<strong>You question why Iraq wasn't given an "F".</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO, dimwit! I asked what situation would be described by an "F", if we are at a "B" (so it seems). NOWHERE, was I saying Iraq was deserving of an "F". F&cking get a clue or learn to read!
NO, dimwit! I asked what situation would be described by an "F", if we are at a "B" (so it seems). NOWHERE, was I saying Iraq was deserving of an "F". F&cking get a clue or learn to read! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Questioning why they got a "B" without having any evidence is the same thing. You question why they got a "B" based off of Blix's comments, but why don't you question why Blix is so crazy-coo-koo-gonzo-nutso for saying what he said when the other inspectors rightfully think Iraq deserves a "B"?
HELL BENT ON WAR: Will Attacking Saddam Really Make Us Safer?
Pictured is a freaked-out US soldier....
I just had to think: What are we getting ourselves into?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cover show also include a whole lot of freaked out Americans and Allies behind him too.
I just don't get it. Since 9|11 we've gotten to be like a bull in a china shop...kicking Afganistan in the ass for 9|11 and shaking down Iraq for our past failure (Yes, we lost the Gulf War...we didn't finish the job then and we are trying to fix that mess now). We taunt North Korea and watch Iran with ignorance and distain. And look the other way from Israel.
I think if our actions in Iraq even succeed in removing Saddam from his throne it is going to cost a lot of Iraqi civilian lives (and of course some of ours). The rest of the Middle East will hate us even more and eventually the fervent, fanatical terrorists will increase their retaliations even more...everywhere...to piss off our allies too. America is going to be a big target for being a big pain in the ass.
Look, I want some pay back for 9|11 and I also want these whackos removed. But let's not step over the line as they have done.
Most of the Middle East (including N. Korea) is one big WOMD right now in my opinion. But so are we.
All I got...goodnight. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Questioning why they got a "B" without having any evidence is the same thing...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look, just face it that you jumped the gun and read into something that wasn't there. Don't explain your way out of it with stupid rationalizations. You F-dup, own it.
<strong> [quote]Oh, because you're biased.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cover show also include a whole lot of freaked out Americans and Allies behind him too.
I just don't get it. Since 9|11 we've gotten to be like a bull in a china shop...kicking Afganistan in the ass for 9|11 and shaking down Iraq for our past failure (Yes, we lost the Gulf War...we didn't finish the job then and we are trying to fix that mess now). We taunt North Korea and watch Iran with ignorance and distain. And look the other way from Israel.
I think if our actions in Iraq even succeed in removing Saddam from his throne it is going to cost a lot of Iraqi civilian lives (and of course some of ours). The rest of the Middle East will hate us even more and eventually the fervent, fanatical terrorists will increase their retaliations even more...everywhere...to piss off our allies too. America is going to be a big target for being a big pain in the ass.
Look, I want some pay back for 9|11 and I also want these whackos removed. But let's not step over the line as they have done.
Most of the Middle East (including N. Korea) is one big WOMD right now in my opinion. But so are we.
All I got...goodnight. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's amazing you packed so much bullshit into one post.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>To add to the original post:
.
.
Saddam was our ally in the 1980s, when his military gassed the Kurds and executed hundreds of potential opponents, and whole bunch of other atrocities. Tnat was all fine n dandy re. Reagan and Bush 1...no problem with that stuff. Then he was cornered with his back to the wall by the Coalition, and shortly afterwards threatened by a mass revolt by his own people and a large section of his army after the Gulf war... but he never used any of his (alleged) WMD. Why not?
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He didn't need to. His tanks did a very fine job without.
Sam,
I know you almost have a Kafka-esk view of your government. However, you have to look ahead past what you might think is a ?comfortable? situation today, or fear of stirring a hornets nest, or your disdain for what you think of Saddam as being portrayed for a much bigger menace than you believe him to be. Think back a little. No one took Hitler seriously. No one took Stalin seriously. And price paid was tremendous. But the price to be paid here, if we continue and let this slide, is going to be orders of magnitude greater. I know this might sound over the top, but I say this to you as someone able to see more than just one step ahead.
"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under Unmovic supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."<hr></blockquote>
Look, just face it that you jumped the gun and read into something that wasn't there. Don't explain your way out of it with stupid rationalizations. You F-dup, own it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're not questioning how the inspectors came up with a "B"?
<strong>that would work except that to avoid material breach he has to destroy said WOMD in front of an international agency to verify said destruction.
