[Warlock]

Ok just out of morbid curiousity,...how would you do it?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Warlock
Ok just out of morbid curiousity,...how would you do it?

Well,

- Try to get more then 60% of the Americans behind you. And not ignore 110+ million of them.
- Not ignore the voice of the "normal" people. Even in the UK there is fierce opposition. Even in the Gov.
- Not ignore the greater part of the world and do as you think is right. (So, if France would've been the only one against it would be alright as the rest does want it. Majority rules)
- (In conjunction with point 3) NOT overthrow the global community just because you "think" you are right.

When those 4 criteria are met, war is warranted.

Its just the general egocentric view of "WE ARE RIGHT! SCREW YOU IF YOU DON'T THINK SO!" that Bush upholds that gets to me.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara


Well,

- Try to get more then 60% of the Americans behind you. And not ignore 110+ million of them.
- Not ignore the voice of the "normal" people. Even in the UK there is fierce opposition. Even in the Gov.
- Not ignore the greater part of the world and do as you think is right. (So, if France would've been the only one against it would be alright as the rest does want it. Majority rules)
- (In conjunction with point 3) NOT overthrow the global community just because you "think" you are right.
 

Not really an answer as to how would you do it

You don't like how Bush is doing things,.. commonsense would indicate you have more of a reason than popular opinion. So just what would you do if you were in "Bush's shoes" ?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Warlock


Not really an answer as to how would you do it

You don't like how Bush is doing things,.. commonsense would indicate you have more of a reason than popular opinion. So just what would you do if you were in "Bush's shoes" ?

In Bush shoes, eh? Resign...

No seriously... I'd work together with the UN and Force a more agressive position towards inspections in Iraq. Not go to full blown war right away.

Enforce AWACS/scouting/scanning runs in and around Iraq. Ofcourse keep the military pessure high.

Enforce immediate investigation of ALL currently classified sites in Iraq.

And actually ENFORCE it. I believe this is a position both France & Co. and the US could live with. Then after 6 months of extensive and heavy investigation produce a report. If Saddam still tries to ward investigators from classified sites in 6 month you got your reason for war.

And with investigation I don't mean softy **** we've seen the past few years but actual aggressive investigations.

I believe that would've been a FAR better option then war.

[NeoHunter]

Originally posted by Tiara


Well,

- Try to get more then 60% of the Americans behind you. And not ignore 110+ million of them.
- Not ignore the voice of the "normal" people. Even in the UK there is fierce opposition. Even in the Gov.
- Not ignore the greater part of the world and do as you think is right. (So, if France would've been the only one against it would be alright as the rest does want it. Majority rules)
- (In conjunction with point 3) NOT overthrow the global community just because you "think" you are right.

When those 4 criteria are met, war is warranted.

Its just the general egocentric view of "WE ARE RIGHT! SCREW YOU IF YOU DON'T THINK SO!" that Bush upholds that gets to me.

Bush should hear the world and not act on his own volition (Did I use that correctly?). If he wants to act without UN backing, why bother being a member of the UN anyway? Point is, if you want to be part of the world community, then hear them. Discuss ways with them. Even if it is time consuming, diplomacy should come first. War should be the last thing on everyone's minds and  should be avoid if possible. Hear what your citizens are saying too. Because some of them could have voted you into power.

From what I see, and read, Bush is DAMN eager to start bombing Iraq.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara


In Bush shoes, eh? Resign...

No seriously... I'd work together with the UN and Force a more agressive position towards inspections in Iraq. Not go to full blown war right away.

Enforce AWACS/scouting/scanning runs in and around Iraq. Ofcourse keep the military pessure high.

And when aircraft are fired on ? Which has happened over the last few years.  By the way we've never got "to ull blown war right away". It's not like the day after the inspections we launched attacks on Iraq, hell you know as well as I do he's watching CNN just like before to get his "intel reports"

Enforce immediate investigation of ALL currently classified sites in Iraq.

