Trust me, they both exist. They're not figments of your immagination.</strong><hr></blockquote>

*closes eyes really hard* NO! THEY! DON'T!

bunge:

The first Gulf War wasn't "one-sided". I'm sure Iraq thought it was. :rolleyes:

If you can find the UN resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan that would be fantastic.

:rolleyes:
Inform yourself.

[quote]<strong>He asked for examples, then I give them, then it's back to avoidavoidavoid.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. That's it. If you can give me a nation that we bought that is behind us now please give me an example.

--

gelding:

[quote]<strong>we tried with turkey...they didn't bite, so we removed the offer of 15 billion...sounds like an attempted pay off...if we really were worried about turkey's economy post war with iraq we would give them the 15 billion whether they let us use their country as a launch pad or not...</strong><hr></blockquote>

So are you saying we haven't bought anyone's support? Hmm.

Surely there's an example. This is a oft-repeated anti-war sentiment. I'd hate for it to be a lie.

[quote]<strong>g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I *did* think this was going to be a UN deal. And of course I support war outside the UN. I'm amazed that so many people act like war outside the UN is uncommon. Willful ignorance.

---

Hassan:

[quote]<strong>Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't include China because I didn't think about it.

And there was no implication that the rest of the world was backing the US, if you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen "Most nations are undecided,". Clear English, right there in the post.

Or maybe that is an "implication" that everyone is behind the US. :rolleyes:
Reading is FUNdamental! :)

[quote]<strong>The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

ok

[quote]<strong>
1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just asked for some examples of those who are backing us that were paid off. Thanks for not providing any examples to back your argument.

Next time you want to make a statement and condescend about it make sure you have some logic or truth to back it.

[quote]<strong>2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because you try to make the argument that the majority of the world is against the war because of some scattered protests. I think this is foolish.
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.

You guys are so ignorant. Are any of you claiming that if we take a per capita "average citizen" poll that there is support for a war?

For your information, Britain is vehemently AGAINST a war. For those of you denialists who like to use the equals sign:

Blair /= Britain

In the last two weeks the UK has shown without a doubt that they want to resolve this crisis in a diplomatic manner.

There are no polls either for this statement or against it, but the truth is clear.

As for all of the other countries, the governments of these countries may claim support for the US, but the citizens certainly do not. Again, I cannot find links to support this. If anyone can find a link against this, please post it. But once again, the general concensus is clear.

And even if governments of certain countries claim support for the US, is this not most likely because of politics and economics, and not because they think the time for war is right? The US as a bully does not look good to the world's citizens.

I'm talking about citizens. I'm talking about people. I'm talking about individuals who will see the US as villains in this matter.

The World does not want war. Period.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>

Okay... now I'm going to say something very controversial that will get more flames than anything else in this thread.

WOMD will be planted. They will. Period.

Even if some WOMD are found, more will be planted. Bush and Blair cannot take the chance of being honest here. they will not be honest here.

I do not care about opinion polls. If the world were suddenly run by opinion polls it would fall to crap.

doc:

I must not recall correctly (I was young at the time), but Bush41 didn't have an easy time convincing the world community (an oxymoron) that '91 Gulf War was the right thing to do.

tonton:

[quote]<strong>And even if governments of certain countries claim support for the US, is this not most likely because of politics and economics, and not because they think the time for war is right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Every government's stance on anything is because of politics and economics to a large extent. Are you foolish enough to believe that France's stand is based solely on ideals?

I asked who was bought off, that's all. People shouldn't be angry with me because they can't find facts to back their argument.

[quote]<strong>WOMD will be planted. They will. Period.

Even if some WOMD are found, more will be planted. Bush and Blair cannot take the chance of being honest here. they will not be honest here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What if the weapons outlined in the 173 page UN "Cluster" report are found?

You have been silent on this board on this issue for a while. I'm starting to see why.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

--

bunge:

[quote]<strong>I never said anything about turkey. I gave the recent examples of Iraq & Afghanistan for wars that had UN support.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you could find for me the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the overthrow of the Taliban that would be great. Thanks.

[quote]<strong>As for action against Afghanistan, on 9/12/2001, the U.N. reaffirmed the U.S.' right to defend herself against the perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you could point me to the UN decision for war in Afghanistan it would be greatly appreciated.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I do not care about opinion polls. If the world were suddenly run by opinion polls it would fall to crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's democracy, baby. Move to China if you don't like it.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>If you could point me to the UN decision for war in Afghanistan it would be greatly appreciated. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Read the U.N. Charter. It clearly states that a nation can respond to a military attack.

Inform yourself.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

Read the U.N. Charter. It clearly states that a nation can respond to a military attack.

Inform yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How were the events of 9/11 a military attack? Did the Taliban government launch the attack? No.

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>We already have the most popular kid in his class as President</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. We don't.

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>Groverat, sometimes it's like you've a great big turnip stuck up your arse! :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I like you now! :)

*hugs Hassan*

Let's be friends, you make tea and I'll go get some cookies...errr biscuits! :)

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
No. We don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. We do. I'm not talking about the 2000 election. He is a popular frat boy.

Geez, we can't even agree to diss the guy?

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Groverat, sometimes it's like you've a great big turnip stuck up your arse! <hr></blockquote>

Can we safely deduce from these statements that Scott's phallus is shaped like a great big turnip?

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.

:)

</strong><hr></blockquote>

But whats your excuse Hassan? We all know Saddam has a sexy mustache, but you do realize thats really his sadistic way of giving them French whores in Paris the carpet burn. You think Saddam takes much for hairy Iranian girls?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.. :)

Groverat, it seems that, unable to answer my arguments, you chosen to intentionally misread them!

:)

And where you say that the US isn't trying to convince Angola and Cameroon any more and haven't I read the news it's rather like like you've chosen to abandon logic, as if now that the US has given up on the UN the last three weeks of sordid horse-trading didn't happen. That's a slight of hand, it doesn't address my point, and if someone else came up with that you'd call them on it in a second, write something subtly bullying and then follow it up with a

:)

And if you could show me where I object to your politics because they come out of a box marked 'Republican' I'd appreciate that too!

:)

[quote]<strong>And where you say that the US isn't trying to convince Angola and Cameroon any more and haven't I read the news it's rather like like you've chosen to abandon logic, as if now that the US has given up on the UN the last three weeks of sordid horse-trading didn't happen. That's a slight of hand, it doesn't address my point, and if someone else came up with that you'd call them on it in a second, write something subtly bullying and then follow it up with a</strong><hr></blockquote>

My point was never that the US doesn't try to buy allies. My point was never that the US hasn't tried to buy allies. My point was to say that I didn't know of any current allies that were bought. I asked for clarification.

If you can show me a big aid package to Portugal that coincides with a "change of heart" in their policy then your point is made. That's all I ask. I only ask for people to back up their arguments with fact.

That's all. Just harmless lil 'ole me! :)

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>9/11 was an act of war. The US responded to that act. By the Taliban actively harboring and hiding the known instigators of that attack outright, they joined the war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So we could justify war based on missiles being shot at US planes in the no-fly zones?

We know the world's opinion on the matter.
We know the consequences of bullying and sword brandishing.
But by gone it, that boy's pissed us off an we're gonna get 'im.

Groverat thinks:

1. He is smarter than the people who disagree with him.
2. The Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats.
3. Bush is smarter than those who disagree with him.
4. The US is the smartest nation in the world.
5. Any of this matters when balanced against the importance of diplomacy.

[quote]<strong>We know the world's opinion on the matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just keep telling yourself that everyone besides Bush and some domestic war-mongering baby-killers is against the war. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]<strong>We know the consequences of bullying and sword brandishing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Peace and prosperity?

[quote]<strong>1. He is smarter than the people who disagree with him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that I know more about this situation than those who know less than I do about this situation. THT disagrees with me and he's smarter than me.

[quote]<strong>2. The Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think both parties, as a polity, are very stupid. I think the Republicans are myopic and the Democrats are spineless. That's the difference in my mind.

[quote]<strong>3. Bush is smarter than those who disagree with him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Eh... no. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]<strong>4. The US is the smartest nation in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know what that means or how one would measure such a thing. We have Al Gore, inventor of the internet. So we are very smart. I hear those Swedes are smart as well.

[quote]<strong>5. Any of this matters when balanced against the importance of diplomacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think diplomacy is good when it's not an impediment to necessary action. We musn't sacrifice a necessary end to a preferrable means.

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>Sure. Have any planes been hit? I think "armed conflict" means more than just threats.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Missiles have been fired at American planes multiple times. Success isn't a measure of whether or not something is an attack. Foolish.

[quote]<strong> And is there any proof that these attacks came from the Iraqi government and not some rogue commander? It makes a difference, you know. Or do you? Sometimes I wonder.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Rogue commander"... in Saddam Hussein's armed forces... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

It was painful to read that, tonton, I recommend you resume your silence.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>Actually it was just joke. Groverat's not really sleeping with Scott.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, but Blair is in bed with Bush. Actually, just picture it in your mind... the Blair smile... the Bush smirk.. and...

"Oh, George, you're brilliant in bed, chap."
"Thanks, Tony. You're not such a bad cowboy yourself."
"Appreciative, indeed. I always did enjoy a spot of Bush diving."

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

"Rogue commander"... in Saddam Hussein's armed forces... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

It was painful to read that, tonton, I recommend you resume your silence.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

What a compelling argument you make. Ridicule only makes you look like more of an ass. Sure, my question was faecetious, but really, shooting a missile as a threat does not constitute armed conflict. If it did, we'd be at war with NK right now, as the interception was very much a comparable act.

