K
Kain99
Guest
Your right.... I'm sorry. 
I Should have punched the right person in the nose yesterday......
I Should have punched the right person in the nose yesterday......
Going forward
- Thread starter MGKrebs
- Start date
K
Kain99
Guest
Nah... I deserved it. 
J
justhangn
Guest
Originally posted by Kyle
now Conserv's and Libs being nice to each other.
I would prefer no war just as a matter of principle. But I recognize that sometimes we have to fight. We don’t really have enough information ourselves to know what really might be going on. So, if we look around to see what those who might be "in the know" are saying, perhaps one can make a more informed decision.
We have George Bush and Tony Blair on the one side, who claim that Saddam is an imminent threat and must be dealt with in the most severe manner available. Israel also is on board, but I haven’t seen any specific comments about their evaluation of Saddam.
On the other side we have (these are recent CNN headlines):
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday he saw no immediate need for military action against Iraq,
Arab leaders looking for a way to avoid a U.S.-Iraq war they fear would ignite their volatile region are considering the possibility of pressing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to step down and go into exile, diplomats say.
NATO member Turkey will delay any decision on whether to support possible military action against Iraq until weapons inspectors have announced their initial findings.
The United Nations' top refugee official has warned that war with Iraq would create a human catastrophe, especially if biological or chemical weapons are used.
Pope John Paul II used his Christmas Day address to urge the world to avoid war in the Middle East, an apparent reference to the crisis over Iraq.
Germany will not give a single euro to any war effort in Iraq, its finance minister has declared.
But Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov Sunday stressed Russia's opposition to any unilateral action by the United States against Iraq.
An attack on Iraq could destabilise the Islamic world and boost recruitment to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to a committee of UK MPs.
Iran has repeatedly voiced its opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq, even though the two Persian Gulf countries fought a long war and are bitter rivals.
Saudi Arabia, a prominent member of the Gulf War coalition against Iraq, still explicitly opposes toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and any unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has warned that anyone seeking war with Iraq for the sake of war with Iraq is "psychologically ill," following talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
However, after consultations with Israeli and American security officials, the Health Ministry concluded Iraq probably does not have both the smallpox virus and the capability to use it in an attack on Israel, director Boaz Lev said Wednesday.
Publicly Beijing has called for a political solution to the Iraq crisis, but observers believe that should it come to the crunch China will put good relations with the U.S as its top priority
Australia has remained one of Washington's strongest allies, and although Canberra is yet to commit to joining any U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it is expected to toe the White House line.
Opposition lawmakers in Japan have hit out at the government's recent dispatching of an Aegis destroyer to the Indian Ocean to provide protection for U.S. naval ships.
They say the move was a clear sign that Tokyo supported military action against Iraq and violated United Nations efforts to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
Japan's support is also limited to a non-combat role because of its pacifist constitution
France has insisted on further Security Council talks before action can be authorized.
Call me foolish if you will. At the very LEAST, it appears to be questionable as to whether a war is the best response at this time, regardless of what Ken says.
(Let me reiterate my position one more time here- If the world, hopefully including some middle east nations, agree that war is necessary, I'm on board. As long as it's GWB twisting everybody else's arms to get them in, I will be skeptical.)
We have George Bush and Tony Blair on the one side, who claim that Saddam is an imminent threat and must be dealt with in the most severe manner available. Israel also is on board, but I haven’t seen any specific comments about their evaluation of Saddam.
On the other side we have (these are recent CNN headlines):
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday he saw no immediate need for military action against Iraq,
Arab leaders looking for a way to avoid a U.S.-Iraq war they fear would ignite their volatile region are considering the possibility of pressing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to step down and go into exile, diplomats say.
NATO member Turkey will delay any decision on whether to support possible military action against Iraq until weapons inspectors have announced their initial findings.
The United Nations' top refugee official has warned that war with Iraq would create a human catastrophe, especially if biological or chemical weapons are used.
Pope John Paul II used his Christmas Day address to urge the world to avoid war in the Middle East, an apparent reference to the crisis over Iraq.
Germany will not give a single euro to any war effort in Iraq, its finance minister has declared.
But Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov Sunday stressed Russia's opposition to any unilateral action by the United States against Iraq.
An attack on Iraq could destabilise the Islamic world and boost recruitment to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to a committee of UK MPs.
Iran has repeatedly voiced its opposition to a U.S. invasion of Iraq, even though the two Persian Gulf countries fought a long war and are bitter rivals.
