global issue poll

[kami]

He explained that it was about getting security, not peace, with violence, I don't think that's right either, but that's what he said.

[abe]

Kami, let me reformulate my proposition

the use of force (or the threat thereof) against people like saddam hussein or bin laden and subsidiaries to prevent terrorist violence against us and our freinds is, in my opinion not wrong.

you obviously believe that military force is inappropraite to get saddam to comply, so please tell me what the alternative is that you suggest. it seems pretty clear to me, based on his record, that the only thing he responds to is the threat of force. no matter how many harshly worded chapter 7 security council resolution are drafted, the only feasible way of getting him to comply with them is to make him think that, if he doesnt, he will be attacked in force and can say goodbye to his dirty little dictatorship. the UN chater actually has an article that gives the security council an intervention force, so that they do have some muscle and this is exactly the kind of situation it was intended for. no countries were willing to donate their troops however so it was a dead-letter......if we the SC has no way of intervening, and the US refuses to do anything, who is going to enforce the laws of the UN. France and Germany? doesnt look like it.

as for bin laden, if you think violence isnt the only way of dealing with him, well, then you are very naive. these terrorists dont give a shit about what we say or do, so the only way to "negotiate" with them is to ruthlessly flush them out, keep them on the run and eventually kill them. i know this may sound harsh to a categorical pacifist as yourself, but it's either you or them......

[|MP|Buccaneer]

He explained that it was about getting security, not peace, with violence, I don't think that's right either, but that's what he said.

Kami, I thank you for taking the time to read.  I mean it.  It's such a nice change to disagree with someone that bothers.

And I don't agree 100% with getting security with violence.  I think it's a case by case thing.  Sometimes, you have to use violence, a lot of violence to stop someone else from doing it even more.  I just happen to think this is the likely case with Iraq.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Odd, you weren't nearly as kind when I said basically the same thing as kami...acknowldeging that you said it was for security rather than peace but saying that I disagree about them being difference.  Could it be you were polite to kami and not me becasue you don't base your reactions on what I post but rather that I post it.  Once again proof that it isn't the quality of my post that makes you call me a dumbass but rather your own hatred.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Could it be you were polite to kami and not me becasue you don't base your reactions on what I post but rather that I post it.  Once again proof that it isn't the quality of my post that makes you call me a dumbass but rather your own hatred.

Or, could it be that you were an insulting dumbass that deserved to be called a dumbass?  

Or, could it be that you accused me twice of never agreeing with anything you said (and have made that implication many more times) after I've agreed that peacekeepers would be a good idea.

Or maybe it's just that Kami puts it better then you do.

It really doesn't matter.  To you, it's all about you.  So fuck off.