Where is the line?

sozobe

Have to run...and haven't read last few posts...but perhaps you might gain some headway if you thought of the differences between coersion and consensus.

I posted this link on another thread, but put it here too, as it is truly exceptional...from October New Yorker though this link is to the same piece duplicated on another site...
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1522.html

Well, Hell, iffen no one else has the sand, i'll do it . . .

I hereby formally declare that i is a intaleckchewall, so don't nobody dispute my word no more, ya hear?

well yeah Setanta but we have yet the task of defining your "effete-ness"

Well, Blatham, if Saddam is replaced, maybe no more messages will be necessary. The rogue leaders will realize that when the U.S. demands something, she really means it and is ready to take all the necessary measures to make such a demand fulfilled. And they will modify their policies having such a knowledge.

Well, Blatham, if Saddam is replaced, maybe no more messages will be necessary. The rogue leaders will realize that when the U.S. demands something, she really means it and is ready to take all the necessary measures to make such a demand fulfilled. And they will modify their policies having such a knowledge.

steissd
Did it ever occur to you that it may do just the opposite and in the case of N. Korea they might do just as they are now threatening and stage a preemptive attack on the US. We have no right to threaten the world. Sovereign nations can do as they please within their own boundaries. Suppose the European nations or say France said to the US or Israel we are threatened by your WMD'S destroy them. I don't have to tell you the answer.
I would ask what nations do you classify as rogue nations? The ones we have not managed to buy.

Hmmmm, au1929, is there ANOTHER line here? Is there a point at which the rest of the world reasonably says "You ae not massacring any more of your people", or "You are not poisoning the world with...any more"? Or whatever?

Au, Iraqi regime endangers stability in the area of the U.S. vital interests. U.S. is defending herself by attacking Iraq.

dlowan
Yes there is but think about it. There has for at least the last 30 years more corrupt governments as well as mutilations, starvation, killings and genocide on the continent of Africa than any where else in the world. Perhaps more than the world has seen before. I don't see the world rushing there with troops to stop it. Yet all you hear about how Saddam gassed his own people. Do you honestly believe the "world" gives a tinkers damn about it. Of course not.
Is saddam a danger and would we be doing the world a favor if he was done away with? No doubt. But the real reason we are so hot to trot is the danger he poses to the worlds oil supply.
Which leads me to the next question or conundrum? If it is the "worlds" oil supply that is in danger why is the US and of course our blood brothers Briton the nations concerned. Are we the entire world?
At this point I wish they would drop the other shoe and get on with it. And by the way it is no longer "if" but "when".

steissd
Are those intrests less viital to Germany, France and etc. ?

They are vital to all the industrially developed countries. But France wants to promote her business on expense of the U.S. interests, and Germany is being ruled by Social-Democrats (I do not exaggerate, that is an official name of the party Bundeskanzler
Schröder belongs to).

I think we should give a damn. Let's start with Saddam, and then we'll clean out the rest of the tyrants and murderers, okay? Let's not leave Saddam in power just because other people are as bad or worse. I find nothing logical in that argument.

Trespassers Will is right. Milosevic was the first rogue leader that was coped with, Saddam may be the second, and the queue may be long enough (Kim Jong Il, Ali Khamenei, Bashir el-Assad, Mugabe, etc.)...

trespassers will
Iam making the point that the reason for the attack on Saddam has nothing to do with the gassing of the Kurds. Does the government believe the American people is so stupid as to believe that hokum? I guess they do and what's worse they are probably right.
As I pointed out this sort of thing has been going on in Africa for quite some time. Did we just get religion?
Tell me we must attack because Saddam broke the agreements made to end the gulf war or that we must protect the oil supply or that he defied the UN resolutions. I can buy that but please don't feed me obvious BS

(Kim Jong Il, Ali Khamenei, Bashir el-Assad, Mugabe, etc.)...
I was going to respond however I am speechless that you think these people will be prosecuted. What about Arafat and you know who? I don't believe you know who is guilty of anything but many do. I should point out that there are many murdering heads of state that are presently residing quite comfortably in other countries. One who comes instantly to mind is our friend Iddi Amin.

Iddi Amin is no more the Uganda president. I did not mention Arafat for not being accused in promotion of the specific Israeli agenda, but I believe that he (together with Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abed el-Aziz Rantissi, and Sheik Nasrallah from Hizballa) deserve gallows not less than Saddam does.

I'm all for going after Sharon.

Is this author on someone's PR payroll or simply doing a very close inspection of their own colon?

steiisd

Why do you 'exaggerate' about the name of the SPD (btw: Germany is not 'ruled' by the SPD but by a democraticly elected coalition formed of SPD and The Greens)?
(The UK, another btw, is ruled by the Queen and got a Labor government.)

The Social Democrats got their name since more than 100 years.

au - And I was responding to that point by stating that now is as good a time as any to "get religion".