PDA

View Full Version : France chickens out.


peter2002
Mar 4, 2003, 02:45 PM
France won't veto the upcoming US-Iraq war to be called Desert Justus (Just U.S.)

I knew the French would chicken-out in not using their veto power once they heard we would ban goat's milk and French frys.

Bush still says war is his last option. A reporter quipped, "That is Bush's only option."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20030304/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_france_iraq_veto_1&printer=1

Pete :)

In a related story, French are telling Yank tourists to go home, calling us pigs, and the Spanish are spitting on US tourists too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-03-03-anti-american-usat_x.htm

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 4, 2003, 03:02 PM
France has some serious problems when they cant tell the difference from right and wrong. They should have been pushing George senior 12 years ago to finish this thing instead of stopping 30 Miles from the Butcher of Baghdad.

Taft
Mar 4, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
France has some serious problems when they cant tell the difference from right and wrong. They should have been pushing George senior 12 years ago to finish this thing instead of stopping 30 Miles from the Butcher of Baghdad.

Please. :rolleyes:

Put a friggin' catchy sound bite in your sentence and the whole world will come round to your point, I guess. The 'Butcher of Bahgdad'! Its a marketing tactic if I've ever seen one. Simply roll up all of the simplistic moral truths you subscribe to into a single tagline, then anyone reading your viewpoints will think, "The Butcher of Bahgdad! He must be evil. Wholly and totally evil. We must go to war."

And it is effective. Its something Ann Coulter (or as I like to call her, the Great FEMALE Satan--nice use of the principles, eh?) uses to great effect.

This isn't to say Saddam is a good guy. Its just the means to your desired ends are reprehensible.

Taft

Taft
Mar 4, 2003, 03:19 PM
And I never addressed the point I set out to make in my post.

Right and wrong. Trying to break down this conflict to a moral good and a moral evil is just plain silly. Worse, its just plain ignorant.

Situations like this never are as simple as: "we are good, Saddam is evil...so lets destroy him." There are a whole set of moral and ethical obstacles to making that kind of assertation. The fact that you, and many others in this country, think that we are the unquestionable good in the upcoming conflict says a lot about this country.

Have you ever thought that maybe there is no absolute right and wrong? That maybe both attacking Saddam and trying to control his regime fall somewhere in between?

One last time: There is no such thing as an absolute moral good or an absolute evil. There are certainly inherently good and evil people out there, but situations rarely, if ever, boil down to moral blacks and whites. The naivete in this country towards this principle is quite staggering.

Taft

RBMaraman
Mar 4, 2003, 03:31 PM
I saw this coming a mile away. France did the same thing in the first Gulf War. They opposed everything up until a few days before the first attacks, then they came aboard. Germany will join here in a few days, and the stage will be set. The question is, when will the attacks begin?

Taft
Mar 4, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by RBMaraman
I saw this coming a mile away. France did the same thing in the first Gulf War. They opposed everything up until a few days before the first attacks, then they came aboard. Germany will join here in a few days, and the stage will be set. The question is, when will the attacks begin?

The thing is, they aren't totally with us on this. Chirac said that they will not use their veto simply because they see nothing will stop the Bush war machine.

They are saying its inevitable because of our government's stance on the issue. Not exactly a glowing endorsement, is it?

Taft

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 4, 2003, 03:42 PM
Come on Taft, Anyone that supports Saddam cant see the difference between right and wrong. I would like to say i could count on my fingers how many people he has murdered either himself or by others but then I would need hundreds or even thousands of hands. Why the world keeps looking the other way when dealing with these killers is beyond me. I guess its just more pleasent in people's minds not to do something about people like saddam,bin laden, the hitlers,stalins, do i need to really go on?

macfan
Mar 4, 2003, 04:02 PM
Taft,
The 'Butcher of Bahgdad'! Its a marketing tactic if I've ever seen one.

It may be a marketing tactic, but it is also a very accurate description of Saddam. Learn his history, and you will literally tremble at the evil of it, if you have a conscience.

One last time: There is no such thing as an absolute moral good or an absolute evil.

Yes, there are such things, and your saying otherwise does not change that. Defining and knowing them can be difficult, but they do most certainly exist.

