T Nation

What's Going Right in Iraq

Can you actually read and comprehend things Zeb? Did you notice I sort of skipped over that section of blather from Cream and focused on a portion of what might actually have been content?

I neither stated nor implied anything about “meandering posts”… but I guess you weren’t paying enough attention to notice that.

Zeb, you’ve been grinding this lame axe for so damned long their is nothing left of it. This is garbage. The only thing you managed to dredge up in the past was a misquote in which I actually stepped in and supported the president. You managed to misinterpret that as well, it was classic.

When you lump me in with someone like Al Shades you are committing an attack. When you imply I run from admitting things or am not denying things, you are attacking. You are committing all kinds of sly attacks and mischaracterizations all the time, you just think they aren’t the same because they are done with camoflage phrases like “my friend”. You are certainly no friend of mine.

You make sly little remarks such as “thanks for sharing the liberal viewpoint, my friend” even when I make statements that are completely apolotical. You attack people that step in to complain about your behavior and you attack me by implying I need such help. There are many ways to commit an attack. You do all this because you simply don’t like my style of communication?

It will do no good, but again I’ll implore you to stick to honest and honorable arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t blast me with both barrels, but at least let it be truth. Enough of this insinuation and hyperbole. If we want that all we have to do is watch crossfire or some other political entertainment show.

You can feel that those people exist if you like. Attempting to brand me an ultra-liberal or a Bush hater and to lump me in with that group of losers is deplorable.

Anyway, nice to see you don’t still imagine me to be ULTRA-LIBERAL if there is room for people to the left of me. Another nice emotionally loaded political label. I’d rather be called an ass clown than lumped in with the loony section of the left.

Well, which is it? Can we complain about things we see being done poorly or can’t we? Strangely, Bush is the president, he’s the one everyone is going to be talking about. Well, either he or his administration. What part of this reality doesn’t make sense to you?

So, finally, how shall we proceed “my friend”?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I know it was long, but did anyone read it and want to offer specific thoughts on the article?[/quote]

Yes: its not much but I like the way Dempsey cutely sidesteps the reasons for Iraqs lack of infrastructure sighting it as ‘30 years of tyranny’s’ fault! In fact the crumbling began in 1991 with sanctions, the Red Cross points out around 19-23 million of the 23 million citizens began to rely on the oil for food system. life expectancy dropped from 65 to 59, 1888 schools closed etc etc. That was Western sanctions. We wouldnt have had to impose sanctions on Iraq if we hadnt supported Hussein so totally in the 8 year Iran conflict leading him to wrongly assume he’d have our support if he invaded kuwait. He also wouldnt have had nuclear aspirations if Israel was forced to disarm in accordance with UN 687, article 14 which has ‘the goal of establishing the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery.’ Of course the neo-cons don’t care about the UN as was shown when they contravened the council’s anti-invasion vote. Maybe Dempsey doesnt like to read history books. He knows Saddam was bad and that’s that! friggin neo-con moron. he obviously also missed the fact that infrastructure did grow a little under saddam, 213000 phone lines were built, sweet! the IMF really knows what a poverty stricken country needs! the long and the short of it is if Dempsey had done his homework he’d have realised sanctions destroyed the country and locals were in for a rough ride. Of course if he’d done his homework he’d have realised there were no WMDs too!

Well one thing’s for sure, Lowry has a horrendous sense of timing, it was a miserable weekend/week for Iraqis. How many times do he have to hear we’re turning the corner?

July 24, 2003 (from the New York Times, after the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein): “White House officials however exuded determination they had turned a corner in the increasingly difficult task of restoring order from chaos in Iraq.”

August 13, 2003 (from Fox “News” show Special Report With Brit Hume, Fred Barnes speaking): “Now, Paul Bremer says – who’s over there running the American regime in Iraq, where they’ve turned the corner in defeating the Baathists and so on and most of the country is safe and stable, says we don’t need more troops…I think Bremer also said it was only about 100 terrorists have come in from…outside the country from Iran. And that’s not really that many. So I don’t think it’s that big a problem.”

January 1, 2004 (from ABC News, after a bomb blew up at a Baghdad New Year’s celebration): “Last night’s attack came at a time when coalition officials were cautiously beginning to feel that they had turned a corner here in Iraq.”

June 2, 2004 (from CNN’s Inside Politics, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice speaking): “The reason that we’ve turned a corner and, more importantly, that Iraq has turned a corner and the Iraqi people have turned a corner is that they now have a government in place broadly representative of, broadly capable, I think, of representing the views of the Iraqi people that can now accept sovereignty and can be a full partner in trying to secure Iraq and in accelerating its reconstruction. The Iraqis don’t like occupation any more than we would like occupation. And it is time for that occupation to end.”

September 14, 2004 (from CNN’s Newsnight With Aaron Brown, Senator Lindsay Graham speaking): “And between now and our November election and between now and January there will be hell to pay in Iraq because the stakes are very high but, if we can make it through January, Aaron, then I think we’ve turned the corner.”

February 9, 2005 (from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Senator Lindsay Graham speaking after the Iraqi - and American - elections): “If we think we’ve turned the corner, this is a misreading of what happened. The attacks are going to continue.”

April 15, 2005 (from Fox “News” show The Big Story With John Gibson, Richard Perle answering a question about whether or not a corner has been turned in Iraq): " I believe we’ve turned a corner. And that was – that corner was turned when 8.5 million Iraqis braved death to cast their first votes. Now a government is being formed. The Iraqi people are invested in the future of their own country. And that was the critical turning point." The next question Gibson asked Perle was whether or not he ever felt like saying “we were right.”

It seems to me, that one should wait till the corner is actually turned, for us and them it can’t come soon enough. I think the article is also misleading, in that had we followed the actual planning done pre-invasion, perhaps things would be going much more smoothly, If anything is certain, civilians at the pentagon made disastrous decisions both pre-invasion and post-victory. This article gets into very little of that poor decision making. Does Lowry read the headlines?

Vroom:

I tried to steer this thread back on topic a few posts back. However, you seem to want to stubbornly cling to your hatred of me and you feel that this thread is the proper place to vent.

I think that you are beginning to hate me as much as you do President Bush. That only proves that I’m in good company!

I thought I was being quite magnanimous when I stated that I thought you had good intentions for the outcome of Iraq. I did not lump you with the fringe left. However, that does not seem to be enough for you. You continue to hurl unfounded accusations and wag your finger in the face of the truth. I thought you admitted to being a liberal a few posts back. That one was supposed to be behind us. Are you now in denial?

Keep in mind every personal attack and insult that you have thrown my way has been done because you did not like me calling you a liberal. I never once insulted you personally, it has been you that has taken (and continue to take) the low road. It seems that you are always the one who attacks others motives and uses cheap shots when you don?t like the direction of the debate.

Is it not fair to call someone a liberal on a political thread? Is it not more appropriate than calling someone an “ass clown?” Is it not more appropriate than calling the President of the United States a “silly idiot?” How do those things further any sort of quality debate? Yet, you continue your childish nasty little rants and when someone calls you on them you seem overly annoyed and claim that they are the ones being unfair. I think I was clear in a previous post: “Hatred is never attractive!” You need to stop seething.

I know you fancy yourself an intellectual but a true intellectual is not afraid of political debate, even if it means that he is labeled as a liberal, conservative etc. A true intellectual does not stoop to name calling and the many shenanigans that you have put forth. Finally, a true intellectual does not get so rattled that he uses (okay overuses) childish terms like “ass clown.” Perhaps having another person read your posts before you push the “send” button would do us all quite a lot of good.

I gave you some advice the other day which you may remember: “It might be time for you to stop criticizing government officials (or anyone else for that matter) and work on your own comportment.” I?ll stick to that piece of advice and hope that you take me up on it.

I will also add one more thing: If you want to carry this on I suggest that we do it in PM as I do not think it appropriate to continue off topic on BB?s thread. Good suggestion?

JohnGullick wrote:

“Yes: its not much but I like the way Dempsey cutely sidesteps the reasons for Iraqs lack of infrastructure sighting it as ‘30 years of tyranny’s’ fault! In fact the crumbling began in 1991 with sanctions, the Red Cross points out around 19-23 million of the 23 million citizens began to rely on the oil for food system. life expectancy dropped from 65 to 59, 1888 schools closed etc etc. That was Western sanctions.”

You unspeakable moron!!! Ever hear of saddam using the oil for food proceeds for self aggradizement?!?

“We wouldnt have had to impose sanctions on Iraq if we hadnt supported Hussein so totally in the 8 year Iran conflict leading him to wrongly assume he’d have our support if he invaded kuwait.”

Brillant!!! We supported Panama in their war of independence. I hear they have designs on Madagascar. I’ll bet they are sanguine about us supporting them on that one.

“He also wouldnt have had nuclear aspirations if Israel was forced to disarm in accordance”

Now hussein’s m.o. is ISRAEL’S FAULT!!!

“with UN 687, article 14 which has ‘the goal of establishing the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery.’ Of course the neo-cons don’t care about the UN as was shown when they contravened the council’s anti-invasion vote.”

You mean enforced the letter of the articles. Silly old coalition.

“Maybe Dempsey doesnt like to read history books. He knows Saddam was bad and that’s that! friggin neo-con moron. he obviously also missed the fact that infrastructure did grow a little under saddam,”

Go over to Iraq and ask the people, numbnuts.

“213000 phone lines were built, sweet! the IMF really knows what a poverty stricken country needs! the long and the short of it is if Dempsey had done his homework he’d have realised sanctions destroyed the country and locals were in for a rough ride. Of course if he’d done his homework he’d have realised there were no WMDs too!”

I’ll be rooting for Tony Blair. That would be a nice fat middle finger to you see no evil, hear no evils.

Go Blair!!!

JeffR

I don’t hate president Bush at all. His policies I can sometimes do without, but you aren’t able to fathom the difference.

I do hate some of your tactics, but I don’t have the time or inclination to personally hate you, even if you are an ass clown.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Well one thing’s for sure, Lowry has a horrendous sense of timing, it was a miserable weekend/week for Iraqis. How many times do he have to hear we’re turning the corner?

July 24, 2003 “turned a corner”

August 13, 2003 “they’ve turned the corner”

January 1, 2004 “turned a corner here in Iraq.”

June 2, 2004 “we’ve turned a corner”

September 14, 2004 “we’ve turned the corner.”

February 9, 2005 “we’ve turned the corner”

April 15, 2005 “we’ve turned a corner”

[/quote]

How many corners do you need to turn before you start going in circles?

[quote]JeffR wrote:

You unspeakable moron!!! [/quote]

Aren’t you a lovely agreeable person?

He used it to promote himself as being powerful or important? The bastard!

What the hell are you talking about? I don’t care if Panama are feeling particularly great. That war of independance was more a US marine fuelled battle to control the canal anyway, ‘Panamanians’ never really existed.

Why would Hussein aspire to nuclear capability if Israel had no WMD? I’m not saying he definately wouldn’t, but I’d have thought he’d know better.

My point was they didn’t enforce it on Israel, hence there was a double standard. Silly old JeffR.

I’m sure the families of all 100,000 ‘collateral damage’ victims would love to give Dempsey a hug. All those insurgants also seem pretty pleased with situation. As do the people who voted in the election which still hasnt been resolved, and which has left the country with 20% of cabinet spaces still empty.

[quote]“213000 phone lines were built, sweet! the IMF really knows what a poverty stricken country needs! the long and the short of it is if Dempsey had done his homework he’d have realised sanctions destroyed the country and locals were in for a rough ride. Of course if he’d done his homework he’d have realised there were no WMDs too!”

I’ll be rooting for Tony Blair. That would be a nice fat middle finger to you see no evil, hear no evils.

Go Blair!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

Right… So you’re arguing that If Tony Blair wins it negates Dempsey’s ignorance? Or are your comments just unhinged? And what exactly does an Iraq invasion critique have to do with see no evil, hear no evil? And if Blair wins you seem to be suggesting it will spite the anti-war crew? Well, maybe, but I’ve been enjoying the economic boom Englands been going through under his government so I’m sure if that continues It’ll ease the heart ache! I certainly won’t loose any sleep over it, sorry to disapoint you. I’m finished, you can go back to smoking the crack which fed your last post now.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think that you are beginning to hate me as much as you do President Bush. That only proves that I’m in good company!

