This is where I stand....

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.

I don't get this part... was the wolf implying the shepherd was doing the sheep?

[Rasker]

the problem is that kind of "legal" war must be approved by the current government of France, and that wasnt gonna happen.  70% of Americans are convinced of that.  If our leaders made a reasonable effort for U.N. approval, and most of us are convinced they did, then we will support them and our troops.

[Curval]

Originally posted by RRAM
See how easy?.

I'm all for removing Saddam from power in a legal war. Not to doing it in an illegal war that seriously shatters UN credibility.

LOL...easy?

So basically we wait for the UN, for what,  another 12 years?

..and even then..it is still war.  If a soldier get blown apart in a legal war is that somehow better?

Typical double speak.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Airhead
LOL Like anyone really believed you actually have the mental capacity to put forth reasoned, articulate thought. LMAO, don't flatter yourself, imbicile.

imbecile[/i]

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Curval
LOL...easy?

So basically we wait for the UN, for what,  another 12 years?

read the other thread to understand my point of view in this matter. UN inspectors say their job will be fullfitted in monts. not weeks,not years. Months. But that it will be done.

..and even then..it is still war.  If a soldier get blown apart in a legal war is that somehow better?



No, it's not better. But he will be killed in a war that respects international law and doesn't break the international sovereigny rights. There's something called "international laws", and USA ,UK and Spain are about to break them in an agression war.

[Yeager]

Yep...Bennet has always had his toejam together.

[Curval]

I see, now it's months.  roadkill.  They didn't do the job in 12 years and NOW they are saying months.  I just don't buy it.

So..you are essentially saying it is okay to kill people and remove Hussein as long as France says it's okay?  They were the only country who said they would veto no matter what.

Now France says that they will support US actions in Iraq IF Sadaam uses chemical or biological weapons...yet their objection to the war was that there wasn't proof that these weapons existed.  It is this kind of political roadkill that makes ridding the world of Sadaam Hussein extremly difficult with UN sanctioned action.

Frankly we probably wouldn't even be IN this situation (of the US going in without a UN mandate) if France had not been so concerned about losing their oil rights.

You are so nieve man, sorry.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

The attack on Iraq actually is legal by international law.

Refer to the other thread "Do we care about world opinion?"

May not want to listen to the hippies RAM, they don't know law... they actually don't know much of anything except hearsay and redundant slogans.
-SW

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Curval
I see, now it's months.  roadkill.  They didn't do the job in 12 years and NOW they are saying months.  I just don't buy it.

[/b]

Saddam suddenly had the need to cooperate with inspectors and disarm his nation in a hurry when he found 200,000 US troops at the other side of the fence .

 Yes, they are getting disarmed according to UN inspectors, and yes, that disarmement will be done in months, according to those inspectors. You might not believe it, but that's what the inspector's reports to the UN say.

So..you are essentially saying it is okay to kill people and remove Hussein as long as France says it's okay?  They were the only country who said they would veto no matter what.

no, I'm saying that as long as a war is backed by the UN, it is within the legal limits of the international laws. And that no illegal war should be waged, no matter what.

Regarding French stance, I think they were talking about any resolution involving an ultimatum with a time frame of days or weeks. France was asking for giving ONE MONTH more for the inspectors to give a more accurate report on the situation of Irak's disarmement.

Now France says that they will support US actions in Iraq IF Sadaam uses chemical or biological weapons...yet their objection to the war was that there wasn't proof that these weapons existed.  It is this kind of political roadkill that makes ridding the world of Sadaam Hussein extremly difficult with UN sanctioned action.

UN Security council should get rid of the veto roadkill. In that I agree with you. That was what prevented a proper resolution in the war in Yugoslavia, and that is what has carried us to this situation. I'm not ,in any way, defending French stance; a stance that for me is as bad as US's stance declaring a war of agression against Irak at this moment.


Frankly we probably wouldn't even be IN this situation (of the US going in without a UN mandate) if France had not been so concerned about losing their oil rights.


Absolutely agreed. But remember that Russia and China were going to veto the resolution too. To each it's share of responsability.


SWulfe, I already answered in the other thread.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Yeager
Yep...Bennet has always had his toejam together.

