Continue to think of me as a simpleton if you wish. Not everything has to be a complex, convoluted explanation like you seem to offer time and time again.
The information that he was within about a year of a nuclear weapon before the Gulf War came from an Iraq scientist who defected. Your argument regarding mootness is not valid. It stands to reason that the War and ensuing inspections disrupted the program significantly. What I am saying is that it has been four years without inspectors. That's four years without any international supervision whatsoever. Once again, how can any reasonable person on this planet say that it is illogical to conclude (given what we know) that Saddam is at least close to acquiring nuclear weapons? I'm not arguing as to what should be done about it (we've had that argument several times). I'm just saying that it is a safe bet he is close.
I know we are dealing with speculation here. I have said that. But it is reasonable speculation. Once again, jimmac, your only real argument is that "I've gone off the deep end".
Let me get this straight: You are saying that Saddam ISN'T close to building a nuke, right? You are saying that I am totally unjustified and radical in my thinking that he is probably quite close to possessing one?
Now, on international law: National security issues can often NOT be considered a legal process as we think of it. I'm sorry, but Iraq, North Korea and other rogue nations are NOT, in any way "innocent until proven guilty". You cannot apply our judicial standards when it comes to certain things, specifically terror and even rogue states. That is EXCACTLY what is wrong with liberal thinking when it comes to national security. I'm so glad you said it, because I couldn't have shown a better example of flawed liberal thinking. I suppose you agreed with those who felt we should have sent in some kind of police force to aprehend Bin Laden afer 9/11.
Oh, and despite the rhetoric to the contrary, we are working with the international community to a high degree. The topic title is simply false. The notion that the US has somehow caused all of the anti-American setiment out there is inaccurate.
Sorry but the facts speak for themselves. I suppose we could keep searching until 2050 and you and the Bush administration would still say they were hiding somewhere. I'm no Saddam lover but what the hell are we doing over there besides looking for our very own oil well?
<strong>Here is a good article about exactly this subject. registration is required but it is a long article and worth reading
sure Scott will dismiss it as being from that redical pinko paper the NYTimes . . . but that tells me more about Scott than any supposed biase in the source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Strictly speaking the author is wrong from the second paragraph. The US does not fit the definition of an "empire". Words have meaning and the US is not an empire.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>its a good article that almost has me agreeing with teh need for war in Iraq
albiet a war that takes into account a need for serious diplomacy and work with the Palastinians as well . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
We tried that. The Palastinians don't want peace. They want terror. They tell us that every day. Clinton worked his ass off trying to get Terrorist Arafat to stop the terror. It failed. Unless something changes (eg arafat dead (of natual causes of course)) then there's zero point to trying the same thing over again.
I'll read the rest of it later. Doesn't seem worth it though due to the author's poor undetstanding of the meanings of commons words
Yes he does. He's just unwilling give up his country or the lives of his people for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he doesn't. "Peace" to him is limiting the Palestinian State to as little as possible or fight while waiting for that outcome. HE has no reason for peace. He's out of a job when it happens, moreso than even Arafat.
Dictator Arafat will be out of job when he dies. If Sharon is trying to get rid of Palestine (a terrorist country that can't be trusted) why is he building a fence?
<strong>Dictator Arafat will be out of job when he dies. If Sharon is trying to get rid of Palestine (a terrorist country that can't be trusted) why is he building a fence?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I listened to an interview with Netanyahu today, and he seems so much more intelligent than Sharon.
Why? Because possession is nine tenths of something or other. And I just LOVE your editorial comment! If we're going to generalize that much then Israel is a war mongering country run by facists.
I listened to an interview with Netanyahu today, and he seems so much more intelligent than Sharon.
Why? Because possession is nine tenths of something or other. And I just LOVE your editorial comment! If we're going to generalize that much then Israel is a war mongering country run by facists.
Palestinians want peace as much as the Israelis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are a Jew baiting troll.
And I wish someone would already put an end to you, and your nonsense.
Then why aren't they working for it? They cheer every "martyrdom" operation, including 9-11?
It would be better of you argued that they can't come out for peace. After all if you do you risk arafat thugs showing up at your door, killing you in the street, and then being found "guilty" of collaboration with the Jews in the Palestinian "court" system.
Great basis for a free country they have going on there. Where's the arab Gandhi?
Ah let the child. His comments speak for themselves. I say let stupidity be met with words. I just wish that someone that agree on a general level with Mika would comment stuff like this so it didn´t stand alone.
And btw I´m pretty sure that Mika just wanted that someone took away bunges internet connection and gave him an tropical island with an unlimited supply of food and lovely ladies so he would never more be interested in posting here again.
<strong>Then why aren't they working for it? They cheer every "martyrdom" operation, including 9-11?
It would be better of you argued that they can't come out for peace. After all if you do you risk arafat thugs showing up at your door, killing you in the street, and then being found "guilty" of collaboration with the Jews in the Palestinian "court" system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just like the Iraqi people.
The people want peace, it's the governments that are corrupt. I don't think Sharon is any better than Arafat myself. Luckily for Israel, he'll be replaced at some point in time. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Arafat will probably be there until he dies.
Why do they dance? You probably will too when Osama & Arafat are gone.
Tony Blair yesterday warned President George Bush to "listen back" to the international community's fears over Iraq and other global concerns or risk "pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation" pushing mainstream world opinion into the anti-US corner.
In a major foreign policy speech, the prime minister made an ambitious bid to woo sceptics about the looming war with Iraq at the same time as he reminded Washington that global interdependence must work both ways if progress is not to be overwhelmed by "the common threat of chaos".
[quote]US President George W Bush says America has no intention of attacking renegade North Korea.
He said he hoped for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the dispute over the country's nuclear activities.
"We have no intention of invading North Korea"
President Bush
His comments came as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog passed a resolution demanding that Pyongyang readmit UN inspectors and abandon its secret nuclear weapons programme.
The US has been holding talks with Japanese and South Korean officials, as concern continues to mount following North Korea's decision to reactivate a nuclear complex at Yongbyon which had been frozen under a 1994 deal with the US.
A White House spokesman said that the US would stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with South Korea on the issue. <hr></blockquote>
Shoulder-to-shoulder with SK? Since SK has been very critical about US NK policy you could hope that US changed its policy to the better.
Sorry but the facts speak for themselves. I suppose we could keep searching until 2050 and you and the Bush administration would still say they were hiding somewhere. I'm no Saddam lover but what the hell are we doing over there besides looking for our very own oil well?
Still in check. <hr></blockquote>
What argument is that exactly? Do you honestly mean to tell me that Iraq doesn't possess ANY weapons of MD? Are you honestly convinced that if the inspectors don't find anything those weapons aren't there? We know he has them because WE GAVE SOME OF THEM to him. It's not something we should be proud of, but it's true. At the time I suppose we thought it was the right thing to do. The point is WE KNOW he has at least chemical and biological weapons. WE KNOW he is a maniacal dictator who has used these weapons on his own people. WE KNOW he has acted agressively in the past. WE KNOW he at least indirectly supports terror. WE KNOW he was at least close to a nuclear weapon 11 years ago. WE KNOW there has been no international supervision for four years. WE KNOW he is a liar.
Now, there are some things that we don't know. We DON'T KNOW how close to a nuke he actually is. WE DON'T KNOW how many biological and chemical weapons he has. WE DON'T KNOW if he will use them again.
The only thing we can do is draw some conclusions. Based on the things we DO know, and on Saddam's past behavior, it is reasonable to assume:
1) Saddam will eventually aquire a nuclear weapon
2) Saddam will eventually use some WOMD on the United
States or one of its allies.
3) Saddam will eventually attack another nation.
