bit like the pot calling the kettle black
Do you think before writing? I'm beginning to believe you do not. My response was to his response. I don't see how this can be the pot calling the kettle black as this most recent comment of mine was about the 3rd of 4th in a volley of exchange along the same logic.
and yet......if they are not to be used for a nuclear program you can hardly call it proof of that can you? You seem like the type who would be happy to call a war over this! President Bush knew of the doubts yet still persisted with this claim. also Iraq made no secret of it either.
You miss the forest despite the trees. It isn't about nuclear weapons. I don't give a fig if Iraq doesn't, never has, never will has/have a nuclear weapon. If items A, B, C, D, and E are prohibited (Look that word up so you understand it) and can be used to make nuclear weapons OR can be used for a bunch of mundane purposes like building a George Foreman Grill for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that they are PROHIBITED. If it's against the law for a person to possess a gun in Washington, DC in their home, and I have a gun in my home - the police don't care that I'm only using it for decoration or a festive centerpiece to my Tribute to Guns book collection. It's prohibited! Secret, not a secret, all of that is completely and utterly irrelevant at this point.
They botched it, but you ignore many thigs here. The number of other regimes out there, eg north korea. The number of potential casualties in any war, the fact that it took so long for the US to suddenly think iraq was a danger. hey I could go on, but surely it is time taht you sought the truth yourself.
You love to end things with 'hey I could go on' when you clearly are lacking any sort of qualitative or quantitative data to support your stance. Here, let ME go on for you. It isn't 'suddenly' for starters, we've been continuously monitoring Iraq since 1991, we've been flying missions over their nation, defending the no-fly zone, launching from time to time strikes against Iraq, and also undoubtedly running any number of clandestine operations within their borders. Iraq has had this a long time coming. It's not like the U.S. arbitrarily picked Iraq out of a hat. As much as I wonder about the U.S. foreign policy, I doubt very many decisions are made in this fashion, "Hey, lets get into it with Sri Lanka today for fun!" Case in point, Bush NAMED the countries he was most worried about last year, and so far two of them have (through their own actions) manifested into exactly what he claimed they would be. Iraq and N. Korea. No shockers there. Nothing suddenly about it.
actually apparently the US gets 12 years because they f***ed it up in the first place
We only waited 12 years, because the pundits and leaders of the other nations of the world, who all agree Iraq is a problem, haven't acted on their beliefs either. So now the U.S. has to step in and say, enough is enough. Even Hans Blix and the other inspectors today have said that Iraq is no cooperating fully and that they have discovered what could be the tip of the iceberg as far as material breach. They're the inspectors!! They try to downplay everything by nature as to not raise alarm or make false claims. So if they think they've found the tip of the iceberg, the truth is probably closer to, "We've found a gigantic f*** up, we want to see how many others like it Iraq is guilty of so we're going to ask for more time."
enough has to be enough? Look around at all of the other regimes out there. Tehn tell me that enough is enougha nd that the US is going to be changing those
By implication, you're saying here that the U.S. should be responsible for taking care of ALL the other 'regimes' and problems that are evident around the world? Is that it? You're one of the people saying it isn't our job to police the world, yet in the next breath we should be looking at all the other problems? Why doesn't another country pick up the slack and fix one of these 'other problem areas'? The problems are as evident to them as they are to the U.S., so what's the hold up? You mean to say France and Germany aren't as offended by the human rights violations in N. Korea or China? Or are you finally admitting that even though they are bothered by it, they realize they lack the clout to make any substantial change occur without the U.S. taking the point? Read a book - it'll help you wads.
btw, don't accuse ME of saying things that I haven't said
I'd never dream of accusing you of saying 'things',(that you've actually said or otherwise), as typically what you write is so devoid of content drawing any type of meaning from it would require some sort of cryptography skill I apparently lack.
And the logic you employ is truly top notch. We should not go to war because of the loss of life involved with that choice. Clearly not going to war, and the loss of life that occurs when an unchecked tyrant like Hussein gets, finalizes, and then unleashes a WMD on the world is a much wiser alternative. The greatest regrets a man has in his life are the opportunities he never took advantage of, the world would be doing itself a great disservice if it didn't act on this opportunite to finally remove Saddam from power and try to bring some sort of evenhanded justice to the region.
The Seeker Of Truth
"Sometimes the right decision isn't the most popular one."
-my address to the U.N. security council
This message last edited by The Seeker of Truth on 1/27/2003 at 4:15:02 PM.
