Posted on 03/03/2003 8:30:01 AM PST by bigaln2
Nope we can't have armed citizens having a militia here to protect us against invasion.
WE just call 911. :)
I like JJ Johnson.
Adkins: So far, it's a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.
Common Sense: We’d like to know exactly how many of these 90 countries will be using their planes, ships, bombs, and troops to prosecute this war? And a key point I will make through this entire presentation: Why is a coalition needed for what is labeled as a “war of self-defense”?
That is bait-and-switch. From the Left states that we shouldn't act unilaterally. Adkins answers that we aren't, only to have "Common Sense" switch to "Why is a colation needed?"
I haven't read much more of it. But if that bait-and-swich is a "key point," will it be worth my time to do go on?
If they are used, it isn't preemptive any more. Oy.
Yeah, well Saddam "authorized" the destruction of all the WMDs too, but you don't see that happening. You also don't see any ammunition in those guns the "volunteer" (yeah right) "citizen militias" are handed for the photo ops, either. Lots of Iraqies have been trying to kill Saddam for longer than those 11 years, and with good reason, but they haven't yet succeeded. Not so surprising when you consider that a plot involving some on the German General Staff, and General Rommel, didn't manage to off Hitler, who didn't even employ doubles or have more than a couple of "palaces" to be moved around to at random intervals.
Oh, I get it now. Sorta like when we had the National Guard in the airports in camo, with empty rifles?
Oh, now I understand.
LOL!!!! That's grand!
You were eactly the type of person his replies were meant for, but I can see you have no desire to let truth, facts and common sense disrupt your little fantasy world.
This threat of "war" has turned the average conservative into the same "kool aid" drinker they accuse leftists as being.
Do you mean, "the hypocrisy of calling for multilateral action in a war our President is trying to sell as a 'war of self-defense'?" If that's the case, my response is there is a question in what we have the right to do and what politics say we should do.
Yes, I think this is a war of self-defense and, even if we had no one willing to help, we should do it ourselves. However, it is politic to at least explain ourselves and, if possible, seek approval from other nations. It will make things easier in the long-run.
That said, I think Bush and Co. have gone past the point of being politic to the point of starting to grovel. After Powell gave his report in early Feb., the administration should have said, "We've made our case and with or without UN approval we're going in shortly. You better get the inspectors home." Now, we're starting to spiral into begging.
Because the Soviets were intelligent and rational, just like we were. They knew that no mere political or ideological matter was worth a nuclear holocaust. These "smaller, weaker nations", on the other hand, are run by delusional tyrants who don't care about mass death and destruction, as long as they can get out alive themselves. Oh, and also because of the simple fact that they have so few nukes that the only Assured Destruction would be theirs. They might be able to take out one American city, but if they did their *entire nation* would be glass within hours. That's a nuclear war we can, could and would win.
Common Sense: .... but if this is really a war that is necessary for our own survival, then those opposing us would be irrelevant, and we shouldn’t be asking for their approval. But remember: Our “friends” were given more details than even the American public, yet they still stand against us. This tells me there is a bigger problem than just Iraq, and we don’t seem to be addressing it.
Two things here.... 1. I disagree. Even for a necessary war, we should seek approval as a matter of courtesy. We shouldn't, however, depend on it, as a matter of policy. 2. The case has been made that this isn't just defense of the U.S., but that Iraq threatens other nations as well. Indeed, Blair's rationale for getting involved is that the U.K. is also threatened.
But remember: Our “friends” were given more details than even the American public, yet they still stand against us. This tells me there is a bigger problem than just Iraq, and we don’t seem to be addressing it.
Or, it could be, that they have their own interests. France has economic interests (and Chirac, personal interests) that will likely be disrupted by U.S. actions. Germany has its internal politics that its leaders must play to. Russia doesn't want the U.S. to get too far ahead as a world power.
For that matter, this argument can easily be reversed. The U.S. government surely knows even more details than they are revealing to foreign governments; perhaps it's something that they cannot show that is the proof that convinces them. For that matter, someone in, say France, who supports the U.S. could say, "The U.K. government knows more than us French citizens and they're getting involved with the U.S. This tells me that Iraq is a bigger problem than our government claims."
Besides not all our friends (as well as "friends") stand against us. The U.K. Spain, Italy, and much of Eastern Europe stand with us.
But again, this is the bait-and-switch. It boils down to, "We shouldn't ask for approval.... But, oh, yeah, we shouldn't act, because we're not getting enough approval."
Our government is trying to make the case that Saddam is a threat to them, and obviously, many aren't buying it.
Or, it could be, that they have their own interests.
Well of course they do. They do not see Saddam as a threat to them, so why should they support our attack? Why get the world pissed off at them? If Bush and Americans keep up this fake facade of "you are either with us or against us", most of the rest of the world is eventually going to get sick of the nonsense and give America the finger.
The U.S. government surely knows even more details than they are revealing to foreign governments;
If true, that would be a very dumb move. If Saddam is such a threat, then show the proof. If Bush is trying to convince other countries that Saddam is a threat, why hold back on the most damning info? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument.
But again, this is the bait-and-switch. It boils down to, "We shouldn't ask for approval.... But, oh, yeah, we shouldn't act, because we're not getting enough approval."
Agin, I think you miss the entire point.
Here, another part you admitantly didn't read:
Common Sense: To put it mildly, were we completely justified into going into Afganistan? And did we seek U.N. approval? We were, and we didn't, respectively. So again, why even make the UN the issue? In fact, if they all packed up and went home, Common Sense folks like us wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over it.
See, we were justified in going in to Afganistan to try to get Bin Laden. Why? Because we believed he was behind 9/11 and was hiding in Afganistan with the Taliban. Since we were attacked, we didn't give a damn what other countries thought, and most supported us. Now, the issue is Iraq. They didn't attack us and our government knows we are not justified in attacking Iraq for these long-standing violations of arm's deals. We are just trying to convince the rest of the world to "feel better" about it. If the rest of the world is supporting us, doesn't it kind of make those here in our own country who are agaist the war look silly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.