Far as I knew this was happening, then again is the whole "Proof of disarming" issue.

And actually ENFORCE it. I believe this is a position both France & Co. and the US could live with. Then after 6 months of extensive and heavy investigation produce a report. If Saddam still tries to ward investigators from classified sites in 6 month you got your reason for war.

And with investigation I don't mean softy **** we've seen the past few years but actual aggressive investigations.

Isn't this what's happened ? Inspectors went in, Sadam was told we needed proof not 'his good word', else military force would be used to inspect/dispose of any WMDs.

I believe that would've been a FAR better option then war.

Honestly... do you think Sadam would ever get rid of his weapons without a war ?

[Tiara]

MEH... Tired of this discussion... War can't be avoided. We have no impact, especially with Bush at the helm.

You know my standpoint, thats all I had to say.

Screw it.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by NeoHunter


Bush should hear the world and not act on his own volition (Did I use that correctly?). If he wants to act without UN backing, why bother being a member of the UN anyway? Point is, if you want to be part of the world community, then hear them. Discuss ways with them. Even if it is time consuming, diplomacy should come first. War should be the last thing on everyone's minds and  should be avoid if possible. Hear what your citizens are saying too. Because some of them could have voted you into power.

From what I see, and read, Bush is DAMN eager to start bombing Iraq.

You know thou... public opinion varies from source to source. The other day I did a search and about 4 sites I decided to look at where not the same,... one had Bush with like 70% approval,..another had Bush at 55% ,...another at 25%, etc . That's why Democracy is electing ppl to make choices in your place not electing ppl to call you up and take a talley of who wants to do what. If you seriously look around it's not anywhere near as clean cut as ppl like to think.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara
MEH... Tired of this discussion... War can't be avoided. We have no impact, especially with Bush at the helm.

You know my standpoint, thats all I had to say.

Screw it.

Well sorry for attempting some decent discussion of it.
*shrug*

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Warlock


Well sorry for attempting some decent discussion of it.
*shrug*

Its not you. Didn't mean to offend you

Its just that this discussion has been going on for days, and I'm saying the same thing over and over and people keep asking the same friggin' things. Read the entire thread. you are bound to find an awnser to the Q you guys ask.

[Warlock]

That's why I decided on the course of questions I just wrote. Basically instead of just "So why do you hate Bush/Sadam?" I thought I'd attempt to get ppl to actually take time and seriously think about the situation. It's sad but of ppl (not just here) haven't thought more than "Uggg War Baaaaaaad!" or "Uggg French ppl baaaaaaaaad" etc etc
The whole "Freedom" fries BS being a great example of situational stupidity.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Warlock
That's why I decided on the course of questions I just wrote. Basically instead of just "So why do you hate Bush/Sadam?" I thought I'd attempt to get ppl to actually take time and seriously think about the situation. It's sad but of ppl (not just here) haven't thought more than "Uggg War Baaaaaaad!" or "Uggg French ppl baaaaaaaaad" etc etc
The whole "Freedom" fries BS being a great example of situational stupidity.

Yeah, its stupid! So stupid it still makes me laugh McDonalds better not enforce that in France

Thinking about it is good, but I've been thinking about it for several days straight. School essay, entire Iraq-project at the uni, HLP, every 10 minutes news broadcast with the same thing over and over.

>>> Following Dutch government debat live on television about the subject. <<<

[Bobboau]

all polls I have seen place aproval of how bush is handeling the Iraq situation have been between 55% and 70%, I make a modestly conservitive estemet of 60% (being that the truth thends to be around the average)

[Liberator]

Regardless of what anybody says:

George W. Bush is Leader.

Being a leader means doing what needs to be done, even if it's not popular.  Being a leader means standing for the best interests of the majority of your governance, not the minority.

For the record, this is pointed more toward those who want to give "diplomacy" another chance.