Taft
Mar 4, 2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Yes, there are such things, and your saying otherwise does not change that. Defining and knowing them can be difficult, but they do most certainly exist.

Rarely, if ever can you seperate global situations into complete moral goods and evils. Saddam is a perfect example.

He has killed people. Many people. Bad.

We have given him aid and weapons over the years and looked the other way when he's killed people. Bad.

While Saddam may be bad, attacking Iraq could create a situation in which the region becomes more unstable. Bad.

We, like the French and Germans, have interests to protect. Those interests include keeping past weapons supplies hidden and oil and natural gas interests in the area. Questionable at best.

So who is the hero here? Is it us? Are we really trying to grab at redemption for our past acts? Are we really trying to be the champion of the Iraqi people? Are we really fighting the war on terrorism??

It seems unlikely to me. While Saddam has certainly been involved in bad dealings, looking at the situation in terms of Good and Evil is absurd. The situation is far more complex than that. If eliminating oppressive regimes was our mission, we'd be in a never-ending war. But we aren't, are we? Rather, we sometimes support bad people to further our policies or agendas. Is that evil? A lot of people would say no.

The same Good vs. Evil arguments get applied to everything from the war on drugs to abortion. Its a helluva lot easier to paint your opponent as evil in order to justify your position than actually going through the work of arguing with facts and logic.

Taft

Taft
Mar 4, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Yes, there are such things, and your saying otherwise does not change that. Defining and knowing them can be difficult, but they do most certainly exist.

Also, you make a huge assumption here. While I hate to drag this down into a philisophical discussion, you assume that there are absolute moral truths. I disagree.

Do I think Hitler was evil? Yep. Do you? Most likely. Do the vast majority of people in the world? Yep. Does EVERYONE? No way.

I don't think this justifies Hitler's behavior or legitimizes his intentions, I just think everyone has a different moral compass. This immediately disqualifies good and evil from being a justification, especially for a violent action where there will be bloodshed. We must receive our laws and order from a mandate of the people, not on morality imposed by the few.

Taft

cubist
Mar 4, 2003, 04:30 PM
Hey, what's this "France chickens out" stuff? Aren't they fighting some kind of shooting war in Cote d'Ivoire? Seems they didn't ask for any UN resolutions on that one... nor is anyone demonstrating about it (except the people who live there).

macfan
Mar 4, 2003, 04:43 PM
Taft,
This immediately disqualifies good and evil from being a justification, especially for a violent action where there will be bloodshed.

The irony here is rich. The unspoken assumption that you are making is that violent action and bloodsheld are, in fact, evil, as you argue in the same sentence against right and wrong being a justification for an action.


Do I think Hitler was evil? Yep. Do you? Most likely. Do the vast majority of people in the world? Yep. Does EVERYONE? No way.

We must receive our laws and order from a mandate of the people, not on morality imposed by the few.

Morality does not depend upon a vote of the majority. Never has, never will. That is why our government is not a democracy, but a representative republic with checks and balances.

The majority once thought owning other human beings was moral.

In the particular case of Iraq, there are moral, legal, and strategic reasons why Saddam should be removed. This is one of those instances where US and world interests in removing him happily coincide with the fact of his own evil.

pantagruel
Mar 4, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
France won't veto the upcoming US-Iraq war to be called Desert Justus (Just U.S.)

I knew the French would chicken-out once they heard we would ban goats milk and French frys.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20030304/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_france_iraq_veto_1&printer=1

Pete :)

In a related story, French are telling Yank tourists to go home, calling us pigs, and the Spanish are spitting on US tourists too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-03-03-anti-american-usat_x.htm
I just want to let you know that with this post and your "nuke N.Korea to teach a lesson" post I think you are the boards biggest dick.
In fact, I'm going to vote for you as Macrumors Biggest Dick.

AmbitiousLemon
Mar 4, 2003, 06:41 PM
Declaring a Just War?
by Scotty McLennan


President Bush proclaimed in his State of the Union Address last month that the United States of America will "defend the peace and confound the designs of evil men," referring to disarming Saddam Hussein. He assured the American public that if it comes to war, "We will fight in a just cause and by just means." Bush ended the speech by asking for God's guidance. (He repeated that theme Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, seeking guidance through "a testing time for our country.")

