Well, the first two are from government agencies. Which aren't kinda what I'd call independent. The last is just a transcript from the UN hearings on the issue. I remember those. They weren't convincing then, either.

What's so unconvincing about that last one? You have a recording of them speaking freely about their programs. It would take a lot of work to fake that. Then, you would have to bribe the voice actors to not tell anybody about it. Then, they'd have to explain where the money came from. The fakery wouldn't last very long, esp. with the media poking it's nose into anything and everything that could potentially make W look bad.

Not exactly. They are clearly talking about maintaining operational security on something. Big deal. Operational security isn't illegal. Having instruction manuals that contain the words 'nerve agents' isn't illegal. Making sure you actually have scrapped the weapons you say you've scrapped seems like a prudent thing to do.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v692/shazza44/smileys/th_morningall.png)

Ah, W, you had to go and say it. I personally believe there were WMD's, but President Bush seems to have said there aren't. I found this:

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," he told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq’s first permanent, democratically elected government.

"And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that."

[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1930698,00.html]Source])

OK, what does that say? To you, it'll be an admission of guilt of a crime. To me, if he's wrong about this and I'm correct, then he knows there were WMD's and is trying to cover his tracks to keep himself out of an obvious political trap. If he's right, then he's guilty of no more than being wrong.

A little later on in the article:

"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," he said.

"It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.

Umm.... no.

We did go in originally because Saddaam didn't take our "regime change" threats seriously. And because we believed he had WMD's. W never said anything about the Iraqi people. BUT, as long as we were in Iraq, it was certainly a required thing to do, since if we hadn't pitched in, there would have been civil war.

It no longer matters what I think. W has just said there was a mistake in the intelligence. That makes what I say on the WMD matter a moot argument.

As for the Iraqi Freedom: Not the original plan, like I said, but that was a given when we decapitated their power chain. Now, the troops are being slowly pulled out of Iraq, elections are up and walking (It'll take time to be up and running), and thus the war is ending. Wow. This discussion doesn't have much time to live, does it?

When it gets right down to it, we had all kinds of reasons to go to war. WMD was reason #1, and it hasn't panned out (to the point, as StaffSaberist pointed out, that the President admitted that the intelligence was wrong). I've heard various theories about where the alleged WMD may be, if they are still around somewhere (everything from being burried somewhere in the Iraqi desert to being hidden in Syria, both of which are plausible yet unproven and therefore not really worth arguing over). However, there were other reasons:

-Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for around 12 years, and the resolution just prior to the war threatened the use of force...so, really, the US backed up the UN's resolution when Iraq started monkeying around with the weapons inspections. The fact that the UN Security Council refused to authorize military action isn't really indicative of anything positive on the UN's part, or anything negative on the part of President Bush - the Oil for Food investigation and other evidence has shown that some of the main opposition to the war from the Security Council had financial interests in Iraq, in violation of UN sanctions.

-Saddam was supporting terrorism. Documents obtained after the invasion of Iraq show that around 8,000 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp) terrorists were trained in Iraqi training camps between 1999 and 2002 (at a rate of about 2,000 per year). This information has been gleaned from a collection of around 5 million 'exploitable items' - documents and so forth, about 2.5% of which have been examined closely.

-Saddam's regime terrorized its own people. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, another mass grave (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/27/uiraq.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/27/ixportaltop.html) was unearthed, this one in Kerbala (there have been other mass graves discovered in other areas). US forces have also found evidence (some cases of which have been brought up in testimony in Saddam's trial) of Iraqis being abducted and tortured, people being executed by inserting them into wood-chippers, and other gruesome acts.

I could probably go on, but I don't have time right now...and frankly, I think these reasons are more than enough.

Hey, nice to see you, rccar! I'm not going to waste thread space by saying "I agree" "Right on", etc. You already know I agree. Let me just say a few things.

About the first link: It may seem a little biased, but the same reporter has covered stories that don't shed very good light on the President's administration, like here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/check.asp?idArticle=6345&r=qrbbj). So he doesn't just support the President blindly. This fact adds weight to the first story, making it more plausible.

About the second link: Even if your second link was complete fiction, which it's not, there are tons of mass graves across Iraq, and we already knew he terrorized his people. ShadowTemplar has said as much:

Hussein was a git, to be sure...

So sadly, no new info there other than applying it to 'Why going into Iraq was a good thing'.