No one -- not Powell; not Bush; certainly not Rumsfeld; have made any argument that convinces the world that this is a "necessary action". The US has no right to decide what's necessary and what's not. That is the entire point, or have you missed it? No wonder the number one adjective used worldwide to describe Americans is "arrogant". You, Groverat, are as arrogant as Bush.

Anyway, it's all rhetorical. Within the next two days we'll start to see what the consequences of war are. Of course, many people (no doubt yourself - I bet you were fooled by the "Al Jazeera" spy photos that were actually of New Mexico ;) ) will be swayed by the planting of weapons; increased terrorism will be seen as a cause and not an effect; and the economy will somehow be blamed on Clinton.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: tonton ]</p>

jesus himself could be on the way to baghdad and it wouldn't stop what is about to go down...too much time, money, personal have been put into motion...lots of people at the ready to fight=fight...

comes down to the point now where we americans have to hope our leaders are correct and their hearts are true...

g

Well, what do Americans do if they have already proven those two questions of fact in the negative? Get arrested?

[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>any bets when this little shindig is going to kick off?
i'm betting 3:00am wed morning. any takers?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is that Eastern or Pacific time? :)

I think we'll start seeing action late tomorrow (Tuesday).

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

The people of Afghanistan attacked us? Afghanistan's army attacked us?

You've got some information you should get to the press ASAP!</strong><hr></blockquote>

You've almost got it right...but not. Too bad you can't formulate an argument. That hard-on for war must be taking all the blood from your brain. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.

gelding:

[quote]<strong>that old spineless democrat g</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're a Democrat?

[quote]<strong>g'rat, you don't really help yourself with a link showing that the economy wants war...it just further shows that Bush would want war for reasons other than to "free the iraqi people" and stop the iraqi attacks on america that we have never had...it kinda adds to the lists of possible reasons GW wants war other than the "noble reasons"...now we have as "non-noble reasons": oil, re-election and boost to a sickly economy...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually the point of that link shows that uncertainty was the problem with the stock market recently, not war. Certainty is good, with or without war.

Uncertainty was bad, certainty is good (war or no war).

tonton:

[quote]<strong>What a compelling argument you make. Ridicule only makes you look like more of an ass. Sure, my question was faecetious, but really, shooting a missile as a threat does not constitute armed conflict. If it did, we'd be at war with NK right now, as the interception was very much a comparable act.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah, shooting a missiles isn't armed conflict? So I guess it won't be armed conflict when we drop an assload of bombs on Iraq?

Could you apologize for Saddam any more without painting a mural on your wall?

I'm not saying you like Saddam, but I will say that you hate Bush more than you like reason and logic.

[quote]<strong>Anyway, it's all rhetorical. Within the next two days we'll start to see what the consequences of war are. Of course, many people (no doubt yourself - I bet you were fooled by the "Al Jazeera" spy photos that were actually of New Mexico ) will be swayed by the planting of weapons; increased terrorism will be seen as a cause and not an effect; and the economy will somehow be blamed on Clinton.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you've set yourself up to be right, any weapons found will be "planted" (I wonder if you know what the outstanding weapons issues are or are aware that all 15 Security Council member nations have stated (through relevant resolutions) that Iraq does have proscribed weapons).

This is how brainless partisan politick works. "My side is right, their side is wrong. *baaaaaaaah* *baaaaaaaaaaaah*"

The best way to avoid terrorism is by hiding. :rolleyes:

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, uh, what are you trying to say? ;)

I think containment hasn't been working for four years becasue there hasn't been real containment beyond the no-fly zone enforcement. Inspections aren't "working" in the sense that inspectors aren't supposed to be dragging out little violations here and there and pulling the Iraqi government's teeth. Inspections are supposed to confirm that Iraq's disarmament is substantial and complete. They are not there to forcefully pull the info from the Iraq's government. This is not what inspections were predicated on -- they are suposed to be confirming a complete report, one that accounts for what the UN reported years ago, and the newest reports from Iraq don't even do that. I think the purpose of inspections is grossly misunderstood.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>
I think the purpose of inspections is grossly misunderstood. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't exactly disagree with you. The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. France and Russia clearly had no alternative in mind, choosing to ignore the mandate of 1441, the part about "serious consequences" because they offered no consequences when Iraq did not comply with this 16th resolution (or whatever it was).

[quote](C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin.<hr></blockquote>

And did the Taliban or Afghan people attack us or did a group of terrorists not even from Afghanistan attack us? Other than letting Bin Laden roam around in Northern Afghanistan, what was the government role in the attack?

Iraq *is* attempting to shoot our pilots and drones down.

[quote]Originally posted by Curufinwe:
<strong>Iraq is attempting to shoot down planes that are regularly bombing. . . hardly an aggresive act by air defenses.</strong><hr></blockquote>

you have that backwards. until very recently, we have only bombed after our planes have been targeted and only attack those iraqi resources that have been doing the targeting and shooting. they've been warned countless times that such actions are a no-no. if they want to throw away perfectly good hardware and people, we are more than happy to oblige them.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>

[quo