Tim, I don't know. You all are making up the rules as you go along.
Not really just applying judgement The WMD issue makes it serious enough to warrent drastic action. The inital invasion provides the justification for being involved and trying to enfroce the cease fire agreement, and the repeated violations of the agreement provide the "legal" justification.
Okay, are you are saying any country with WMD should be invaded? I mean why stop at a cease fire agreement. BTW don't think the president of Pakistan is any less evil than Saddam.
Saddam invaded Kuwait but it wasn't appropriate to get him then but it is now.
It would not have been wrong then, but we were looking for a way to avoid it. Saddam may have made avoiding it imposible.
I don't understand why you think we were looking for a way to avoid it back then, and now we are gung ho to attack. Everything from cost to deployment of fighter power would have been so much easier then. Now, we will have to spend a small fortune without allies, and assuming we are successful, rebuild a second country. This is such utter bs, its impossible to speak reasonably about the topic.
He's developing WMD's.......no proof but Rice knows
There is a massive amount of proof that he was devloping WMD, and there is evidence of continued attempts.
Where is it? Is it classified? No one else is convinced of this massive build up of WMD. Why do you think most of the world is opposed to this attack?
He's violated a UN administrated ceasefire but its our responsibility to enfore it and if need be,
take Saddam out even if the UN objects.
The UN was the figleaf on the war. The ceasefire agreement was negotiated by and has been enforced by Americans, and to a lesser extent by a few of our allies. The UN has no more right to decide what happens there then any of its member states. The member states are soverign nations. The UN is only a bit more then a debateing society.
I'm sorry........this is double talk. The UN is good enough to have an agreement for weapons inspections but its just a "figleaf", a "debating society". No wonder we are being criticized by other nations. Like I said before, when you make up the rules as you go along, people get p*ssed off.
POWs are imprisoned in a Guatamo Bay camp where the conditions are reported to be squalid and we are not permitted any news.
Conditions aren't squalid and news has come out of gitmo.
Really? I did a google search last nite. I found a BBC report and a Gitmo Gazette article which talked about 4 suicides last month.....maybe a couple more things. Clearly, there's a news blackout.
The conditions there are a lot better then what they had in Afghanistan either after they where captured or before when they where in caves being bombarded by B-52s.
They get fed well and are given opportunities to worship, there have been no substantiated reports of abuse and few unsubstantiated reports. Do they live a life of luxury? No but few prisoners do. The security is very tight, but would you lossen it on Al-Qaida prisoners?
I don't know how to answer you because there is no news on the subject. The Briton said last nite the conditions are purported to be squalid.......he may, or may not be right. I don't know how he knows. I did note that we've allowed the Red Cross to set up an office in the camp so I suspect it can't be too bad.
ted |
