I'd say you're ok. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Since you agreed to work, you allowed others to go to the protest in your place, so it didn't reduce those in attendance or hurt the protest in any way. Maybe those you replaced at work actually took others with them, and thereby increased the overall attendance of the event?

Besides, whether you went or not, you believe in the cause and have no problem voicing your opinion, so your attendance (or lack there of) doesn't change the value of that belief. Your sacrifice may actually enhance it. ;)

It doesn't seem like selling out at all. :D

There are reasons other than "innocents will die" Ronn.

If the USA decides to do this alone (or with a few allies) it will set a precedent.

1)Israel would be able declare a similar war on the Palestinians or vice-versa.
The same goes for India and Pakistan, Japan and North Korea, England and Ireland, Russia and Chechnya and any number of other "hotspots"

2)It will cost untold amounts of money to fight this war. It will cost more to clean up and the US government has not said how much it will cost and has not come up with a plan for what happens afterward. The fewer the allies, the more comes out of the taxpayers pockets.

3)We are creating an image that causes many people around the world to hate America. We are angering allies and may stir up the hornets nest of terrorism to new levels. If America doesn't care what they think, then we should close the borders and go into isolation. If we want to be the top dog, we must expect others to try challenge that authority.

I still can't see why we the UN can't just drop 100's of 1,000's of UN troops into Iraq to help the inspectors disarm Iraq and fly U2 planes out to watch for any cheating by the Iraqi Government. Is "blowing stuff up, real good" the only way to fix the problem?

Mark

Well said my friend.

<font color=aqua>UM, Mark dropping hundreds of thousands of UN troops to enforce what the inspectors are doing isn't reasonable based on what most members of the SC are saying. Where are those troops going to come from? Not France, Russia, China, Germany or Belgiam.

Are these troops to go in with the ability to act? I think the new Big 5 will say no, so why would sending in troops in this case matter? To stand around and be laughed at. You want to talk about wasting money, lets send in a 100, 000 UN troops and leave the there for 12 years without any purpose.

The coaltion of the willing did offer the UN troops to enforce the disarmament of Iraq, but the UN is sending more, unneeded, inspectors and giving them more time to evaluate the Iraqis non-compliance. ;) </font>

Money is one of the reasons not to go it alone (or with few allies). We are in the middle of a budget crisis in the USA. The more allies you have the more the costs can be shared.

I have never said we would steal Iraq's oil.

The innefficiency of the UN stems from the inability of members to compromise on the Iraq issue. Both sides are guilty of obsruction and refuse to listen.

Do you not think the anger against America has no connection to the attitudes of the current US government? Does it mean that since we are already hated, we might as well play the part and push them more?

The troops that enter Iraq have to be from all (or most of) the nations of the UN. If not Iraq will merely be thought of by many as a stepping stone on the way to Global Domination by the USA (not my opinion).

I ask again, what good is a War if can not find the weapons that are at issue here? This is a quagmire that we will be unable to extricate ourselves from.

The best thing for the USA is to do what Bush had said he wanted to do for America during the Presidential Debates. He wanted to bring the Reps and the Dems together in a bi-partisan partnership. He said he would bring the 2 sides together for the good of America. USA needs to bring the nations together, not break them apart. The whole UN issue is a failure in Bush's foreign policy.

Mark

Yesterday over a million people turned up to Hyde Park to hear actors, artists, and politicians (including the Lib. Dem leader) speak out against the war. In Glasglow the Prime Minister was ushered away quickly before tens of thousands (number unconfirmed at the time) peace protesters descended on the conference hall.

[ 02-16-2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Kaltia ]

Mark, money is not a reason to do it or not to do it in my opinion. It either needs to be done or it doesn't. The UN either makes resolutions it intends to enforce, or it hands out pieces of paper that are a waste of time.

The inefficiency of the UN comes from the fact that the UN is inefficient. It makes rules it doesn't intend to enforce and then all the members bog down into "we want to do it this way." The whole UN issue is a failure of all the nations involved, not just Bush's foreign policy as you stated. Bush is suppose to be able to cure the world's ills?

Certainly it does, just as I mentioned a current anger against France in the US is based on the attitudes of that current government. It's ok to disagree.

Alot of resentment towards the US comes from the fact that "if push comes to shove" we can do what we choose, while many others cannot. Of course, we shouldn't go around doing whatever we please, but does the US have to appease everyone?

Too bad the UN isn't going to send anyone. :(

You keep asking this question despite the fact that Hans Blix has answered it on three different occasions. The inspectors can never search out and find WoMD because it's not a job the inspectors are capable of doing. The job of the inspectors is to oversee the disarmament process, not to disarm Iraq. Iraq is suppose to disarm itself under the inspectors oversight. The Iraqis have to surrender such weapons or submit proof of their destruction. The Iraqis have done neither.

Don't kid yourself Mark, if Iraq completely submits to disarmament or is conquered their capability to create WoMD will be destroyed, and the stockpiled weapons will be found.

[ 02-16-2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I missed responding to your question before you edited it Kaltia, and it was a good questions, so I'll respond anyway to clarify my position. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No one is saying those who believe that there should be no war shouldn't protest. I think people should stand up for what they believe whether I believe in their cause or not.

I just hope those who protest aren't opposed to the war because they think there is a need for more inspectors and more time for inspectors in Iraq, and that the US is trying to move too quickly. The Inspector General has told the UN SC on several different occasions that the only thing needed for the inspections to proceed quickly and efficiently is for the Iraqi's to cooperate completely. He reluctantly admits that isn't happening. He admits it every time he makes a report to them.

[ 02-16-2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

This debate keeps going in circles, so maybe I'll just let it go for now. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark...offers Ronn a handshake in friendship.

[ 02-16-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Handshake Accepted! [img]smile.gif[/img]

We can always agree to disagree. :D