http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2850043.stm
That's a pretty short debate, with both sides having chances to win it. We need some more material than that.
.
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2850043.stm
That's a pretty short debate, with both sides having chances to win it. We need some more material than that.
.
yeah why don't u sue us :rolleyes:
Is that the sort of democracy you intend on supplying the rest of the world with?Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
yeah why don't u sue us :rolleyes:
im just of hearing all you bash us... i have the freedom of speech.. so i say:
and thats thatQuote:
yeah why don't u sue us :rolleyes:
So do I, and I say is that the kind of democracy you intend on spreading across the world. I ain't bashing you, I'm just against an illegal war. However, it seems to me that your president is less able to accept that other countries have the right to speak their mind.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
im just of hearing all you bash us... i have the freedom of speech.. so i say:
and thats that
I mean, "Freddom Fries" for fcks sake :
heh, I actually found "freedom fries" pretty funny as well as true. And FYI, Bush never coined that.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I mean, "Freddom Fries" for fcks sake :
I'd turn that around on you and say that other countries don't respect Bush's right to freedom of speech and opinion. His speeches and opinions are criticized more over than anyone else's. The french administration has openly shown its hatred to the US. However, we still refer to the french as friends officially, at least (although privately we might pass off all of them as part-time strippers.)Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
However, it seems to me that your president is less able to accept that other countries have the right to speak their mind.
I think this sums it up nicely:
Everyone agrees that Iraq hasn’t completely disarmed. Therefore Iraq is in violation of the ceasefire and the war may continue based on that fact. Time to see if the UN will choose to validate its own resolutions and mandates or prove to be nothing but a worthless debate society that passes worthless resolutions and mandates no one has to follow because there are no consequences to breaking them.Quote:
To sum up the argument: the Security Council authorised war to end the occupation of Kuwait; the ceasefire in 1991 was conditional on Iraqi disarmament; so Iraq's failure to disarm revives the authorisation to use force.
War against Iraq is prefectly legal and justifiable based on this fact.
X
The Gulf War did not end! It was a joint ceasefire agreement, between Iraq and the Coalition. The terms of that ceasefire were that Iraq was to immediately disarm it's WMD and all other unapproved weapons...13 years later we see that Iraq still has not disarmed and therefore have not lived up to their end of the ceasefire agreement...as a result of this violation the ceasefire agreement has been breached by the Iraq government, and would result back to the consequences under the agreement for non-compliance.
And on top of that you have 1441 which says "Serious Consequences" will follow if Immediate and total disarment does not occur.
So how do you figure this war could possibly be illegal?
what should be illegal is the UN backing down after they ALL voted for 1441 and all were very aware of the things set out for in it...Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
And on top of that you have 1441 which says "Serious Consequences" will follow if Immediate and total disarment does not occur.
So how do you figure this war could possibly be illegal?
stupid stinky FRENCH :mad:
*whine whine* Blah blah. Go write some code or something.
Z.
... And Honeybee doesn't?Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
...i have the freedom of speech...
Funny, but I could have sword that the French actions where against the US Policy of attacking Iraq. This is different from hating the US. But, as we constantly see on this forum, anything remotely disagreeing with Bush is "anti-American" :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
heh, I actually found "freedom fries" pretty funny as well as true. And FYI, Bush never coined that.
I'd turn that around on you and say that other countries don't respect Bush's right to freedom of speech and opinion. His speeches and opinions are criticized more over than anyone else's. The french administration has openly shown its hatred to the US. However, we still refer to the french as friends officially, at least (although privately we might pass off all of them as part-time strippers.)
i think its legal, after the gulf war they told saddam to disarm, he hasnt, and in 1441 they said he must disarm or face conseuquences he hasnt, so he will get his ass kicked.
this is a good article bout it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...613348,00.html
here is an article about how one of saddams former top military guys who is now opposed to him went missing today.... hmm i wonder why...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/886388.asp?0cv=CB10
The constatn US Flag burnings, the US is the devil demonstrations and burning of our president in effigy give us the impression that we are not liked in france.:rolleyes: Personally I could give a sheit less. French Fries are nasty any way. Now their wine on the other hand. Screw the war for Oil. I say nuke france for their Pinot Noir. Viva la sheitfaced frog. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Funny, but I could have sword that the French actions where against the US Policy of attacking Iraq. This is different from hating the US. But, as we constantly see on this forum, anything remotely disagreeing with Bush is "anti-American" :rolleyes:
blah!Quote:
Originally posted by Zaei
...Blah blah...
http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...postid=1387316
:D
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?
Does it matter - it's illegal, immoral and incomprehensible but it's still in progress...
It seems a U.N. inspector died a few days ago. His "IRAQI" driver crashed into the back of another vehicle.
Hmm I wonder what this inspector had found? Obviously something he was never supposed to tell anyone else about.
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/we....R4qR_DME.html
Yup don't It just make your skin crawl when you find out your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the national security of the United States. Sorry man, We have to protect ourselvs. I feel bad when a Lion eats a deer on those nature shows, but hey, the lion has a right to keep himself alive also. Right? Our time's better spent helping out the familys of our friends and relatives who are going to be there dodging lead rather than sitting around arguing morality. But any way. Yes, you are right. It doesn't matter now.Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
Does it matter - it's illegal, immoral and incomprehensible but it's still in progress...
:DQuote:
Z.
i dont support the war, i dont like to see how childrens and womans dies only for petrol, because be honest, the problem is that...
They might do a osama bin laden and Start a holy war.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?
This is debatable, because in the absence of any concrete evidence from the US or its allies and also from the UN weapons inspectors, there's no solid reason to believe Iraq still has WMDs. The UN inspectors were appointed to verify precisely this. When they are saying there is no evidence of WMDs being in possession of Iraq, we have to believe them, unless some evidence to the contrary is produced. This also means Iraq has not violated the ceasefire agreement.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I think this sums it up nicely:
Everyone agrees that Iraq hasn’t completely disarmed. Therefore Iraq is in violation of the ceasefire and the war may continue based on that fact. Time to see if the UN will choose to validate its own resolutions and mandates or prove to be nothing but a worthless debate society that passes worthless resolutions and mandates no one has to follow because there are no consequences to breaking them.
War against Iraq is prefectly legal and justifiable based on this fact.
X
.
Does it mean you don't even care if whatever your government does is legal or not?Quote:
Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?
.
Everything they do is illegal in a way.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Does it mean you don't even care if whatever your government does is legal or not?
.
No, actually it's not debatible at all because Inspectors found tons of WMD's in Iraq a few years ago before they were so nicely booted out. Iraq hasn't show ANY evidence of what it did with those TONS of WMD's. So one can only assume they still have them. Therefore proving 100% that Iraq has WMD's and hence war is upon them 100% legaly.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
This is debatable, because in the absence of any concrete evidence from the US or its allies and also from the UN weapons inspectors, there's no solid reason to believe Iraq still has WMDs. The UN inspectors were appointed to verify precisely this. When they are saying there is no evidence of WMDs being in possession of Iraq, we have to believe them, unless some evidence to the contrary is produced. This also means Iraq has not violated the ceasefire agreement.
.
I think Hans Blix has, in his latest reports, confirmed that no WMDs have been found during the UN inspections carried out recently.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
No, actually it's not debatible at all because Inspectors found tons of WMD's in Iraq a few years ago before they were so nicely booted out. Iraq hasn't show ANY evidence of what it did with those TONS of WMD's. So one can only assume they still have them. Therefore proving 100% that Iraq has WMD's and hence war is upon them 100% legaly.
That only means there are no WMDs to be found today. What happened to them is a matter well outside the scope of 1441 :rolleyes:
.
I think they reported that on the news a couple of weeks ago. :confused:Quote:
I think Hans Blix has, in his latest reports, confirmed that no WMDs have been found during the UN inspections carried out recently.
The war on Iraq is legal. 1441 is very clear about what Saddam is expected to do and he hasn't. I don't think anyone is saying that Saddam has done what is called for in 1441, they are in dissagreement on what to do about it.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2850043.stm
That's a pretty short debate, with both sides having chances to win it. We need some more material than that.
.
Hans blix has stated that he hasn't found WMD's ** YET **! Yet is the keywrod here. It doesn't mean that Iraq doesn't have WMD's, just means that the inspectors have been unsucessful of finding any. While on that note let me also point out that its not the job of the inspectors to find. Our intelligence and the Intelligence of other governments show that he still has these weapons.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I think Hans Blix has, in his latest reports, confirmed that no WMDs have been found during the UN inspections carried out recently.
That only means there are no WMDs to be found today. What happened to them is a matter well outside the scope of 1441 :rolleyes:
.
The first 4 years of inspections, Saddam denied having ever produced any chemical or biological weapons. It wasn't until 1995 when Saddam admited to having created these weapons. Heck lets just take a look at some of the history here:
April 11 1991, UN passes resolution 687 which calls for a ceasefire and for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed.
June 9, 1991, UN inspectors begin bio/chem inspections.
Aug 15, 1991, UN passes resolution 707 demanding compliance with weapons inspectors.
Oct 15, 1994, UN passes resolution 949 demanding Iraq refrain from threatening its neighbours and again orders compliance with weapons inspectors.
