Originally posted by marcD
No my friend. All I did was point out the fact that they did not vote in favor of using force. And clearly that is what he (Mondo) said. Obviously he just did not understand what the vote meant. What it's purpose was. I assume you do understand. I may disagree with a lot of your positions, but I know you are intelligent. So I expect you to actually agree with me on this point. It is not about politics. It is about strategy. I think we all agree that the main objective is to disarm Saddam. Don't you agree? Don't you think that the tactics available to us are many, and we must use whatever will work most efficiently? If a threat of war accomplishes the ends we want, isn't that preferable to actually fighting a war? Why fight if we can accomplish what we want without risking American lives? I am certainly NOT saying that we should not fight if we can't avoid it. All I am saying, and I think every member of Congress would agree, is that if we can scare this maniac (Saddam) into submission, that would be just fine. And we already know the man is a coward. So it makes sense to exploit that.
Just curious. What do you mean by "war revisionists"?
MD
I love the fact that you understand what it
SHOULD be about. But that is not what it
IS about. I have a relative who serves as a senator (democratic) and he loves to needle me about the fact that I do not agree with "The Real African American's Only Choice Party (his terminology)" position all of the time. Our recent conversations were definitely explaining to me that the voting was because (as he put it), "Our polling data showed" reasoning.
Many times during our conversation he said, "We can't agree that way because the republicans would get mileage on XXX!" And his basis for doing what he does is, "So the democratic Party can show unity and get back what is RIGHTFULLY OURS!"
When I ask him things like, "Rather than come up with the democratic legislation or the republican legislation, why don't you guys just adjust the little pieces of each others plans that you have a problem with?" There isn't enough space here to give you the range of reasons he gave for not doing that, but none of them have the public interest first.
And I would love to think that fist shaking, saber rattling, foot stomping, teeth gnashing would do the trick too. But after ten plus years sneaking up behind him hollering BOO! just ain't getting it. And sadly now, USE of force might be the ticket.
If he were a TRUE LEADER who cared about his peoples, long ago he would have seen the pain that the sanctions have caused them. He would have calculated that the resolve to keep them in place was there WORLDWIDE. He would have determined the simple answer was to move aside and let the people's good outweigh his own. With that said, please stop trying to show me the terror of America and discuss the terror that is Sadam.
You advocate holding the sanctions line. So after fifteen more years of the Iraqi peoples living in squalor and screaming, "Death to the American Dog!" And the hatred increasing against us. And Sadam still sitting in the drivers seat. Would you say that the policy would be humane?
Let's forget the bombs for a minute. How many years of the inspectors being thwarted would constitute them having done their job as best as they can? And while they can't evidence anything, they also will not say that they are sure that things are as they seem. Then what do you do?
And remember, there would be fifteen or more years of additional starvation, death, suffrage, etc., in the minds of another generation of the Iraqi people. Just so's you knows!
