3/9     Does anybody here really support going to war?  I saw Blix giving
        his report on Friday and it seemed like he was making progress.
        If you do support the war, why?
        \_ You don't seem to understand that the inspectors are there only to
           confirm that voluntary disarming has taken place.  They are not
           detectives.  They do not have the capability of finding anything
           that the Iraqis might be trying to hide.  Once you understand and
           accept that fact you'll understand why the anti-Saddam folks want
           to see this happen and get his ass dead or in prison along with the
           rest of the bastards in the Baath party.
           but sometimes it is less bad that "containment".  Also Sadaam is
           \_ you don't seem to understand that the OP was asking a
              question, not making a statement.
        \_ The real issue for anti-war has nothing to do with Saddam,
           at least for me personally.  United Nation was founded on the
           base of national soverignty.  Whatever we think we are doing
           the right thing, fundamentally, what we are doing is no differ
           from Japan's invasion of Manchuria / Soviet invasion of Czech,
           and yes, Nazi's invasion of Poland.  War, idealogically, should
           be last resort.  If there are more than one country who adopted
           preemptive strike policy, then the world will be in a much
                \_
           terrible place to live.
           \_ So you believe that anything going on inside the borders of
              another nation is a-ok and no one on the outside should do
              anything about it because of national soverignty?  You think if
              we knew for real what was going on in the concentration camps
              we should have left the Nazis be so long as they didn't stomp
              on their neighbors?  Would you agree that Milosevic was ok
              with all the ethnic cleansing going on?  It was inside his
              country, after all.  What if Israel forced all the Arabs out of
           policy transformation the likes of which has not seen since the 1940s.
           This was expected at the end of the Cold War, but was delayed
              pre-1967 Israel by force?  Or executed them all just because they
           policy.
           That aside I think his domestic agenda has been a disaster,
           namely spending like a liberal.
              can because it's their country, right?
              \_ Well we are supporting Pakistan. Angola seems to always be
                 below the "killing our own citizens" limit as is Indonesia
                 and North Korea. The US still refuses to sign many
                 international treaties against things like bioweapons,
                 chemical weapson, land mines, war crimes, etc. Too bad about
                 all of that.
           have had to argue against the hawk's strident remarks.
        \_ Too many people on Earth. War = death. Death = good, as long as
           it's not my death.
           \_ Ah, techno-libertarian-geek politics in a nutshell.
           \_ then, US should unleash all its nukes on China and India
              first.  Take out those 2 countries will elimate almost
              1/3 of world's population.
        \_ Yes, because the people in Iraq deserve to be freed from a
           tyrant dicator and get a try at "democracy". Tyrants like Saddam
           only respond to force and violence.  The only reason Blix is in
           Iraq is because of the threat of war.  I do not like violence,
           but sometimes it is less bad than "containment".  Also Sadaam is
           but sometimes it is less bad that "containment".  Also Sadaam is
           aparently manufacturing more al Samoud 2 missles to replace the
           ones he's had to destroy. If you lived in Iraq, what would
           \_   I say we overthrown Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Jordan
                government first.  Saddam may be a dictator, at least its
                a republic.  I would think absolute Monarch should go first.
                \_ A republic?  It's a dictatorship.  You can't have both.
                   Sheesh.  Anyway the other Arab states you mention are mostly
                   heading in the right direction, albeit slowly or at least
                   have a chance of doing so.  The Baath party in Iraq will
                   never give up power.  Force is a last resort.  Saddam is
                   beyond that point.  The others are no where near it.
           you want, freedom or more inspections?
           \_ You're in the minority on this one.  Pretty much everyone cares
              one way or the other.  Go back to hacking Java.  We'll wake you
              when it's over.
        \_ A better question might be does anyone here really care?
        \_ "Those who are good at getting rid of trouble are those who take
            care of it before it arises" - Master Sun
            \_ unfortunately the Supreme Court kept that from happening.
                \_ That gosh darned electoral college - what were
                   the founding fathers thinking.  Oh thats right, you have
                   absolutely no idea.
                \_ "If your forces [votes] are not equal to those of the
                    enemy, avoid their edge for the time being, waiting for
                    a gap; then make a determined bid for victory."
                    - Master Sun        \_ Unless you're Al Gore.
                                           \_ "When you know neither the
                        arts of defense nor the arts of offense, you will
                \_ You're way off topic, trollboy.  Move on, nut head.
                        lose the battle"
        \_ Yes, I think Bush has handled the war on terror impeccably,
           policy transformation the likes of which has not seen since the
           1940s. This was expected at the end of the Cold War, but was delayed
           above reproach.  We are in the midst of an overarching foreign
           policy.  Nato is dead (has been dead), so is the U.N. The
           geopolitical alignment is shifting, regardless of the who the US
           president is. That aside I think his domestic agenda has been a
           disaster, namely spending like a liberal.
           \_ Hey!  Clinton didn't do-nothing, know-nothing!  He did a lot!
              He started the current shitfest in Israel/Palestine.  He blew up
              an aspirin factory.  He blew up some camels.  He chicken shitted
              out when the going got tough in Somalia.  He did a lot!
           \_ The New Pax Americana? The world's policemen? I thought the
              Republicans were against that.
           policy transformation the likes of which has not seen since the 1940s.
           This was expected at the end of the Cold War, but was delayed
           for eight years by Clinton's do nothing know nothing foreign
           policy.
           That aside I think his domestic agenda has been a disaster,
           namely spending like a liberal.
        \_ You can't beat the locals at their own game in their own country.
           Stronger or more inspectors won't work. Inspectors are meant to
                \_ The Soviets never honored the ABM or SALT treaties either,
                   they were a joke.
                   \_ Neither did we.  What's your point?  So they spent their
                      country into the ground and are now quite happy to dump
                      their nukes.  Sounds like Reagan's Soviet policy worked
                      pretty damned well.  "The bombs will drop in 5 minutes".
                   \_ The Soviets did honor the ABM treaty. They were allowed
                      to build a test facility (which they tricked the US into
                      thinking was real) near Moscow. It was covered. The US
                      never signed SALT or SALT II.
           \_ To paraphrase Harry Belafonte, Powell's a house servant.
              You know that the smartest and scariest guy in the fray is
              Rumsfeld.
                \_ Riiight... I suppose Condi is too.  Modern liberal philosophy
                   is implicitly racist, and you are a disgusting wretch.
                \_ If you're going to base your political philosophy on what
                   an aged song writer/singer of little ditties has to say, you
                   have no business having an opinion.  Perhaps you should see
                   what Streisand or Garafalo or a number of other hollywood
                   knuckleheads are saying?  At least they were born in the
                   last century so senility isn't an issue yet.
        \_ Here's the end deal with me. The reason for war can be stated for
           humanitarian reasons. But not getting our traditional allies to
           join us is just plain stupid. There is no rush for war. Iraq has
           been slowly toturing and killing it's own people for decades, in
           no small part thanks to the US and it's allies. Hussain will make
           an error and then war can be had. The US needs to PROVE to the
           world that it is right. And it really hasn't.
           verify when a state truly wants to disarm (like former Soviet
           states). Saddam will only be disarmed by force, and disarming by
           force de facto equals "regime change". We'll end up where we would
           have ended up anyway, but Rummy and Wolfy should have watched their
           words and followed Powell's advice. Then France, et al. may not
           have had to argue against our dig in, for whatever reasons.