As for the WMD's, I don't care what W says. IMO he said there were no WMD's because it saves face, rather than saying "But they were right here! They... unh! They were there, but they're gone!" Both strategies cause a dip in his approval rating, but the latter does much more damage than the former.

So! Here's my take on this. rccar was right when he said

I've heard various theories about where the alleged WMD may be, if they are still around somewhere (everything from being burried somewhere in the Iraqi desert to being hidden in Syria, both of which are plausible yet unproven and therefore not really worth arguing over).

Of course, I won't argue about where they are. If I knew, I'd be getting a new job... like CIA director. Or proven-to-be-true psychic. But since I'm not psychic, all I can say is that I believe they are still out there. They were moved. Saddaam may have been evil, but certainly not the kind of stupid criminal you hear about from Jay Leno on the Tonight Show. He knew the UN was watching him. A sudden stockpile of WMDs would have gotten even the UN to go into Iraq. But no, no, Saddaam isn't foolish. If he had at least 3/4 of a brain, he'd ship them off to a secret bunker, or a series of them. He can't use them because he's in prison. Everyone else who knew about them may be dead, such as Saddaam's sons.

I'd go on, but I'll save it for later. I'm having a bit of fun, here. :D

Except it'd be impossible to hide the weapons, considering all the eyes watching. It's kind of hard to miss a nuclear warhead, especially the kinds Iraq would/could have/afford.

Also your points about America's health issues are disgustingly wrong. I suggest you learn about a topic before you try to bull**** your way through it.

As for Guantanamo Bay, I don't know what kind of crap you've been told, but they hardly recieve adequate care. And considering the majority of the people being held there are only suspected of possible connections I think there's something quite wrong. As for quality of food and care, again, I don't know what you've been told, but it's obviously not the truth if you wish you got the food they get.

And you mention something about "how would I know they don't have a warrant". If you knew anything about law (which you should be learning in school) you'd know that when police raid your house/business/etc. they are to present the warrant immediately. So chances are if they just bust in and start shooting, they don't have a warrant.

Your second part was "isn't that a concern for my attorney", you neglect the fact that they aren't allowed an attorney.

About the first link: It may seem a little biased, but the same reporter has covered stories that don't shed very good light on the President's administration, like here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/check.asp?idArticle=6345&r=qrbbj). So he doesn't just support the President blindly. This fact adds weight to the first story, making it more plausible.

I'm hesitant to trust the Neo-Con Standard Weekly Standard, which seems to site its source for the article as nothing more than "some Bush Admin dudes," over that of other sources. The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all denied a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Remember, Saddam and Osama are bitter enemies, so this idea that Saddam, a secularist, would be helping out Osama, his enemy, to promote the most radical elements of islam, just doesn't make sense to me.

Except it'd be impossible to hide the weapons, considering all the eyes watching. It's kind of hard to miss a nuclear warhead, especially the kinds Iraq would/could have/afford.

The UN believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. They even told Saddam if he didn't cooperate, a regime change was in order. The only problem was the UN didn't have the *ahem* to back up their words. We did.

Also your points about America's health issues are disgustingly wrong. I suggest you learn about a topic before you try to bull**** your way through it.

You're probably right. I don't know all that much about the health care system. The comments on health care caught me by surprise, and I had to scramble on that one. So yeah, I did BS my way through parts of it. But I'm not kidding about the fact that most or all of Americans who have health care earned it. They didn't just laze around waiting for the liberals to take pity. If they're handicapped and can't work, that's one thing. But my beef is with those who don't work for it.

And healthcare isn't the topic, is it?

As for Guantanamo Bay, I don't know what kind of crap you've been told, but they hardly recieve adequate care. And considering the majority of the people being held there are only suspected of possible connections I think there's something quite wrong. As for quality of food and care, again, I don't know what you've been told, but it's obviously not the truth if you wish you got the food they get.

You could have said just as much without the flamebait. But I'm not foolish enough to attack a super moderator. I'll simply say this: The prisoners may not be treated like royalty, and there were a few cases of a Abu Grahib repeat, but those responsible for it were tried in court and convicted, IIRC. They are not cruelly treated or denied life-giving resources. I read through most of the sites that claim cruel treatment. They come across as whiners who want to ensure that we walk on cracked eggs and don't go so far as to hurt their feelings. Probably because if they did go to Guantanamo, they were intimidated by the looks they were given by prisoners.

Oh, and the food at our local schools is crap. I've seen people gag on it. OK, here's the list of what is served what at Guantanamo. I agree it's no gormet meal or cuisine, but it certainly is enough to sustain life. If you think otherwise, you don't know what it's like to be dirt-poor.

