http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/093/nation/Najaf_celebrates_arrivel_of_US_troops+.shtml http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2502908
I think I've been very consistent on this point: launching an invasion, a "war" against someone else HAS to be about who WE are, and has very little to do with some external praise or vindication...are we the type of nation whose ends justify the means, or do the means matter? Now, that being said, I will submit that wholly looking inward fails to provide a context that might be instructive. For the vast majority of the world to beg us for a different kind of leadership than the type we were offering, and have offered, might be reason for pause; certainly the decision to launch an offensive war without the endorsement of the UN, EU, PACN, NATO, NAM, the Arab League or world opinion, had Bush not been looking directly at Karl Rove's re-election calendar, might have served as that pause. Similarly, the external validation of cheering Iraqis who happened to survive saying "thanks for comng" is also instructive. It tells us that the end was likely correct. But the means? Well, the means, the method of how we BE "America" everyday, has changed. We used to forge institutions, and we used to be a nation who wouldn't start a war, but we'd sure as hell end it. Bush, and Bush alone, has changed that, forever. I don't blame 9/11, and I live here. Just like the way we dole out capital punishment here, I reject the notion of becoming my enemy to defeat my enemy. Regardless of the cheering.
"The end was likely correct" indeed. But if you want to argue about the means, then you really need to come up with the alternative. Elements of the failed, disastrous US effort in Iraq are within six miles of Baghdad.
You're no dummy, although you play one on TV; you certainly are not incapable of articulating the clear alternatives that, again, the US, EU, NATO, UN, Arab League and NAM were advocating, or come up with some of your own...to submit that your vision is that myopic is to decalre yourself, well, Dubya-esque in vision and in value of America's hisotry of forging unique - and not patently typical - solutions to global issues...
You should have just said "I don't know". By the way, thanks for pointing out that the bold part in your sig file is yours. I didn't remember MLK using 'IMHO' in his writings. But then I only got through half of Letter From a Birmingham Jail when it became apparent that he wasn't going to befriend a mouse or launder money for the warden.
I don't know. And the explanation is for those who need it; those who don't ususally ignore it...and you know that we've got more than a scant few here who actually DO need it...
I disagree completely. Are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein, with fully one third of his country employed as internal security officers, 50 palaces and personal control of $50 billion in oil revenues was EVER going to "negotiate" anything? That's really the issue here. (And stop throwing the EU in here. The majority of the EU supports us). And not that I really care, because they are increasingly irrelevant, but the "UN" amounts in this case to France exe3rcising an anachronistic veto power that is left over from WWII. But the POINT is that Saddam Hussien was not now, or ever, going to do anything he wasn't forced to do. You cannot honestly believe otherwise. You may, in time, have to admit what this guy had to admit: http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm (BTW: US Special Forces have just taken Baghdad Airport)
The end is Sadaam no longer in power. The means advocated by everyone but the US had nothing to do with this end, just disarmament as an end. The only body which advocated the no longer Sadaam end was the Arab league right before the war was going to start. They offered, the Saddam family some sort of amnesty in exchange for his exodus. I think everyone refused, the US, Sadaam, everyone.
universal, most Iraqi exiles support the war. to me, thier opinions mean more to me than the UN. The UN gives Syria a voice for christs sake. France has all sorts of shady business deals with Iraq. This is the voice you want to listen to rather than www.inc.org.uk then that is your choice. However if you read resolution 1441 you really have to ask why France's response to Iraq's violations of resolutions 687 and 1284 was to "do nothing". Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 and Frances response was to "do nothing". the fact is that the UN cherry picks who they want to "librate". Why Rwanda and not Iraq?
Geez, first Butler gets slammed by Oklahoma, and now Iraq looks like they're going to lose after all. My Mideast bracket is for *************** now. Whatever happened to Cinderella? Whatever happened to cheering for the little guy? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Sorry, Dan Vitale - no bracket busting diaper dandies coming out of the Far East Regionals, baybeeeeeeeeeee. Interesting strategy question though: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030403_1576.html When is a Capital not a Capital? Maybe we can just make it more or less irrelevant to the whole. Would save a lot of lives, American, British and Iraqi (civilian as well as conscript. Don't much care about the SS.)
Not to pat myself on the back, but I voiced the possibility described in the article days ago to a family member. Good to see the White House following my lead.
So, Saddam can keep his WMD, torture his people and stay in "power" of Baghdad at least for now? I thought we went to war for these very reasons. :confussed: So, the US has the airport. Will they be taking people out of Baghdad? Kinda like an air-lift in reverse? Baghdad, a city of 5 million, no power and a ruthless dictator. Just wait until it get over 100 degrees. Baghdad irrelevant to what's going on in the rest of the country? I guess that means, "Hey, Saddam. We are selling your oil without you!"
Wrong. The inspectors withdrew. Their stated reason was "non-cooperation," but the fact that they got out merely hours before a US airstrike should raise eyebrows. http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html
And the airstrikes occurred why, exactly? Because of "non-cooperation". See how it all ties nicely together? "Raise eyebrows"? Please.
It does tie nicely together, and, to those of us peons without inside information, it looks a lot like a "chicken or the egg" problem. Chicken-and-egg problems should raise eyebrows. My main point, that the inspectors withdrawing has somehow morphed into their being "expelled," is uncontrovertable.
Can we look here? You cannot look here! Can we look there? You cannot look there! Can we check that house? You cannot check that house! Can we inspect that mouse? You cannot inspect that mouse! You cannot check here, you cannot check there. You cannot check that house. You cannot inspect that mouse. Well, crap, I guess we'll leave. Quitter.
A "chicken-and-egg problem"? Um, there's a pretty clear sequence of events leading up to Desert Fox. Remember, though, that inspectors were expelled in 1997. And while saying they were "expelled" or "kicked out" is untrue, I think it is fair to say that they were forced out by Saddam's action.
Service to your country No, the correct term is "wag the dog" as in the tail. You know, the movie...Clinton? Primary Colors being an off-white. *wink*wink* Ah, and while I'm at it, the correct term is not "withdrawing" but "pulling out". Now, pulling out is not 100% effective in "real sexual relations" anyway so I don't know why Monica didn't do her civic duty and swallow. The Swallow is the bird of love as the Dove is to peace. There is no greater sacrifice than...I will stop there in respect to our men and women in service today.
I'm not saying Saddam was faultless in the previous inspections' failures. According to the inspectors themselves, he was largely at fault. My point was simply that facts have been distorted since then. There is a material difference between what happened and the myth that has developed since then, and journalists that say the inspectors were "expelled" are being irresponsible. In health class we learned that it was called "the withdrawl method." Its actually more effective than people realize, assuming it's done correctly.
You're right, quite effective. If that girl ain't willing to take it, then no more fun than doing "Operation Dumbo Drop" all over her back. Not quite a Dirty Sanchez, but fun to smear nonetheless. Don't mess with Bill. Leave my Billy alone!