Yes. This is what I have said:
Assuming you can live with this shame, I have nothing against addressing the questions troubling your mind.
I guess you CAN live with the shame of boycotting this thread (rather noisily, if I may add) and then crawling back with no explanation and more mudslinging.
1. how are you rationally and practically going to ACHIEVE non-violence?
What is this "non-violence"? Ghandi-like passive resistance? Tibetan philosophy of life? What?
You may have talked to other people on this topic but I do not know the context.
2. if we let Saddam slide the answer that we will get in all future conflicts that the world tries to resolve through diplomacy will be: "I know you are bluffing."
That has got to be the weakest argument to start a war in the history of mankind.
There is a conflict. However, like with many conflicts before it, war is and should be the last possible option, after all others are tried and exhausted. I am not convinced that this condition is met.
I am not sure of what you mean by "let Saddam slide the answer". I assume you are trying to say "Our president has been threatening so incessantly that if we do not attack, he will lose face". Very true. However it is not our problem, and it certainly is not sufficient reason to start a war and kill thousands of civilians.
Saddam is a tyrant. Nobody on this thread likes him. Nobody is asking you to invite him home for dinner. However, none of this is sufficient grounds for war.
There is no imminent threat. There is no proof. There is nothing but "But he has not complied with UN resolutions!".
You know what, that is not grounds for an invasion, either. If it were, then many other countries who are currently in breach of UN Security Council resolutions would also be invaded. Israel, for example.
It is not any more complicated than that
International affairs are generally far less complicated than they first appear. Do you really think there was a world war for 4 years because the Austrian heir was assassinated? |
