(no subject)

[bzarcher]

Attention.

To my fellow US citizens, the people of Iraq, the Koreas, the middle East, and the United Kingdom.

We are all boned.

You really have to wonder if Al Gore would have gone to war even if 10,000,000 people at home and abroad were telling him 'NO'.

Comments

Skrood?

[demeterschild.livejournal.com]

Well, darlin'...

It's not like Saddam does anything productive unless the deadline gets close to the ass-kicking portion of this resolution that's currently being used to disarm Iraq. And that's a bad way to play the game. He's going to continue to piss around and just about defy the UN and whoever else comes along until he keels over dead. Giving him more time just lets him dick around even more.

North Korea's economy is so bad that it can't support doing anything beyond posturing. Scary thoughts that they might try something, but then the country collapses due to the lack of foregin aid. Lots of people die.

Balancing acts all around.

However, things will settle out soon. Maybe I'll know something from "undisclosed inside sources" in the next couple of days.

Re: Skrood?

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

True? But going after the Iraqi and North Korean governments without any form of popular support from foreign allies or the people of the countries we're attacking is a Really Bad Thing to do. We'll see, but I'm not optimistic.

[gigerlicious.livejournal.com]

.0011% of the population of the Earth isn't exactly a convincing number. Not that I consider Bushy and his fuzzy math to be sharp, but even he can see that's nothing.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

True. But when that fairly small percentage besiege the national capitals of almost every nation we ally with? 10 fire ants are a very small percentage of what's in the anthill, but if they sting you in the right places it will still be excruciatingly painful and potentially lethal over time.

[grandmoff.livejournal.com]

I don't wonder much. Considering who Al Gore's running mate was, and said running mate's public stance on war with Iraq, the answer seems to me to be a possible, if not probable, 'yes'. People love to blame Bush for all this, and let's face it, that's what the figurehead part of being President is all about, but much of what has gone on in the current presidency has nothing to do with who is president. The economy would still be in Recession/Recovery, terrorists would still have targeted the US, North Korea would still be rattling bamboo sabers, and Saddam would still be defying the UN, which will eventually demand a response.

As for the 10 mil, I'm with Gigerlicious. Not only is it a drop in the bucket, globally, but it is also a drop in the bucket individually within the representative nations. It is a currently visible drop in the bucket, the the President took the time out to address, unlike many of his predecessors. I do have to question the sincerity of some of the demonstrators, however. How commited can a person be to peace if they can't even hold a rally without starting a riot and getting arrested?

[volemaster.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly certain he would have.

War/Peace just isn't a political issue. It's either a self-interest issue or a moral issue.

The people trying to turn it into a political issue are really just trying to use it as a tool to advance their own political agendas, it seems. And that makes me sad.

[spiralpegasus.livejournal.com]

You're asking the wrong question.

If Al Gore was all up for an invasion of Iraq, what would be the response of the Republican Congress? (i.e. Wag The Dog II: What About The Economy, Stupid?)

Ah well, I'll just satisfy myself with sweet sweet images of Tom Delay singing "Give Peace A Chance".