I don’t hate president Bush at all. His policies I can sometimes do without, but you aren’t able to fathom the difference.

I do hate some of your tactics, but I don’t have the time or inclination to personally hate you, even if you are an ass clown.
[/quote]

Well that’s good vroom, I don’t hate you either, even though you have a very limited vocabulary when it comes to expressing your frustration with others who hold a differing view :slight_smile:

This might be a surprisingly informative little piece of verbage. You see, I think you do hold a view.

You won’t look at issues, ask questions, dig for answers or otherwise consider alternatives, you hold a view already, and nothing, not even the facts will sway you from it.

I don’t so much hold a view as determine a view. People raise issues, or I raise issues, I look at them all, poke and pry, and often don’t even state a view.

If I ask questions about the view you hold or why you hold it, you think I hold the opposing view. You are often wrong in this thinking.

Perhaps it is only by accident you mischaracterize my point of view so much? I’d like to believe that… but it would require me to be pretty liberal in my suspension of disbelief.

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Now hussein’s m.o. is ISRAEL’S FAULT!!!

Why would Hussein aspire to nuclear capability if Israel had no WMD? I’m not saying he definately wouldn’t, but I’d have thought he’d know better.
…[/quote]

Hussien had already used WMD against the Kurds and the Iranians. Who knows what he would have done with nukes, but it would not have been pretty.

As to why Hussien would aspire to them, it was because he saw himself as a modern Saladin that would unite the Arab world against the West. He would not hesitate to kill any Muslim or “infidel” that was in his way.

If Israel didn’t exist it would not have changed his MO one bit.

A lot of people seem to take an isolationist view when it comes to the Arab world. If we leave them alone they will leave us alone is pure fantasy.

[quote]vroom wrote:
frustration with others who hold a differing view

This might be a surprisingly informative little piece of verbage. You see, I think you do hold a view.

You won’t look at issues, ask questions, dig for answers or otherwise consider alternatives, you hold a view already, and nothing, not even the facts will sway you from it.

I don’t so much hold a view as determine a view. People raise issues, or I raise issues, I look at them all, poke and pry, and often don’t even state a view.

If I ask questions about the view you hold or why you hold it, you think I hold the opposing view. You are often wrong in this thinking.

Perhaps it is only by accident you mischaracterize my point of view so much? I’d like to believe that… but it would require me to be pretty liberal in my suspension of disbelief.
[/quote]

I believe that you are correct (for the most part) in your assesment of what you do on these political threads. Some call it meandering, as you have read no doubt. I think you ponder issues more than most. Is that a good thing? I guess it depends on where you really stand. You obvously have core values.

I don’t think I have mischaracterized your point of view overall. Beneath all of that pondering and poking and prying is a pretty liberal viewpoint, which you have been noted for by many of your posts. I don’t write that to anger you, it’s simply an observation which I don’t think you can disagree with over all.

As for me I used to be a democrat (like my Dad) many years ago. I was filled with all sorts of idealistic notions. Then I considered another path because reality did not seem to be living up to my democratic ideals. I noticed inherent unfairness in high taxes. I didn’t like the democrats stand on gun control. Mostly it seemed that republicans were more for the entreprenuerial spirit and self initiative.

I have indeed gone through a great deal of change in my political beliefs. In fact, so much so that while I am more conservative today than I was 20 years ago, I am less conservative than I was even 5 years ago.

Nice talking with you vroom.

Zeb, good post. I think there are some very good ideals of the republican party. I don’t think this administration whether it’s purposeful, conscience or unconscience uphold those ideals. Again, I don’t think Bush and company are purposefully evil sitting in an office plotting evil deeds. I truly think they are unaware of their greed and thoughtlessness towards humanity.

I believe they truly see themselves as morally righteous saviors of the world, but to me their actions show the reality of their fiber. I think you and Ptdr, rainjack, and some others, are good people and that’s why to me it’s frustrating that you would believe what to me is a lie.

Others of your kind I truly think are ignorant assholes, but I’m sure they think the same or worse of me. But remember, Like you, I go to work every day, I pay my bills, I love my family, and I wouldn’t wish harm on anyone who didn’t deserve it. So, in many respects we are very similar. Laters for now, Elk

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I know it was long, but did anyone read it and want to offer specific thoughts on the article?

