Sorry, Tartarin, can't agree with you on your position. Everything is getting clearer. The UN will provide no solution, or assistance, in problem solving. Blair needs to be kept out of the fray to protect him for some time. The U.S. will, in the end, go it alone.
Every delay is costing lives.
... and saving those of thousands innocent children and women.
Peace at any price is always cheaper than war, Walter - in the very short term.
Okay, I'll put it another way, because it seems most of the participants in this forum missed my message. It's okay for France to veto any UN Resolution. What I'm saying is France must do more than just veto the UN resolution. They must also offer better options to solve this problem with Iraq. Why aren't they making demands of Saddam who continues to ignore UN Resolutions? There's no balance. France needs to get their ass off the seat, and start doing something constructive for peace. They can't live on the status quo; that's not a solution. The war with Iraq is also not a solution. If all the chemical and biological weapons are hidden, a war is not going to reveal where they are hidden. It's not a guarantee. It'll still take over 400 years to find them. c.i.
No, Walter, even the cost in "innocent women and children" is made greater with every delay. If, as some hope, the delays drag on so long that the United States must withdraw, the eventual costs may be thousands of times as large. Better the few now, than the many later.
You keep hoping for a positive action from France. I'm here to tell you that I just love an optimist.
There was a town meeting a couple weeks ago with college students from Iraq and the US. The students in Iraq said they don't want the US to start a war with Iraq. They said Saddam is their problem. It's surprising to hear Americans talk about the cost of Iraqi lives as if they know better than the Iraqi themselvs. c.i.
Just be careful you're not mixing up a considered opinion with the feeling that you just want it over with. Nothing has changed, except Saddam has fewer weapons than a couple of months ago. Nothing except that America has placed troops in position. Nothing except that everyone wants it "over with." If it were your life, your kids' lives, and your country in the firing line, would you hold out for peace or endorse an invasion?
War does risk my son's life. He's a professional Army officer, though a specialist in East Asian, rather than Southwest Asia. It would be nice if wars never happened, but that just isn't the real world I'm afraid.
i truely believe that if Bush and Blair wanted a settlement with Saddam they would not have included the benchmark of Saddam making a public apology on his national television. this is TOTALLY non-relevant and reeks of school yard bully demanding the word "uncle".
cicerone imposter wrote:Steve, Good link: good to see Blair getting some support, because he's trying to do the right thing. France doesn't help any by just declaring "no war," and not being instrumental in any solution. That's the wrong way for France to act. If they want peace, they must work for it. Just saying "no war" provides nothing to the crisis. Why aren't they demanding anything from Saddam? Saddam is the problem, not PM Blair, who is trying very hard to go through the UN. c.i.
Some incredibly thoughtful, reasonable statements, CI. I realized while reading them that I have a habit of assuming your position on this is further away from mine than perhaps it is (much as I think some others tend to categorize me as "wanting" war). Just thought I'd chime in with agreement for a change. (I promise not to make a habit of it, though.) :wink:
Not as long as people allow wars to happen. This war has not been created by either Osama or Saddam. We are the invaders, pure and simple. There is nothing about this proposed action which is defensive, except in the rhetoric.
dyslexia wrote:i truely believe that if Bush and Blair wanted a settlement with Saddam they would not have included the benchmark of Saddam making a public apology on his national television. this is TOTALLY non-relevant and reeks of school yard bully demanding the word "uncle".
Would you prefer a solution that allows Saddam to pretend to all the world that the US and UK were just picking on him and that he was innocent? I tend to think that would simply embolden him to continue on as before.
tres; the point is if disarmament is the issue (question that) demanding Saddam going on T.V. is simply inane. real issues are at stake here as this trivializes everything that Bush/Blair request insuring non compliance.
"i truely believe that if Bush and Blair wanted a settlement with Saddam they would not have included the benchmark of Saddam making a public apology on his national television. this is TOTALLY non-relevant and reeks of school yard bully demanding the word "uncle"..."
Exactly how it looks to many others, Dys. I think it was intended, don't you?
I agree with it being totally inane. I had to pull my car off the road when I first heard it, I was laughing so hard.
dyslexia wrote:tres; the point is if disarmament is the issue (question that) demanding Saddam going on T.V. is simply inane. real issues are at stake here as this trivializes everything that Bush/Blair request insuring non compliance.
Then you do not think that allowing him to continue to deny ever possessing WOMDs has no probable future downside? I wonder if he were the head of a multinational corporation charged with polluting and we were arguing whether he should be allowed to clean up his mess without admitting the crime whether you might see it differently.
SOP and the issue is the WoMD not t.v. i cant really believe the mentality of going to war over the avoidence of a public apology. this is a total non sequitor.
c.i. quote:
Quote:It's okay for France to veto any UN Resolution. What I'm saying is France must do more than just veto the UN resolution. They must also offer better options to solve this problem with Iraq. Why aren't they making demands of Saddam who continues to ignore UN Resolutions?
I would add to that - and create their own coalition, plus put this plan into a resolution form. May not get it passed, but a good strong, tough resolution of determined elimination of WoMD in Iraq and continued steps for humanizing the Saddam Regime plus overcoming the massive hurt the people are experiencing from the sanctions that have been in place for 12 years.
