Originally posted by kingdavidOriginally posted by Raskolnikov
...Iraq has a well educated populace that's quite capable of governing itself with Saddam out of the way, but it also has three large ethnic groups that don't always get along and they will need to be policed until they have chosen some kind of unified government...
You expressing double standards here;you feel that they can govern themselves on their own but neeed your policing to handle ethnic differences.What then do you understand by self governance.That "need policing" thing is just an excuse to go where you've no right to go.
It takes time for a government to be chosen democraticly, it takes more time for the government to establish it's authority with it's own people. Nobody can throw together a government, laws, a police force, and a judicery at the snap of a finger, especially a fair one. Somebody has to make sure a basic semblance of law and order is followed, and if America removes Saddam Hussein and his government from power, I think it's America's responsibility to bear that burden.
...we'd just have to police that much more turf...
Who gave you the role of policing any turf?
The UN (by virtue of making itself powerless and meaningless by not taking action).
...get our troops out of foreign nations (because our forces are spred too thin to be fully effective)...
Effective against who? Were you at war with anyone before sept. 11? Or was Bush planning to do this all along,sept was just an excuse?Do you realise how much less your defence budget would be if you didn't go throwing your weight everywhere?[/quote]
Have you ever noticed that the second the US tries to stop "throwing our weight around" we're accused of being "isolationists" and not "pulling our weight in the international community." Saddam Hussein essentially signed a contract saying "If I don't prove that I've disarmed the Gulf War will resume." Over ten years later he has failed to do so. Shouldn't parole violators be put back in prison? Or do we give them more time to stop doing whatever it was that put them into prison, and then a few months later give them more time because they still haven't stoped, and then a few months from then give them more time because they still haven't stopped? When does it end? I say enough is enough.
US Nukes: GW saying he'd use nuclear weapons "if appropriate" forces Saddam to question whether or not using chemical/biological weapons is such a good idea. Before deploying his WMDs, he's forced to ask himself if his hiding place is strong enough to survive a nuclear attack, and if he'd survive...He's a dictator and a murderer, but he's not stupid; if he thinks he'll get bit in the ass for using them, he's less likely to try and deploy them.
So you think if you guys had nuked Afghanistan,you'd have killed Osama?You don't even know where he is,for crying out loud.If Osama evaded you,so can Saddam.Fear for his own personal safety wouldn't stop him from calling your bluff with regard to nuclear weapons.
Osama bin Laden (as far as anybody knows) never had any WMDs and Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure (thanks to the Soviets and decades of civil war). There was never any reason to use nukes in Afghanistan. Iraq has infrastructure, and therefore nuclear weapons may be an effective deterant. Remember when I said "I don't know how smart an idea this works out to be, but that's probably what Bush is thinking"? That's why. Or are you just skimming and nitpicking where you think you have a leg to stand on?
..UN inspectors are covering a small fraction of Iraq (and aren't even being allowed to perform airial recon to cover some of the gaps...
How many planes has he shot down?Same way those 33rd and 36th parallel things were done,so can you recon if you want.I'm not convinced America needs Saddam's cooperation to fly those high altitude spy planes and stuff over Iraq if necessary.
There is a huge difference between the US and England flying mach 2 capable fighters aircraft over a lightly defended no fly zone and the UN trying to fly a 500mph U-2 over the VERY heavily defended rest of Iraq.
I said Saddam wants time to prepare his defenses, not build weapons...
Because you've threatened to war him.If he was doing it as part of a plan he always had,ten years is enough time.If he was unable to coz of sanctions and stuff,what has changed?And not just changed,changed so much so that war is now inevitable,and your president is talking as though nukes as the frisbees his dog plays with?
Yes, sanctions have kept him contained, but they've also starved his people. Maybe you're fine with the idea of a half million Iraqis dead due to sanctions and a negligent murderer as a leader, I am not. But you don't see those people starving out your window, so I guess it's a matter of "out of site, out of mind."
...so what is it we need them for?
Maybe to give you "evidence" of Saddams WMD program.
That's what I just said.
War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.
Welcome to the ranks of the dominated.
Raskolnikov
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons