Sorry MG...
I wrote this last week while this iron was still hot...but ran out of time to proof it (and double check my argument) before posting it...Anyway...
This is picking up from you asking about a no-war scenarion...
YOU:
I have a friend who keeps trying to tell me that Iraq has a legal claim to Kuwait, that it was stolen from them by the British. I tell him it doesn't matter. The rules today are ; Kuwait is an independent country. You mess with Kuwait, you mess with us.
Good for you. I opposed the war then, I oppose it now. I don't want my son dying for Kuwait or oil. Our only issue in the region is energy and germinating democracy and any step to help this region in regards to protecting our oil interests there is another step away from elimination of dependency on that region of the world.
I am going to refrain from talking about the alleged shortcomings of the last president to be elected by a majority of the citizens, because we've had that argument already.
I don't think Bush I (the last President to be elected by a majority, I assume you mean of those who voted) has all that many shortcomings. If you mean Bill, he got a minority once and 50% once, neither a majority.
Yes, Iraq agreed to certain conditions- with the UN. It was and is their deal. That is all I have been saying. I haven't been convinced that, for Bush, this is anything more than
Good. Then you understand my opposition, I yours. We have common ground. That doesn't change the fact, however, that if Clinton had done the damn job we still would not even be talking about this crap.
I may be wrong, but given the information that I have, those scenarios seem more likely than Iraq being an imminent threat or a terrorist source. I will admit that one big cause for doubt was removed when we did not attack right before the election. There was a time when it seemed all but certain we would go in there in October to me. Of course, the most cynical part of me says that the poll numbers must have looked good enough that they didn't feel they needed to do it.
I don't suppose you've ever played no limit poker before? You all seem to think that it is a daily miracle that Bush doesn't put his eye out with a fork.
I've never thought Clinton was as stupid as he seems to be, just that he chooses to do what he does because his focus is so narrow.
Gore, that's another matter. I truly think he was kicked in the head by a mule when he was young. Rather hard at that.
Does W just happen to get his way by, what, shear luck? One man (Dick Cheney, right?) truly runs the world? How, really, do you get around not thinking of him as one smart SOB?
I fully support going to the UN and lobbying for what we want. If we can convince them, fine. If we can't, I think the you have to ask the question, why? I know you will probably say that the UN does not have the US's best interests at heart, but I think that our interests must coincide with those of the rest of the world as much as possible, especially when it comes to killing.
Where do you get the idea that what we want is killing? So many people make the UN out to be the be all and end all. Well, Iraq is and has been violating UN approved resolutions, not US resolutions. The UN is being prodded by us to keep the UN a viable entity instead of a joke. Saddam merely needs to meet the demands of the world, disarm to a specified extent.
It is more accurate to say he wants killing.
Which is a great segue to...
So Larry, how will you feel if we don't attack Iraq? Is there any possible scenario for that?
Psst...don't let anybody else hear this, but, the idea is not to go to war. The idea is to get what we want: Stability in the region. Stability for democracy to eventually take root and grow, stability for energy because we aren't of one mind as to finding better ideas.
We don't get that, stability, with Saddam. He's a loon and you know it. Loons with big weapons are bad, sooner or later. He's already proven it.
The only way I can intellectually conceive of why so many on the left take Hussein’s word over their own damn President is simply because they don't like Bush. Childish to the max. And dangerous.
If we can scare him into doing pretty much what we want, then why isn't that OK? Use some imagination. Life is rarely all or nothing.
Don't let anyone know this either, but, people who think Bush is a raving, dumbass nutball cowboy looking for a fight actually serve a role (even though by supporting the President they'd make bad guys easier to deal with); it helps the illusion.
The "war", if any, will be just enough to get Hussein to do what he's gotta do per UN mandate. Ideally, there is none, IE, no war.
Two things I don't get: Why all the love for the UN when they tend to not do what they say they are gonna do and...
Why doesn't anyone seem to give a crap about the Iraqi people who, by all accounts, are suffering, opprossed and in fairly bad shape under Saddam?
It would just seem to me to make sense for the left to jump in and say, "hey, once the weapons and security issues are settled, let's do something for the people!"...
