No Subject

Oh, by the way...  Do you have any hot pictures of William Tell?  He’s so much hotter than you.

There is a message at the top of my guestbook page that says "Note: the guestbook is for one-time posts; it is not for discussions or conversations. Please post those on the messageboard, not here." That is why your four posts have been moved here.  And posting under 4 different names doesn’t change the fact that you posted from the same browser on the same computer at the same internet address.  Instead of trying to hide your identity by lying, why don’t you just be honest and post on the messageboard, instead of the guestbook?

> you don’t think HE’S the one that is going to be dying do you?

No, I don’t.  It’s a possibility, but it’s not likely, nor is it the goal.

> Those people in that anti-anti-war ad are just going to multiply 
> immensely if we add bombs and tanks and guns to the starvation 
> and torture and everything else that is already happening to them.

That’s what you’d like to believe, because you’re a radical pacifist, and because that’s what the liberal media is feeding you.  They spoke the same lies before the campaign in Afghanistan, and grossly exaggerated the number of civilian casualities afterwards.

> Just because we aren’t smart enough to get Saddam doesn’t mean we 
> should take it out on his people.

Not smart enough?  What "smart" way of getting him do you propose?  He has already been offered a suggestion by his Arab neighbors to step down for the good of the world, and he balked at that, not that anyone expected otherwise.

> The United States waging unilateral, unsupported war against Iraq is not the answer.

"Uni" means one.  Therefore going to war with the support of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia cannot possibly be referred to as "unilateral."

> Killing THOUSANDS more innocent Iraqis is not going to help.

As it stands, Saddam has killed half a million Iraqi people, and the toll is rising.  If we remove him by force, some more will die, but once he is removed, he cannot kill anymore.  However if we leave him in power he can kill indefinitely.

> We enforce sanctions that kill enough innocents (hmm... kinda like Saddam!) as is.

Those innocents are being killed because Saddam refuses to honor the promises he made to the international community at the end of the first Gulf war.  The sanctions are in place to cause him to comply, and he is not complying, even though he agreed to.  So it’s his actions that are killing his people.  If we lift the sanctions, we’re telling Saddam it’s ok to act the way he’s acted, systematically lie to the world, attempt the genocide of the Kurds, openly support terrorism against Israel, etc.

> realizes that the time when war was a necessity for human advancement has passed

A dictator has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, developed programs to produce nuclear weapons, and then closed his country off to weapons inspectors.  That was after we agreed to cease-fire on the terms that he would allow inspectors in, destroy those weapons, and suspend those programs.  He has violated all those agreements.  So you propose that we continue the inspections process, taking Saddam on his word that he’s not hiding things, hasn’t buried them too deep to find, hasn’t moved them to other countries, doesn’t have them on mobile labs?  That is insanity.  You are proposing that we trust him.

The fact is that freedom and safety are not free.  They have never been free, people have always had to fight to preserve them, because men like Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein would rule the world by force if we weren’t willing to fight for freedom.  You can pretend that it isn’t necessary, but that doesn’t change reality.  Reality is that there will always be someone trying to take advantage of your weakness if you let them.  You are ignoring the whole record of history if you say otherwise.

> This is not to even touch the subject of rebuilding Iraq- and the 
> incredible amount of money and human resources that will take. 

The other option -- allowing Saddam to stay in power until he has enough weapons to launch the scale of attack he’d like to -- is far worse.

> I’m sure you’d be more than willing to pay to rebuild Iraq after 
> we bomb them back a century or two to "help" the innocent in Iraq.

We’re not going to war to "help" Iraq.  That will be a positive side-result for them, but we’re going to war because it’s in our best interest, and the interest of the world, to remove the threat that is Saddam Hussein.

> Oh, by the way...  Do you have any hot pictures of William Tell?  He’s so much hotter than you.

If you’re going to act like a child, please don’t bother posting on my site.