Because the president appeared to be referencing "just war" criteria that have been articulated by the Christian Church for almost 2,000 years, it is important to look closely at whether they will be met in a war against Iraq.

Just cause: First of all, is there just cause? Traditionally this has referred to a defensive response to grave and certain harm to the nation. The Bush administration has not made the case that either Iraq's capacity or intention to use weapons of mass destruction is likely, much less certain. There is no more adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature now than there was five years ago. There are no proven high-level Iraqi links to al Qaeda and international terrorism targeting the United States.

Last resort: Second, are we at the point where going to war is truly a matter of last resort? Clearly not. We have containment and deterrence of a regime that has been effective for 12 years. Political and military sanctions can be continued -- although I would hope we'd lift the economic embargo that has been partially responsible for a doubling of the death rate for small children in Iraq since 1991, according to UNICEF. Iraq is militarily surrounded and contained. There are U.S.-patrolled no-fly zones. Surveillance and intelligence-gathering is at a high pitch. U.N. weapon inspectors are operating throughout the country. If we can continue negotiating with a more dangerous North Korea, why not with Iraq?

Legitimate authority: Third, does President Bush have legitimate authority to act? The majority of Americans are against the war without the backing of the United Nations, and Vietnam should have taught us not to prosecute a war without the backing of the American people. The President claims that last November's U.N. resolution gives him all the authority needed for a war against Iraq, but that is not the way a majority of the Security Council now see it. To prosecute a war without U.N. support and without the backing of the American public would be folly at best and a disaster at worse.

Probability of success: Fourth, is there a probability of success? America is strong militarily, and Iraq is not, so we may well be able to defeat their armed forces within a couple of months. But this criterion fails when we consider how long we would have to be tied down in Iraq in order to win the peace. An article by James Fallows in the November issue of Atlantic Monthly estimated Iraq would in effect have to become our fifty-first state, with a huge humanitarian crisis, need for broad economic reconstruction and call for some 50,000-75,000 U.S. troops for many years to restore civil order under fire and to defend Iraq's borders. There would be continuing casualties, costs would probably run in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and that would have a dramatic impact on providing services to U.S. citizens.

Test of proportionality: Fifth, is it likely that greater evil will be created by going to war than by not? If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, would not this new war run great risk of triggering the very use of weapons of mass destruction that we are so desperately trying to prevent? Moreover, is it not likely that such a war will infuriate much of the Muslim world and solidify them against us?

Certainly a war against Iraq could stimulate more terrorism against this country and its citizens rather than less. The world becomes more dangerous if the United States is seen as an aggressor nation engaged in pre-emptive war. Why should everyone else not abandon the U.N. charter to pursue their own pre- emptive strikes where they feel at risk, from Kashmir to North Korea?

And concentrating our resources on a war in Iraq could well mean that al Qaeda and related terrorist groups, along with countries like North Korea, are emboldened as we have less resources and less attention to pay to those potentially greater threats.

No civilian targets: Sixth and finally, would innocent men, women and children be spared in a war against Iraq? The United States has precision smart bombs, but what if we end up in door-to-door fighting in Baghdad? What about civilian death and suffering based on destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, piled on top of civilian death and suffering under the sanctions and embargo of the last 12 years? This is still a devastated country that we would in effect be finishing off, with a huge impact on its civilian population. U.N. estimates are of 500,000 civilian casualties, directly and indirectly due to a war, with some 2 million civilians displaced.

"People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear," as the U.S. Catholic Bishops recently put it. Yet, here it appears that none of the traditional requirements is met for a war against Iraq, and they all must be satisfied for a war to be just.

So what are we left with? Diplomacy, inspections, intelligence-gathering, sanctions, containment, international solidarity, humanitarian assistance to the civilian population of Iraq, vigilance and patience. Abraham Lincoln warned us that right makes might, and not the other way around.

Basic moral and spiritual values are the lifeblood of this country, and without them the American way of life itself is in grave peril. We must not go to war with Iraq.

Scotty McLennan is dean for religious life at Stanford University. As Garry Trudeau's roommate at Yale, he served as the model for Doonesbury's Rev. Scot Sloan.

2003 San Francisco Chronicle

neut
Mar 4, 2003, 06:42 PM
nice.

