Ted, I think those numbers are highly inflated but in your mind, they justified this war?
I don't doubt that the numbers were probably inflated, but that's not the point.
On the contrary, I thought it was the point. BTW, I can't prove it but I bet those numbers include the Shi'ite uprising killings right after Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait in '91.
Like I just said to Al, inspections and sanctions were the worst of both worlds. No one wanted to trust Saddam or let him have a free hand in killing people, but no one really wanted to take him out, either. It's a three-way dilemma, with the middle ground (inspections and sanctions) being the worst.
If your goal was to spare the Iraqi people, then inspections and sanctions may not have been the best way to go but if your goal was to keep Saddam in his place and protect the world from his expansionistic tendencies, then it was an excellent solution; to whit, we can't find any WMD.
The sooner the U.N. realizes this, the better. I'll bet most individuals within the U.N. do, but feel powerless to change it. (That should tell you how much more faith I have in the U.N. vs. some other conservatives out there.)
Well, I am glad to hear that. I have been frustrated by this attempt to make the UN irrelevant. I see that as pushing us backwards, not forwards.
Just to be partisan for a moment.........much is made of the diversity of the Dem. party. However, the GOP also has become fairly diverse in recent years. Your comment re. the UN up above is an example. The religious vs the non religious in the party is another. And then there is a gay segment that considers themselves Reps. One of them was on the news last nite and I thought he would have apoplexy over Bush's position re. gay marriages.
In some ways, this diversity seems more extreme than it is with the Dems. It will be interesting to see how well it holds together.
ted |
