No, the concept/idea is promoting the use of weapons. And I disagree. The Nazi was a political based concept, the islamic Jihad is religious based, then they have diferents nature and mechanism of work.
Have you ever considered that maybe some viable options were blocked? As I said the idea of war is old. As example just use google and the words "Bustani OPCW Iraq". My guess the path conducting to war was inevtable because some desired/belivied/worked for it to be inevtable.
There's a reason for that. That's because it works. Third time's a charm: WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ PROBLEM. I don't give a damn if you think this was was "pre-ordained" or not. That doesn't answer the question.
And I dont give a damn to your choice of words. The ones probably capable to solve this situation were blocked to work and this is ALL I say. ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION COULD BE GIVE SPACE TO THOSE CAPABLE PEOPLE TO WORK.
You really expect people to come up with a viable alternative to the war? You will be waiting forever............. Personally I havent got much respect for those who keep on insisting that there are alternatives to the war when they clearly have no realistic and viable idea of what that alternative might be. -Neutrality-
Your asking of pascal for a solution other than war doesnt take into account that war may indeed be the answer but the way or the when it should have been fought are debatable. What about the other 50 odd dictators in the world some far more brutal than Saddams. When are they gonna be liberated... Oh of course some of them also happen to be our very good friends. Guess we cant take em out then eh? Asking him for another solution is like asking him how the war should be fought as if he were a career general. These types of questions are unfair because they put an end to the discussion. They dont so much display the lack of knowledge on one part as the on the part of the one asking. 3\4 of the world had a solution which was working before the US went in and attacked. It was slow but it was working. Forceful diplomacy. Oddly enough it was the US that initiated that. If you think you can call forceful diplomacy war your mistaken. Diplomacy has gradients. War is all or nothing. We'll never know now if it couldnt have worked in Iraq but it was working till the war started... Now we have to live with 50 odd regimes who are feverously attempting to get nukes as that has been indicated as the one line the US wont cross no matter how bad the regime.
He asked about a solution to the IRAQ problem.......................... Bringing other dictatorships into the discussion is irrelevant when it comes to answering the question. -Neutrality-
Are we discussing the war in Iraq or the islamic Jihad??? If were discussing the islamic Jihad then we can talk about the difference between that social/political movement and Islam religion. If we are discussing the war in Iraq then we can talk about the Ba'ath party and the Islam religion.
Following the idea of this thread and the questions of Sabastian and my subsequent response to him, then were are talking about the Islamic Jihad. I agree that the social/political movement is diferent but it try to use the Islam religion as its base, then in some extent it trys to borrow some attributs of religion.
Um, yeah I know that. But that fact that you mentioned other dictatorships is irrelevant when it comes to answering the question. People who start bringing up the : "What about the other 50 odd dictators in the world some far more brutal than Saddams. When are they gonna be liberated... Oh of course some of them also happen to be our very good friends. Guess we cant take em out then eh?" crap usually do so because they really dont want to(cant) answer the damn question and instead want to turn it into a discussion about those dictatorships instead. Have seen this before on other forums when I have asked people to come up with something thats a viable alternative to war. If people really believe there is a viable alternative to the war then for the love of God lets hear it. How hard can it be? -Neutrality-
Agreed. (see there are some thing we can agree on) Now if the Ba'ath party in Iraq can be removed from power we (the world/ coalition / UN / NATO / whoever/ect...) can hopefull reeducate the citizens that we are not an enemy of them or their religion. Agreed?
Very well said. Now the logic of war and mighty will prevail around the world. The effects are perceptibe only in the long term. Probably many nations are reconsidering their position. Few like Russia will openlly express it.
Dont think you guys really know how freaking easy it is to hide chemical and bioligical weapons in Iraq. 1/ Go to desert 2/ Dig huge hole 3/ Build bunker 4/ Put some of your WMD there 5/ Cover with sand 6/ Voilá! No one will ever find your WMD UNLESS you tell the inspectors where that bunker is and the likelyhood of that is as close to nil as it can get. -Neutrality-
No, but I do expect them to come up with at least non-viable alternatives, like "give them money", or "let's just be friends!" Or... Can you be a little more vauge, please? Give space to whom, and what "work" is to be done?
Great It helps but doesnt solve it. IIRC from some articles (like from James Woolsey) Iraq is very complex with many internal tensions. In fact it could sucumb to its internal tensions dividing the country and putting democracy at risk. I dont know how strong are those internal tensions and how much exposure is needed to MTV, Coca-Cola and other things to change their minds The sex videos atack will not help because the basic Islam religion will not permit it This issue of country rebuild is very complex and I am not familiar with it. I am not prepared to discuss it.
Let's get one point clear. Saddam Hussein's regime has been violating UN resolutions "under-the-radar" for over a decade now. The fact that he is in breach is not in question imo. It's the way in which our diplomats handled the rest of the world in trying to get them to comply that made the situation far worse, and far more protracted than it should have been. You don't get people to listen to you when you're threatening and insulting them, and unfortunately that is what we did to even our staunchest allies, such as Mexico and Canada, to name the most public examples. Let alone the things we said about people we were trying to convince. You don't get people to come to your side of things by talking *at* them, but not listening in return. One way streets don't work in any relationship. That is what we should be debating imo. The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen. Imo it was an open and closed case, but this administration made it so murky that it was easy for those who would have opposed us anyways (france as a huge example) to take that and muck up the entire argument, then get most of the world against us. Clarity is a wonderful thing in diplomacy, and we had none whatsoever over the past year.
Nope, it just brought it to head. Better sooner than later. OK...I'll ask you. How do you get Sadam to listen to you? Pascal won't answer, maybe you can. You dabate whatever you want. (Another Bush bashing diatribe). I want to know how to solve the Iraq problem without using force.
Natoma wrote: 1.) Start a new thread - "The failure of our diplomats to effectively sell *why* the war in Iraq should happen" 2.) "Imo it was an open and closed case". Glad to hear it. Help us convince some others around here.
Silent_One: You understood what I was writing right? It seems to be that way. So why is Joe saying that I don't think force was necessary to depose Saddam? Why did he take my words and say when I wasn't even talking about Saddam? I was talking about how we relate to our *Allies* and that talking to our *Allies* that way won't engender any good will for us to push our policies around. You understood that it seems. Why does Joe seem to only see my name and automatically assume what I'm writing instead of reading everything *in context*? God that is what is so infuriating when trying to talk to him about anything.