Some good news for a change

[billvon 3,109]

So rather than post about all the bad stuff in the news lately I figured I'd post some of the good:

Last week Cheney said that there was no purpose in resuming UN inspections; the US needed to invade Iraq. Over the weekend, though, Powell said that inspections should precede any sort of invasion. Apparently we are leaning more and more towards inspections; an unnamed source said today that the administration is considering either "inspection sieges" or a UN-backed rapid inspection program backed by UN coalition forces. This may be due to the huge amount of pressure from the international community; Nelson Mandela and Russia both came out strongly against a US invasion of Iraq this week. Even here in the US, while public opinion still supports an invasion, the majority of people polled over the weekend think we should get UN approval first.

I see this as a huge move. We are finally deciding to go through the UN rather than make a unilateral move against Iraq, and I'm glad to see that we are becoming more interested in trying to exhaust all other options before using war to accomplish our goals. War may be the only solution to the Saddam problem, but it's starting to look like we will be using it as the last resort it is rather than as a popular and dramatic "quick fix." And I see that as very good news.

[quatorze 1]

But what exactly is a "rapid inspection" sounds kind of like a police raid, and that involves people with guns. A rose by any other name...

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[Skyrose7 0]

did you say "rose"?? no, Seriously, I am glad to see the U.S. relaxing a bit. I think without the support of even it's own people, it is time to think things through. just my .02

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The mind is like a parachute--it works better when it is open. JUMP.
MaryRose

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>But what exactly is a "rapid inspection" sounds kind of lik

Whatever it is, the point was that the US is now leaning towards a UN-regulated operation with international support, as opposed to attacking Iraq with no support or acceptance from the international community.

Which is very good.

Erno

[quatorze 1]

I fully agree that the support of the UN is essential to any action that we take, I just feel that our aim is a little off and the descption of what would take place leaves a little to be desired in civility. We should really be worried more about North Korea, where our intelligence feels they have the ability to launch missiles at Japan and before long even the lower 48. Also if we want to deal with real terrorism, we need to have a very serious talk with the Saudi's. our desire for petroleum based lifestyles has made us blind to the fact that while the Saudi gov't is playing both sides of the game, albeit very slyly. If yoiu look at the religious zealotry that alowed the taliban and al queada to flourish, Saudi is a strong second to Afghanistan.
All I am trying to say is the we as a nation and the UN need to seriously re-evaluate our priorities

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[skip 0]

hear hear Bill that is good news, the first I havent shaken my head (on this front) in quite some time.

.:skip

[PhillyKev 0]

Very good news. Thankfully clearer heads seem to be prevailing. I'm suprised about that poll you mentioned though. Most people I know don't keep well enough informed to answer a question like that. The general comments I hear are "We have to invade Iraq because Husein is evil." I'm curious how they worded (loaded) that question.

Ah well, doesn't matter. Politicians don't pay attention to polls anyway

[FallRate 0]

Yes, it's great to see that we are willing to resume the process of sending inspectors into Iraq to check for those weapons which Hussein has said he is not in the business of producing, while he violated the terms of the UN cease-fire by limiting the searches before ultimately kicking the inspectors out of the country four years ago. Yes, it is wonderful to know that we can once again begin the fruitless game of cat-and-mouse because so many individuals can't seem to remember that this course of action has already been exhausted.

Powell may support an attempt to reinstate UN inspections, but that is only because Powell is an astute politician. He realizes that even though an attempt to resume UN inspections is essentially an empty gesture, it is necessary to appease the idiotic masses who need reassurance that we have exhausted all diplomatic measures.

FallRate

[billvon 3,109]

> Yes, it is wonderful to know that we can once again begin the
> fruitless game of cat-and-mouse because so many individuals can't
> seem to remember that this course of action has already been
> exhausted.

So instead we should have another fruitless war? Remember, we tried that too. We didn't get Hussein then; what makes you think we'll get him now? Think he is any worse at hiding than Bin Laden?

Wars kill thousands of innocent people; inspections do not. If we're going to do something useless we might as well kill fewer people while doing it.

>Powell may support an attempt to reinstate UN inspections, but tha
>t is only because Powell is an astute politician.

And a very astute diplomat. Several Arab countries have said that they will not negotiate with anyone else from the US (besides Powell.) He has seen war and knows how bad it is; those are the kind of people who are in a good position to decide whether or not to go to war, and the people who really know how important peace is.

>He realizes that even though an attempt to resume UN inspections is
> essentially an empty gesture, it is necessary to appease the idiotic
> masses who need reassurance that we have exhausted all
> diplomatic measures.

Uh, no, he's been the most outspoken opponent of war, and of all the politicians in this administration, he is the closest we have to an honest one - at least, as far as I can tell.

[billvon 3,109]

>We should really be worried more about North Korea . . .

I agree, but instead we are selling them nuclear reactors. Seems like a bad plan.

>Also if we want to deal with real terrorism, we need to have a very
> serious talk with the Saudi's.

I agree again, but I honestly think many americans would rather see our servicemen die in combat than pay more for gasoline. It is simply too important to us.

>All I am trying to say is the we as a nation and the UN need to
> seriously re-evaluate our priorities.

Yes. I see the sudden surge of anti-war sentiment as at least a sign that people are starting to re-evaluate the "world bully" approach.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

>We should really be worried more about North Korea . . .

