The sanctions worked - no one was attacked.
Are you suggesting that the sole restriction placed upon Hussein after the Gulf War was, simply, nonaggression?
(If so, are you suggesting such with a straight face?)
And I don't remember the 12 years of Clinton.
Clinton served two terms - that's eight years. (That's probably why you don't remember twelve of them.) On the other hand, it's been 12 years since the Gulf War ended.
Just one source out of how many?
If you're looking for certainty, you'll find none in the real world. I'm sorry to have to break it to you like this.
There are any number of states which are particularly disposed toward discarding their agreements summarily and/or supporting terrorism, and it is those - plus any that arise in the meantime - that this action will hopefully make an impression upon.
Some will only choose conflict, but that has always been the case.
How many Muslims are there in the world? At least one billion.
Correct, that's the estimate I hear most often.
And how many will not hate us after our attack on Iraq?
Yawn. Let them hate us while they choke down Big Macs, guzzle Coca-Cola, and chain-smoke Marlboros.
Even our CIA and the British MI6 warn that the "war" on Iraq will substantially increase the chances of new attacks.
Addressed.
Message 18600761
We will have to sharply increase our Security and Military expenses to deal with this threat.
Perhaps. Personally, I'd rather that we allocate a smaller military budget more intelligently, but you know those Republicans. Well, bureaucrats as a species.
We export at least 1 trillion dollars of goods and services each year. Not only will the 1 billion Muslims boycott our products...
LOL. That'll happen.
...all those who oppose this attack are liable to do so. That number is high as 80% in many developed countries such as Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain among others.
I'll believe that when I see it. Got any documentation to support that "80%" estimate?
So we are liable to lose valuable markets.
Not going to happen - not appreciably, at least.
Already in 2002, China attracted more investment than America.
LOL. An emerging market on the road to capitalism with over one billion consumers versus a maturing economy in the midst of a recession with 280 million consumers. Which would you pick?
China and Europe can and will be more than willing to replace our products on the world market.
Let them try - even, in some industries, succeed. We need it. Great swaths of the U.S. private sector have been fat and happy with little appreciable competition for some time now - decades, in some sectors. The competition will be good for the quality of our products and services and a forceful streamlining of still-bloated multinational corporations. It'll be airline industry-styled economic tough love.
So we have a double whammy - more spending coupled with less trade. A sure way to shoot our comatose economy in its head.
I don't see where you theorized that domestic spending would rise, but less trade is one possible - and I believe, doubtful, at least to the extent that it will have an impact - outcome of an invasion of Iraq.
Apart from economic and political considerations, there is matter of simple decency.
As you see it, you mean. Right?
Iraq is a poor starving country with a GDP of $10 billion while we are the greatest superpower in the history of the world with a GDP of $10,000 billion.
Thank goodness for that, huh?
Our attack will result in 500,000 Iraqi casualties and 1,000,000 Iraqi refugees (UN estimates).
Got a link to those U.N. estimates?
Not that I think they're realistic, but I guess we'll see pretty soon, right?
Common decency dictates that we try to avoid casualties, especially of the innocent.
Always. Appropriately, we target military and governmental facilities.
If inspections are keeping Saddam in a box, there can be no compelling case for this level of casualties.
I'm not convinced that Hussein is "in a box," and if he is, I certainly am not convinced that he'll stay in that box indefinitely.
And with respect to the "level of casualties," like I said: we'll see.
Dubya's decision to use unilateral force will be one of the most shameful decisions in human history - and also one of the costliest.
Wow. Not only "one of the most shameful" but "one of the costliest...decision[s]" in "human history." I hope you're still around to tapdance out of these laughable superlatives when it's all over.
Only an idiot can support the use of unilateral force - and an immoral idiot at that.
In your opinion, you mean.
:-)
LPS5 |