"Either it should be found and be destroyed under Unmovic supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like it could be destroyed and just the evidence of the destruction would be enough.
Look this isn't about how Saddam wants to do it. It's about how the UN is telling Saddam how to do it. Saddam is not doing it that way. Can you say "material breach"? Unfortunately I don't think you can.
In the past when countries have complied with this order from the UN it worked like this. 1) Country throws open its doors to the UN. 2) Country leads UN teams to any and all weapons, programs and research. 3) Country destroys everything with UN looking on.
It is not a cat and mouse game between the UN and Saddam. Blix said himself that Iraq has not accounted for everything. Material Breach
In reality (I know we don?t like being realists here) there?s no hope that Saddam will give up the goods. Also there?s no hope the UN will do anything about it. The UN is in fact an irrelevant organization incapable of acting on its own resolutions. I half way think the only reason the US deals with the UN at all is to prove this very point ? QED.
Actually, SJO, your analogy is flawed as others here have pointed out clearly enough.
The problem with the Arab world is that it oscillates between theocratic extremism and dictatorial corruption. The poor arab has only to choose between zealots or madmen. One replaces the other. That's the best case, the reality for other Arabs is that they must either join a racket (like the PLO) or warlords.
We must be careful not to perpetuate this state of affairs. The problem for us is that left to their own devices, they will certainly propogate it. With the exceptions of Isreal and Jordan (and to an extent Egypt) the whole of the middle east is incapable of responsible self government.
If we rule them, we are wrong. If we leave them be, we are wrong. Choose your evil.
It is not a cat and mouse game between the UN and Saddam. Blix said himself that Iraq has not accounted for everything. Material Breach<hr></blockquote>
Kofi has said himself that it is not a Material Breach.
We could go on in circles forever but it's not your decision, Bush's decision or my decision. It's the U.N.'s decision even if you don't like it.
That's the funny thing about this situation and many others like it. We have to follow the rules even if our opponents aren't. That's why the police can't bust down someone's door just to find out if they're doing something wrong.
If we rule them, we are wrong. If we leave them be, we are wrong. Choose your evil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why are we wrong if we leave them be? The pro-war faction here tends to simplify the situation down to "Do nothing or go to war" but that's just a lie.
I didn't say go to war. To bomb them only to abandone them to their old conundrum only accelrates their mutual hatred of us and does not solve their problem or ours.
To leave them alone lets their hatred seep more slowly before it washes itself out. The intersect of easy access to military power and slow dissolution of hatred favors neither course, for if left alone the evidence suggests that they will learn chemical and possibly atomic lessons before they forget hatred.
This isn't a star trek episode with some libertine phantasy of non-ineterference, or mebbe post-colonial white guilt. Inaction now will pay serious consequences later, as will the wrong kind of action.
The only hope is to rule with stern beneficence for a time. We won't, and there will be horror both because of action and because of inaction. May you pay it instead of me.
<strong>I didn't say go to war. To bomb them only to abandone them to their old conundrum only accelrates their mutual hatred of us and does not solve their problem or ours.
To leave them alone lets their hatred seep more slowly before it washes itself out. The intersect of easy access to military power and slow dissolution of hatred favors neither course, for if left alone the evidence suggests that they will learn chemical and possibly atomic lessons before they forget hatred.
This isn't a star trek episode with some libertine phantasy of non-ineterference, or mebbe post-colonial white guilt. Inaction now will pay serious consequences later, as will the wrong kind of action.
The only hope is to rule with stern beneficence for a time. We won't, and there will be horror both because of action and because of inaction. May you pay it instead of me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will repeat two of my favorite words. Marshall Plan. MARSHALL PLAN MARSHALL PLAN MARSHALL PLAN. Jesus-Allah-Buddha Dammit! Why can we not learn from history?
<strong>It's amazing you packed so much bullshit into one post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know? I don't care what your opinion is I actually don't care anymore about Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jews, Palestinians, North Koreans...**** them all. And **** President Bush and his clowns...Republicans and Democrats.... And I'll throw in a **** you to you scott for good measure...I count you as one of the blind lemmings of these whole bunch of idiots.
Comments
<strong>You question why Iraq wasn't given an "F".</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO, dimwit! I asked what situation would be described by an "F", if we are at a "B" (so it seems). NOWHERE, was I saying Iraq was deserving of an "F". F&cking get a clue or learn to read!
