Not going to go look for the cite, but I saw one refererence to Prince Charles's position. I guess he couldn't resist the 84% polls. Maybe Blair will try to get Parliament to abolish the monarchy.
its called a SITE...and I dont believe you...but i will admit...the Pope supporting peace is a real revelation
Others who speak out against this war: Lothar of the Hill People King Arthur Sir Bedevere Sir Galahad Roger the Shrubber Tim the Enchanter The Knights Who Say Ni!
I'm starting to notice that there is an increasing element on talk shows, etc that is so Pro-Bush that if you happen to disagree with a policy of the President, then you must be unpatriotic or unAmerican in general. Reminds me of a cartoon I saw. check it out
You have to loves Aziz's statement that attacking Iraq is immoral and baseless...i wonder how he would classify genocide
Saddam has no responsibility for this? I thought the the anti-war people were <i>for</i> sanctions instead of military action? Now sanctions are evil as well? I <i>think</i> we can all agree that Saddam is an evil person. But what do you propose we do about him? 1. Nothing? 2. Sanctions to isolate him from the rest of the world? 3. Forcibly remove him? 4. Threaten the use of force to get him to allow the U.N. to keep a close eye on him? 5. Someone got a better idea?
OK, am I really hearing this correctly? Glynch believes that it would be advisable that the Iranians have nukes? He sees no danger in that? OMFG. Where to start... Jesus, do I really need to even say anything? (silently allow glynch to continue to discredit his own ideas and make himself look like a fool)
This is not a NEW WAR, this is a coninuation of Desert Storm. In order for us to stop bombing Iraq and to leave Saddam in power he signed papers that said he would disarm and allow inspectors whenever and wherever they are needed. He has defied these papers for 10 years....we stopped bombing to give him a chance, he passed on that chance. Time to fire up the planes and let em fly. DD
Do you guys actually believe that Iraq, Iran, or N. Korea would use Nukes for no good reason? In Iran's case, they would only use a Nuke if they got bombarded first. They wouldnt just toss a nuke for no good reason. Its a form of self protection. It would only be a threat if the US dropped one on them, which wont happen.
They might use it to invade other countries. That's the whole point. I don't understand why liberals are so trustful of violent dictatorships and so distrustful of the US democratically elected government. A world where these types of people have military power on an even level with the free democracies is not going to be a nice one. It's common sense.
Again, do you really think that a country would use a nuke against another country for no good reason? No country has the balls to be the first to step up and drop a nuke. If they do, then the whole world will destroy that country. Thats my point. Nukes are a form of self defense. I highly doubt any country would drop them unless they are being heavily threatened by another country or under heavy attack from another country.
I don't think for a second that those countries would use nukes overtly as it would mean instant destruction of their country. However, I do believe that they could use those nukes to blackmail the international community not unlike North Korea has been doing to the U.S. for the last few years. Also, the fact that these countries could make those weapons available to terrorist organizations (or just criminals) is an unnerving possibility.
Rezawg, Then again, most people never thought planes would be used to run into buildings either. With extremists like OBL, I would be weary if WMD became that accessible. Ironically though, Iran has helped the US track down Al-Queda and have turned over some of the highest ranking members of Al-Queda and the Taliban to US forces. Nuclear weapons for the most part though are deterrents. I honestly believe that India and Pakistan would be at war if not for their nuclear weapons.
I believe Saddam would provide a nuke to terrorists in a second. N Korea would sell one. Iran, I don't know about.
No, you missed the point. They wouldn't have to use nukes. What if Saddam had nukes when he invaded Kuwait? Guess what, Kuwait would be a province of Iraq and the international community could not have stopped him. In fact, the international community would have to negotiate with him. This is the same with North Korea. We don't want a brutal dictator to be safe from the influence of democracies.
Cohen,...I gotta say I might not always see everything the same, but I need to commend your posts...In your political-type posting, everything I have read from you seems to be well thought out and sums common sense without leaning radically one way. Way to go...
I think what Glynch is trying to point out is the double-standard that it's ok for certain countries to have certain weapons but it is not ok for others. I'm pretty sure he is not <i>for </i> them using them in any way. I have often wondered the same thing. What ever happened to leading by example?