4) Saddam will support terror
I find these items to be unacceptable. At first, I wasn't so sure about attacking Saddam. The more I have thought through what WILL HAPPEN, the more I support attacking. We cannot allow him to have a nulcear weapon. Period. We should do anything and everything to prevent this. We cannot allow him to support terror.
Whether or not you support my positions on this issue, they cannot be called "ridiculous" or "not based in reality" or "off the deep end". If you don't support attacking, I can accept that. However, I cannot accept you telling me that if the inspectors don't find anything, there isn't anything there.
Shoulder-to-shoulder with SK? Since SK has been very critical about US NK policy you could hope that US changed its policy to the better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think most of the animosity was because of the election. The opposition party won on an anti-US platform (further proof that the US is isolating itself.) In the long run though, I think we'll be fine with South Korea, even the current Prez.
SDW,
At some point the head inspector did say that it could take 2-3 YEARS to find WOMD, so I guess we'll see. I bet Saddam has them, but I'm not sure in what amounts. And if we attack outside of the UN resolutions, I'll be pissed.
I imagine Rumsfeld has some nice Satelite photos of things not on the list and the administration is sitting on them until the weather clears in the spring at which point they'll release them to the UN so the timing for the attack is perfect.
The people want peace, it's the governments that are corrupt. I don't think Sharon is any better than Arafat myself. Luckily for Israel, he'll be replaced at some point in time. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Arafat will probably be there until he dies.
Why do they dance? You probably will too when Osama & Arafat are gone.
Ossam ad Arafat are not innocent people trying to work for a living when plane flies into the window. A difference you blur with your moral relativism.
Comments
Continue to think of me as a simpleton if you wish. Not everything has to be a complex, convoluted explanation like you seem to offer time and time again.
<strong>Here we go again.
jimmac:
The information that he was within about a year of a nuclear weapon before the Gulf War came from an Iraq scientist who defected. Your argument regarding mootness is not valid. It stands to reason that the War and ensuing inspections disrupted the program significantly. What I am saying is that it has been four years without inspectors. That's four years without any international supervision whatsoever. Once again, how can any reasonable person on this planet say that it is illogical to conclude (given what we know) that Saddam is at least close to acquiring nuclear weapons? I'm not arguing as to what should be done about it (we've had that argument several times). I'm just saying that it is a safe bet he is close.
I know we are dealing with speculation here. I have said that. But it is reasonable speculation. Once again, jimmac, your only real argument is that "I've gone off the deep end".
Let me get this straight: You are saying that Saddam ISN'T close to building a nuke, right? You are saying that I am totally unjustified and radical in my thinking that he is probably quite close to possessing one?
Now, on international law: National security issues can often NOT be considered a legal process as we think of it. I'm sorry, but Iraq, North Korea and other rogue nations are NOT, in any way "innocent until proven guilty". You cannot apply our judicial standards when it comes to certain things, specifically terror and even rogue states. That is EXCACTLY what is wrong with liberal thinking when it comes to national security. I'm so glad you said it, because I couldn't have shown a better example of flawed liberal thinking. I suppose you agreed with those who felt we should have sent in some kind of police force to aprehend Bin Laden afer 9/11.
Oh, and despite the rhetoric to the contrary, we are working with the international community to a high degree. The topic title is simply false. The notion that the US has somehow caused all of the anti-American setiment out there is inaccurate.
[ 01-06-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well old bean it ain't lookin good for your argument,
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html</a>;
Sorry but the facts speak for themselves. I suppose we could keep searching until 2050 and you and the Bush administration would still say they were hiding somewhere. I'm no Saddam lover but what the hell are we doing over there besides looking for our very own oil well?
Still in check.