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
NO, dimwit! I asked what situation would be described by an "F", if we are at a "B" (so it seems). NOWHERE, was I saying Iraq was deserving of an "F". F&cking get a clue or learn to read! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Questioning why they got a "B" without having any evidence is the same thing. You question why they got a "B" based off of Blix's comments, but why don't you question why Blix is so crazy-coo-koo-gonzo-nutso for saying what he said when the other inspectors rightfully think Iraq deserves a "B"?
Oh, because you're biased.
<strong>Newsweek Cover:
HELL BENT ON WAR: Will Attacking Saddam Really Make Us Safer?
Pictured is a freaked-out US soldier....
I just had to think: What are we getting ourselves into?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cover show also include a whole lot of freaked out Americans and Allies behind him too.
I just don't get it. Since 9|11 we've gotten to be like a bull in a china shop...kicking Afganistan in the ass for 9|11 and shaking down Iraq for our past failure (Yes, we lost the Gulf War...we didn't finish the job then and we are trying to fix that mess now). We taunt North Korea and watch Iran with ignorance and distain. And look the other way from Israel.
I think if our actions in Iraq even succeed in removing Saddam from his throne it is going to cost a lot of Iraqi civilian lives (and of course some of ours). The rest of the Middle East will hate us even more and eventually the fervent, fanatical terrorists will increase their retaliations even more...everywhere...to piss off our allies too. America is going to be a big target for being a big pain in the ass.
Look, I want some pay back for 9|11 and I also want these whackos removed. But let's not step over the line as they have done.
Most of the Middle East (including N. Korea) is one big WOMD right now in my opinion. But so are we.
All I got...goodnight. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Questioning why they got a "B" without having any evidence is the same thing...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Look, just face it that you jumped the gun and read into something that wasn't there. Don't explain your way out of it with stupid rationalizations. You F-dup, own it.
<strong> [quote]Oh, because you're biased.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Coming from you, that is quite rich, indeed!
<strong>
The cover show also include a whole lot of freaked out Americans and Allies behind him too.
I just don't get it. Since 9|11 we've gotten to be like a bull in a china shop...kicking Afganistan in the ass for 9|11 and shaking down Iraq for our past failure (Yes, we lost the Gulf War...we didn't finish the job then and we are trying to fix that mess now). We taunt North Korea and watch Iran with ignorance and distain. And look the other way from Israel.
I think if our actions in Iraq even succeed in removing Saddam from his throne it is going to cost a lot of Iraqi civilian lives (and of course some of ours). The rest of the Middle East will hate us even more and eventually the fervent, fanatical terrorists will increase their retaliations even more...everywhere...to piss off our allies too. America is going to be a big target for being a big pain in the ass.
Look, I want some pay back for 9|11 and I also want these whackos removed. But let's not step over the line as they have done.
Most of the Middle East (including N. Korea) is one big WOMD right now in my opinion. But so are we.
All I got...goodnight. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's amazing you packed so much bullshit into one post.
<strong>To add to the original post:
.
.
Saddam was our ally in the 1980s, when his military gassed the Kurds and executed hundreds of potential opponents, and whole bunch of other atrocities. Tnat was all fine n dandy re. Reagan and Bush 1...no problem with that stuff. Then he was cornered with his back to the wall by the Coalition, and shortly afterwards threatened by a mass revolt by his own people and a large section of his army after the Gulf war... but he never used any of his (alleged) WMD. Why not?
.
.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He didn't need to. His tanks did a very fine job without.
Sam,
I know you almost have a Kafka-esk view of your government. However, you have to look ahead past what you might think is a ?comfortable? situation today, or fear of stirring a hornets nest, or your disdain for what you think of Saddam as being portrayed for a much bigger menace than you believe him to be. Think back a little. No one took Hitler seriously. No one took Stalin seriously. And price paid was tremendous. But the price to be paid here, if we continue and let this slide, is going to be orders of magnitude greater. I know this might sound over the top, but I say this to you as someone able to see more than just one step ahead.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
:sigh:
read first, post second.....
it's like slashdot only political.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
to quote the article i linked above
[quote] Biological weapons
Anthrax
"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under Unmovic supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."<hr></blockquote>
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>
Look, just face it that you jumped the gun and read into something that wasn't there. Don't explain your way out of it with stupid rationalizations. You F-dup, own it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're not questioning how the inspectors came up with a "B"?