July 1, 1995, Iraq admits it has bio/chem weapons.
June 12, 1996, UN passes resolution 1060 denouncing Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites.
June 21, 1997, Un passes resolution 1115 condemning the repeated refusal of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to inspection sites.
Oct 23, 1997, UN passes resolution 1134 which reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors.
Nov 12, 1997, UN passes resolution 1137 which rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections.
Nov 13, 1997, Iraq kicks weapons inspectors out of Iraq.
Nov 20, 1997, Iraq lets weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
Sep 9, 1998, UN passes resolution 1194 condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.
Nov 5, 1998, UN passes resolution 1205 again condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.
Dec 16, 1998, UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq again due to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the UN.
Nov 8, 20002, the UN unanimously approves resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional accounting of weapons of mass destruction and to allow inspectors to verify.
You can beleve this fairy tale that Saddam is selling or you can open your eyes and see the truth.
Him proving he does not have the weapons is not reason enough to kill hundreds of innocent civilians.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Hans blix has stated that he hasn't found WMD's ** YET **! Yet is the keywrod here. It doesn't mean that Iraq doesn't have WMD's, just means that the inspectors have been unsucessful of finding any. While on that note let me also point out that its not the job of the inspectors to find. Our intelligence and the Intelligence of other governments show that he still has these weapons.
If the intelligence community does indeed have proof, then where is it ?
The best the US could come up with was some dodgy photoes and tape recordings which the weapons inspectors quashed.
And "yet" doesn't mean that there are weapons there.
It just means that at that particular point in the investigation, they have not found any weapons. It doesn't mean they will.
The war is not legal. He was ordered to prove he doesn't have illegal weapons, but that's no justifaction to bomb the country to bits.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
The war on Iraq is legal. 1441 is very clear about what Saddam is expected to do and he hasn't. I don't think anyone is saying that Saddam has done what is called for in 1441, they are in dissagreement on what to do about it.
If its Saddam you want to get rid of, why punish the people ?
Just like you punished the afghan people : they couldn't rise up against their government so you bombed them instead.
Half the world doesn't want war.
Surely that should be some sort of indication that blowing the country to bits isn't the solution here.
Lets stop the BS with the killing of the civilian talks. Far fewer of thier people will die from our war then what would happen if we left him in there. Do you stop and think about that? I'm willing to bet when we go in there, they will be cheering.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Him proving he does not have the weapons is not reason enough to kill hundreds of innocent civilians.
If the intelligence community does indeed have proof, then where is it ?
The best the US could come up with was some dodgy photoes and tape recordings which the weapons inspectors quashed.
And "yet" doesn't mean that there are weapons there.
It just means that at that particular point in the investigation, they have not found any weapons. It doesn't mean they will.
Ok then some where between Dec 16, 1998 and Nov 8, 2002, Saddam has destoried those weapons all on his own. He's done it because he feels bad about not doing what the UN called for and decided he would do it in secret without the inspectors there to verify it and without being able to produce so much as a video tape of him doing it. After all he is begining to enjoy all those sanctions in place.
Did you know a jolly fat man comes by at christmas to give all the kids gifts?
Your logic is flawed. Thier people cannot overthorw this government, they have tried before and the result was Nerve Gas. So we must go in and do it because their people are not strong enough to do it themselves.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
The war is not legal. He was ordered to prove he doesn't have illegal weapons, but that's no justifaction to bomb the country to bits.
If its Saddam you want to get rid of, why punish the people ?
Just like you punished the afghan people : they couldn't rise up against their government so you bombed them instead.
Half the world doesn't want war.
Surely that should be some sort of indication that blowing the country to bits isn't the solution here.
Then why are families arming themselves for the US invasion ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Lets stop the BS with the killing of the civilian talks. Far fewer of thier people will die from our war then what would happen if we left him in there. Do you stop and think about that? I'm willing to bet when we go in there, they will be cheering.
And why is the US actually doing this.
You've provided lots of reasons, and the US changes its tack argument to argument.
1) To get rid of Saddam because he hurts some of his people
2) To get rid of Saddam because he's a threat to the US
3) To get rid of Saddam because he produces weapons of mass destruction
4) To get rid of Saddam because he funds international terrorism
I only agree that number 1 is correct.
The rest, in my, and half the world's opinion, is a lie.
So lets say he hurts his own people.
How is a B52 bomber going to help remove one man from power ?
A US or UK backed coup would be required.
Not bombing bridges and power stations and the likes.
Leaving Saddam in power is punishment for the people of Iraq.