MacRumors Biggest Dick.


good way to end these "lets kill 'em" posts.




btw- Taft, you are the man.

dekator
Mar 4, 2003, 07:14 PM
I would love to see Saddam Hussein removed. However, I wonder whether he really cannot be assassinated. Is a war necessary for this?

That said, it is clear that the current Bush (or indeed any previous) administration have no interest in "good". They *made* Saddam Hussein. Nobody did anything to dispose of him when he gased his neighbours and his own folks.
The Bush administration is oil.
Iraq is oil.

On a different note: The US of A threaten to end their occupation of Germany.
We'll be deeply grieved when they go (*danger*, *irony*).
I welcome any american civilian tho'.
The war has already started. The economic war between Europe and the US. I'm proud I'm not buying any american products except everything Apple-related. Well, I think it's because Apple is part of the "other America" which I like very much. Places in the US are starting to boycott european goods.
Beware tho', the cold war is over. Eventually, Europe will hit back. And when they hit, they'll hit hard. Where will America's tech be without Echelon etc. ? We'll see.

macfan
Mar 4, 2003, 08:15 PM
Just Cause? Morally, yes Saddam is bad enough to merit his removal. Threat? Yes. He is, among other things, supporting terrorism outside of Iraq and he is a terrorist inside of Iraq.

Last Resort? It's been 12 years, and he isn't disarming. Sanctions of the kind on Iraq are themselves are an act of war, and they have been in place for a decade. If we leave him in power, he will gain the kinds of weapons that will allow him to set off a catastorphe. There have been efforts to resolve this short of force, but only the threat of force has any effect on Saddam at all.

Legitimate Authourity? Under US law, yes. Congress has authorized him to act. In addition, the UN resolutions, and the cease-fire of 1991 provide more than adequate legal authority.

Probability of Success: There is a decent probability of success and improving the situation in Iraq for Iraqis and in the region for everyone else. The probability of success would improve greatly with more cooperation from Europe in the form of aid to Iraq and contributing forces in the post-war time period.

No civilian targets: Civilians won't be trageted specifically, as has been done in previous wars like WWII, but there will be civilian casualties, and there will be military casualties, and there will be destruction of property. That is what makes war so terrible: death and destruction.


dekator,
I'm proud I'm not buying any american products except everything Apple-related.

LOL. Anyway, does Apple even make anything in the United States? I know that there are BMWs made in America, as well as Toyotas, and probably Mercedes as well, since they own a major US car maker. The world economy is interdependent and international, not self contained and national.

Before Europe goes talking about how America "made" Saddam, they should look in the mirror first. After Russia, Saddam's weapons said "made in France," and German companies also helped Saddam's WMD programs. It's not just American companies that helped Saddam. It was Saddam who made Saddam, and he got support from the West and the East over the years.

The first time the US came to Europe with military force, we did not stay, nor did we remain invoved (nor did we ratify the Treaty of Versailles). Then, we had to come back, and we stayed for a long, long time. Can we trust Germany now not to install another Hitler if we leave? I think we can. I think democratic values have taken a firm hold in Germany.

Taft
Mar 4, 2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Taft,


The irony here is rich. The unspoken assumption that you are making is that violent action and bloodsheld are, in fact, evil, as you argue in the same sentence against right and wrong being a justification for an action.


The irony isn't nearly as rich as you have a taste for. My point is that an action in which bloodshed occurs is especially susceptable to criticism because it is the same type of act that we are using to justify the action. Its kind of like saying, "We are going to kill you because you kill other people."

This is why good and evil are far too strong a term. We'd be using evil to fight evil, and probably doing some evil (killing innocent civilians) collaterally in the process. Is that righteous? Is that the high moral ground?

And beyond that, we, as a majority, have designated a high value for human life. That is one of the many reasons an action like this must not be taken lightly.


Morality does not depend upon a vote of the majority. Never has, never will. That is why our government is not a democracy, but a representative republic with checks and balances.

The majority once thought owning other human beings was moral.

I agree, but only so far. Our government is set up so the will of the majority is executed unless it infringes on the rights of the minority. And we elect officials to make those decisions. But through those people we elect to represent us, we are making decisions on what we believe to be moral. Drugs, prostitution, abortion...they are highly controversial issues during elections because each elected official contributes to the legality of our actions..