[ 01-06-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Here is a good article about exactly this subject. registration is required but it is a long article and worth reading
sure Scott will dismiss it as being from that redical pinko paper the NYTimes . . . but that tells me more about Scott than any supposed biase in the source.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Strictly speaking the author is wrong from the second paragraph. The US does not fit the definition of an "empire". Words have meaning and the US is not an empire.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>its a good article that almost has me agreeing with teh need for war in Iraq
albiet a war that takes into account a need for serious diplomacy and work with the Palastinians as well . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
We tried that. The Palastinians don't want peace. They want terror. They tell us that every day. Clinton worked his ass off trying to get Terrorist Arafat to stop the terror. It failed. Unless something changes (eg arafat dead (of natual causes of course)) then there's zero point to trying the same thing over again.
I'll read the rest of it later. Doesn't seem worth it though due to the author's poor undetstanding of the meanings of commons words
<strong>
We tried that. The Palastinians don't want peace. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately the flip side to this is that Sharon doesn't want peace either.
<strong>
Unfortunately the flip side to this is that Sharon doesn't want peace either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes he does. He's just unwilling give up his country or the lives of his people for it.
<strong>
Yes he does. He's just unwilling give up his country or the lives of his people for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No he doesn't. "Peace" to him is limiting the Palestinian State to as little as possible or fight while waiting for that outcome. HE has no reason for peace. He's out of a job when it happens, moreso than even Arafat.
<strong>Dictator Arafat will be out of job when he dies. If Sharon is trying to get rid of Palestine (a terrorist country that can't be trusted) why is he building a fence?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I listened to an interview with Netanyahu today, and he seems so much more intelligent than Sharon.
Why? Because possession is nine tenths of something or other. And I just LOVE your editorial comment! If we're going to generalize that much then Israel is a war mongering country run by facists.
Palestinians want peace as much as the Israelis.
<strong>
I listened to an interview with Netanyahu today, and he seems so much more intelligent than Sharon.
Why? Because possession is nine tenths of something or other. And I just LOVE your editorial comment! If we're going to generalize that much then Israel is a war mongering country run by facists.
Palestinians want peace as much as the Israelis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are a Jew baiting troll.
And I wish someone would already put an end to you, and your nonsense.
It would be better of you argued that they can't come out for peace. After all if you do you risk arafat thugs showing up at your door, killing you in the street, and then being found "guilty" of collaboration with the Jews in the Palestinian "court" system.
Great basis for a free country they have going on there. Where's the arab Gandhi?
<strong>
You are a Jew baiting troll.
And I wish someone would already put an end to you, and your nonsense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Put an end to? mods?
And btw I´m pretty sure that Mika just wanted that someone took away bunges internet connection and gave him an tropical island with an unlimited supply of food and lovely ladies so he would never more be interested in posting here again.
Isn´t that right Mika?
<strong>Then why aren't they working for it? They cheer every "martyrdom" operation, including 9-11?
It would be better of you argued that they can't come out for peace. After all if you do you risk arafat thugs showing up at your door, killing you in the street, and then being found "guilty" of collaboration with the Jews in the Palestinian "court" system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just like the Iraqi people.
The people want peace, it's the governments that are corrupt. I don't think Sharon is any better than Arafat myself. Luckily for Israel, he'll be replaced at some point in time. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Arafat will probably be there until he dies.
Why do they dance? You probably will too when Osama & Arafat are gone.
EDIT: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,870491,00.html"; target="_blank">Blair</a> seems to agree with the general premise of the post....
[ 01-08-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
<strong>
Israel is a war mongering country run by facists.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Posting guidelines? ?!???
[quote] Excessive ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Tony Blair yesterday warned President George Bush to "listen back" to the international community's fears over Iraq and other global concerns or risk "pent-up feelings of injustice and alienation" pushing mainstream world opinion into the anti-US corner.
In a major foreign policy speech, the prime minister made an ambitious bid to woo sceptics about the looming war with Iraq at the same time as he reminded Washington that global interdependence must work both ways if progress is not to be overwhelmed by "the common threat of chaos".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And thumbs up for this GWB.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2633557.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2633557.stm</a>;
[quote]US President George W Bush says America has no intention of attacking renegade North Korea.