JohnGullick wrote:
Yes: its not much but I like the way Dempsey cutely sidesteps the reasons for Iraqs lack of infrastructure sighting it as ‘30 years of tyranny’s’ fault! In fact the crumbling began in 1991 with sanctions, the Red Cross points out around 19-23 million of the 23 million citizens began to rely on the oil for food system. life expectancy dropped from 65 to 59, 1888 schools closed etc etc. That was Western sanctions. We wouldnt have had to impose sanctions on Iraq if we hadnt supported Hussein so totally in the 8 year Iran conflict leading him to wrongly assume he’d have our support if he invaded kuwait. He also wouldnt have had nuclear aspirations if Israel was forced to disarm in accordance with UN 687, article 14 which has ‘the goal of establishing the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery.’ Of course the neo-cons don’t care about the UN as was shown when they contravened the council’s anti-invasion vote. Maybe Dempsey doesnt like to read history books. He knows Saddam was bad and that’s that! friggin neo-con moron. he obviously also missed the fact that infrastructure did grow a little under saddam, 213000 phone lines were built, sweet! the IMF really knows what a poverty stricken country needs! the long and the short of it is if Dempsey had done his homework he’d have realised sanctions destroyed the country and locals were in for a rough ride. Of course if he’d done his homework he’d have realised there were no WMDs too![/quote]

Unfortunately, this is often what result from economic sanctions, particularly when the regime in power controls what resources are available inside the country – the people suffer, while the regime takes care of itself and its favorites.

It’s actually one of the better arguments for using military force instead of sanctions.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I know it was long, but did anyone read it and want to offer specific thoughts on the article?

JohnGullick wrote:
Yes: its not much but I like the way Dempsey cutely sidesteps the reasons for Iraqs lack of infrastructure sighting it as ‘30 years of tyranny’s’ fault! In fact the crumbling began in 1991 with sanctions, the Red Cross points out around 19-23 million of the 23 million citizens began to rely on the oil for food system. life expectancy dropped from 65 to 59, 1888 schools closed etc etc. That was Western sanctions. We wouldnt have had to impose sanctions on Iraq if we hadnt supported Hussein so totally in the 8 year Iran conflict leading him to wrongly assume he’d have our support if he invaded kuwait. He also wouldnt have had nuclear aspirations if Israel was forced to disarm in accordance with UN 687, article 14 which has ‘the goal of establishing the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery.’ Of course the neo-cons don’t care about the UN as was shown when they contravened the council’s anti-invasion vote. Maybe Dempsey doesnt like to read history books. He knows Saddam was bad and that’s that! friggin neo-con moron. he obviously also missed the fact that infrastructure did grow a little under saddam, 213000 phone lines were built, sweet! the IMF really knows what a poverty stricken country needs! the long and the short of it is if Dempsey had done his homework he’d have realised sanctions destroyed the country and locals were in for a rough ride. Of course if he’d done his homework he’d have realised there were no WMDs too!

Unfortunately, this is often what result from economic sanctions, particularly when the regime in power controls what resources are available inside the country – the people suffer, while the regime takes care of itself and its favorites.

It’s actually one of the better arguments for using military force instead of sanctions.[/quote]

Or, seeing how military action is a broadsword ill-suited for removing individuals from power, it makes a good argument for the creation of a well respected international criminal court with the authority and means to try, convict, and imprison criminals such as Hussein and his regime.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zeb, good post. I think there are some very good ideals of the republican party. I don’t think this administration whether it’s purposeful, conscience or unconscience uphold those ideals. Again, I don’t think Bush and company are purposefully evil sitting in an office plotting evil deeds. I truly think they are unaware of their greed and thoughtlessness towards humanity.

I believe they truly see themselves as morally righteous saviors of the world, but to me their actions show the reality of their fiber. I think you and Ptdr, rainjack, and some others, are good people and that’s why to me it’s frustrating that you would believe what to me is a lie.

Others of your kind I truly think are ignorant assholes, but I’m sure they think the same or worse of me. But remember, Like you, I go to work every day, I pay my bills, I love my family, and I wouldn’t wish harm on anyone who didn’t deserve it. So, in many respects we are very similar. Laters for now, Elk[/quote]

Elk,

Thanks man, I think we all have plenty more in common than we might think. The political threads sometimes bring out the worst in us and we go at it.