In the case of slavery, of course I think its wrong, and not everyone always thought it was bad. But over time, more and more people wanted slavery to end. In the end it was the elected officials (Lincoln and the reps. of the time) who brought an end to it.

The rights of the minority aren't always protected under the current system. Sometimes our elected officials (elected by some kind of a majority) have to explicitly set a moral protection into law to uphold those rights.

Taft

macfan
Mar 4, 2003, 08:45 PM
We'd be using evil to fight evil, and probably doing some evil (killing innocent civilians) collaterally in the process.

That's right. War is always evil, and we will be using evil. However, it can be the lesser of two evils from time to time. I fear this is one such case.

I agree about the elections and issues of legality. However, legality does not ensure morality. Our system was set up as it was because those who set up did not trust government to be moral, nor did they trust the majority to be moral. It was a belief in the essential immorality of humans that led them to set up the government they did.

BTW, I still think the irony is rich. At least 2% milk, if not whole milk! ;)

AmbitiousLemon
Mar 4, 2003, 09:20 PM
macfan if you are going to respond to my post you should at least read it. i read all the posts here beore responding.

you do not respond to any of the arguments made in my post, you simply used the bold titles and ignored everything else. so i assume you either didnt read it or felt you couldnt respodn to the arguments made.

fact is that most americans are against this war, but Bush pushes ahead despite international and domestic outrage at what he is doing. the world has seen the largest peace demonstrations since the Vietnam war and yet he does not listen.

there is absolutely no justification for a war against iraq. the world sees this. the majority of americans sees this. bush does not.

this war can only result in a great deal of lost life and to make the world a more dangerous place to live.

kiwi
Mar 4, 2003, 09:31 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0309/fiore.php

Sol
Mar 4, 2003, 09:36 PM
The issue on this thread is not who is good and evil, it is that France is not supporting the US push for war.

I think most Americans have trouble accepting the fact that not everyone in the world shares their point of view. For example, not everyone believes that there is a link between the Hussein regime and Al Quada. The Arabs have a saying about this that goes like : "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend" and I think this summarizes the situation very well. Besides, bin Laden publicly renounced Hussein in his last statement to the press.

Anyway, France is closer to the Middle East than America (and no, Israel does not count as America) so they have every right to form their own opinion on the matter. The fact is, Europe is a lot more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than the US who got their first real taste of it in NY. Nobody wants a repeat of that anywhere but if the US continues attacking Iraq it just provides fuel to individuals and organizations whose purpose it is to destroy Western civilization. France is just as much a part of this civilization as America is and if they are nervous about a new war they have good reasons to be.

To America's credit, despite what protesters claim, Bush has taken the matter to the UN and most countries have gotten a chance to state where they stand on the issue of war. We might not all agree with America but at least we are debating it openly.

I think it is very important that Americans realize the "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" attitude may work in movies but the real world is a lot more gray than that. Just because Europe is more Liberal than the US does not mean that it does not want to be your allies any more. When it comes down to it, we are all on the same side and in the future you might even find yourselves thanking Europe for showing caution in this fragile situation.

3rdpath
Mar 4, 2003, 09:52 PM
of course france won't veto the whole shebang and spoil our war-party.

but russia might do it.

we'll know soon enough...

macfan
Mar 4, 2003, 10:57 PM
AmbitiousLemon,

I did read Mr. McLennan's column, along with the other posts. The bold points are useful only insofar as they form a theoretical framework for a discussion.

My points do, in fact, address the arguments made.

1. Saddam is, indeed, supporting terrorism against Americans and our allies. It is justified as self defense and as a means of freeing the Iraqi people.

2. War is, in fact, a last resort. It is just a question of how long the period before that last resort will have to last, and the risks of inaction grow with each passing day.

3. The fact is, not only have the representatives of the American public apporved this action, about 70 percent of Americans favor removing Saddam by force. That has no bearing on the moral legitimacy of the cause, but it is worth noting in the face of the statements to the contrary.

4. The probability of success and test of proportionality are basically the same thing. The chance of success is high enough to make the risk worthwhile.

5. Similar doomsday arguments were made in 1991 and before the Afghanistan invasion. Doomday arguments do not always come to pass.

