Diplomacy?

[Snake Plissken]

They are not trying for peace.

StevieD you really got to be kidding with that statement

Clinton went after Milosovich(sp) without the UN which by the way I agreed with at least Bush is trying to do this the right way to avoid a war and going to the UN. The UN voted 15-0
that he must Disarm or face serious consequences now that he wont Disarm the UN is backing down like a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[StevieD]

Snake, in your own words "serious consequences." This is the where the problem is. Iraq has been facing serious consequences but they have not done any good.
That was a weakness in the resolution. It left too much up to interpertation.
I guess the rest of the world does not think the serious consequences should be the overthrow of a hedious dictator by force, occupation of one country by another, and who knows how many lives lost, and no known exit plan in an area we are not welcomed. Don't forget Turkey just refused about $60 billion to help us. That in itself should tell us how welcomed we will be in that area of the world.
After the bombing stops is when we will face our real problems over there. And so far not one of the boys or girls has told us what the exit plan is.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Steve there are alot of things about this situation that Joe public doesn't know. I'm sure the Government has plans for every possible situation just because we don't know doesn't mean that they don't exist

Ask the people of Afghanistan how they feel about the United States and its allies.
The soccer fields there are actually being used for soccer

The Cost of doing nothing far exceeds the cost of going in and taking care of unfinished business.

 

[djv]

The soccer fields in Afghanistan are mention as used for soccer now that were there. since the differant war lords hate each other. I wonder how many years we will need to be there for them to paly soccer 10,15 more? Everyyear were froced to stay to keep pieace. Thats a win for the terrorist makeing us stay streched thin and useing our tax dollars. Iraq will be next 3,5 maybe 6 years. No one knows our government states exit plan not ready yet. Iran, N Korea, Saudi? Dont laugh about Saudi. Iraq has abotu 110 to 125 billion barrels of oil under its land. Saudi has 150 to 175 billion barrels. Iran is not knowen for sure they play it closer to the vest. At least with Afghanistan we were after the boys from 9/11. We have no proof Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This is about we desided it was time for Saddam to go. dont even know if there is arush to do so. But somehow it got important that it happen now. Now that more the 3/4 of the world is pissed at us lets get it over. This rush to get it started. Then letting our troops sit in the desert and out on ships for weeks is BS. Makes it look like we never had any plan at all.
This deal with Turkey is a good case of our governments heads up there ass.

 

[ferdville]

Stevie - You keep referring to "THIS ADMINISTRATION." To whom are you comparing "this administration? Here are a few excerpts from the WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3/13/03. I know Eddie feels the journal is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, but humor me.

On Clinton's intervention in Kosovo - "Our mission is clear," Mr. Clinton said in March, 1999; "to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose, so that the Serbian leaders understand the imperative of reversing course, to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo, and if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military's capacity to harm the people of Kosovo. In short, if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war." Change NATO to the United Nations; Serbia to Iraq; Milosevic to Hussein and tell me what is different.
In case you forgot, in 1999, the Clinton administration and our NATO allies decided to bomb Serbia for 77 days without UN approval after it became clear that Russia would veto any proposal. I am not criticising Clinton Eddie, so keep your pants on. I think the way Clinton handled this matter was one of the benchmarks of his presidency.
In 1998, here is a quotation from Clinton on Iraq: "What if Saddam fails to compy and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction?...well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
While it is clear that Clinton has a rather short memory regarding his administration's stand on Iraq, tell me Stevie, how is this all that different from what "this administration" has said?

 

[StevieD]

This Adminestration does not have an exit plan. The Clinton plan involved NATO. They would limit his ability to make war. This adminestration is talking about overthrowing the elected government. That is what makes it different.
I do not know why Clinton is always thrown into any discussion with a conservative. Hey, the guy got a bj. You spent untold millions trying to prove it. You did......It doesn't bother me.
Come to think of it the world needs more BJ's!

 

[Snake Plissken]

Come to think of it the world needs more BJ's!

