"Cameron" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> "Spider" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> > "Cameron" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > "Spider" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
news:[email protected]...
> > > > "Cameron" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > > > "Spider" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> -snip-
> > > > > > That's a good start. Since containment worked for 10 years, and inspectors are back
> > > > > > doing their thing, what resolution is Iraq currently violating that justifies military
> > > > > > action?
> > > > >
> > > > > The most recent. UN Resolution 1441, which authorizes military force if Saddam doesn't
> > > > > prove that he has disarmed.
> > > >
> > > > Wishful thinking (reading) on your part. Please quote the relevant section of the resolution
> > > > that states this *explicitly* as opposed to your interpretation.
> >
> >
> > <snip quote>
> >
> > So, IOW, there is no explicit authorization.
>
> Try reading it.
I read everything you quoted.
> 1441 states that he must abide by the cease-fire agreement. Key word: agreement. If he violates
> the agreement, then the cease-fire ends, and the war resumes.
It seems that *you* are the one with reading comprehension problems. Nowhere in the resolution is
*explicit* authorization for the use of force. It's called "wishful reading" on your part.
> > > > > > He was a bad boy, got his hand smacked. What justifies blowing
> his
> > > > > > head off as well? (Other than he is generally an evil person.
> One
> > > > > > could say that about plenty of leaders ATM.)
> > > > >
> > > > > True, but showing weakness won't help, it will just make us less safe.
> > > >
> > > > I see. Tell me - how does daily patrolling of half the country (no-flight zones) and the
> > > > occasional destruction of a radar van (SAM targeting gear) qualify as showing weakness?
> > > > Dubya's been talking pretty tough too....
> > >
> > > No, I was refering to speaking loudly and carring a small stick. When you say, "Comply, or
> > > else..." and then do nothing, you're weak. And that just goads a bully even further.
> >
> > So the only way to be tough is to send in armed guys and tell them to kick ass? Interesting
> > mindset. Sound kinda "bully-like" to me...
>
> Have you been paying attention to what's going on in the world?
Yes, and that has nothing to do with the comments made. Read them again, and understanding may
yet be yours.
> This isn't anything new. Saddam's been a problem for years, and sanctions sure haven't worked.
Worked to do what, exactly? Last time I checked, he hasn't invaded his neighbors since 1990.
> So what's your solution?
Solution to which problem? There are several, each of them calling for a different type of solution.
> > > > > Why do you think Osama was so willing to pull off 9-11?
> > > >
> > > > Sheer hatred, and knowledge that his place in his heaven was assured? Irrational people do
> > > > irrational things.
> > >
> > > Quite true. But as I said in my quote below, Osama has attacked several times already, during
> > > the Clinton administration. But only a few, token responces were made. Goes back to showing
> > > weakness. Under Clinton, we just sat there and took it.
> >
> > Which means nothing. You can't connect the dots when you are talking about an irrational person.
> > In any case, the little pin-pricks that Osama did before 9/11 would not have given reason to
> > invade another country for his "arrest."
>
> Nice try, but killing American's are not 'pin pricks', and Osama is not the reason for finishing
> the war with Saddam.
Ahhh, finally some disconnect. Good.
1.) There is a level of outrage that must be reached before invasion is acceptable. Whether or not
you want to admit it, the first WTC bombing and the Cole were not enough to justify invading
Afghanistan to "arrest" Osama. I know it, and most every other thinking person realizes it. Once
you get over your blind hatred of Slick Willie, you would realize it too.
2.) "Finishing the war" is precisely the reason for going. All the other excuses and misdirections
are merely lack of honesty on Dubya's part.
> Perhaps you're the one that can't connect the dots.
LOL. "Nice try" as someone else once opined.
> >There is no way Clinton could have done
> > anything like that, especially with the GOP whining at his every military move.
>
> A) Lie. B) Blaming the GOP is a pathetic arguement. Why didn't Clinton even TRY?
Political realities are what they are. THe GOP had their share of blame in the constant sniping. If
the Dems doing now is wrong, then the GOP doing then was wrong. Can't have it both ways.
Lie? LOL - wishful remembering on your part.
> >
> > > > > He has attacked us several times during the last administration, but Clinton wasn't
> > > > > serious about national security and foreign policy.
> > > >
> > > > LOL!
> > > >
> > > > Last I checked, 9/11 happened after Clinton left office.
> > >
> > > Just off the top I can think of four attacks during Clinton's term.
> >
> > And that changes 9/11's date how?
>
> Never said it did. Clinton's unwillingness to act just emboldend the likes of Osama.
Have you forgotten "irrational?" Rational acts do not effect an irrational person.
> When you don't defend yourself the aggresore becomes stronger.
Sure. The "blame Clinton" crowd is just as pathetic now as it ever was. Dubya had a year to take out
Osama, and he was "weak" by not doing it, right?
Sorry, folks, but blaming Clinton for every ill is just intellectual dishonesty.
> > > >When Clinton did strike at Osama, I remember conservatives jumping up and down about "wag the
> > > >dog" kind of stuff.
> > >
> > > Are you referring to when he launched cruise missile's at the aspirin factory to distract
> > > people from Monica? ;-)
> >
> > That Osama was supposed to be at, right?
>
> > > >Please try and be consistent.
> > >
> > > In 1998 when Clinton was beating the war drums talking about the need to attack Iraq, where
> > > were all the liberals then? Where was the outrage and protests? Oh, I forgot. Clinton is a
> > > democrat, so it was okay then.
> >
> > ISTR that the GOP was against that at the time. Which is why there wasn't any action. Please go
> > ahead and tell me the GOP was right in his court every time you wanted to use "diplomacy by
> > other means."
>
> When did the GOP refuse Clinton's proposal to get rid of Saddam?
They sure as hell sniped him on every other issue dealing with the military, didn't they? Why would
that have been any different? And in 1998, they sure didn't leap up and say "Hey, you are right -
let's do it!" Please, consistency...
> Because while Clinton talked about it, he was his usual self and never meant anything he said.
Now you are a mind-reader. Good job.
ROTFL.
Spider