I agree, but instead we are selling them nuclear reactors. Seems like a bad plan.

>Also if we want to deal with real terrorism, we need to have a very
> serious talk with the Saudi's.I agree again, but I honestly think many americans would rather see our servicemen die in combat than pay more for gasoline. It is simply too important to us.

>All I am trying to say is the we as a nation and the UN need to
> seriously re-evaluate our priorities.

Yes. I see the sudden surge of anti-war sentiment as at least a sign that people are starting to re-evaluate the "world bully" approach.

Decaf, Bill.

And really sorry I didn't get to meet you when I was down there. You were pointed out to me but you were doing huge ways.

When you guys tracked off it looked like a huge human firework. Beautiful stuff.

The UN is like a High School Government. Let them do all they want until they start to do real damage. The US is like the Dean.

Criminals, cleptrocrats, and crapweasels.

[JohnnyD 0]

I agree completely. I think Powell knows firsthand that a decisive victory over Iraq would involve armed conflict with a host of nations other than Iraq. I would not call the gulf war a victory, as 10 years later its almost as if it never happened.

On a side note, I thought this was HUGE news over the weekend and noticed that the San Diego media completely ignored it.

[Enrique 0]

This may be due to the huge amount of pressure from the international community; Nelson Mandela and Russia both came out strongly against a US invasion of Iraq this week. ***

Bill, it has been said that Russia is no longer a strong military country and, consequently, not a big "threat" to the U.S. What do you U.S.A.'ans think about that?

Enrique

[billvon 3,109]

>Bill, it has been said that Russia is no longer a strong military
> country and, consequently, not a big "threat" to the U.S. What do
> you U.S.A.'ans think about that?

As we have seen in the past year, small countries can be threats as well. I think we see Russia nowadays like we see Japan - a former world power, a former enemy, who is now somewhat smaller and less powerful - but more importantly, less belligerent., and less likely to violently push their ideologies on other people. Which is good, since we get mad when other countries besides the US does that.

[Enrique 0]

a former world power, a former enemy, who is now somewhat smaller and less powerful

Quote

Yeah, but what about China? My bet is that they will take sides with the rest of the world (i.e., against the US).

Which is good, since we get mad when other countries besides the US does that.

I totally agree with you.

[billvon 3,109]

>Yeah, but what about China?

China is a huge challenge, one that will dwarf all our Middle East problems combined. I think they will be the next world power, and unless we want to see WWIII in our lifetimes, we better start getting better at diplomacy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick," a smart man once said. We have forgotten the first part, and been relying way too much on the second part.

[JohnnyD 0]

>it has been said that Russia is no longer a strong military country and, consequently, not a big "threat" to the U.S. What do you U.S.A.'ans think about that?

Personally, I think they are more dangerous now than they ever were before, just in a different way. What was once a military superpower is now a group of smaller and less powerful nations that may be somewhat impoverished but still possess the hardware and science of a superpower. They may be too willing to sell it. My .02

[Deuce 1]

Quote

>Yeah, but what about China?

China is a huge challenge, one that will dwarf all our Middle East problems combined. I think they will be the next world power, and unless we want to see WWIII in our lifetimes, we better start getting better at diplomacy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick," a smart man once said. We have forgotten the first part, and been relying way too much on the second part.

Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" while reaching behind you for a rock.

[Enrique 0]

They may be too willing to sell it. ***

Well, in a way I am glad that my country is not into that war business, but on the other hand (as Bill said) the neighbors to the North... the ones with the big stick, pretty much have us by the nuts! When the U.S. govt says jump, we MUST ask "how high?" and then some, otherwise we are on the wrong side of the line.

Ahhhh... politics, politics, politics.....!

[billvon 3,109]

>Diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" while reaching behind you
>for a rock.

Sort of a five year old version of diplomacy. True diplomacy is staying out of your neigbor's yard so you don't have to kill their dog - or better yet getting them to tie it up before you do. Although that's closer to common sense than diplomacy, really.

[billvon 3,109]

Better yet - Bush just announced he will get congressional approval before any invasion. At least we will be using our government to make the decision. Doesn't mean we will make the right one, but at least we get the best possible chance of doing that.

[Deuce 1]

[replySort of a five year old version of diplomacy. True diplomacy is staying out of your neigbor's yard so you don't have to kill their dog - or better yet getting them to tie it up before you do. Although that's closer to common sense than diplomacy, really.

[Enrique 0]

The "steady state" of human nature is chaos and anarchy. We are fortunate to live in the most prosperous, peaceful stretch of human history.***

I'm sorry Deuce, but PEACEFUL???... I don't think so. I know you said "most peaceful" but look around you, there is no peace and even less in the U.S. (it rhymed) that seems to be simply looking for a fight... against who? anyone will do! so long as it is a war that provides a boost for the economy and gains them more power, any country will do.
My .02 dlls.
Enrique

[Deuce 1]

I give up. No more political participation here for me. Read the whole frickin post, reply in context.

At what point in the past were we more peaceful?

As a Mexican, if the US wanted to roll into your oilfields and take them, what could you do? If the US wanted to pick a real fight with Mexico, with what could they respond?

No need to respond to this, as I am off the political threads.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

with what could they respond?

Tequila and really bad tacos......