|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2002 : 17:04:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As far as I can tell from the actions of the US AND other nations there is not much distinction between civilians and military unless someone is holding a press conference
--The difference can be seen in laser guided precision. No one on earth does as much to avoid collateral damage than the US. Dumb bombs are a hell of alot cheaper and easy to manufacture.
But all that aside, since you seem to have the answers, Atomic, let's hear your plan for dealing with Iraq. Just how would President Atomic handle the situation. Try for just a second to imagine having the safety of the entire US, and indeed a good chunk of the world, on your shoulders.
Alot of the same people saying we should do nothing with the Iraqi threat said we did too little with Al Queda one. That's classic armchair quarterbacking.
They say we knew so much about Al Queda's plans, but failed to follow up on the warning signs. Now you want to follow that exact same course with Iraq.
I'd like to hear your plan, Atomic. But I would stipulate the following:
-The plan must be original. Not re-hashing the same crap that we've tried for 11 years already. That's not a plan for anything.
-The plan must disarm Iraq from WMD ENTIRELY, with the ability to prove the total elimination. In other words, I'm not going to take Saddam's or some UN puke's word for it. It must be verifiable.
It must have a policy for enforcement. What exactly do we do if Iraq doesn't comply (gee, wouldn't that be a shocker...) and what are the boundries for those actions. More importantly, what is the end-goal of whatever punishment Iraq receives? Assuming it's a military response, under what conditions do we break off said enforcement?
The biggest fallacy in all the dove's opinions is that it lacks any plan of it's own to replace the 'oh-so-evil' plan Bush already has. That's pretty useless.
For those that still cling to UN inspectors-
What evidence do you have that Saddam would comply with the terms of his surrender when he has refused to do so for 11 years already? The UN inspections were a dismal failure, and was exhiled from Iraq more than half a decade ago. The spineless UN did nothing. It has shown that it has no real authority to back up it's high and mighty proclimations that it runs the planet.
Iraq utterly and totally told the UN to fuck off in no uncertain terms. The UN could do nothing. No tyrant fears the UN, they only fear the US presence in it.
So after years of failure and toothless enforcement, why on earth do you think this approach would work now?
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
 |
|
Topic Locked
