Robin Cook: Why I had to leave the cabinet

peterchen

Don't you see the difference, or don't you want to?

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Jason Henderson

There is no difference.

Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Doug Goulden

Sadaam Hussein = Meglomaniac Sadaam Hussein = Murderer (Aprox 1,000,000 Muslims) Sadaam Hussein = Probable WMD -> 5000 Kurds Slobadon Milosevich = Meglomaniac Slobadon Milosevich = Murderer, ethnic cleansing (Of Muslims) Slobadon Milosevich = No WMD Tell me the difference. I supported both removing Slobadon and SH. They are both people that have victimized innocent populations of people. The US can't remove every tinpot dictator, but there comes a point in a situation when a country has to decide if they are going to stand and watch the deaths pretending that it hasn't happened, or stand up. SH was supposed to disarm 12 years ago, and he didn't, he isn't any better than Slobadon and is probably worse. Would you have suggested that the US wait for SH to develop a nuke? The French announced in 1998 that SH had destroyed all his WMD. In 1999 they resisted the formation of a UN inpection team. ow they say he needs more time to disarm........ Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Stan Shannon

peterchen wrote: Don't you see the difference, or don't you want to? Ah, Kosovo is in Europe where people deserve freedom and are smart enough to appreciate democracy and Iraq isn't? :confused: "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

peterchen

The US is internationally breaking the things it claims to defend in Iraq.

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

peterchen

The US is internationally breaking the things it claims to defend in Iraq. (2) I'm in for removing Saddam, but not at that price. You take a risk for all of us, for your own advantage. Would you suggest to kill everybody who's an asshole, just in case he might develop a nuke?

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

peterchen

Internationally breaking what you claim to defend in Iraq doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Doug Goulden

peterchen wrote: The US is internationally breaking the things it claims to defend in Iraq Breaking what? An evil man's grasp on a country? A mad man's grasp for power? If you are trying to imply that we are breaking international law, we did the same when we bombed Kosovo, was that OK because their skin was lighter than the people in Iraq? peterchen wrote: Would you suggest to kill everybody who's an asshole, just in case he might develop a nuke Read my post, I said we couldn't remove, nor should we remove every tinpot dictator, but when someone continues after 12 years to develop WMD (and has used them) and does not comply with UN resolutions, he should be removed. peterchen wrote: You take a risk for all of us, for your own advantage What is my advantage? Waking up to a world thats a little safer? I have that right. What risk are you taking any more than I am? Life is full of risks, hell think how safe most people here think they are, sitting quietly at work in the office. Just like the WTC...... People who are to afraid to fight in their own defense or ridicule those who would are small people. Lucky for you, there are people who are willing to fight for not only their own rights, but even for yours. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Stop the joke of the disarmement, it wasn't at any moment the objective of the US diplomacy. They want since the beginning to oust SH and make the regim they want. I may agree on the first part, not on the second one. FYI, Milosevitch wasn't ousted by NATO, but by the Serbian people.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

He perhaps believes UK and Spain are most of the rest of Europe :laugh::laugh:

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: we did the same when we bombed Kos There was already a war in Kosovo. NATO wasn't the aggressor. Doug Goulden wrote: but when someone continues after 12 years to develop WMD (and has used them) and does not comply with UN resolutions, he should be removed. America dixit Doug Goulden wrote: Waking up to a world thats a little safer? Frankly, I hope you're right. But the gamble is incredibly risky, you don't even know what may be the worst consequences of such a war. Doug Goulden wrote: People who are to afraid to fight in their own defense or ridicule those who would are small people Iraq is openly threatened by the US: Would they be right to attack preemptively the US territory? NK considers itself as threatened by the US. Would they be right to attack preemptively the US territory? Iran could consider itself as threatened by the US. Would they be right to attack preemptively the US territory?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

peterchen

Going to war without formally declaring it, without approval of the UN security council, invading a country that did not attack you. Against a former ally, for god's sake! I was alive when he was "your buddy". Iraq is no threat to the US, and will not be for years. Saddam did not hijack the planes on 9/11. Most of the people came from Saudi Arabia, as came lots of their money. War has never made the world a safer place. Invading Iraq will give him and his buddies all reason to use whatever they have left. Islam Fundamentalism is already on the rise since the US started to behave like a jerk, invading Iraq will further this. If you're willing to take this risk, fine - but by chance I'm sitting on the same planet, and I'm not willing to take it. For what? Greater Influence in the Middle East, and a precedence to strike "preemptively" - i.e. with very vague reasons. I am not afraid to fight in my defense. I am just not willing to fall for the propaganda of neoconservative granddaddies gieren craving for world domination. Yes, the Iraqui people deserve to be freed from Saddam - but not at this price.

