Excellent news

[PhillyKev 0]

reference...or did you write this yourself?

[rhino 0]

They have six now.. Looking for 7 and 8.. It is on.. Those bastards are on the run now baby!!

Rhino

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/persian.gulf.military/index.html

We are goint to bomb Saddham anyways. The train has already left the station with the tanks, planes and troops.. Game day is coming..

I hope killing can be avoided but I DOUBT it.

[FallingILweenie 0]

"c'mon satan, your ass is big and red, who am i supposed to pretend you are? Liza Minelli?"
--Saddam Hussein

OK, that has no relevance to anything,but i thought i would add it in.

[billvon 2,996]

>And I find it amazing that some people in this forum give
>the appearance of trusting Saddam more than they do
>their own government.

Whereas I find it amazing that there are people where who, even after they hear that our own president _wants_ to enforce UN inspections before an all-out attack, and told the UN the same, think they know better than he does, and would rather ignore those inspections.

>But I do trust them a heck of a lot more than I do Saddam.

Definitely. There's a good chance that we will end up at war again, but we have to give them that chance. We told the world we would, and our word should be worth something.

> Inspections? Didn't we go through this once?

Yep, and we even went through a war once. Neither one worked back then. I think we should try the non-violent option again first. We can always bomb Baghdad later.

[billvon 2,996]

>Can we say "stalling" ?

You are probably right. If they do stall, if they pull the same stuff they did last time, we should back up our inspections with force. If they fight back, then we are at war again. But we're better than they are, so _we_ keep our word to pursue inspections first.

>"But we are a lot closer to a peaceful resolution
>to this than we were yesterday. " This is based on
>the theory that one exists. Iraq would want one why ?

Hussein may not want to die. Even evil dictators are afraid of that.

>Iraq/Iran conflict.

Remember who we backed on that one?

>For Iraq, war is a national sport.

From their point of view, bombing them is ours. We've been doing it to them for years.

[rhino 0]

Ain't life grand!!!

I say again.. The train has left the station..

I give Mr. Insane another 90 days max in office??

Rhino

[happythoughts 0]

">Iraq/Iran conflict.
Remember who we backed on that one? "
Yep. There is a Muslim proverb - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
We sold tanks, etc. to Iraq so that they would go pound Iran with them. We could not directly attack a Mid-East country. The "outside aggressor" thing would cause the normally agitated countries to solidify under a common banner. The "we Muslims hate America" banner. Iran overran our embassy. This is a big no-no under any political or diplomatic rules. They didn't do that to the Russians because the Russian embassy guards carry loaded weapons and would have piled them up by the gate. Carter was a p****. Instead, we gave tanks to Iraq to do our dirty work.
Once again, someone breaks a big rule (overrunning an embassy) and we continue to live by the "good country" rules. If they throw a party, I think it should be house rules.
">For Iraq, war is a national sport.
From their point of view, bombing them is ours. We've been doing it to them for years. "
Apparently, not correctly. The Romans used to give non-combatants out and then level a town. Seems pretty chivalrous at first, but it was good PR. Years later, people would walk by and go "That flat spot was a town that f**ed with the Romans." Good example. Pax Romana was kept by people who thought it was a bad idea to mess with the Romans.

[billvon 2,996]

>Yep. There is a Muslim proverb - "The enemy of my enemy is
>my friend"

I'm thinking that we should not base our foreign policy on Muslim proverbs, given that the Middle East is about the biggest mess in the world politically.

>We sold tanks, etc. to Iraq so that they would go pound Iran with
>them.

Which will now be used against us.

>We could not directly attack a Mid-East country. The "outside
> aggressor" thing would cause the normally agitated countries to
> solidify under a common banner. The "we Muslims hate America"
>banner.

And do we now not much care if all Muslims hate America? I would think that, after 9/11, we could see some value in not creating hatred towards the US in a dozen nations.

>Apparently, not correctly. The Romans used to give non-combatants
> out and then level a town.

