Well, hopefully, they'll smoke out the various Husseins first with a minimum of casualties. Wouldn't that be nice; that means sanctions can be lifted, the Iraqi economy can get going again, and the huge number of civilian deaths every day caused by Hussein's diversion of money for food and medicine into monuments to himself, fortresses, and palaces can end.
Feed the people!
Feed the people!
I bow to your superior knowledge of defense expenditures. But I wouldn't mind spending a few extra tax dollars (mine, not yours; you don't pay taxes here) if I knew that more people could live in freedom as a result. But I'm probably more pro-Arab than most.
BTW, it's "lives" not "lifes." Pluralization in English can be extremely irregular, worse than most other languages. Est-ce que vous êtes un Quebecois?
edit: Never mind. J'ai vu que vous habitez en Montreal.
BTW, it's "lives" not "lifes." Pluralization in English can be extremely irregular, worse than most other languages. Est-ce que vous êtes un Quebecois?
edit: Never mind. J'ai vu que vous habitez en Montreal.
Nobody knows for sure how it will cost. I base my estimate on this:
http://www.amacad.org/publications/monographs/Iraq_Press.pdf
The other problem is that nobody knows if peace will be the result. Maybe more violence and more terrorist acts. The other concern is that it will be the first time a country declare war only by presomption. What if India decide to invade Cachemire or China invade Taïwan only by presomption? Illegal? Not by your standard.
Sorry about my poor English. My first language is French.
O.K. I will ask it differently. In what way Iraq is a threat to the U.S to justify a war without beeing attacked? Or if you prefer why Iraq over Saudi Arabia (related to 9-11) or Pakistan (Al Quaida) or North korea (real nuclear threat)?
U.S failed to provide any proof of involvment with terrorism group (not that they tried with forged reports) or failed to provide proof about WMD
U.S Foreign policy failed miserably and so does the credibility of your administation. At least be honest and accept that fact.Mine you that I have nothing against Americans. I spent one month per year in Maine and enjoy it very much.
By the way, you have great Caberbet Sauvignon!
Personally, I like the French Cabernets better, but there are some pretty fine ones here. We've had a style change over the past decade to higher alcohol, riper, and oakier wines, which I do not think is to our benefit. Ridge Montebello is still one of the world's great wines, but many other fine Cabernets have gone down an unhappy path. We're starting to do some excellent Pinot Noir and Syrah, though I don't think that the Domaine de la Romanee-Conti is quaking in their boots yet.
I might start by answering your question with another question: as the only remaining hyper-power, does the US have military responsibilities to the world beyond merely its own self-defense? Should the US have intervened militarily when Kuwait was invaded?
I might start by answering your question with another question: as the only remaining hyper-power, does the US have military responsibilities to the world beyond merely its own self-defense? Should the US have intervened militarily when Kuwait was invaded?
tomahack said:
You say this as if it's international law that's currently preventing China from invading Taiwan, and not the threat of US military retaliation.
I think the question that the world is debating now comes down to this: which is more dangerous, military power without international law, or international law without military power? There's no question that the first is dangerous, but you have to admit that military power has on occasion been used for the greater good. In the second case, though, it's much harder to find success stories. How many lives did international law save in Srebrenica, in Rwanda, in East Timor, in Gaza, in Iraq? When has international law, by itself, ever solved any problem more difficult than a trade dispute?
The tragedy of all this we're even being forced to ask this question. Really what we need is both: international law backed up by military power. But we seem to be suffering a comprehensive failure of leadership (which Bush deserves much but by no means all of the blame for) that's making that impossible.
I think now though we can all agree: the best hope is for a short war, with the shooting over as soon as possible.
I am with you 100%. That is a very intelligent comment.
Bush (the father) understood the importance of a broad and universal coalition. The international community was unanimous about the actions to be taken. That war was legitimate. This is not the case now no matter how you put it. I sincerely hope it will be a big success and peace will be the result. But I don't approve the way it is dealt with. I don't pretend to be right. It is just my opinion and the one of the majority of the world community.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.