But you're going to bomb their country - and innocent civilians will die in the process.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Your logic is flawed. Thier people cannot overthorw this government, they have tried before and the result was Nerve Gas. So we must go in and do it because their people are not strong enough to do it themselves.
You did the same in Afghanistan.
The people couldn't overthrow the government, so you bombed the country.
What is this incessant need to bomb Iraq ?
If you want to overthrow a government, you use a coup.
Look at Cesar Chavez in Venezuela!
And destroying their country around them isn't ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Leaving Saddam in power is punishment for the people of Iraq.
You don't use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to topple a government.
plenderj, man seriously, open your mind and your eyes. I don't know what spell you have over you but my god you really have a lopsided point of view.
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.
I don't think your understanding that there is more then one reason for going to this war. He does hurt and kill his people, he is a clear and present danger to the national security of America, he has weapons of mass destuction (not nuclear, tho he has tried to make them), he does support terrorism.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Then why are families arming themselves for the US invasion ?
And why is the US actually doing this.
You've provided lots of reasons, and the US changes its tack argument to argument.
1) To get rid of Saddam because he hurts some of his people
2) To get rid of Saddam because he's a threat to the US
3) To get rid of Saddam because he produces weapons of mass destruction
4) To get rid of Saddam because he funds international terrorism
I only agree that number 1 is correct.
The rest, in my, and half the world's opinion, is a lie.
So lets say he hurts his own people.
How is a B52 bomber going to help remove one man from power ?
A US or UK backed coup would be required.
Not bombing bridges and power stations and the likes.
I don't think any of the UN members dissagree that saddam isn't disarming. They all know that he isn't, some think he can be delt with through peaceful means and other think the only way to deal with it is with war.
Lets say someone is on trial, and the prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.
Unless the prosecutors can actually prove the man did the crime - ie. actually provide the proof - then the man would not be found guilty.
If you want to prove to the international community that there are weapons there then you should show the international community the proof.
Saying that you don't want to reveal your sources is a total cop-out, and is equal to having no proof at all.
You say you already have the proof, then why not let the public know the proof.
You don't need anyone to tell all, because supposedly the proof is already there!
Yea it’s called logistics. You don’t show what you know because what you know would change.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
plenderj, man seriously, open your mind and your eyes. I don't know what spell you have over you but my god you really have a lopsided point of view.
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.
The UN weapons inspectors are saying he's disarming.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
I don't think your understanding that there is more then one reason for going to this war. He does hurt and kill his people, he is a clear and present danger to the national security of America, he has weapons of mass destuction (not nuclear, tho he has tried to make them), he does support terrorism.
I don't think any of the UN members dissagree that saddam isn't disarming. They all know that he isn't, some think he can be delt with through peaceful means and other think the only way to deal with it is with war.
But lets come back to your second and third points.
2) He's a threat to the US. Why ? How ? What could he do ?
And if he is such a threat, why is the US and the UK saying the battle will be over very shortly because the Iraqi military is so ill-equipped.
How on earth is he a threat to the security of the US ?
And if he is, then why wasn't he 6 months ago, a year ago, two years ago, ten years ago ?
3) You still haven't proven that he does indeed have illegal weapons.
But the proof was there.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Yea it’s called logistics. You don’t show what you know because what you know would change.
If there is hard proof, then there's hard proof.
Even if the weapons were moved, if the US had proper proof, then that's good enough.
It would be good enough in a court-room.
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say someone is on trial, and the prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty.
Unless the prosecutors can actually prove the man did the crime - ie. actually provide the proof - then the man would not be found guilty.
If you want to prove to the international community that there are weapons there then you should show the international community the proof.
Saying that you don't want to reveal your sources is a total cop-out, and is equal to having no proof at all.
You say you already have the proof, then why not let the public know the proof.
You don't need anyone to tell all, because supposedly the proof is already there!
I didn't say strike at the weapons themselves.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.
If you have the proof you have the proof.
So what if the weapons are moved, you'd have the country in a matter of days anyway.
Or lets say you are soooo utterly paranoid that you don't want to release all your evidence.
Why not show the evidence to the heads of state of countries around the world. Especially to the doubters?
The proof will occur once the war gets underway not before. We are dealing with some very dangerous weapons and we'd like to take them out. Not let a whole lot of people die just so you can get it through your head that the war isn't about oil or whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
But the proof was there.
If there is hard proof, then there's hard proof.
Even if the weapons were moved, if the US had proper proof, then that's good enough.
It would be good enough in a court-room.
So you want to strike a country without proving why you want to do it ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
The proof will occur once the war gets underway not before. We are dealing with some very dangerous weapons and we'd like to take them out. Not let a whole lot of people die just so you can get it through your head that the war isn't about oil or whatever.