By the way, I did not support President Bush when he was running for the republican nomination. I was in favor of another republican candidate…

"Elkhntr1 wrote:
Zeb, good post. I think there are some very good ideals of the republican party. I don’t think this administration whether it’s purposeful, conscience or unconscience uphold those ideals. Again, I don’t think Bush and company are purposefully evil sitting in an office plotting evil deeds. I truly think they are unaware of their greed and thoughtlessness towards humanity.

I believe they truly see themselves as morally righteous saviors of the world, but to me their actions show the reality of their fiber. I think you and Ptdr, rainjack, and some others, are good people and that’s why to me it’s frustrating that you would believe what to me is a lie.

Others of your kind I truly think are ignorant assholes, but I’m sure they think the same or worse of me. But remember, Like you, I go to work every day, I pay my bills, I love my family, and I wouldn’t wish harm on anyone who didn’t deserve it. So, in many respects we are very similar. Laters for now, Elk"

Good stuff, Brother Elk.

I’m glad you are back!!! I like the new you!!!

Of course, I caught the underlying “Bush as a relgious zealot” crap. I also disagree with that analysis. But, hey, it still was a pretty fair post.

Your favorite “ignorant asshole”,

JeffR

Moriarity wrote:

“Or, seeing how military action is a broadsword ill-suited for removing individuals from power, it makes a good argument for the creation of a well respected international criminal court with the authority and means to try, convict, and imprison criminals such as Hussein and his regime.”

I would like you to focus on the word “authority.”

What authority do brutal dictators respect?

Is it the UN?

Is it the Hague?

Or is it Rangertab?

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Moriarity wrote:

“Or, seeing how military action is a broadsword ill-suited for removing individuals from power, it makes a good argument for the creation of a well respected international criminal court with the authority and means to try, convict, and imprison criminals such as Hussein and his regime.”

I would like you to focus on the word “authority.”

What authority do brutal dictators respect?

Is it the UN?

Is it the Hague?

Or is it Rangertab?

JeffR
[/quote]

They respect the authority of entities that demonstrate the might to objectively enforce the will of said international court.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I know it was long, but did anyone read it and want to offer specific thoughts on the article?

JohnGullick wrote:
Yes: its not much but I like the way Dempsey cutely sidesteps the reasons for Iraqs lack of infrastructure sighting it as ‘30 years of tyranny’s’ fault! In fact the crumbling began in 1991 with sanctions, the Red Cross points out around 19-23 million of the 23 million citizens began to rely on the oil for food system. life expectancy dropped from 65 to 59, 1888 schools closed etc etc. That was Western sanctions. We wouldnt have had to impose sanctions on Iraq if we hadnt supported Hussein so totally in the 8 year Iran conflict leading him to wrongly assume he’d have our support if he invaded kuwait. He also wouldnt have had nuclear aspirations if Israel was forced to disarm in accordance with UN 687, article 14 which has ‘the goal of establishing the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery.’ Of course the neo-cons don’t care about the UN as was shown when they contravened the council’s anti-invasion vote. Maybe Dempsey doesnt like to read history books. He knows Saddam was bad and that’s that! friggin neo-con moron. he obviously also missed the fact that infrastructure did grow a little under saddam, 213000 phone lines were built, sweet! the IMF really knows what a poverty stricken country needs! the long and the short of it is if Dempsey had done his homework he’d have realised sanctions destroyed the country and locals were in for a rough ride. Of course if he’d done his homework he’d have realised there were no WMDs too!

Unfortunately, this is often what result from economic sanctions, particularly when the regime in power controls what resources are available inside the country – the people suffer, while the regime takes care of itself and its favorites.

It’s actually one of the better arguments for using military force instead of sanctions.

Or, seeing how military action is a broadsword ill-suited for removing individuals from power, it makes a good argument for the creation of a well respected international criminal court with the authority and means to try, convict, and imprison criminals such as Hussein and his regime.[/quote]

And how would you propose to get him to court? Ask nicely? Threaten to taunt him a second time?