Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...The UN (by virtue of making itself powerless and meaningless by not taking action)...

Then why don't you quit the UN,since it's not serving your interests and there's no point in being in an organization that doesn't serve your interests?
And don't tell me it's coz you pay 25% of the UN's budget and it wouldn't survive without you.

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."

Oh,so you go to war so as not to be seen as being isolationist?Get real.
So the world [u]says[/u] you're isolationist?So ****ing what?

Saddam Hussein essentially signed a contract saying "If I don't prove that I've disarmed the Gulf War will resume."

The gulf war was not about Iraq having WMD.It also wasn't about terrorism.It was primarily about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait,the gulf wouldn't have happened.
Stop trying to connect things that are unrelated and make it look like it was the deal all along.
You know I found it a bit funny when some time last year CNN started talking about "The Unfinished war".How come they never talked about any unfinished anything between the time the gulf war ended andlast year.
Cheap propaganda trick that even an international relations novice like me can see through.

Over ten years later he has failed to do so. Shouldn't parole violators be put back in prison?

Same point as above.

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?

The point I was trying to counter was your basically trying to imply that nukes will make Saddam wet his pants.
They won't.
What they'll do is hurt the already very hurting Iraqis.And Saddam doesn't care about those.

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.

Now that's a below the belt punch you're taking.
I'm not fine with the idea of even one person starving(and aside:the world today is producing enough food to feed everyone.The distribution is the problem.But that's another issue).
Your removing Saddam from power is not a guarantee that the people of Iraqi will be fed and free.How free are the people of Saudi Arabia?

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."

Like I said,cheap shot.

Originally posted by kingdavid
War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.

Welcome to the ranks of the dominated.

And I'm very proud to be like that.
Just like Gandhi.
And Mandela.

[Edited by kingdavid on 02-03-2003 at 02:49 AM]