SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159593)3/24/2005 3:59:41 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
So, diplomacy and sanctions are useless except as a prelude to war?

9 times out of 10 they are ineffective - and almost always require a credible threat when they are credible. Your brand of "war is always a last resort" posturing sounds ever so high toned, but in the game of international power politics, it translates to "Not credible".


If it was deemed as not credible by Saddam why did he change his position regarding Bush's demands to allow the return of the weapons inspectors? Saddam saw that Bush meant business. Upper hand was totally with the US.

Because every word you say makes it clear that you wanted the troops to go over, and sit in Kuwait, but never to be used under any circumstances. As long as the UN honchos could run around and declare their diplomacy a success (diplomacy is always a success, according to diplomats) you would not have moved.

Sorry, my words have not made that clear. It's your twisted mind that hears it that way, then wishes to make it my argument. I have been clear about the proper way to conduct ourselves as the only super power in the world.

This should be clear; If the families of the soldiers that lost their lives in Iraq had a choice of their loved ones waiting in Kuwait until they were needed...or dying in Iraq, I think I know what they would choose.

The Iraqis don't agree with you about that. Isn't odd that you sit in safety and declare it is "immoral", yet those who actually suffered and lost relatives tell the pollsters that it was the only war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and their lives are much better because of it, despite their losses? Can you explain that to me?

What a load of bull. Did the poll ask the Iraqis if they would have preferred a non military intervention where their family would still be alive as opposed to an invasion that would kill tens of thousands? Their lives are better because Saddam is gone...not because they lost their families.

If Iraq winds up as a prosperous and decent place to live, can we point to the war as a succes then?

The end never justifies the means. There's always more than one path to the same mountain top.

Orca
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext