Originally posted by Lordathestrings
tsk, tsk.... I could'a sworn I started this thread about the largely ignored threat of war between India and Pakistan!...
But look how you put it:
"While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere"
And this was the Monday(?)after the weekend when there were anti war demos around the world.
People were bound to mention Iraq.
I suspect half of your brain's RAM at the time you started this thread was filled with Saddam.
...So now that everyone has had a chance to re-state all of the same circular, emotion-based factoids that do not refute my position, or Raskolnikov's...
Your position,and Rask's is to a large extent emotion based factoids:
"Saddam is hell bent on expanding his nation"
Yeah,yeah.He tried that in '91.Look what happened.
"Meanwhile,several million people(the entire population of Israel)have been wiped off the map"
I won't even say yeah yeah.
Rask says the result of not following thro' on UN resolution has always been invasion and regime change.I ask for examples(if you ask me,a lack of such examples is a rebuttal).He says to look up UN resolutions on Iraq.Is that an example?I was hoping(silly me) for something like: 1973,Canada invaded Argentina,UN said to get the **** out,Canada said **** you,and Kaboom!!!!the allies came in,toppled the govt.,blah blah blah.
Your basic argument is that Saddam signed an agreement to end the gulf war.And he hasn't fulfilled the terms of that agreement.So technically we should revive the gulf war.
The argument is fine.
Someone mentioned that Britain still owes america money given sometime after the WW2.If America was to start to ask for that money now(in as much as they have a right to it)I'm bound to wonder why now?
Same thing with Iraq.
I first heard on CNN this whole war issue being raised after 911,sometime during the Afghan war(is it being called that?).
And I'm bound to ask,why now?Since the end of the gulf war,how many appeals(like the one Powell made the other day)have been made to the UN,asking it to pass a resolution for the removal of Saddam?Was there a time limit?When did it expire?You know,if Powell saying"Iraq was given until November 2002 to disarm,at which point if he won't have disarmed,then the allied forces will move back in,and this time they are to topple him..."or something along those lines,I wouldn't wonder.But now I wonder.
If the UN(America is a pivotal member,right?)didn't find it necessary to remove Saddam from power in '91,why is it necessary now?Or would America have preffered to remove Saddam back then,only the rest of the foolish world(I feel sorry for America for having to live on a planet inhabited by such fools)(sarcasm)didn't agree?
Is Saddam more dangerous now than he was in '91?
Note that it's not Saddam I'm for.I'm against the precedent this is going to set.And don't ignore the power of precedent(how many times does someone tell you not to do X,then you ask if Joe is doing it,why can't I?Or look at the legal fraternity.You'll see the power of precedent).
It's also been argued that Saddam is buying time.
For what?
Even if Saddam had an arsenal the size of America,believe you me,it wouldn't mean ****,coz if say today,just coz America is a superpower,if you were to start invading countries and ****,the rest of the world would stand up against you,and your imperialism wouldn't help you.It's one thing for Saddam to have ideas in his head.It's another to try and work them out on the ground.
About America having sponsored folks who end up becoming terrorists(which may not even be her fault-I mean,you won't blame America for Oklahoma '95 just coz the guy that did it was once a soldier):
The problem is not "fixing" such deviants.The problem is why America would use such deviants in the first place.
[Edited by kingdavid on 03-07-2003 at 03:18 AM]
