On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:31:02AM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: > I am not claiming that the former should be protected. But just that > there are proper channels to take these actions. And that when these > channels are ignored, things worsen. They don't get better. At least > not for the non-Americans. As for Iraq disobeying the UN, well, now > it is willing to allow inspectors.
No, it is not. Iraq has "allowed" inspectors numerous times before, and it never really allowed them. It is a game of deception they play. > At least that option has to be excercised. Dismissing it out of the > hand seems a bit extreme to me. It has been exercised. Repeatedly. It does not work. It is ludicrous to call it "dismissing it out of hand". > How do you define doing their part? You deleted it. I suggested more aid in building something out of Afghanistan. Another example would be acting serious about enforcing the treaty made with Iraq rather than saying "nice doggie" to Saddam as he repeatedly makes a mockery of the treaty and the UN. > <chuckle> > Our military resources are sufficient for the task at hand. Sufficient to remove all WoMD from Iraq while minimizing civilian casualties? <chuckle> Yeah, right. > You accept Iraq's offer not because you trust Saddam or have faith in > him, but because there is a 'due process of law'. Which has been followed and defied repeatedly. You seem to think that if you keep talking politely to a thief, eventually he will change his ways. Meanwhile, he is robbing you blind. > Or should be, anyway. You can not > summarily decide that someone is a threat, demand that he/they surrender > sovereignity, refuse all counter-offers, declare an intention to > attack...and still hope to be considered reasonable. Yes, you can. It is called enforcing a broken treaty. If your children are sent to their room for punishment for misbehaving, and they sneak out the window, and you find out, do you just send them back to their room to sneak out again, and then when they sneak out the window and you see them outside, you just send them back again and they sneak out again and then.... > Why is my questioning of your assumption illogical? Or emotional? That is not illogical. What is illogical is that if you are oppressed by an insane fascist dictator and have no means of fighting him, that you would refuse help because of pride. Your argument is therefore that the Iraqi people would foolishly continue to live in poverty, famine, and disease, being killed and oppressed by an insane despot, rather than accept outside help. They clearly can't get rid of Saddam themselves, he is too strong and conniving to be overthrown by those he is oppressing. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
