The US, The UN and Iraq

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2293623



Somehow, I doubt the actual report Dr. Blix will deliver to The Security Council will be as unambiguous.


Tartarin, I don't recall anything about "Only" Osama or Saddam or Iraq ... I recall a pledge to seek, engage, and eliminate terrorism, and itss practitioners and enablers where ever such might be found, whoever might be involved, for as long as it took. It seems to me the pledge is being kept.

I could be wrong here too, but it seems to me that it is the liberals on this thread who are more prone to employ inflammatory rhetoric, resort to derogatory name calling, and to employ cites from opinionated, agenda-driven, partisan sources, among other "Cheap Shot" techniques. Again, I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me. I don't deny that some of the conservatives have done so too, but I do not believe myself guilty of that to any significant degree, nor can I recall much incidence of such behavior from numerous other conservatives. As I said, I could be wrong, but I recall precious little "Straight News" from "The Other Side", but plenty of opinion and conjecture.

As to "The Cowboys have won", well, that's ridiculous. No sane person welcomes the prospect of war, no "Glee" is shown. This has been a decision made with great deliberation, responsibly, and in full awareness of its cost in every coin. The price is steep, yes, but the goal is well worth the expense, and far less than it would be if the option were not to be exercized now.

I doubt any on this thread are more "Anti-War" than I; I have some very unpleasant personal experience with the pursuit, as well as a philosophic objection. I am furious with Saddam, and those of his kind, for having forced us to this terrible point. I/We did not start this war, it was brought to us, and those who bring war to Me/Us must and will be countered by war to the full extent of My/Our ability to wage that war.

This did not begin with Osama, or Iraq, it will not end with Osama or Iraq, or even The Middle East. Such as they are but battles and campaigns in what is, as was promised, a long and frequently difficult, but plainly necessary war.



timber

I could be wrong here too, but it seems to me that it is the so called conservatives on this thread who are more prone to employ inflammatory rhetoric, resort to derogatory name calling, and to employ cites from opinionated, agenda-driven, partisan sources, among other "Cheap Shot" techniques.

But I don't think so!!!!!!!!

The war, at this point is neither necessary nor does it have to be fought. It is only going to happen because of the WAR MONGERING Bush administration. It is the Bush war and the outcome is on Bush and all his backers head. There are other ways to win this action - but we live in a Terminatior society and the cowboy unPresident must win at all costs. And the price has already been dear!!!!!!!!! Now the real cost will be even be dearer - but, spin on white boy, spin!!!!!!!!!

I'm willing to consider that, Bill. Trot out your evidence and lets have a look at it.



timber

360 pages - read and keep score!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course, be fair - that hasn't happened either. Maybe what I consider an insult for you is fair name calling - then again, I could be wrong.

Main Entry: war·mon·ger
Pronunciation: 'wor-"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]-
Function: noun
Date: 1590
: one who urges or attempts to stir up war : JINGO
- war·mon·ger·ing

Breathe, Bill - breeeeaaaatthhe

http://www.msnbc.com/news/877139.asp?vts=022620031640



That is something that is real and should be enacted on - yesterday!

Now, I confess an agenda, and a partisanship of sorts, of course. I submit, however, Bill, that your last several posts have well supported my premis in this current digression. I do not disdain the anti-war argujment, or its proponents per se, but I am disappointed by the way many of the anti-war participants have presented their arguments. With hundreds of pages of responses, I'm sure examples may be found to support condemnation of both camps. Hell, I've probably committed a gaffe or two. Still, and I mean this in all respect, I see an almost fundamental dichotomy between the emotion and passion of the anti-war camp and the logic and reason of the supporters of the proposition in this particular instance.

Again, this may not be so, but it is how I perceive it.

Of course, I believe I need not elaborate on my dismay with the manner in which this Administration presented its argument as well.


An aside: There is some irony in that I once participated in a war I did not support, under an Administration which apart from that damned war I essentially supported with some enthusiasm. I now support a war in which I will not participate, under an Administration I view with great misgiving.

