Regardless of whether or not we should go to war...

[Animal]

They were more rhetorical questions, John use to point out the reasoning behind the slew of arrogance comments directed towards the US. I don't disagree with your points, in fact, I'm the first one on the world peace bandwagon, but stopping violence with violence doesn't work.

IMHO, the New Sheriff in town is a little too gung-ho. There really hasn't been any justice for the terrorist attacks on US soil, and I fear that perhaps the US just want's to make an "example" out of Saddam in the name of justice.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Animal: They were more rhetorical questions, John use to point out the reasoning behind the slew of arrogance comments directed towards the US. I don't disagree with your points, in fact, I'm the first one on the world peace bandwagon, but stopping violence with violence doesn't work. IMHO, the New Sheriff in town is a little too gung-ho. There really hasn't been any justice for the terrorist attacks on US soil, and I fear that perhaps the US just want's to make an "example" out of Saddam in the name of justice.

Agreed they are rhetorical questions, my point is reasoning should be used all the way through. Whether the rest of the world thinks the USA is arrogant or not, is a poor jusification to allowing something all agree is wrong to exist. 12 years of sactions and talk have produced little if any real results. There comes a point when somebody has to stand up and say enough is enough.

If Sodamn Insane is used as an Example, maybe others will learn from it. If they don't then they must be willing to pay the price.

[Animal]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: They were more rhetorical questions, John use to point out the reasoning behind the slew of arrogance comments directed towards the US. I don't disagree with your points, in fact, I'm the first one on the world peace bandwagon, but stopping violence with violence doesn't work. IMHO, the New Sheriff in town is a little too gung-ho. There really hasn't been any justice for the terrorist attacks on US soil, and I fear that perhaps the US just want's to make an "example" out of Saddam in the name of justice.

Agreed they are rhetorical questions, my point is reasoning should be used all the way through. Whether the rest of the world thinks the USA is arrogant or not, is a poor jusification to allowing something all agree is wrong to exist. 12 years of sactions and talk have produced little if any real results. There comes a point when somebody has to stand up and say enough is enough.

If Sodamn Insane is used as an Example, maybe others will learn from it. If they don't then they must be willing to pay the price.[/QUOTE]I don't think that perceived arrogance should be a reason for allowing attrocities to continue either, yet only just recently has any real effort being placed into doing anything. Sure, 12 years of sanctions has produced nothing, and someone has stood up and said enough is enough, but let's exhaust all peacful alternatives to war and not act rashly. If this can be solved with a minimal loss of life for everyone concerned then we should do so.

[Azred]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Why does the rest of the world wait on what the USA does? Then when the USA finally does something, they complian about the timing as a reason not to help in doing something about the problem. Why does the rest of the world complian about the USA acting as if they are the world's policeman? Then not do much to stop anything themselves? Or when they are in trouble look to the USA for help?

An interesting point you make here. It certainly does seem as if many in the world community want to point out places where we should step in to stop a situation then later criticize when we decide to step in somewhere else. If my neighbor kept telling me when I should mow my grass or paint my house I would quickly tell my neighbor to politely mind his own business.

We have gathered enough evidence, both recently and throughout his tenure, that Saddam has links to terror and is a danger to Middle Eastern stability. Yes, out government set him into power--we're not perfect--but we certainly see what a mistake it was and are ready, finally, to rectify that mistake.
In short, we should move into Iraq now (I would have gone in months ago) to topple Saddam and if the rest of the world happens to disagree then that is not our problem. I don't much care what others think of me on a personal level and I am certainly not going to care what other nations think of the US.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Azred: Quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: Why does the rest of the world wait on what the USA does? Then when the USA finally does something, they complian about the timing as a reason not to help in doing something about the problem. Why does the rest of the world complian about the USA acting as if they are the world's policeman? Then not do much to stop anything themselves? Or when they are in trouble look to the USA for help?

An interesting point you make here. It certainly does seem as if many in the world community want to point out places where we should step in to stop a situation then later criticize when we decide to step in somewhere else. If my neighbor kept telling me when I should mow my grass or paint my house I would quickly tell my neighbor to politely mind his own business.