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: There was already a war in Kosovo. NATO wasn't the aggressor There was a war, but according to some it wasn't "our" war it was an internal matter. According to many of those same people, NATO was an aggressor we weren't attacked. For that matter the UN did not approve action, that BTW was the main point I was making, the UN is good for humanitarian aid, but they often stand by and wring their hands while people die. KaЯl wrote: Iraq is openly threatened by the US: Would they be right to attack preemptively the US territory Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. That was the aggressive act. The US and a large coalition responded and drove the Iraqis from Kuwait. Iraq asked for a cease fire, to which the US and the coalition agreed dependent on them disarming within 45 days. 12 years later, after the inspectors were told to leave Iraq for 4 years, the US and the Security Council, put forth there 17th resolution, telling the Iraqis to disarm or face serious consequences. They didn't do it 12 years ago, they didn't do it now. Questions? I didn't think so.;P Will they attack? I suspect SH and his loyal folks have enough support to try an attack that far from Baghdad. There are already reports of troops in the Northern parts of Iraq trying to defect, and I wouldn't be suprised if SH and company are trying to bring there troops in close to Baghdad in an attemp to maintain control. Kind of a "fight or we shoot you in the back of the head approach". Would they be right to attack us? No. Will they , maybe. Who said war is right? Sometimes its just necessary. NK isn't going to attack the US. They have several thousand reasons not to nuke us. I don't believe they want to die. On the other hand I think they want recognition and influence (kinda like the French;)). I have read some experts saying that NK is trying to improve their militaries own morale by building nationalism to try to keep control as their country falls apart. Iran other than the terrorism that some of it people support doesn't seem to have any interest in attacking anyone. For that matter it seems they have enough problems of their own. From the reading that I have done a lot of the people there aren't so happy anymore with their Islamic Revolution. KaЯl wrote: Waking up to a world thats a little safer? Frankly, I hope you're right. But the gamble is incredibly risky, you don't even know what may be the worst consequences of such

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: Stop the joke of the disarmement The only joke has been the response of the UN Security council in the face of Sadaam's resistance. KaЯl wrote: They want since the beginning to oust SH and make the regim they want What difference does it make to us? We aren't going to get rich out of the deal... the Iraqi people get their country and their freedom back, we lose the threat of WMD getting into terrorists hands. The only real major loser in the long run (12 months or so) is probably going to be France when the truth of their complicity with Saddaam is revealed. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

peterchen wrote: Going to war without formally declaring it, without approval of the UN security council, invading a country that did not attack you. So we shouldn't have attacked Melosovich to drive him out of Kosovo? The US never declared war in the Korean penninsula, that was a conflict I believe. peterchen wrote: Against a former ally, for god's sake! I was alive when he was "your buddy". You honesty think SH is the type of person who should be considered an ally? I don't defend the US's involvement with SH against Iran... we were jut trying to slow the spread of Muslim Fundementalism. But to say that someone can't realize they made a mistake and change? I think you miss the point. peterchen wrote: War has never made the world a safer place You really don't understand..... WW2 - Hitler was defeated, we fought a war, we won, he stopped killing Jews the world is a better place. Cold War - Soviet union collapsed, former soviet republics and Warsaw pact freed. Why don't you ask some of them if they were happier waiting for the knock on the door in the middle of the night from the secret police. I could go on and on, American Revolutionary War, French Revolution, WW1, etc. War is an awful evil thing that should never be entered into lightly. However, to say that war has never made the world a safer or better place is to miss the point. Some things are worth fighting for, you might not agree whether its worth the price or not, but sometimes it just can't be avoided. peterchen wrote: Islam Fundamentalism is already on the rise since the US started to behave like a jerk, invading Iraq will further this The people who will use this as a cause are already against the infidels, don't know about you but I'm a Protestant, that makes me evil in some peoples eyes, worth killing to some. They already have enough reason to want to kill and murder their own people, they don't need an excuse. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: the UN is good for humanitarian aid, but they often stand by and wring their hands while people die. Yep, today it's true, thanks to the US hawks. "Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired" Doug Goulden wrote: Sometimes its just necessary. Yep, when the threat is imminent. US are the only ones to believe there's one. Doug Goulden wrote: NK isn't going to attack the US Cross or pile ?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

