Peg:

Your summation of my last post:

"You've offered no facts here and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes, vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions."

"--I think the estimate is somewhere around 85,000. But as I said, sources vary on the exact count."
So 85,000 out of 65,000 to 120,000 is not a vague statement? Sources vary is not a vague statement? No Named sources is not a vague statement?

"--well, seeing as the military has plans to unleash firepower amounting to ALL of what was used in the Gulf War during the first THREE DAYS of any future attack on Iraq, I would guess millions is a pretty safe estimate."
First you have to stop being so vague on how many civilians died in '91 to make an estimate.

"--at least you admit you're being foolish."
I am not being foolish unless I say no civilians will be killed.

"And why should Saddam blame "us" for inflicting civilian casualties on his own people?"
Has Saddam proven to be a man of honor? Why does he place military hardware in the middle of civilian areas? Do you think it is to thwart an attack on those civilians? Civilians can't fight us. There is no reason to attack them. Please don't call me blind and gullible.

"Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? "
To promote peace and stability in the world.

"There are plenty of countries where tyrannical dictators are making life hell for their people. Venezuela, for example."
Venezuela is a democracy. After that democracy matures the problems will diminish. Any WMDs in Venezuela? You know that people actually vacation in Venezuela? Do they vacation in Iraq or NK?

"Cuba is another."
The US acted to get the missiles (WMDs) out of Cuba. A democratic president was the commander in chief. Khrushchev was made to stand down. It could have escalated in a war but we stood our ground. By rights the protestors should have tried to block that action. There probably were some but the end result was good.
The people in Cuba are literally dying to come to the US but I hear nothing of torture of children to force the parents to do what their dictator wants. I do not see Cuba is a threat in need of any action. The US is constantly trying to persuade Castro to restore human rights to the people of Cuba diplomatically. That was the mission of Jimmy Carter recently. Do you think we should do something different?
By they way, Jimmy carter recently went to Venezuela on a diplomatic mission to try to restore peace there. Do you think an attack would be better?

"And many areas of Africa are in horribel shape."
There are no WMDs in Africa that I have heard of. The conflicts there as I understand them are on a tribal level. Which tribe should we attack? Is there a dictatorial regime we could "attack"?

"Your logic in the statement above sems to be saying we need to attack Iraq to protect the Iraqi people."
For the 1000th time, we are proposing to attack Iraq's regime not the people of Iraq

"This is not the job of the US government."
Whose job is it? If it is the job of the UN are they doing the job? We are saying? If the UN does not do the job, The US will form a coalition and do the job because we feel that The Iraqi regime is a threat to the security in the US.

"--what war are you talking about? This is what I mean about you being vague."
The war I am referring to in the future is when Saddam builds up his military and his arsenal of WMDs to the point that he can attack neighboring countries, as he has done before. The neighboring countries will fight back and then the prophecy of "thousands of bombs dropped on innocent people" and "millions dying" will come true.

The major point being debated here is will the UN inspections and sanctions keep him from building up his arsenal so that he will never be able to attack a neighbor or does he need to be removed because he is too sneaky for the UN inspections and sanctions to be effective. That is the crux of the matter.
Your point as I understand it is that the risk of civilian casualties outweighs the benefits of attacking the Iraqi regime so we should stick to the diplomatic sanctions and inspections method.
My point is that even if the inspections and sanctions were working, the civilians will be suffering and dying. That needs to end ASAP. My second point is that if things continue as they are for 5 or 10 years "thousands of bombs will be dropped on innocent people" and "millions die" In a war between Iraq and a neighbor.

"--no one wants the people in Iraq to suffer"
Well, say we should act to relieve their suffering or say it is OK for them to suffer. Quit skipping over the consequences of not acting.

"it will be US inflicting the suffering. OUR bombs".
This is another iteration of the "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine with out careful consideration of the actual strategy of the military to avoid civilian casualties,

"If you care so much about the people in Iraq suffering, then why aren't you supporting a diplomatic solution?"
As far as I can see the diplomatic process has been underway for 12 years, it has not worked, Saddam has gained military power and further developed his WMDs during that time. It seems to me that the diplomatic method is not working on this particular dictator and that is why I do not support it.

"you've bought the war-mongering media hype, just like the government wanted you to."
I think that due to the freedom of press written into the Constitution that the media in America are completely free from government control. I see things that the government wants to keep secret being leaked to the media constantly. The only thing I see affecting the media is that sometimes there is either a left wing or right wing bias in the news. I think the two different biases balance each other if you read both sides and combine them to form your own ideas.

"--oh for pete's sake are you really this out of touch???? The electoral college had NOTHING to do with Bush getting "elected."
Yes, I am in touch and it was the Electoral College that decided who won the election and every election for that matter.

"It was a highly irregular and clearly illegal decision by the Supreme Court that did that."
I did not hear a judge bang his gavel and say "Governor Bush is now the President Elect"
Mr. Gore ceded the 2000 election to Mr. Bush and he can run for president again in 2004.

"And since you're askig, yes, I think it would be a fine idea to undo a fair amount of what our "founding fathers" did. They were rich white men who were really only looking out for rich white men like themselves."
I see shades of anarchy here. Does the Constitution need to be rewritten or done away with completely and have "government by demonstrations"?

"But the main thing you need to know is that the "founding fathers" (I suppose it depends who you mean here) did not implement the electoral college...your grasp of history is shaky."
Help me with my history."
I think my grasp of history is firm:
"In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is
essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the
Founding Fathers were trying to solve. The first design of the Electoral College is described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The first design of the Electoral College lasted through four presidential elections. Congress and the States
adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution revising the Electoral College in 1804."

"--actually, they were all accounted for but in the wake of 9-11 the media did not put a whole lot of focus on the story...funny, that." Call up the media and demand that they restore coverage on the ballot counting. Right now I think the aftermath of happened on 9/11 is more worthy of news coverage than rehashing the election over and over.


"--when you start doing the same I'll be happy to oblige"
You can start with some not vague numbers and sources on the casualties form the war in '91.

"You've offered no facts here"
I think I did offer facts. Tell me a fact you want to know and I will try to track it down.

"and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes"
Point out the mistakes.

"vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions"
Where?

Old Guy