We have gathered enough evidence, both recently and throughout his tenure, that Saddam has links to terror and is a danger to Middle Eastern stability. Yes, out government set him into power--we're not perfect--but we certainly see what a mistake it was and are ready, finally, to rectify that mistake.
In short, we should move into Iraq now (I would have gone in months ago) to topple Saddam and if the rest of the world happens to disagree then that is not our problem. I don't much care what others think of me on a personal level and I am certainly not going to care what other nations think of the US.[/QUOTE]North Korea is a perfect example of that, lots of people are wanting us to take care of NK. Since the USA is shouldering the loin's share of the risk in men and matterial the USA should get the lion's share in deciding what or who gets struck first IMHO.

[ 03-16-2003, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[lasher]

Originally posted by John D Harris: North Korea is a perfect example of that, lots of people are wanting us to take care of NK. Since the USA is shouldering the loin's share of the risk in men and matterial the USA should get the lion's share in deciding what or who gets struck first IMHO.

Sorry dude, but Iraq is not the main problem for the US at least.
Try to compare Iraq and NK:
-one can fire on US soil: NK, one can't: Iraq
-one has A bomb: NK, one dont: Iraq
-one shoot US plains: NK, one dont: Iraq

So if i were a dictator, iwould understand that if i have A bomb, the US will let me be. And that exactly what they do: Iran atomic program go faster since Bush said he wants to go to war with Iraq (experts think they will have the bomb in 3 or 4 years).

PS: Dont say the situation for the people is worse in Iraq than in NK, it is not true (i would say it is the reverse).

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by lasher: [b]Sorry dude, but Iraq is not the main problem for the US at least. Try to compare Iraq and NK: -one can fire on US soil: NK, one can't: Iraq NK has a missile that may be capable of hitting the US West Coast. A missile that has never been tested successful at any significant range. So neither NK or Iraq can hit US soil. -one has A bomb: NK, one dont: Iraq NK doesn't have a bomb, but they have enough raw materials to create quite a few if those materials are re-processed. They are months away from having a bomb[/i]. So neither NK or Iraq have a nuke. -one shoot US plains: NK, one dont: Iraq NK harassed a US surveillance plane over international waters. Iraq has been actually targeting and firing on US and UK warplanes in the NO-FLY zones for the last dozen years. So Iraq shoots at US planes, and NK does not. So if i were a dictator, iwould understand that if i have A bomb, the US will let me be. And that exactly what they do: Iran atomic program go faster since Bush said he wants to go to war with Iraq (experts think they will have the bomb in 3 or 4 years). If you were a dictator you'd know that having a bomb or not doesn't really matter as long as you have enough military to control your population. You'd know that you could do pretty much anything you want without fear of retribution from the international community. Since Iraq has been allowed to ignore and defy the UN over the last dozen years the NK dictator has decided he doesn't have to conform to his international obligations anymore. A message has been sent to dictators around the world, and the message is that the UN isn't willing to act.

[ 03-16-2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by lasher: Quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: North Korea is a perfect example of that, lots of people are wanting us to take care of NK. Since the USA is shouldering the loin's share of the risk in men and matterial the USA should get the lion's share in deciding what or who gets struck first IMHO.

Sorry dude, but Iraq is not the main problem for the US at least.
Try to compare Iraq and NK:
-one can fire on US soil: NK, one can't: Iraq
-one has A bomb: NK, one dont: Iraq
-one shoot US plains: NK, one dont: Iraq

So if i were a dictator, iwould understand that if i have A bomb, the US will let me be. And that exactly what they do: Iran atomic program go faster since Bush said he wants to go to war with Iraq (experts think they will have the bomb in 3 or 4 years).

PS: Dont say the situation for the people is worse in Iraq than in NK, it is not true (i would say it is the reverse).[/QUOTE]1) There is a world of differance from having missles on paper that can hit a target 2,500 - 3,000 miles away and acttualy being able to hit the target. (Ask the USSR, the safest place to be was the target they were aiming at )
2) It is assumed that NK has Nukes because they said they had a nuke program. Talk is cheap, they have not tested any nukes. Even if they have nukes or other WoMD they don't have a history of using them. That alone changes the dynamics drasticly.
3) NK has not shot at any US planes, Iraq HAS

Even if all you wrote was true then it would be the USA's problem not the rest of the worlds. Which proves my point that the rest of the world wants the USA to take care of certain problems but not others. The USA will deal with the problems It sees fit to deal with in the manner in which it deems the best way. As should all countries!