Do you want Chamberlain for Sec. of State?

[sundevil777 94]

Seems like a lot of you would be happy to have Neville Chamberlain enforcing the terms of the Gulf war cease fire agreement. He could go to Baghdad, I'm confident he would return with a promise of compliance, proclaiming, "Peace in our times".

This is still a world governed by the agressive use of force to achieve political objectives. Saddam has shown his willingness to use force in this manner, much of the world joined to push back. He would have been overthrown had the cease fire agreement not allowed Iraq to continue using helicopter gunships.

I believe it obvious that without the real threat of military action, inspectors would not be in Iraq now to verify compliance with Saddam's agreement to disarm.

In my opinion, without the real threat of military action, we should just tell Saddam that the cease fire agreement is void. Is that what you advocate?

Cliff

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kmcguffee 0]

I agree. I remember a story my grandfather told me about this really bad country run by an evil dictator. The countries of the world placed all kinds of sanctions on the size and makeup of his military, but he ignored every one and built his military up anyway. When some countries pointed this out, other ones would say "he's no threat to us and I kind of feel sorry for him. Let him do what he wants because if we go to war with him many people will die".

A few years later this dictator invaded a neighboring country and claimed that the land belonged to his country. The countries again decided it was best to leave him be because "people might die if we try to stop him".

Finally this dictator invaded another country, then another. The world eventually woke up and decided to stop him. In the end it cost the lives of millions of people.

Can anyone name this dictator? Seems like to me some people would like to repeat this mistake.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[billvon 2,435]

I want someone who will state, with no backtracking and no waffling, what we require and then use the US military to back it up. It should be something the US congress agrees on, and unless we are at risk of imminent destruction, should be something the UN agrees to as well. Then, and this is the harder part, stick to our guns.

If we can use the threat of our military to force him to comply with UN inspections, then we did a good job. If we do the inspections, find nothing, and invade anyway, we will be demonstrating to the world that we can't be trusted and our word means nothing. We've done that in the past, of course, but I keep hoping we improve.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

If we do the inspections, find nothing, and invade anyway, we will be demonstrating to the world that we can't be trusted and our word means nothing.

But what are we if we invade, and then do find WMD? We can't thumb our nose at the world, but we do need to be pretty clear about being correct, and bring a real visibility to the "threat" (like what A. Stevenson did at the UN in 1963).

Ironic, JFKs policies toward Cuba were as harsh, or harsher than, what W is directing towards Iraq (regime change resolved by Congress in 1998). Unfortunately, the likes of JFK are no more, and despite some similarities in foreign policy, I can't transfer the context of his policy making style into the modern world.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,435]

>But what are we if we invade, and then do find WMD?

I think you could ask the same questions about North Korea, Iran, Libya and Venezuela, all countries we are not on such friendly terms with. We recognize (at least in our own country) that killing someone because he might have an illegal gun on him is not justified even if we later discover that he _does_ have such a gun on him. We don't afford foreign countries the same rights as US citizens, of course, but I would hope that we at least would apply the same philosophies.

We've committed publicly to UN inspections because we wanted the support we would gain by going through the UN. We're now obligated to follow through and finish the inspections. If they find illegal arms and Hussein is deceptive about them and others? Then we have the evidence we need to invade and remove them. If the inspections turn up only that which he has declared? Then we don't.