fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 Usually we post sciency polls, but since this is a big night and so many of our posts have been about it today...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Author Posted March 18, 2003 But seriously, anyone who thinks he has no WOMD is foolish.
Radical Edward Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 I assume you have proof. maybe you should have told Dr Blix. Furthermore, regarding Bush`s statement, I feel that none of the options really express my feelings about it. Bush, unfortunately for someone of his position, is a cretinous idiot, with absolutely no concept of foreign policy whatsoever. This whole issue has been delt with completely inappropriately. Whether saddam has WOMD or not, this does not make him a threat, however stirring the hornets nest like this stands a very real chance of causing major, and long lasting problems. A superpower America may be, but the biggest peace time atrocity against your country was carried out by nothing more than men with knives. and there are plenty more men with knives where they came from, perhaps now even more determined to spill blood in revenge for their fallen brothers. I can only hope now that for the sake of humanity, that this war is over quickly and efficiently, with as little loss of human lives as is possible, and that indeed Saddam`s brutal regieme is ousted and, at the very least, a more liberal fairer order put in its place. This still does not mean that I support the current fallacious arguments that are being put forward by the Bush administration, in order to distract from the real problems in the world, both externally to the US, such as Israel, and internally, such as Bush`s economic principles, which state that it is possible to cut tax AND spending, putting the US a trillion dollars into the red, provided everyone is looking at Iraq while you do it.
Radical Edward Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 Furthermore I find it somewhat Ironic that he intends to impose a free and democratic state on the Iraqi people, when the decision to go to war itself was not democratic. Perhaps he will apply his newfound love for unilateral action to internal US politics, in abandoning the constitution, elections, and other such inconveniences, and imposing his own unilateral rule over the will of the American people, much as he does in the rest of the world.
Radical Edward Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 and what exactly is the us going to do if saddam and sons DO leave the country? they will still have to invade now regardless of what happens.
Matzi Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 I think there is an option missing at the poll: that this ultimatum posed by Bush is absolutely not justified.
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Author Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward I assume you have proof. maybe you should have told Dr Blix. You're forgetting the point of 1441; Iraq was required to actively cooperate to prove it had disarmed, and there is no proof that it has disarmed. Apparently over a decade isn't enough time to disarm? Ok.
Radical Edward Posted March 18, 2003 Posted March 18, 2003 You have not in any way negated my original point. You can't just say he has WOMD without proving it. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraque/0,6119,2-10-1460_1327533,00.html furthermore, resolution 1441 was a farce all along, and no justification for war at all.
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Author Posted March 18, 2003 He admitted to having weapons of mass destruction. He has not provided evidence that he destroyed them. Are you missing this logical pathway?
Radical Edward Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 Fafalone, read what I say.... resolution 1441 was a farce all along, and no justification for war at all. I don't care whether saddam has WOMD or not, and I can provide equally good argument against going to war based on some unsubstantiated hunch that he might have them just because he used to have them in the past.
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 If he uses them, or our troops find the stockpiles, would that change your attitude towards war?
Matzi Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 To get involved into this disuccsion myself: Such a discery would change my attitude towards war. Of course, this would be evidence for Hussein's lying, I do not disagree with that. But war is - as I see it - never a solution, unless a country is attacked and has defend itself. By the way, why have only so few people voted above? Come on...
Sayonara Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by Matzi By the way, why have only so few people voted above? Come on... Because not everyone is impressed with the absence of certain options from the poll.
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 What other options are there? Either you think Iraq should have more than 12 years to disarm, or you support an ultimatum.
Matzi Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Because not everyone is impressed with the absence of certain options from the poll. I am not either, as I stated above, but I used the one closest to my option...
Matzi Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone What other options are there? Either you think Iraq should have more than 12 years to disarm, or you support an ultimatum. I stated one... see my post on top...
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 That's the equivalent of saying Iraq should have more time. And from what you have said in other topics, you should have definately gone with option number two.
Matzi Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 That's another problem (embarrassing to admit). I mean, I had French for two years, afterwards I had to give it up, I did not mind. I don't really like that language (Latin and English are much better), so I don't know for sure what it means...:dunno:
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 "temps" ... temporal... temporary... relating to time illimité - should be able to guess unlimited... and thats all you need to know to get the meaning
Matzi Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 ok, thanks, now i've got it. Though, it does not really express my opinion. UNlimited time is no solution in my eyes. That's a bit too nice...
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 How much time do you think Iraq should be given to disarm? 12 years isn't enough time?
Matzi Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 12 years is of course a long time. But why bother after 12 years? I mean Hussein throw the inspectors out of the country some years ago (somewhen in the late 90s, right?) That's quite a long time ago as well. Why attacking Iraq now and accusing them of not having disarming, why not then?
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 Because of diplomatic pressure from countries like yours. We finally got tired of waiting for the world to agree on preemptive actions after our failure to act on Al Qaeda resulted in 9/11.
Sayonara Posted March 19, 2003 Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone What other options are there? Either you think Iraq should have more than 12 years to disarm, or you support an ultimatum. YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US.
fafalone Posted March 19, 2003 Author Posted March 19, 2003 Or neither, hence option 5 :/ If you say we're wrong to invade, if you say Iraq should be given more time, if for any reason you oppose military action.. you're against us. Peace has failed.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now