<strong>that would work except that to avoid material breach he has to destroy said WOMD in front of an international agency to verify said destruction.
"Either it should be found and be destroyed under Unmovic supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like it could be destroyed and just the evidence of the destruction would be enough.
correct. they have neither.
In the past when countries have complied with this order from the UN it worked like this. 1) Country throws open its doors to the UN. 2) Country leads UN teams to any and all weapons, programs and research. 3) Country destroys everything with UN looking on.
It is not a cat and mouse game between the UN and Saddam. Blix said himself that Iraq has not accounted for everything. Material Breach
In reality (I know we don?t like being realists here) there?s no hope that Saddam will give up the goods. Also there?s no hope the UN will do anything about it. The UN is in fact an irrelevant organization incapable of acting on its own resolutions. I half way think the only reason the US deals with the UN at all is to prove this very point ? QED.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
Actually, SJO, your analogy is flawed as others here have pointed out clearly enough.
The problem with the Arab world is that it oscillates between theocratic extremism and dictatorial corruption. The poor arab has only to choose between zealots or madmen. One replaces the other. That's the best case, the reality for other Arabs is that they must either join a racket (like the PLO) or warlords.
We must be careful not to perpetuate this state of affairs. The problem for us is that left to their own devices, they will certainly propogate it. With the exceptions of Isreal and Jordan (and to an extent Egypt) the whole of the middle east is incapable of responsible self government.
If we rule them, we are wrong. If we leave them be, we are wrong. Choose your evil.
<strong>
correct. they have neither.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So they wouldn't have to destroy the weapons in front of an inspector to avoid a material breach. Just clarifying.
It is not a cat and mouse game between the UN and Saddam. Blix said himself that Iraq has not accounted for everything. Material Breach<hr></blockquote>
Kofi has said himself that it is not a Material Breach.
We could go on in circles forever but it's not your decision, Bush's decision or my decision. It's the U.N.'s decision even if you don't like it.
That's the funny thing about this situation and many others like it. We have to follow the rules even if our opponents aren't. That's why the police can't bust down someone's door just to find out if they're doing something wrong.
<strong>
If we rule them, we are wrong. If we leave them be, we are wrong. Choose your evil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why are we wrong if we leave them be? The pro-war faction here tends to simplify the situation down to "Do nothing or go to war" but that's just a lie.
To leave them alone lets their hatred seep more slowly before it washes itself out. The intersect of easy access to military power and slow dissolution of hatred favors neither course, for if left alone the evidence suggests that they will learn chemical and possibly atomic lessons before they forget hatred.
This isn't a star trek episode with some libertine phantasy of non-ineterference, or mebbe post-colonial white guilt. Inaction now will pay serious consequences later, as will the wrong kind of action.
The only hope is to rule with stern beneficence for a time. We won't, and there will be horror both because of action and because of inaction. May you pay it instead of me.
<strong>
Kofi has said himself that it is not a Material Breach.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
KOFI IS WRONG! He's an appeaser. He thinks the process is the goal. The goal is disarmament. Bush nailed his (UNs) failings to the wall last night.
<strong>I didn't say go to war. To bomb them only to abandone them to their old conundrum only accelrates their mutual hatred of us and does not solve their problem or ours.
To leave them alone lets their hatred seep more slowly before it washes itself out. The intersect of easy access to military power and slow dissolution of hatred favors neither course, for if left alone the evidence suggests that they will learn chemical and possibly atomic lessons before they forget hatred.
This isn't a star trek episode with some libertine phantasy of non-ineterference, or mebbe post-colonial white guilt. Inaction now will pay serious consequences later, as will the wrong kind of action.
The only hope is to rule with stern beneficence for a time. We won't, and there will be horror both because of action and because of inaction. May you pay it instead of me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will repeat two of my favorite words. Marshall Plan. MARSHALL PLAN MARSHALL PLAN MARSHALL PLAN. Jesus-Allah-Buddha Dammit! Why can we not learn from history?
<strong>It's amazing you packed so much bullshit into one post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know? I don't care what your opinion is I actually don't care anymore about Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jews, Palestinians, North Koreans...**** them all. And **** President Bush and his clowns...Republicans and Democrats.... And I'll throw in a **** you to you scott for good measure...I count you as one of the blind lemmings of these whole bunch of idiots.
WAKE THE **** UP PEOPLE!
End of the month pms? C'mon, shake it off. You need to be stronger than that.