Reading the news

[weaktwos]

Ahh, lunch. One of life's simple pleasures. I was reading www.salon.com while I grazed upon a tuna sandwich and some chips.

This article is interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/12/foreign_aid/index.html. It discusses the extent of bribery that the U.S. must exert on various countries to try and get a vote on the security council.

What's particularly haunting is Ari Fleischer's comment of, "There are many ways to build a coalition. The Security Council is but one of them."

Clearly, the rest of the world doesn't see our threats to Iraq as mainly human rights based. Nor do they feel the threat of germ warfar like Bush does. If this impending war served more interests than just that of the United States, I feel certain that they would jump on board. After all, we're not asking for troop support, really. If the cause is right and good for the greater population, what a cherry deal to support the U.S. But alas, it is not that simple.

Any of you pro-war zealots care to comment?

Comments

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

But really, this truly isn't a preemptive strike. This is just another phase of the Gulf War. It all boils down to that one, simple point.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah! That simple point. And what about his being an extension of the Gulf War makes your point stronger? The simple point that Saddam has never engaged us in War, yet we continue to beat his ass? Or did you want to make the simple point that our activities in the Gulf War (our troops in Saudi Arabia) is what made Osama hate us to the point of plotting his destructive act(9/11)?

So, tell me how agressive acts of war make us safer, again? And we want to be safer from what? Our right to privacy? That's what we seem to be safe from right now. But anybody, not just Iraq can go walking through our airports, our shopping malls with a virulent agent of some sort.

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

It wasn't an agressive act of war. Iraq invaded Kuwait. He didn't do it for the benefit of his people either. One day he woke up and said, I want that country for it's oil. Gee, he spilled blood for oil. And bent kuwait over a big table, and raped them with a lack of any kind of lubricant. Then we went in and saved that country's ass. We went in and handed Saddam's ass to him. He surrendered, and agreed to abide by certain terms and conditions. He has not complied. He had no army anymore, so he developed weapons of mass destruction. So since he has violated those terms of surrender, we are basically back in a state of war. It's Saddam's fault. We have begged and pleaded with the guy for 12 and a half years to cease and desist. He still hasn't done it.
Sure, anyone can walk in with a virulent agent, but it sure makes it a bit harder for them to do when you have one less country developing shitloads of it.
But you're absolutely right. Saddam never engaged us in war. But he did go in and *invaded an ally*. That country litterally screamed for help. And who came to the *rescue*? Horrible, warmongering United States.
Your argument has jumped from `Saddam isn't a bad guy and America is just a bunch of bullies' to `He might be a bad guy but he doesn't have stuff to be bad with' which is wrong. I've already explained why. Twice. To `We shouldn't because no one else wants us to' and we have to bribe them because they care more about money than right and wrong. Their language isn't in morals, it's in dollars and cents.
But I still HATE war! I hate the fact that there's just no other intelligent way to deal with Saddam. JUST like there was no intelligent way to deal with Hitler. The only real option here is removal. I can't believe that someone would think that our Preident is *excited* about ordering 70 *THOUSAND* body bags.
France is all about the oil. They are being given -=25%=- of all of Saddam's oil as payment for services rendered.
Russia is owed $9.2 BILLION dollars with a personal guarantee by Saddam.
Of *COURSE* these countries don't want to go to war because their wallets would take a big swift kick in the balls.
That is ReFreakinDiculous. Nobody *wants* war. (And I'd rather not associate with anyone who *wants* war) But we can understand the necesity of going to war for the safety of our children and our children's children. And we can understand the necesity of going to war to liberate the children of Iraq. To liberate their children's children.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

There is no morality at the political level, currently. This whole thing is merely a dispute among government leaders that just has lasting and crippling affects on individuals. We helped Saddam get to where he is. Some of the same people currently in power were involved in efforts to support Saddam because at the time we liked Iran less.

You may have a moral reason for eliminating Saddam, but that's not what motivates our government.

[neryx.livejournal.com]

Ah...that's not necessarily true. I want war. A world without war is kind of like a relationship without fights (arguments, disagreements, call them what you will). Of course, I'd much rather have wars that were fought with like, pointy sticks.

[neryx.livejournal.com]

Umm...yes. Anyone COULD go walking through our airports with mystery virus X (or not so mysterious). I'm pretty sure that he's saying that Saddam is pretty much doing so, whereas others are not. Don't get me wrong, Iraqis are not necessarily walking through our airports with deadly virii. But no one else is blatantly and recklessly ignoring the rules, as it were.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Actually, yes, folks are blatantly ignoring the rules: North Korea and Iran. And in a way, if we proceed without UN approval, we'll be breaking the rules as well.

[neryx.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, yes they are, but not to the point that Saddam is.