<sigh>



timber

Good article, Bill, and that has been a concern of mine for a long time. The Coast Guard, very much the Front Line Troops for the Defense of The Homeland, have been getting screwed for years. Not only is The Coast Guard incapable of policing commercial shipping, it was unable to prevent a broken down fishing boat full of Caribbean Refugess from debarking onto a Public Jetty in Florida in full daylight in front of TV News Cameras in helicopters.



timber

The actions that open up now are astounding. We have made bitter enemies with France and Germany, we have bought Mexico, Turkey and others - the world population is against this action. The USA is 37% adamently against this war. There has never been this kind of action against a war before it started -

Yet your side put out arguments and expects us to accept them like it just dawn on us, we are unpatriotic, we are suppose to get out of this country, we are against the soldiers, we support Saddam, we want to see our troops get killed - all we say is the war is wrong. Containment is existing and will work.

As I showed earlier, a war monger is someone who attempts to stir up war, can you say that you are not trying to advocate a war - true it is strongly stirring up a war, but that is what is being debated.

I often say-let's start the killing. The only logical conclusion after long threads that have been presented before is exactly that outcome. Yet, if it is put into words - then I am offensive.

You could say after my threads - then let's start the peace, I will accept that.

No, I fully believe that we have been called and made into much worse - I categorically disagree with you timber!

i may very well have not heard this correctly and/or Chris Mathews may not have been totally accurate but what i heard was that Bush said in his speech this evening that, paraphrased "taking out saddam will end terrorism in the middle east" if thats an accuate summation we have proof that the Bush adminstration is living in lala land.

By the way, I once participated in a war that I strongly opposed. I had to go to find out why - I learned why. We were lied to, same as with Cuba. I never hated my enemy - sorry! If we were allowed to have full relations with Cuba, then there would have been a much different outcome over the last 30 years. Political again.

Now I'm against this war - same reasons, same lies, same pressures! Eliminate Saddam, not the citizens of Iraq!

Bill, it's cool to disagree ... it would be pointless otherwise, wouldn't it? I don't necessarily see this as an exersize in persuasion; I really don't intend to change anyone's mind. I have strong views on this issue, and I know others feel as strongly on both sides of the argument. I offer my argument, cites, and opinions by way of definition of, explanation of, my position. I solicit other points of view, finding an awareness and understanding of them is crucial to broader awareness and understanding of the situation.

I appreciate where you're coming from, partner. I share many of your concerns in concept, even if I characterize or attribute them somewhat differently. I don't expect to change your mind, nor should you expect to change mine. However, by knowing and sharing what is on our minds, we eventually all change our minds. It wasn't all that long ago we burned witches, held slaves, and denied women the vote



timber :wink:

And I dearly hope in less than 100 years they demean those fools that use to have wars. I always wanted to be the generation that stopped wars - but, as we approach this one, it might be the last one and the last of mankind! <sigh>

I don't expect to change anyones mind - I'm too pragmatic! BTW, unless I am wrong (and it means absolutely nothing), I am also the only grunt!

I don't have any hope for either of you! (Me included.) c.i.

It has been long and hard, the realization that is was over was really back in August when Rove thought up this war for the 2002 elections. I knew it was a for sure thing when Wolfowitz (about September, maybe earlier October) said the war was a definite thing because Bush could go back on his pronouncements-then is when it became a done deal. But, I guess, the full impact are now upon us - may the Lord look out for all our soldiers and the Iraqi citizens who deserve better!

One final word timber, I don't believe for one second that you are in league (and some of the other participants also) the "Limbaugh/Coulter Armies" of the USA. This group may be the most unpatriotic, unAmerican group that has ever been a part of the 226+ year history of the USA. But then, the KKK was around for quite a few years also.

Gees, I got a little back handed again -

timber, I do believe you!

One thing is for sure ... The Democrats will get plenty of mileage out of the $100 Billion or so The War With Saddam Hussein will cost. The impact on the Federal Budget will occasion much debate and generate lots of media attention as The Election draws closer. The Administration did a poor job of selling this war to the world, and it faces just as tough a job selling this war to The Legislature. Bush the Younger is in the fight of his political life. I must wonder whether The Administration's sales skills will have improved any.
The War will be here and gone soon. The War Over The War will be with us a long time ... at least as long as The War on Terrorism lasts. This neither began with Bush the Younger nor will it end with him, or even his foreseeable successors. What is under way now promises to as drastically reshape The World and its alliances as did WWII.



timber

Thanks, Bill, I appreciate that. And no, I am not a Rush Limbaugh fan. I think he is a celebrity before anything else, and find his posturing and demeanor offensive. He is a rabblerouser, not an analytic commentator. I happen to consider Anne Coulter a strident harpie, parroting a narrow, dogmatic interpretation of conservatism. She is prettier than Helen Thomas, though ... that's "One for Our Side", I think



timber.