do you want to talk substantively?
If at all possible, yes.
re: what is non-violence?
I don't know, in terms of a practical working concept.
I asked that because I really do not know what you meant when you asked:
1. how are you rationally and practically going to ACHIEVE non-violence?
Message 18689102
If you do not know what it means, then ask me the question in your own words.
The definitive argument for war now is to build a lasting foundation for resolving conflicts through a predictable peaceful process, WITH THE ACTUAL THREAT OF FORCE IF YOU DON'T COMPLY, or you are for world chaos.
I understand where you are coming from. You are proposing a radical break from the international relations of the past decades, in favor of threat and frequent use of military force rather than incentives.
I do not agree with the necessity nor the effectiveness of this path. If the goal is "peace", of course.
re: Saddam not an imminent threat
You do not know that.
Saddam has not been a threat in the past decade, since his defeat in the first Gulf War. There is no connection between him and Al-Qaeda, who were the guys who attacked the US, in case you have forgotten. His army is in shambles, whatever weapons he might still have cannot reach the US.
Please tell me:
(1) Why is Iraq is an imminent threat, especially to the US?
(2) How is Iraq more dangerous than, say, North Korea?
re: grounds [for war]
The grounds are in U.N. Resolution 1441 and any previous resolutions which are INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. See Resolution 687.
None of which threaten with an invasion if the said resolutions are not respected as written. |
