I started working on this post a while before FotoPlasma posted, but I'd like to thank him for his support.
Quote:
Asking permission before we inspect is like the police phoning ahead before they search a suspected crackhouse. Whether there was anything there or not, you're not going to find anything.
-Michael Murphy
|
Well, that’s the US’ and the UN’s fault for not thinking ahead when they were negotiating / writing up the resolutions following the Gulf War. T.S. is all I have to say.
Quote:
Bill, did you ever wonder why Israel is "armed to the teeth?" Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked. Ever hear of the Six Days War?
-Michael Murphy
|
No. I never wondered why Israel was as I put it, "...armed to the teeth..." I know the history of the state of Israel. Yes, I know about the Six Day War, but how does that help prove your point? Is it to try to prove that "Iraq isn't the only country in the area surrounded by enemies with a history of being attacked." If that's the case, then you're making a mistake in your logic. Iraq isn't surrounded by enemy nations, and it hasn't been attacked in years (I forget which country attacked the other first in the Iran/Iraq War). In fact, recently most of the Arab nations in that area of the world have pledged their support for Iraq in opposition to the US threat of military action. What I meant by my statement was that the Arab nations in that region do not have nuclear weapons, and the fact that Israel does weighs heavily on the other countries. If Iraq (or any other Arab nation in that area) were to have nuclear weapons, it might even the playing field in that area, so to speak.
Quote:
The main issue I have with Saddam Hussein is trust. At no point has he ever given the Untied States reason to trust him.
-Michael Murphy
|
Well, in the 1980's, Saddam was the mean s.o.b. he is today, but Ronald Reagan thought he was worthy of our aid. We trusted him then, just like we trusted Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets, so, you're wrong. There was (and possibly will be) a point in time where he is deemed trustworthy by our government.
Quote:
If the U.S. does invade Iraq and replace Hussein, no precedent would be set. This wouldn't be the first time an unfriendly government has been replaced with one more friendly to another country's interests. Note Afghanistan and Central America in recent times, and historically, Athens, Rome, and many other Ancient empires set up governments in neighboring countries to better suit their interests.
-Michael Murphy
|
Actually, I disagree with you once again. If you're talking about the Ancient Empires, that's exactly what they were... Ancient Empires. I think we can all agree that lifestyles, the aggregate intelligence of the human race, and governmental policy has changed a bit since Ancient times, so I’ll leave that out of this conversation. If the US took unilateral action against Iraq it would set a precedent. Michael Murphy, my interpretation of your post tells me that you accepted this (either knowingly or not) by recognizing and agreeing that the Russians and Chinese would have a good case for taking action against Georgia, Chechen Rebels, and Taiwan if the US were to attack Iraq without a UN mandate. The precedent that I’m referring to can be characterized by a phrase as loosely interpreted as the following: A country can take military action against another sovereign nation if it poses a risk to the safety of the original country. Don’t you all see how much trouble this statement can cause? Every country on Earth poses a risk to the safety of any other country! I don’t like this, and none of you should approve of it either. Athens fell, The Roman Empire fell a couple times, The Egyptian Empire fell, The Ottoman Empire fell, The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell, The Incas were wiped out, the Mayans were killed, the Aztecs were defeated, and The British Empire lost a tremendous amount of territory. Maybe the US will still be the strongest country in the world when I die (hopefully many years from now), but that isn’t a foregone conclusion. So why are we willing to risk the future sovereignty of this country by setting such a dangerous precedent? Maybe we’re just too damned full of ourselves. Our country can lose wars too, don’t think we can ride roughshod over everyone in the world. Ok. Done for now.
PS - As I'm wrapping up this post, I just saw that Doanie8 had just posted. I'd like to thank her for kind words as well. I look forward to my next post in this thread (if it remains open).
<edit>
My parents had interesting sets of comments I thought I'd add to this post...
<Bill's Dad>
The guy (Saddam) is 65 years old. He'll be dead in 20 years. What's the rush? Just sit tight and wait. The problem will go away by itself. And that's assuming that he doesn't get killed (by rebels) first.
</Bill's Dad>
<Bill's Mom>
Desert Storm weakened Saddam so much that if the UN would continue their weapons inspections as is, he would be in a similar situation as Moamar Kadafi (sp?) after the US bombed him in the 1980's. He's (Kadafi) still in charge, but hasn't been able to do anything significant since then.
</Bill's Mom>
</edit>