He said he hoped for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the dispute over the country's nuclear activities.
"We have no intention of invading North Korea"
President Bush
His comments came as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog passed a resolution demanding that Pyongyang readmit UN inspectors and abandon its secret nuclear weapons programme.
The US has been holding talks with Japanese and South Korean officials, as concern continues to mount following North Korea's decision to reactivate a nuclear complex at Yongbyon which had been frozen under a 1994 deal with the US.
A White House spokesman said that the US would stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with South Korea on the issue. <hr></blockquote>
Shoulder-to-shoulder with SK? Since SK has been very critical about US NK policy you could hope that US changed its policy to the better.
[quote]Well old bean it ain't lookin good for your argument
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html</a>;
Sorry but the facts speak for themselves. I suppose we could keep searching until 2050 and you and the Bush administration would still say they were hiding somewhere. I'm no Saddam lover but what the hell are we doing over there besides looking for our very own oil well?
Still in check. <hr></blockquote>
What argument is that exactly? Do you honestly mean to tell me that Iraq doesn't possess ANY weapons of MD? Are you honestly convinced that if the inspectors don't find anything those weapons aren't there? We know he has them because WE GAVE SOME OF THEM to him. It's not something we should be proud of, but it's true. At the time I suppose we thought it was the right thing to do. The point is WE KNOW he has at least chemical and biological weapons. WE KNOW he is a maniacal dictator who has used these weapons on his own people. WE KNOW he has acted agressively in the past. WE KNOW he at least indirectly supports terror. WE KNOW he was at least close to a nuclear weapon 11 years ago. WE KNOW there has been no international supervision for four years. WE KNOW he is a liar.
Now, there are some things that we don't know. We DON'T KNOW how close to a nuke he actually is. WE DON'T KNOW how many biological and chemical weapons he has. WE DON'T KNOW if he will use them again.
The only thing we can do is draw some conclusions. Based on the things we DO know, and on Saddam's past behavior, it is reasonable to assume:
1) Saddam will eventually aquire a nuclear weapon
2) Saddam will eventually use some WOMD on the United
States or one of its allies.
3) Saddam will eventually attack another nation.
4) Saddam will support terror
I find these items to be unacceptable. At first, I wasn't so sure about attacking Saddam. The more I have thought through what WILL HAPPEN, the more I support attacking. We cannot allow him to have a nulcear weapon. Period. We should do anything and everything to prevent this. We cannot allow him to support terror.
Whether or not you support my positions on this issue, they cannot be called "ridiculous" or "not based in reality" or "off the deep end". If you don't support attacking, I can accept that. However, I cannot accept you telling me that if the inspectors don't find anything, there isn't anything there.
<strong>
Shoulder-to-shoulder with SK? Since SK has been very critical about US NK policy you could hope that US changed its policy to the better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think most of the animosity was because of the election. The opposition party won on an anti-US platform (further proof that the US is isolating itself.) In the long run though, I think we'll be fine with South Korea, even the current Prez.
SDW,
At some point the head inspector did say that it could take 2-3 YEARS to find WOMD, so I guess we'll see. I bet Saddam has them, but I'm not sure in what amounts. And if we attack outside of the UN resolutions, I'll be pissed.
I imagine Rumsfeld has some nice Satelite photos of things not on the list and the administration is sitting on them until the weather clears in the spring at which point they'll release them to the UN so the timing for the attack is perfect.
<strong>
Just like the Iraqi people.
The people want peace, it's the governments that are corrupt. I don't think Sharon is any better than Arafat myself. Luckily for Israel, he'll be replaced at some point in time. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Arafat will probably be there until he dies.
Why do they dance? You probably will too when Osama & Arafat are gone.
EDIT: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,870491,00.html"; target="_blank">Blair</a> seems to agree with the general premise of the post....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ossam ad Arafat are not innocent people trying to work for a living when plane flies into the window. A difference you blur with your moral relativism.