The UN has been attempting to deal with Saddam since the end of Desert Storm in 1991.  They have passed 12 "resoloutions" to try and force him down through sheer weight of paperwork.

The French are in bed with Saddam like a cheap whore, as are the Germans to a degree.  I don't mean all French or Germans just the scum that deals with Saddam.

As for Americans beleiveing that all Arabs are supporters of terrorists, I can say for one that I know that "all" arabs are not supporters of terrorism and that most Muslims are good and decent people.  Only that the Arab nations, such as Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, are led by groups who prefer to keep their people ignorant because it makes them easier to control.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Liberator
Regardless of what anybody says:

George W. Bush is Leader.

Being a leader means doing what needs to be done, even if it's not popular.  Being a leader means standing for the best interests of the majority of your governance, not the minority.

Right on the point there, plain and simple

[CP5670]

good stuff there.

No seriously... I'd work together with the UN and Force a more agressive position towards inspections in Iraq. Not go to full blown war right away.

Enforce AWACS/scouting/scanning runs in and around Iraq. Ofcourse keep the military pessure high.

Enforce immediate investigation of ALL currently classified sites in Iraq.

And actually ENFORCE it. I believe this is a position both France & Co. and the US could live with. Then after 6 months of extensive and heavy investigation produce a report. If Saddam still tries to ward investigators from classified sites in 6 month you got your reason for war.

And with investigation I don't mean softy **** we've seen the past few years but actual aggressive investigations.

I believe that would've been a FAR better option then war.

sorry, but this is just funny. What in the world do you think they have been doing so far?

I think all of the anti-war guys basically think that if you ask Saddam nicely to give up his missiles and say please and all that, he will do so.

:  
BTW, CP, why is it that

(position error)*(momentum error) > 1/pi

(the Uncertainty Principle)

No idea really; maybe it somehow follows from that schrodinger equation as a special case. I don't really know much physics actually, just math.

[Tiara]

sorry, but this is just funny.  What in the world do you think they have been doing so far?

I think all of the anti-war guys basically think that if you ask Saddam nicely to give up his missiles and say please and all that, he will do so.

...

We've been performing softy investigation. I mean armed escort badass "Shut up and open the door" kinda investigation... Not walk away when stopped.

:doubt:And I didn't even want to reply here

[CP5670]

We've been performing softy investigation. I mean armed escort badass "Shut up and open the door" kinda investigation... Not walk away when stopped.

uh, that is essentially the same thing as the war option; he didn't open the doors, so we open them for him. If you are going with traditional "inspections," you do indeed have to walk away when stopped, since if you bring military forces with you, it will become a war. (hussein isn't going to take very kindly to enemy tanks and men on his soil)

[J3Vr6]

I agree with what Colin Powell said in that  UN Council meeting where he introduced evidence of Hussein hiding weapons of mass destruction:  The Un inspectors are just that, inspectors.  They are not detectives.  

And that's exactly what Hussein has been angling on.

C3PO, errr... CP5670 is correct stating that anything further than inspecting would require the use of force, which is where we are today.  We gave Hussein basically 12 years to disarm and allow inspections (since Nov I think) to be completely open and unrestricted, and Hussein has done everything he can politically to hinder inspections and not disarm.

There is no other avenue to take, no other diplomatic "Save Ferris" for Hussein.  His time has simply run out.

[Warlock]

Plus just a few armed guards with the inspectors merely puts those same inspectors in danger. Some how I doubt the UN's inspectors would have agreed to that.

"We want to check in this room"
"No"
"Open the damned door now!" *Points rifle*
"Ok" *Sounds of 20 Ak-47's gunning down handful of inspectors and guards*

Now imagine what would have happened then ? The 'war' right now is more of a "passive" war. Had the above happened we wouldn't have spent days passing information on how to avoid being targetted, it would have merely been a wide open attack to completely remove Sadam and his military. bloody than it all needs to be.