The police cannot force their way into someone's home without a search warrant - ie. they have proven that they should be allowed enter that home.
Why dont you show the evidence to heads of state around the world.
Have them in turn tell their citizens they have seen the evidence.
Or why not send in special forces teams to secure the weapons ?
There are so many options besides bombing the entire country to pieces that you are ignoring.
oh I'm sure we have. Its never really been in question if Saddam does or does not have these weapons. I'm pretty sure Iraq is alone on that issue. It has been a question about what to do about it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
I didn't say strike at the weapons themselves.
If you have the proof you have the proof.
So what if the weapons are moved, you'd have the country in a matter of days anyway.
Or lets say you are soooo utterly paranoid that you don't want to release all your evidence.
Why not show the evidence to the heads of state of countries around the world. Especially to the doubters?
Because these weapons are too powerful to toy with like that. Its better that proof comes after the war then to give proof before and get a lot of people killed.
You realize of course you could come up with any number of justifications for not giving out the proof.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
oh I'm sure we have. Its never really been in question if Saddam does or does not have these weapons. I'm pretty sure Iraq is alone on that issue. It has been a question about what to do about it.
Because these weapons are too powerful to toy with like that. Its better that proof comes after the war then to give proof before and get a lot of people killed.
Show the Irish prime minister the proof, show the french president the prood, show the german chancellor the proof.
Then surely they would support a war if they knew that Saddam had these weapons.
Half the world doesn't think that he's a threat.
Why are you ignoring our opinions ?
Surely they're just as valid as the pro-war opinions.
Oh but wait I forgot, Bush & Blair and the media are pro-war.
My mistake.
We spent more money then the economy of your country on our military. We will do the safest way that we know how to get rid of saddam. I have no clue what their stratigy will be, but you can bet its been thought through by many people.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So you want to strike a country without proving why you want to do it ?
The police cannot force their way into someone's home without a search warrant - ie. they have proven that they should be allowed enter that home.
Why dont you show the evidence to heads of state around the world.
Have them in turn tell their citizens they have seen the evidence.
Or why not send in special forces teams to secure the weapons ?
There are so many options besides bombing the entire country to pieces that you are ignoring.
People would like for the citizens to know but the problem is that what you tell citizens you are also telling the enemy. We are not going to put our troops at more risk just so citizens will know sooner. I say sooner because when this is over then you will know.
So you're saying, that if the US perceives a threat at any point in time, from whatever source, that it can strike, without provocation, and without providing proof until after the engagement ?
They have, every government stats that Saddam isn't disarming. What more do you want from us?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
You realize of course you could come up with any number of justifications for not giving out the proof.
Show the Irish prime minister the proof, show the french president the prood, show the german chancellor the proof.
Then surely they would support a war if they knew that Saddam had these weapons.
Half the world doesn't think that he's a threat.
Why are you ignoring our opinions ?
Surely they're just as valid as the pro-war opinions.
Oh but wait I forgot, Bush & Blair and the media are pro-war.
My mistake.
Also a lot of leaders are ****ty ones. The world has a lot of leaders who do whatever public opinion says. That isn't a good thing. Public doesn't have the same information that the leaders do.
That gave me a whole new respect for Tony Blair as the british are lucky to have him.
Any country that is threaten has the right to defend itself.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So you're saying, that if the US perceives a threat at any point in time, from whatever source, that it can strike, without provocation, and without providing proof until after the engagement ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
They have, every government stats that Saddam isn't disarming. What more do you want from us?
Also a lot of leaders are ****ty ones. The world has a lot of leaders who do whatever public opinion says. That isn't a good thing. Public doesn't have the same information that the leaders do.
That gave me a whole new respect for Tony Blair as the british are lucky to have him.
Not every leader agrees he isn't disarming. Show me proof of that.
And that's a dictatorship - not democracy.
"Leaders" are elected by the public to serve their country.
Not for the country to serve them.
If they want their country to do something, they should ask the country - not tell the country.
Without first proving that it is indeed threatened ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Any country that is threaten has the right to defend itself.
Sure they are, name one country that is saying that Iraq has completely been disarmed. Iraq doesn't count =P They are saying that they think they can achive disarming Iraq through peaceful means. I say that they have had 12 years and time has ran out.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Not every leader agrees he isn't disarming. Show me proof of that.
And that's a dictatorship - not democracy.
"Leaders" are elected by the public to serve their country.
Not for the country to serve them.
If they want their country to do something, they should ask the country - not tell the country.
It doesnt work that way. You are assuming you know everything that the leader knows, you don't. In most countries the majority does not rule and thats a good thing.