Replies

Interesting... I said that the majority of the world wanted to give Blix a few more weeks. You chided me for not offering evidence of this. Then in your next sentence you yourself cite three major nations (France, Russia, and China) who demanded exactly that.

Then you go on to suggest ulterior motives for those nations -- but you offer absolutely no evidence. Nor do you offer any evidence for your interpretation of "severe consequences".

But never mind all that. There's only one question I'd like you to answer: If you don't believe in democracy, then just how do you think international disputes should be settled?

"A few more weeks", turns quickly to "progress is being made", which turns quickly to "What has Michael Jackson done now?

The news cycles of this world are incredibly short at this point in history and it's hard to keep a focus on one issue. You do realize that on an almost daily basis the Iraqi military had targeted or actually fired on Allied planes in the no fly zone, right? How often did we hear this?

From March 1, 1991 to September 12, 2002 (that is exactly 4,183 days) Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the cease fire. During those 4,183 days, the UN passed an additional 15 resolutions, or one every 278 days, to "compel" Saddam to abide by his agreement. On average every 278 days the world community realized he wasn't behaving and chastized him by writing another unenforced resolution.

How many days was it since Bush made his speech to the UN last September 12th? It was 188 days. 188 mornings that the "World Community" woke up and decided not to enforce it's cease-fire document. Do you really think that an extra 14 or even 28 days would matter to them?

4,128 days of defiance, 278 days on average between reprimand. 14 to 28 days would have made a difference? Not a chance.

A child who was born on March 1, 1991 would be 12 years old by now. A child born on March 1, 1991 would now be old enough to recognize the problem. France, Germany, Russia, Canada, and like minded people have do not have the recognition capabilities of a 12 year old. How sad.

By the way, in answer to your question in a straight forward way, a couple of weeks would not have been possible logistically. The desert heats up quick and if we were to wait until the end of April to move, the daily average temp rise to 90+ degrees in the desert. By the end of May it is closing in on 100 degrees every day.

At that point, we might have had to wait until October to move in so our guys aren't dying from the heat in a literal sense. That would be an extra eight months to keep our guys there. Eight months of stress away from the family. Eight months of stress being on alert. Eight months of paying the cost from the budget.

No, better to go when the weather is favorable and to stop the delaying tactics of Saddam.

So, in your tally system, three nations equal a majority? What a putz!

Is that your so-called international democracy? To simply count up all the counties of the world and if a simple majority of countries is in favor of one position or another then that is what all countries must do? It is one country, one vote, with no consideration given to the size and power of the country?

Or is it what the majority of people want that counts?

If so, do you truly think that the people of China and India are educated and have access to enough information such that they are able to make an informed decision about matters as important as the security of the United States? It seems to me that the people in China are not even allowed to participate in democracy in their own country, so why should they be determining American policy?

You spout off silly, undefined notions like "international democracy" and pretend that you have the moral high ground, when in fact, you have nothing other than unrealistic, wishful thinking.

"But never mind all that. There's only one question I'd like you to answer: If you don't believe in democracy, then just how do you think international disputes should be settled?"

The past is prologue, you silly fool.

Do me a favor, read the history of the world for the last four thousand years or so, paying particularly close attention to exactly how international disputes have always been settled. Check out what happened to those peoples who depended on international agreements as compared to those peoples who placed their trust in a strong defense.

Human nature has not changed in the last four thousand years and neither has the way international disputes are settled. For the foreseeable future, Clausewitz's famous dictum - that war is diplomacy by other means, will continue to be true.

How I think international disputes should be settled is irrelevant. In a perfect world, children would never die and monsters like Stalin, Mao, and Saddam would not have existed. In the real world, the one that you and I live in, unreasonable, blood-thirsty, dictators exist and we are given the option of killing or being killed.