Saudi Arabia, a prominent member of the Gulf War coalition against Iraq, still explicitly opposes toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and any unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has warned that anyone seeking war with Iraq for the sake of war with Iraq is "psychologically ill," following talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
However, after consultations with Israeli and American security officials, the Health Ministry concluded Iraq probably does not have both the smallpox virus and the capability to use it in an attack on Israel, director Boaz Lev said Wednesday.
Publicly Beijing has called for a political solution to the Iraq crisis, but observers believe that should it come to the crunch China will put good relations with the U.S as its top priority
Australia has remained one of Washington's strongest allies, and although Canberra is yet to commit to joining any U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it is expected to toe the White House line.
Opposition lawmakers in Japan have hit out at the government's recent dispatching of an Aegis destroyer to the Indian Ocean to provide protection for U.S. naval ships.
They say the move was a clear sign that Tokyo supported military action against Iraq and violated United Nations efforts to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
Japan's support is also limited to a non-combat role because of its pacifist constitution
France has insisted on further Security Council talks before action can be authorized.
Call me foolish if you will. At the very LEAST, it appears to be questionable as to whether a war is the best response at this time, regardless of what Ken says.
(Let me reiterate my position one more time here- If the world, hopefully including some middle east nations, agree that war is necessary, I'm on board. As long as it's GWB twisting everybody else's arms to get them in, I will be skeptical.)
Maynard,
You say we don't have the information to decide for ourselves. BS, Have you read the many UN resolutions concerning Iraq since the invasion of Kuwait? Don't go to CNN for it go to the UN site. Upon completion of this reading come back and we will discuss this.
I bet you actually think I want a war. I don't, if Saddam would pack up and leave or just comply with what he has been directed to do there would be no war. The fact that he and his hoard continue to thumb their collective noses at the world is why we are where we are today.
Leaving it alone will make it worse, no matter what you say.
You say we don't have the information to decide for ourselves. BS, Have you read the many UN resolutions concerning Iraq since the invasion of Kuwait? Don't go to CNN for it go to the UN site. Upon completion of this reading come back and we will discuss this.
I bet you actually think I want a war. I don't, if Saddam would pack up and leave or just comply with what he has been directed to do there would be no war. The fact that he and his hoard continue to thumb their collective noses at the world is why we are where we are today.
Leaving it alone will make it worse, no matter what you say.
Maynard,
Hussein already has WMD and will use them again as he already has. If we do nothing, as you suggest, more will die, maybe our own.
The world, via the UN, has said that Iraq must comply. On at least two occassions the US Congress has authorized our President to take whatever actions necessary to bring Hussein into compliance. One President took no action, Bush has indicated that he is willing to do what Congress has directed but only with UN approval.
Discussing this with you is going nowhere. I might as well be talking to a wall.
And I thought that Erin Berry was dense. :weak:
Hussein already has WMD and will use them again as he already has. If we do nothing, as you suggest, more will die, maybe our own.
The world, via the UN, has said that Iraq must comply. On at least two occassions the US Congress has authorized our President to take whatever actions necessary to bring Hussein into compliance. One President took no action, Bush has indicated that he is willing to do what Congress has directed but only with UN approval.
Discussing this with you is going nowhere. I might as well be talking to a wall.
And I thought that Erin Berry was dense. :weak:
H
Heretic
Guest
Just because they are the UN doesn't mean they are effective. Sometimes you have to take matters in your own hands. In my eyes the UN has let things get way out of hand, if they had done the correct thing in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation that we are now.
H
Heretic
Guest
Krebs just curious do you think the US should not provide humatarian aid without the UN's backing? That is after all a role that the UN takes on.....
It took George Sr. a LOT of persuading to get people involved in the last war, and Clinton the same, for the Balkans. Seems an awful lot of our Allies have no will to follow through, if it requires it. [/QUOTE]
Well aybe YOU should talk to them, Frank. Seein' as how you have so much more confidence in your analysis of the situation than theirs.
Well aybe YOU should talk to them, Frank. Seein' as how you have so much more confidence in your analysis of the situation than theirs.
The only situation we are in is that Bush is bringing this to a head. Everything seemed pretty stable there for a long time. We were watching closely, embargo, bringing them to their knees. Nothing changed in Iraq- it was George who started upping the ante.
I want one of you to say what you think will be better, in terms of our security, after we beat the crap out of Iraq. I dare you.