Yeah, the chain smoking drug czar.

[ra]

UN inspectors say their job will be fullfitted in monts. not weeks,not years. Months. But that it will be done.

How can they possible know this?  The inspectors'  job is to have the Iraqis show them proof that they have destroyed all the weapons they agreed to destroy 11 years ago.  How can Blix possibly know that they will be shown this proof within a given time frame?   Especially considering that Hussein once simply threw them out of the country.  The UN has shown that it wasn't serious about this issue.

ra

[RRAM]

Originally posted by ra
How can they possible know this?  The inspectors'  job is to have the Iraqis show them proof that they have destroyed all the weapons they agreed to destroy 11 years ago.  How can Blix possibly know that they will be shown this proof within a given time frame?   Especially considering that Hussein once simply threw them out of the country.  The UN has shown that it wasn't serious about this issue.

ra

You imply that Blix was lying in his report to the UN?. That's a pretty serious accusation.

I think that if he said what he did, he had enough reasons to say so. He's the one who has been in Irak several times, and the one who reads all and every comment coming from UN inspectors working in Irak. So he must know better than you or I.

BTW, I'd say he isn't an irak-lover exactly...after all he also has said that cooperation hasn't been plenty, even while it has been much better than in previous times. But that he expected cooperation to improve given the real threat Saddam was facing.


BTW I'd say that Blix assumed that UN inspectors won't be thrown out of Irak in any case. I'd have assumed it too if I was in his boots, given that Saddam knew that this time the threat was for real, because if this time he didn't cooperate he was to find himself in another war to kick him out of power.


All I know is that UN resolutions say that Inspectors are the ones to say wether Irak is disarming or not, and Inspectors' reports so far say Irak is doing so, and that the supervision of that disarmement would be over in an estimated time of some months. If he said that, they had reasons to do it.

[RRAM]

Damn, sorry for using the verb "say" so many times...my english still is quite limited when I'm trying to write about things like this one

[Vulcan]

But what about the sheep?

[Curval]

Saddam suddenly had the need to cooperate with inspectors and disarm his nation in a hurry when he found 200,000 US troops at the other side of the fence .

Well now you are arguing my point.  There were 200,000 troops in his backyard when he finally started disarming some missiles and other banned weapons.  Weapons he cartegorically denied posessing in the 12,000 page "tell all" report the Iraqis handed over to the UN a few months back.

There are huge numbers of chemicals artillery shells and bombs unaccounted for based on conservative estimates of Iraqi inventories, logically like the ones, when used against US forces, could result in French forces rushing to "help" in the cause.  You however want to believe that the weapons inpectors are going to be finnished their job and Sadaam will be disarmed within a few months, but they haven't been able to find them in 12 years?  I have a beautiful bridge to sell you!  

Sadaam has been leading everyone on since 1991, he had no choice but to appear to be capitulating with all those troops ready to invade.  He just put his faith in the fact that enough gullible people like yourself would swell opinion against any US lead attempt to force him to comply with those UN RESOLUTIONS he constantly defied.  He rolled the dice, and he lost.

Yes, they are getting disarmed according to UN inspectors, and yes, that disarmement will be done in months, according to those inspectors. You might not believe it, but that's what the inspector's reports to the UN say.

Correct, I don't believe it and they (the authors of the report)are fools for believing, it in my opinion.

I'm saying that as long as a war is backed by the UN, it is within the legal limits of the international laws. And that no illegal war should be waged, no matter what.

War is war.  People suffer and people die.  If it looks like toejam, smells like toejam and tastes like toejam...it is toejam.  Save your legal vs illegal for the classroom.

Regarding French stance, I think they were talking about any resolution involving an ultimatum with a time frame of days or weeks. France was asking for giving ONE MONTH more for the inspectors to give a more accurate report on the situation of Irak's disarmement.

I have made my position clear on French politics as it relates to this issue.

a stance that for me is as bad as US's stance declaring a war of agression against Irak at this moment.

Boy, out of Sadaam's mouth, and right into your computer.  Amazing!

But remember that Russia and China were going to veto the resolution too. To each it's share of responsability.

They deserve a share of the blame, no question.  Germany too.