What is "containment"?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
would you personally feel comfotable staying in that room??

No. I'd get out of the Middle East.

[PLATO]

would you personally feel comfotable staying in that room??

GePap, does this mean you personally would feel comfotable staying in the room?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


No. I'd get out of the Middle East.

So would I if it were only a middle eastern situation, but since it is a world situation...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Until recently, DPRK was adhering to international law as well. Now that there is a question of weather they will continue to do so has elevated this to a crisis point.

As far as I can tell, forcing a regime change in another country is also a violation of international law as well, but that is what W. is trying to do.

I don't see the US having the high ground here.

[Uncle Sparky]

Generally, I wear boxers. I do own a couple of pair of jockey shorts for situations where containment is required.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: What is "containment"?

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children is "working", that is.

If you think the U.N. sanctions caused any where near that amount of deaths then you are a ****ing ******. The U.N. Operates a system which allows both food and medicine to enter Iraq and the Iraqi government is supposed to distribute the food and medicine to the Iraqi people. The funny thing is Saddam gets the food & medicine from the U.N. but the Iraqi people never get the food or medicine from Saddam. What happens to it? If sequestered U.N. reports are to be believed then Saddam sells it on the black market and uses the money to buy weapons. What sort of monster starves his people just so he can stay in power and what sort of idiot believes the lies just so they can continue hating Bush?

I don't like Bush either but I'm at least honest enough to admit who's causing the lack of supplies in Iraq. I suggest you do the same.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


As far as I can tell, forcing a regime change in another country is also a violation of international law as well, but that is what W. is trying to do.

I don't see the US having the high ground here.

UR: Apparently the security counsel has the legal authority to authorize this action if it deems Saddam "A threat to the peace".

My contention is that 17 resolutions to date on this matter demonstrates the security counsel's concern that Saddam is a threat to the peace.

I would also contend that "serious consequences" can be interpreted to mean anything upto and including regime change.

Now that being said, it would be a much clearer picture if the security counsel would pass a resolution declaring that Saddam is a threat to the peace and specifically authorize a regime change. Personally, I think this is unlikely to happen.

However, from a strictly legal standpoint, I believe the authority to act already exists.

Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the US ground is high enough.

This brings us to the other type of high ground...Moral. In Iraq we have a leader that wontonly murders his own people, has twice attacked his neighbors, has (according to UNSCOM1998) developed weapons of mass destruction, and allowed terrorist to set up offices in his capital city. To provide stability and safety to the Iraqi people is, in my mind, the moral high ground.