Rower_CPU
Mar 4, 2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by kiwi
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0309/fiore.php

Damn those pinko flower children! :mad:

TMay
Mar 5, 2003, 01:27 AM
This is self explanatory.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-shirt.html

Meanwhile...

France decides that they will not provide an overriding veto in the Security Council should the tally of Security Council votes support military action. Now we Patriotic Americans call them chickens for this action, though they will still vote against.

I must have been in a coma. I could have sworn that we called the French chickens for not supporting immediate military action based on the current UN resolution. Isn't this the part where we call them weasels or something?

Meanwhile, the United States, uses all of its considerable economic and political power, not to mention old fashioned eavesdropping, to cajole, threaten, or otherwise convince said Security Council members to vote for immediate military action. Still, I have to admire the tenacity of those countries that are holding out for the money up front (as if the US would ever renege on its promises).

I, on the other hand, will forthwith give up my stand against war for a previously owned Land Rover Defender 100, preferably green, in good condition.

leo
Mar 5, 2003, 07:44 AM
Let's invade Iraq because Saddam is a liar
A leader being lying about his weapons does not justify an attack by another country.

Let's invade Iraq because Saddam is evil
As long as he's not evil to us, that's none of our business.

Let's invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people
'Free them'... If you can prove they want to be bombed, invaded and occupied for several years in order to get rid of their leader, it might be 'morally' justified, but still not legal. If you can't even prove it, to free a foreign people is none of our business.

Let's invade Iraq because Hitler should have been stopped before WW II
Today, as we know what happened, this might seem as a good idea. But before '39, nobody could fathom what Hitler was up to until he invaded his neighbors. And back then, the allied forces weren't able to erase Germany off the map in a week, and Hitler knew. With Iraq today, they are.

Let's invade Iraq because their weapons of mass destruction can get into terrorists' hands
This might not solve the problem. Who can make sure these weapons don't surface after an invasion? Remember, when the regime is removed, no one will help to secure hidden weapons of mass destruction.

Our government is a bad one, because they're not protecting us from terrorism. They're provoking it and feeding it (and they've been doing that for decades).

macfan
Mar 5, 2003, 06:19 PM
Let's invade Iraq because Saddam is a liar
A leader being lying about his weapons does not justify an attack by another country,

unless, of course, he is violating the terms of a cease-fire and some 17 UN resolutions.

Let's invade Iraq because Saddam is evil
As long as he's not evil to us, that's none of our business.

It is our responsibility to make it our business when we can. By a fortunate coincidence, the legal right to remove Saddam and the moral obligation to do so have aligned.

Let's invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people
'Free them'... If you can prove they want to be bombed, invaded and occupied for several years in order to get rid of their leader, it might be 'morally' justified, but still not legal. If you can't even prove it, to free a foreign people is none of our business,

except that we freed Germany and Japan even though many of them probably didn't want to be freed. There are many Iraqis who do want to be freed, as evidenced by the large popular uprisings against Saddam that we allowed to be crushed, to our great shame, after the 1991 cease-fire.

Let's invade Iraq because Hitler should have been stopped before WW II
Today, as we know what happened, this might seem as a good idea. But before '39, nobody could fathom what Hitler was up to until he invaded his neighbors. And back then, the allied forces weren't able to erase Germany off the map in a week, and Hitler knew. With Iraq today, they are.

Except that there were people who saw what Hitler was doing and fathomed what he was up to well before 1939. It is true that allied forces can take care of Iraq quickly, and they should do so as soon as possible.

Let's invade Iraq because their weapons of mass destruction can get into terrorists' hands
This might not solve the problem. Who can make sure these weapons don't surface after an invasion? Remember, when the regime is removed, no one will help to secure hidden weapons of mass destruction.

Rather, let's invade Iraq because the weapons of mass destruction are in a terrorist's hands, and that terrorist is supporting other terrorists in far-flung corners of the globe.

Rower_CPU
Mar 5, 2003, 06:33 PM
Is quoting that difficult to do? For the sake of readability...please...

macfan
Mar 5, 2003, 06:46 PM
Rower_CPU,
As you wish.

Rower_CPU
Mar 5, 2003, 06:48 PM
Thank you. :)

Thanatoast
Mar 6, 2003, 05:10 PM
link (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15308)