This is a continuation of my reply, rudely interrupted by the library's closing Saturday <grumble, grumble>. (It closes at varying times - 5:30, 7 or 9 PM - but all that is posted is "Closed Sunday and Wednesday.")
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <large snip> > Moreover, we cannot afford to > bring our troops home > for a few months and send them back in the Fall. They certainly can't stay "indefinitely" as some on the UN Security Council seem to be suggesting; just out of curiosity, does anyone have a handle on what it _would_ cost to bring them home and back again? Would it be more than the money offered to Turkey for use as a full staging area? (Of course, Turkey now has a new PM who might be more inclined to do this.) If the 'discovery' of warheads with multiple cluster capability (for chemical, maybe bio matter too, IIRC from the AM news) leads to their destruction this week, those weapons won't be used against civilians or our troops; every 'concession' wrung from Saddam before outright war is advantagous. > Thus, the window of opprotunity is now. If this > coalition that you prefer > fails to materialize next week, as seems likely, > then as Gautam stated, you > are reduced to two options: > > 1) Go it alone. > > 2) Don't go in - or as we have noted, doing exactly > what Saddam wants us to do. Well, what Powell et al. are doing right now - intense lobbying - is worth trying, as I think that from the POV of much of the world a 'final deadline' ought to be given by the UN, not the US or Britain. One from 'us' is much more likely to be perceived as 'unfair,' while one from the UN is fully justified under Res. 1441, and so is 'more fair.' It might even convince Saddam that it's time to take his money and go into exile, although I really think that's a remote possibility. It was mentioned in other posts that military action is allowable/'legitimate' if the resolution is Chapter VII; this was touched on very briefly this summer or fall, when someone noted that, but pointed out that is 'not a common' reason to go to war. Does anyone know off the top of their head how often this option has been used before? (I have over *400* posts to read yet, so this might already be answered.) > What do you choose? As I have pointed out before, I haven't seen enough info to agree that Iraq is a direct threat to the US which would justify our 'going alone' (with a few others); SH is clearly a threat to his own people, his neighbors, and has failed to comply with UN resolutions, which justifies UN-sanctioned military action against him. If the international community wants US troops to stay as 'massive thumb-screws,' they should contribute money to help pay for that. <from another post, you wrote> "I view the Catholic Church's pacifism as a valuable brake upon public discourse to ensure that war truly is the last resort. This is a perfect role for the Church, since ultimately, it does not have responsibility for the decisions. "I think that Catholic Church may even recognize that its pacfisim will sometimes be wrong, but that nevertheless it is valuable to be pacifist anyways." Will you allow that there are other anti-war folks out there who are as sincere in their beliefs as the Pope? (I'm not a pacifist, but I agree that opposing views are useful to promote clarity and dialogue.) Debbi who wonders if anyone else thinks that there must be a joke in the deadline of St. Paddy's Day __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
