If a person is brilliant , they are brilliant. Why should I be afraid to say it if I think it is true ? Its ok if you hate kissinger and whoever else you want. I hate Clinton and he should be in jail for committing perjury, but you will never hear me say he is dumb. You can either be intellectually honest or just go with your emotions.
How moral will you feel if we do nothing now, and 5 years from now a nuclear explosion goes off in washington DC ? It can happen. Our enemies are not dumb just because they are our enemies. If they were we wouldn't have to worry about them. Whoever planned 9/11 was smart. They also have lots of money and are highly motivated.
6:40pm 09/16/02 Iraq accepts return of weapons inspectors-reports By Allen Wan Iraq has unconditionally accepted the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, according to media reports. "I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work," the Associated Press quoted U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan as saying.
"All of the above "brilliant" folks, along with Cheney and Kissinger were true believers in the end justifying the means...." What do you think terrorism is, if not the ends justifying the means ? How do you think Sadam gained power ? We are free because hard nosed men, much tougher than any of us, are on our side. That includes Cheney and Kissinger and many others that are not in the limelight.
It seems you misunderstood me. I said war must be avoided at at all costs until any possible resolution short of war has been exhausted. I cited the Cuban missile crisis. A much bigger threat to us then, than Iraq is now. You bring up Sept. 11....we DID go to war with those terrorists as best we could. Don't confuse Iraq with the events of last 9/11. Understand they are not proven to have any ties to those events so far. And also, I do not and cannot understand how anybody in almost any situation can choose war as the First rather than the Last response. Yes, I think Dubya is a dangerous man. Not the right man in the right place at the right time. Not if he pushes for a war unpopular not only in the world, but in his own country. We are going to go around with this in circles. You think I am a Democrat (which is not accurate) and so I am not a patriot. I may be color blind, but you live in a black and white world. I do not. I could never say "my country right or wrong". You sound like the 2002 version of Archie Bunker. But we have our rights to believe and say what we want. I think we both agree those rights are worth fighting for if it comes to that. Right now I don't see Iraq being a threat to those rights. I do see Israel having to have fought to maintain their very existence. I don't know how you could use them as an example for comparison. The situation in Israel has been fight or vanish for over 50 years. Our situation at this time is quite different. Peace (whenever possible), Rs7
How moral will you feel if China decides to throw some nukes our way, or Pakistan, North Korea, USSR, France....really, anything is possible. How moral will you feel if the fears of global warming come to pass, and the lack of action by Chen & Co. could have stopped it?
you are right, whoever helped plan 9-11 was indeed very smart. i am just curious, after we blow up saddam/iraq who next? iran, libya, north korea, china, saudi arabia, russia??? if we take out saddam will you feel safer??? i know i won't!!!! when do we know that we have won the war on terrorism? what about the economy???? could we end up like argentina if our already uncontrollable debt balloons tenfold???? i read estimates that this war will cost $200 billion, will we pay this alone, again??? anyway, these are just a few questions that come to mind.....rah rah.....let's roll.
RS7, I don't think that a person is automatically unpatriotic because they might be a democrat. Also I am not saying my country right or wrong, I am saying my country is more right than its enemies. You apparently think differently, and I don't think you have any factual basis for that. If I really believed that america was evil I wouldn't live here. You hate Bush, while I don't think he has done a single thing wrong since he became president, and I really didn't think much of him before now. If you think I sound like archie bunker, well then I'm just a lot more conservative than you are and that's ok with me. Also this little flip around by Sadam shows that the pressure is getting to him. Sadam understands force, it is what he lives by. So far the strategy of the Bush administration is working.
U.S. skeptical of Iraq offer, to work through U.N. By Steve Holland WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - The White House reacted skeptically on Monday to an Iraqi offer to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors and said it would maintain its efforts to seek Iraqi disarmament through the U.N. Security Council. "We've made it very clear that we are not in the business of negotiating with Saddam Hussein," said White House communications director Dan Bartlett. "We are working with the U.N. Security Council to determine the most effective way to reach our goal." Iraq agreed on Monday to allow the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors. They were pulled out of Iraq in December 1998 on the eve of U.S.-British bombing raids and had not been permitted to return. The Iraqi move came as the United States seeks support in the United Nations for a resolution requiring Iraq to disarm. Washington accuses Iraq of developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The offer risked undermining the momentum the United States has built up against Saddam in the wake of President George W. Bush's speech last Thursday to the United Nations at which he said the U.N. risked becoming irrelevant if it did not respond forcefully to Iraqi intransigence. Bartlett called the Iraqi offer a tactic aimed at giving "false hope to the international community that he (Saddam) means business this time. Unfortunately, his more than decade of experience shows you can put very little into his words or deeds." "Our goal is disarmament. And we have seen the type of inspections that Saddam Hussein has embraced in the past as efforts to defy that very goal," he said. "HEALTHY DOSE OF SKEPTICISM" Bush last Thursday challenged the United Nations to enforce U.N. resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm or else the United States would be forced to act on its own. Then Bush said on Friday he was "highly doubtful" that Saddam would ever comply given his past history. "We've seen in the past where he (Saddam) has made these types of general statements only to mean something entirely different when it comes to the reality," said Bartlett. "That's why we approach this with a very healthy dose of skepticism. We will work with the U.N. Security Council to do it in an effective way to achieve the results we desire." In a speech on Monday in Iowa, Bush called the threat posed by Iraq "one of the clearest threats we face." "See, we've got a man in that part of the world who agreed to disarm, agreed to pay compensation to the victims of the horrible crimes he committed, agreed not to harbor terrorists -- and he's broken every single agreement," Bush said. He said he told the United Nations that "either you can be relevant in the world or not -- your pick." "We, the world, cannot let the world's worst leaders harbor and develop the world's worst weapons. This tyrant must be dealt with, for the sake of our children and our children's children," he said. 09/16/02 19:46 ET