Did we score a victory?

[orange]

Supporting the status quo = extermism
Invading a soverign nation without casus belli = normal

rrrrright...

[orange]

erm, that was a response to ned...didn't realize there was a page 7 or I would have quoted it.

[orange]

btw: I personally don't consider it terrorism to provide for the families of a suicide bomber after the act. It's not right, but it's not terrorism.

[DanS]

This isn't about Iraq, this is about stopping the war!

OK, then using this criteria (stopping the war), nothing has really been done. It might be delayed a couple of days.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange
Drake - good. Go cry. You make no arguments, you regurgitate a few spoon fed propoganada snippits, and tell others that they are wrong with airtight logic like "France is a dumb nation"

Just piss off already. Jesus Christ...

He told me that he'd lost respect for me over the last few weeks.

Yes, you have that the right way around.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by orange
btw: I personally don't consider it terrorism to provide for the families of a suicide bomber after the act. It's not right, but it's not terrorism.

Yes it is. But it's not even close to sufficient cause to go to war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by orange
Supporting the status quo = extermism
Invading a soverign nation without casus belli = normal

rrrrright...

I'm sorry, orange, but the extremism is the refusal to consider any proposal at all - even before hearing what it is. France is not bending an inch. This is unreasonable - extreme.

However, I have heard that they are willing to consider a resolution that does not contain an ultimatum and which may be effective in getting Saddam disarmed. This is why Bush and Blair need more time to see what can be worked out.

[Dinner]

Chirac has been most clear. Any resolution which will be effective in forcing Saddam to disarm will be vetoed. This is true because Saddam has proven, over the last twelve years, that he won't comply unless a gun is to his head and the French have obesed with insuring Saddam doesn't have the gun to his head which will force him to pay the penality for his crimes.

[Ned]

Also, Oerdin, Bush, Blair and Aznar may be manuevering to force France to be the lone no vote. The Russians and Chinese are looking favorably on several alternatives. If those two join the coalition and France stands alone against the resolution, France may abstain. Regardless, there will be implicit endorsement for action as France will be diplomatically isolated.

[notyoueither]

There won't ever be a vote. The press clippings to date serve enough to justify ignoring the SC at this point.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We'd all like to see Hussein go. It's just that some of us don't think the price should be paid in thousands of Iraqi lives.

Yep. Never mind the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have already died under his rule, it'd be absolutely horrible if thousands more were to die in a U.S.-led invasion that would oust Saddam and his blood, the source of all their damnable suffering for the last 25 years or so. It's better to find a peaceful way to remove Saddam — after all, he's a reasonable man and can be negotiated with. I mean, just disregard all that talk about "fighting to the last baby." He really doesn't mean it. It's for show, nothing more.

Let's give the sanctions another 12 years, except this time we can leave 300,000 troops permanently based near Iraq's border to keep old Saddam "in line," so to speak. I'm sure our esteemed allies in Europe and elsewhere will be more than happy to help chip in and defray the on-going costs to the American taxpayer. After all, it'd be saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis while keeping Saddam's feet to the fire.

Oh, wait. The sanctions are evil, American-inspired shackles on the poor, innocent people of Iraq and their mean-but-tolerable (to the outside world, anyway) leader. Let's lift *all* the sanctions, but keep the troops there. Yeah! The best of both worlds!

I got a quarter. Anyone else wanna chip in? France? Germany? Russia? China? Conservatives? Leftists? Anarchists? C'mon, boys and girls! Step up to the plate. It'll save Iraqi lives!

Gatekeeper

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


the source of all their damnable suffering for the last 25 years or so.

what is really getting under my skin is this "we-kill-you-for-your-own-sake" attitude.

I could deal with a honest "Saddam is a danger - let's get rid of him".

But this BS of "he is a tyrant" or "Iraq is not a democracy" really annoys me!!!!

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, Oerdin, Bush, Blair and Aznar may be manuevering to force France to be the lone no vote. The Russians and Chinese are looking favorably on several alternatives. If those two join the coalition and France stands alone against the resolution, France may abstain. Regardless, there will be implicit endorsement for action as France will be diplomatically isolated.

I agree Ned, if Balir can arrange for China and Russia to abstain that leaves france having to veto on their own. Even if they did this Blair could live with that. It really is very easy to have a policy in the UK soley based on the fact that the French are against it.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Yep. Never mind the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have already died under his rule, ...

Add the hundred thousand civilians that were killed by the United States in Gulf war one and cynical labeled as "collateral damage". A war in Iraq would (and will) make Bush and his poodles tenfold bigger murderers than Saddam ever was. http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html

[chequita guevara]

From the article you linked, Oerdin,

A senior White House official recently told me that one of the seemingly most persuasive elements of the report had been overstated and was essentially incorrect. And none of the Clinton Administration officials I interviewed over a ten-week period this summer claimed that there was any empirical evidence—a "smoking gun"—directly linking Saddam or any of his senior advisers to the alleged assassination attempt. The case against Iraq was, and remains, circumstantial.

So Borris appears to be correct. The alleged assassination attempt against Bush Sr. remains unverified.