Holy Crap StevieD we finally agree on something

 

[ferdville]

And. Stevie, you have a problem with the US overthrowing the Iraq government? What should we do, HOPE that Saddam doesn't possess any weapons? That if he does, he won't sell them to Muslim extremists to use against the US? Should we continue to ignore the atrocities he has committed against his own people and his neighbors? Should we stick our head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening?Instead of looking for reason why we shouldn't go in there., look for some benefits of going in to Iraq. Nobody wants wholesale carnage - but backing down sends a message to others that we will have to deal with in the future with more at stake. By the way, I applauded Clinton for his actions - I didn't criticize him. I just don't understand why he got a pass for going to Bosnia and bombing Iraq without UN approval. And today, Bush is looked at as a monster for suggesting we do the same? You could make a case that we should intervene strictly for humanitarian reasons, like we did in Bosnia against Milosevic. You still never answered the one question that doesn't require inside knowledge ............
what would it take for you, Stevie, to advocate that the US go to Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein? What would it take? How many more will have to die before it is OK to go after him? How many more UN resolutions does he have to ignore before you have had enough? Or is there absolutely nothing that would make you agree that taking him out is the right move?

 

[StevieD]

That is a very good question. Perhaps if Saddam has tried to expand beyond his borders I would try to stop him. But he hasn't done that since 1991 and many people, including myself, believe he had permission from the US to do it. As far as I can think that is the last time he tried it. He did strike out against his own people, that is true. But that is not worth what is about to happen.

The country has been penalized by sanctions.

If there was proof that he had anything to do with 9-11 that would be a reason to wipe him off the face of the earth but so far they have not been able to prove that.

Other than that, if I was the leader of the free world, I would hope that I would surround myself with men and women capable of coming to answers with the question you pose.

 

[ferdville]

That is my point exactly. Assuming that "W" has surrounded himself with capable people, then we should accept the course of action they take. I believe the people surrounding him are capable - probably more so than Bush himself. Therefore, if they believe we need to take him out - why can't you accept their intelligence, logic and knowledge of what is really going on? We are not in a day and age where a president can run roughshod over his advisors.

 

[djv]

We have said Saddam goes or the Weapons go. That is how this can get confusing. If he tomorrow all of a sudden said heres all we have left destroy it. Do we take all our military back home?
It sounds as if that is a yes. At least last two three times Mr. Bush has spoken he has said this. If I am Saddam and like my greatway of life I do that at once. But he seems to be a little slow and has not. So We then have to do it for him. All I ask is do it right/fast and lets not stay there a day longer then we must. So far we are looking bad becasue we rush trooops all over the middle east and then they just sit there. It just looks like a rush to war. And that is what get's most the world so pissed at us.
And dam a lot of folks just don't want toi admit it. But this still has a smell of oil about it to. We just have to hope this ass does not blow up half those oil fields. The money to help pay for all this chit has to come from the sale of that oil. Other wise folks we all are going topay for it.

 

[Stewy]

What do you consider diplomacy? The UN Security council is made of countries all looking for their own interest. It's a total joke when 3 of the permanent members are doing business with Saddam and therefore will bend over backwards to keep him in power. It's even more of a joke when we have to get the approval of countries like Guinea who have electricy in their country 18 hours per week. THen you have Mexico who wan't to black male us for their vote so their illegal aliens can rome our country.

 

[gardenweasel]

it`s a little scary

it`s a little scary

when a plan is put forth,and france veto`s it before iraq has a chance to consider it.....but,then again,france has nixed every resolution,comdemnation or initiative regarding iraq for the past 20 years....thank god that`s just a coincidence

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

when a plan is put forth,and france veto`s it before iraq has a chance to consider it.....but,then again,france has nixed every resolution,comdemnation or initiative regarding iraq for the past 20 years....thank god that`s just a coincidence

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[AR182]

quote:
"This adminestration is talking about overthrowing the elected government. That is what makes it different."

StevieD,

Do you really believe that saddam's gov't is elected?

 

[StevieD]

Of course his government is not elected as we know it. But the fact remains that we blew it big time diplomatically. If we didn't we wouldn't be faced with this mess. It is time these guys stop pointing fingers and stand up and take a bow because they now have what they want. Let's just hope they can get us out of there after the bombing is over.

 

[djv]

The one thing that we need worry about is the Northern Flank.
Turkeys moved to not let us use there land. Could be it has some reasons for there own use. We need to watch the Kurds and the Turkes close. there is a huge oil field in the north. the kurds want it. Turkey says no way. This is some of the mess we can cause if we dont handle this right. We could end up fighting the Kurds or the Turkes just so we can control that oil. I hope it does not happen but it could. Remember the Kurds do not love us. We left them hanging after the 91 war. And Saddam stuck it to them good. We will not let turkey have control that has already been said. We have not said the Kurds cant. Maybe a bigger fight over that oil then getting Saddam out of the country.