Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I didn't say they would, I said that's what Bush hopes.
So you agree with me that nukes don't scare Saddam.
Now,you want to tell me that Bush can't see that,which is why he "hopes" nukes will scare Saddam into complying?(Remember your saying "trigger from someone he knows will pull it",or something to that effect?).
I maintain that Bush knows that nukes don't scare Saddam.And that the threat to use them is not a mere threat.He's implying it's just a threat to quell the people's nerves.But he intends to use them.
Because unlike me,he doesn't realise that nukes aren't the frisbees his dog plays with.
And rask and co.,in regard to nukes,you guys talk about pression and selective hits against military targets as though nukes are precise like femtosecond lasers or something.
We all know how nukes behave when they land,don't we?
[quote]So tell me again why you're defending him?
I'm not defending Saddam.
I'm defending the notion that,especially in this day and age,nation should have a very very very strong case to go to war.And notice it's not just a plain war;nuclear weapons are being mentioned in the same sentence that war is mentioned.
I'm also reassertting the fact that America has no moral grounds to remove Saddam.
And it's this moral ground you seem to seek to claim when you mention the suffering of the people of Iraq.
How many people are homeless and suffering in your country?
Thousands,I'm told.
What you doing about it?
Again,I'm told,pretty much nothing.So feeling the pain of Iraqis is not the issue here.Buy the way,during the Iraqi/Iran war,which Iraq won,on whose side was America?
You talk about sanctions preventing the smuggling of weapons and stuff to Iraq.In the above mentioned war,who supplied them with weapons?
Who buys the diamonds that fuelled the civil war in Sierra Leone?Or the oil that comes from Angola?Which oil company was involved in the polution in Nigeria which led to the hanging of Ken Saro Wiwa?
If you look around,you'll see you guys have no moral ground on which to go to war.
Without Saddam and without sanctions Iraq would have plenty of oil wealth with which to buy food.
Besides the ruling Al Saud family in Saudi Arabia,how many oil billionares do you know of from that country.Or even millionares?
America has shown that as long as their basic intersts are served,what really happens to the rest of the people is really none of their business.
So don't tell me about the oil wealth of Iraq going to irdinary citizens as your interest.
The point is that while the international community does nothing to remove him people suffer and die. In this instance, inaction is murder.
Really.
Is this the first time you guys are seeing people suffer under poor regimes?
NO!!
You even helped prop upsuch regimes when doing that was in your best interests.Case in point:Zaire's Mobutu Seseseko during the cold war.
Stop kidding us people!!
Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."
The point you're being drawn to here is that the involvement of America doesn't not guarantee any ordinary citizens.It has been shown.But that seems to be one of your "for" arguments!
Gandhi and Mandela faced different power balances and ethical questions.
They did not.
Mandela was against the principle of bloodshed for freedom.So was Gandhi.
Blood was shed for freedom from colonialists in many other countries.Something that didn't have to happen.
Same thing here.
A war,a nuclear war does not have to happen
Nukes may not wet saddam's pants.
Or Bush's.
Or yours.
But they wet mine.
