> Does it really make sense for the same body to decide
> whether the constitution grants it the power to do
> what it wants to do?
No.
> > The South Will Rise Again !!!!
>
> Dumb ass.
;-)
> So, how, in your opinion, should we handle violent
> criminals?
Gun control ?
> Aren't we just awful, morally culpable people?
No. :-)
> I find it amusing that the conservative here is
> arguing for non-proliferation and the socialist is
> apparently willing to let WMD spread unchecked. Kind
> of a reversal of the cold war stances.
No, I'm sorry : it was obvious to me at least from the outset that Saddam had no WMDs. If he had, well we wouldn't be having this huge discussion now, would we ?
Personally, I believe that proliferation has become a 21st century inevitability ...
:-(
> So it's all Germany's fault! I knew it was old Europe.
Hitler !
ha haa !! I said the H-word first !! Do I get a prize ?
> > I'm sorry, but why should it be a given that
> > American military might must have such a far
> > reach ?
>
> Because there are people willing to use violence, who
> are organized, and desire to destroy western
> civilization.
OK, I'm mostly with you of course, but their civilisation is at risk too, in their eyes. <sigh !>
> > I'm sorry, but it appeared obvious to me at the time
> > that no WMDs would be found.
>
> It certainly did not to me.
Access to Western European media in more than one language is definitely A Good Thing !!
My estimate was that there was about 5-10% chance that he had some.This estimate dropped to 0.1% in the first few days of the land campaign.
> He was known to have
> developed and used them in the past; he continued to
> refuse to cooperate fully with inspections. What
> conclusion do you draw from that? That he had nothing
> to hide? The conclusion does not make sense.
Graham said it in a previous post.
> > Face it, we were lied to.
>
> I disagree. I think we assumed he worst case. Whn
> dealing with WMD, that's not unreasonable.
But they were complying with the Inspections !!
OK, they had to be forced to accept them : the _threat_ posed by the US was justified, 100%, but not the war itself, not from the reasons put forward by Bush and his pet poodle.
> > I can never support a war, but I would have
> > understood a war waged for clear reasons.
>
> The reasons were clear, just based on incorrect
> assumptions.
on straightforward lies, unfortunately.
> By the way, it is good to know your
> perspective. Is war never justified?
OK, never say never. That is I can't support war from a personal perspective, but I must admit that sometimes it can be the least bad solution.
> What if you are
> attacked? What if the other side commits genocide?
"Yes" and "Yes" of course : and the G-word should have featured FAR more prominently in the US and UK diplomacy IMHO.
No-one civilised likes a mass-murderer after all.
> I realized another problem on this last night: Our
> military reflects our political culture. Our
> political culture says that the US does not engage in
> wars of conquest. This means we've not developed any
> of the capabilities needed to hold and administer
> territory. Our military is built to win a war
> decisively, with low casualties. We don't how to
> handle the next stage when we take over the whole
> country. If we are seriously going to address the
> issue of failed states, we need to develop this
> capability.
Nice analysis.
You have to think more about the fact that we guys in Old Europe _do_ have that capability.
Message for Bush : it's the UN, stupid !
cheers,
Julian
Powered by hypermail