Caltrops - Motherfucking News





	[quote name="laudablepuss"][quote name="Zseni"][quote][quote]The 10 million dollar question nobody seems to be able to answer though, and the reason the rest of the world suspects this so is - why is this suddenly more of a problem than it was last year, or two years ago? Hint: it's not. Saddam hit the US with WMD? Not in his own lifetime.[/quote] Zseni's argument. Completely absurd. He's not a threat now, so we should wait until he becomes one. Or, we waited ten years, why not wait ten more? It makes no sense. We played with Iraq for ten years, and now we've figured out that it's just not going to work. Saddam has made it abundantly clear that he absolutely will NOT disarm and that we can't force him to with weapons inspectors. So what's left?[/quote] Why are you being <i>forcefully</i> stupid? The timing has <i>everything</i> to do with it. In particular what does it mean to let the rules go unbroken for ten years? Why did that happen? Then - once it happened - why the sudden shift in policy from "letting it happen" to "declaring war"? As I mentioned before, US policy-makers <i>first</i> attempted to justify a war in Iraq with sko links to al-Quaeda - didn't pan out. Then they moved on into "but he could still kill us" - but that's not going to get the commie libs, now is it? What will? <i>Oh yeah that UN resolution!</i> <a href=http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm>S.Res 687</a>, to be specific, signed into action in 1991. But see here's the problem: if failure to go along with resolutions justifies a war, then are we, the United States, allowed to pick and choose which defaulted-upon resolutions we go to war over - if so, how is that different than simply looking for an excuse to fight? Alternately, if we take it upon ourselves to be the UN's policeman <i>above the voices of other UN members, let's add</i>, then we're going to be at war for the rest of infinity. Is the UN only toothless - sometimes? Toothless when...our own personal interests, or supposed interests, are not at stake? It should work on the in-for-a-penny model, but instead Team Bush seems to believe it works on a "good when it serves my purposes, bad otherwise" principle. Reaganlicious! The resolution is being used in this case to justify military action - not to motivate it. What <i>is</i> motivating it? Let's pretend I don't know, but I <i>do</i> know that it's not the sudden insistence of the Bush administration that the UN needs a little assistance in enforcing its rulings. <a href=http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/us-vs-total.htm>Still sorting out to potential relevance here....</a> <a href=http://www.cunr.org/priorities/arrearshistory.html>Also here.</a>[/quote] Excuse me? Is the root of this argument that you don't think Saddam Hussein poses a significant threat to us and the entire middle east NOW, and the he won't ever? I find it hard to believe, so please clear let me know if I've gottent that wrong. The fact that you talk to me about picking and choosing which resolution to enforce is specious, since this is a special case of extreme importance that justifies us acting unilaterally if neccessary. If I didn't say it, let me be clear now. Letting Iraq arm itself with nuclear and other WMDs is completely unacceptable for reasons relating to OUR national security, to say nothing of Israel's, Saudi Arabia's, etc. I'm not eagerly awaiting a terrorist attack that makes the WTC look like a pizza party. The timing, as I've said, relates solely to Sept. 11th. I find nothing you've said persuasive in this regard. Also, you say that we've given various justifications for the war, and this makes you believe that it's all a fabrication. Let me provide you another, equally plausible and equally unprovable possibility: we KNEW we'd have to do something about Iraq so we invoked al-Quaida as a catchall organization of terrorists. It doesn't matter that Saddam doesn't like al-Quaida or vice versa (I still don't see why not liking each other is an impediment to doing business, but that's another matter), it's the fact that Saddam supports TERRORISM. If he developes a Bomb with a capital B (and even if he doesn't and merely contents himself with producing horrendous nerve agents and biotoxins), it (they) could very well end up being used by TERRORISTS. The public is painfully aware of al-Quaida, so we used them to represent the case. When the link proved tenuous, we fell back on the other dozen fucking reasons why he's an incredibly dangerous piece of shit (past history of lying, torturing people, invading neighboring countries, etcetera). I'm not sure what the links about our debt to the UN is about. Please explain?[/quote]