peterchen wrote: Going to war without formally declaring it, without approval of the UN security council, invading a country that did not attack you. So we shouldn't have attacked Melosovich to drive him out of Kosovo? The US never declared war in the Korean penninsula, that was a conflict I believe. peterchen wrote: Against a former ally, for god's sake! I was alive when he was "your buddy". You honesty think SH is the type of person who should be considered an ally? I don't defend the US's involvement with SH against Iran... we were jut trying to slow the spread of Muslim Fundementalism. But to say that someone can't realize they made a mistake and change? I think you miss the point. peterchen wrote: War has never made the world a safer place You really don't understand..... WW2 - Hitler was defeated, we fought a war, we won, he stopped killing Jews the world is a better place. Cold War - Soviet union collapsed, former soviet republics and Warsaw pact freed. Why don't you ask some of them if they were happier waiting for the knock on the door in the middle of the night from the secret police. I could go on and on, American Revolutionary War, French Revolution, WW1, etc. War is an awful evil thing that should never be entered into lightly. However, to say that war has never made the world a safer or better place is to miss the point. Some things are worth fighting for, you might not agree whether its worth the price or not, but sometimes it just can't be avoided. peterchen wrote: Islam Fundamentalism is already on the rise since the US started to behave like a jerk, invading Iraq will further this The people who will use this as a cause are already against the infidels, don't know about you but I'm a Protestant, that makes me evil in some peoples eyes, worth killing to some. They already have enough reason to want to kill and murder their own people, they don't need an excuse. peterchen wrote: If you're willing to take this risk, fine - but by chance I'm sitting on the same planet, and I'm not willing to take it. For what? Greater Influence in the Middle East, and a precedence to strike "preemptively" - i.e. with very vague reasons. I am willing to take the risk, I've risked myself before though not directly like the people we have sent to Iraq. The US military is all volunteer, and if you asked them, I have no doubt that they

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: Yep, today it's true, thanks to the US hawks How about Kosovo? KaЯl wrote: Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired" And standing behind it all is a small man, who would sell the Iraqi people for profit. Jaques Chirac. Did he even try to pressure Iraq into acceptance of the UN terms or was he to busy being important? KaЯl wrote: Yep, when the threat is imminent. US are the only ones to believe there's one Define imminent, the UK, Australia, even Germany is providing some support. The French weep over there lost investments. Lets look at who really stands to lose what and what the real motivations are...... If I were French, I would be upset that my representatives would sell out those same organizations you mentioned for the profits of my national oil company. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Economically, you will win the control of oil and more important, the control of the export terminals. You will also win a strategic position in the middle-east. Some of your companies will win considerable contracts in armaments, and in rebuilding. In the long run, we could see more terrorists attacks, China attacking Taiwan "pre-emptively", Turkey in war with Kurdistan, an humatarian disaster caused by millions of refugees, Iran in a hurry to build a nuclear bomb, a ecological disaster caused by the destruction of oil fields, an islamic revolution in Egypt, the weakening on UN, EU and NATO, 3 organizations which were trying to stabilize the World. Just to name a few. That's why I said I hope you're right.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: Economically, you will win the control of oil and more important, the control of the export terminals. You will also win a strategic position in the middle-east. Some of your companies will win considerable contracts in armaments, and in rebuilding If US companies get contracts with the Iraqi people it will be because thats what they want. But I think it obscene to try to say that is the reason why the US is fighting SH. As far as armanents, Iraq will probably have a lot smaller army than what SH bought (from France) before we came along. KaЯl wrote: In the long run, we could see more terrorists attacks We will probably see more attacks anyway, wasn't it Indonesia where all the people were killed in the nightclub? And how many plots have authorities derailed around the world? KaЯl wrote: China attacking Taiwan "pre-emptively" I doubt that, because China knows what the cost of that would be. KaЯl wrote: islamic revolution in Egypt This may happen regardless..... KaЯl wrote: Iran in a hurry to build a nuclear bomb They just revealed that they had a program for quite some time now, thats nothing new unfortunatly. KaЯl wrote: the weakening on UN, EU and NATO The weakening of the UN bagan when the UN was no longer willing to follow up it demands 45 days after the Persian Gulf war. It has continued since then when the UN continued to allow SH to thumb his nose at them. The world is still a dangerous place, and the rule of laww means nothing to people who see no reason to follow it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?