Goin' To War!

[Anon]

[quote="sandmann"]
Anon, we're not gonna take you over unless you're doing SOMETHING bad. We don't need to be "contained." If France feels we need to be contained, then let them do it.

---------

and who exactly determine if something bad has happened? The UN? nope, they are just discussion club Bush says. The International War Crime Tribunal? Bush pulls out of the treaty.

So we suppose to "trust" Bush. yeah ok. fake documents and wrong size pipe are good enough reason to attack Iraq.

If the point is getting rid of Biochem weapon and Bush knows where it is, what's so hard about telling the inspector. Okay pal dig over here, here and here. But that would be too hard wouldn't it.

.. so what exactly is the point of bombing Iraq? Spreading democracy? (you got to be kidding) Didn't we do this "spreading little democracy" in Nicaragua and Chile before?

[NYIllustrator]

[Anon]

[RICoder]

MOST OF THIS IS DIRECTED AT ANON

So, given the situation in Germany in 1935, you would have chosen to stay silent...since the future had not yet happened?

No one is saying that colateral damage is good. The point is that it is an inevitability, and is weighed against the greater good. Moose pointed out, however erringly in numbers, that their are people dying on a daily basis under the current regime. Should we not worry about that in order that we are not responsible directly for the deaths?

The oil issue is not irrelevant, it is just superfluous. It is not the main reason for the war, merely a bonus. If you want to talk about oil, consider that France has far more to lose in oil than the US has to gain from the war. If anyone is in it (or NOT as the case may be) then it is France.

What happened in Iran, with the Shah, was a completely different situation...and a big failure. First off, it was a liberal (namely Carter) who did it. Secondly, it was done because he (Carter) had issues dealing with a person as "bad" as the Iatola. The reasoning was lacking and the decision was bad.

Nuke delivery, by your logic, is the issue then...not the nuke itself? If so, consider all the people who said not to worry about Pyongyang in the 90s because they had no mode of delivery. Now we find out they can hit anywhere in the continental US. Oops. Boy, I'm sure glad we waited until it was too late. (go to cnn...I don't feel like finding the report on it.)

Right or wrong in the eyes of everyone else is secondary in my consideration. The world balked when the US blockaded Cuba in the 60s. Everyone thought it would cause a world war. However, that act kept the Soviet Union from expanding into this hemisphere and aided in the ending of the cold war.

8 months from now, those of us who obviously care about world politics (sandman, nyi, et al), will most certainly remember who sadaam is. In fact, we will probably be trying to remind you all that you thought it was a bad idea once. Since, most likely, in 8 months, the middle east will be on a better path than it is now, we will have dug up and proved the existence of WMDs in Iraq, and the rest of the world will be thanking us...albeit reluctantly.

[RICoder]

oh goody...evidence for me...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/ ... index.html.

and so begins the French backpeddle...

...and for those of you who watch the 'peace rallies' on tv and think that THEY hold the majority position...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/ ... index.html

[note the tainted reporting, they couldn't even let it stand on its own...they had to try to downplay it. lol.]

[Kzinti]

[Kzinti]

[Kzinti]

[Kzinti]

[Anon]

[Anon]

[refractor]

[Cameron]

[sponge]

[Anon]