Israelis have tried that, but nowadays you can't tell combatants from non-combatants any more. The bad guys don't wear black hats. So your only other option is to kill everyone, which will result in the same sort of blind hatred that created the 9/11 incidents to begin with.

"the cycle of violence" is a good metaphor. We can continue it or we can end it. In the 60's, Cuba was seen as the biggest threat to the US; we came close to a military invasion. Instead we just denied them the means (ICBM's) to hurt us. Nowadays, while we're not buddies, no one thinks of Cuba as any more than a place to get cigars. That's the model we should be pursuing for Iraq - deny them the means to hurt us and then let their economy flounder; Hussein will either be ousted or die a natural death, I don't really care which. Remember that success is the best revenge.

[happythoughts 0]

"the cycle of violence" is a good metaphor. We can continue it or we can end it." That is nice in theory. If it worked, I would certainly support it. The general idea is: If someone does a violent act and we do not respond, the cycle of violence ends. It is not a cycle, it is linear. It continues until someone puts a stop to one of the participants. Did the schoolyard bully stop if you didn't fight back ? Same mindless process.
Iran takes over embassy. We did nothing. World Trade Center van bomb. We know who did it. No response, they come back. Embassy bombing in Kenya. No response. It is a very long list. All the "no response", yet it continues.
"...no one thinks of Cuba as any more than a place to get cigars." Cuba was another era. It is not comparable, any more than Japan is. Now Japan is just a nice place to buy cars. However, if you ask any Japanese about attacking America, the response is "bad idea". You want to tie response to outcome using unrelated examples ? Use Japan. Go to that valley in Afghanistan, nuke it til it glows. It isn't fair, but fair rules didn't drop the WTC. They invited us to the party, remember ?

[judedre 0]

The Iraqi Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a
speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets President Bush.
They shake hands and as they walk the Iraqi says, "You know, I
have just one question about what I have seen in America."
President Bush says "Well your Excellency, anything I can do to
help you, I will do."
The Iraqi whispers "My son watches this show 'StarTrek' and in
it there are Russians, and Blacks, and Asians, but never anyA rabs.
He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs
in Star Trek."


President Bush laughs and leans toward the Iraqi, and whispers
back, "It's because it takes place in the future...."

[rhino 0]

DAMN!!!

[billvon 2,996]

>"the cycle of violence" is a good metaphor. We can continue it or we
> can end it." That is nice in theory. . . .It continues until someone
> puts a stop to one of the participants.

We should put a stop to it. However, there are more ways of doing that than just killing ten thousand people.

>Did the schoolyard bully stop if you didn't fight back ? Same
> mindless process.

Yes, he did. I avoided him after he beat me up. Now I'm making about twenty times what he is; last I saw him he was a cook at a local restaraunt. Who "won?" Should I have fought back until one of us was dead? If I did that, one of us would be dead and the other in jail. Is that a better outcome?

>Iran takes over embassy. We did nothing. World Trade Center van
> bomb. We know who did it. No response, they come back. Embassy
> bombing in Kenya. No response. It is a very long list. All the "no response", yet it continues.

>You want to tie response to outcome using unrelated examples ?
> Use Japan. Go to that valley in Afghanistan, nuke it til it glows.

So you support the use of nuclear weapons against civilians? Sorry, if you do, we simply have no common ground on which to discuss the use of force.

>It
> isn't fair, but fair rules didn't drop the WTC. They invited us to the
>party, remember ?

Iraq didn't do that. The current administration has tried for months to produce a connection and they couldn't. If the objective is to bomb a country that supported the 9/11 terrorists, Saudi Arabia is the obvious choice. Given that it is not, I cannot take the "Bomb Iraq to punish the 9/11 terrorists!" theme seriously.

Unless you claim that all arabs are the enemy. If that's the case, get the concentration camps ready.

[happythoughts 0]

Bill, I may disagree with you, but I always respect your opinion. A different perspective is always valuable when a lot of thought goes into it, whether it agrees with me or not.