Breakfast - typically bread, cream cheese, an orange, a pastry, a roll, a bottle of water

Lunch - typically a box of cereal, two cereal bars, a packet of peanuts, one packet crisps, one packet raisins, a bottle of water

Evening meal - typically white rice, red beans, a banana, bread, a bottle of water.

Again, no I wouldn't prefer this feeding regiment. But it can sustain life, you can live of less if need be. And in all prisons, some detained are innocent and released when they are found Not Guilty. People accused of grand theft auto, for example, spend time in jail even if found innocent later, because they may be a flight risk. The Army doesn't go around arresting people all willy-nilly.

And you mention something about "how would I know they don't have a warrant". If you knew anything about law (which you should be learning in school) you'd know that when police raid your house/business/etc. they are to present the warrant immediately. So chances are if they just bust in and start shooting, they don't have a warrant.

If I was the next-door neighbor, chances are that I wouldn't be able to see inside and see the action. If the cops bust in and the suspect is armed and pointing the gun at the cops, hell yeah they'd shoot. That's their job if it comes down to his-life-or-yours. And cops do bust down doors to arrest people that are known to have guns. That way they are startled and don't have time to arm themselves. So if I saw that happen, it could be police brutality to the extreme, but it could just as easily be an armed suspect.

Your second part was "isn't that a concern for my attorney", you neglect the fact that they aren't allowed an attorney.

In Guantanamo, no. But in the example, yes. Oh, BTW, I'm not going to law school, FYI. I'm no lawyer.

I'm hesitant to trust the Neo-Con Standard Weekly Standard, which seems to site its source for the article as nothing more than "some Bush Admin dudes," over that of other sources. The National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all denied a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Remember, Saddam and Osama are bitter enemies, so this idea that Saddam, a secularist, would be helping out Osama, his enemy, to promote the most radical elements of islam, just doesn't make sense to me.

When I said it added weight, I didn't mean it was the only article that mattered. I know it isn't all that great for a source, but it does assist a little in making a point. It's like a pistol is good at firing, but an AK-47 (such as using three different sources) gets the job done better.

The UN believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. They even told Saddam if he didn't cooperate, a regime change was in order. The only problem was the UN didn't have the *ahem* to back up their words. We did.


This seems to be a very common misconception.

The UN believed that the Weapons inspections were working to prevent the Iraqis from producing WMDs, thats why they wanted to continue them.

The weapons inspectors believed that they were doing their job, and should be allowed to continue. Though the CIA undermining their mission didn't help.

The only evidence that there was that saddam did have WMDs came from the US intelligence agencies, and that has since been proven to be horrendously researched, badly over-inflated and based purely on ancedotal evidence from anti-saddam people who had a vested interest in getting him removed.

Even then, the WMDs that were talked about were battlefield WMDs that might be deployed against invading troops (ie defensive) not ones that could be deployed against anyone on foreign soil. And since not a single one was actually used for defense its pretty certain even those didn't exist.

The UN was (rather sensibly imho) reluctant to support unilateral first strikes against any country that we might SUSPECT was doing something wrong. This has subsequently been proven fairly sensible since it turns out all the "evidence" the CIA had was wrong anyway.

Going to war to remove saddam might have been justified on human rights grounds, but on the grounds given it was entirely ensible for the UN to resist such a unilateral strike... and entirely illegal for the US and UK to go ahead anyway and undermine the UN in the process.

PS/ If, after 4 years imprisonment and questioning, the US still doesn't have the confidence that it has enough evidence to hold the men and children in guantanamo through a proper legal system, it should let them go. What use is a constitution, human rights and a legal system if it can be bypassed by geographical loopholes? ANd how can the US now hold the high ground when pressing for better human rights in other countries, when they can point at guantanamo?

This is a pretty standard line, I guess - if a news agency comes out with a story that refutes your argument, bring its credibility into question...on the other hand, if the story helps your argument, it doesn't matter how un-credible it is, because in that case, it's not the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge that matters (Rathergate comes to mind...). If that source isn't up to par for you, check out the book 'Disinformation' by Richard Minter (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260069/qid=1137102827/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5364368-2040711?n=507846&s=books&v=glance). You might learn a thing or two (I did when I read it...).

As to the argument about buried WMD...US military forces have found MIG-25 fighter jets (reportedly over 30 of them) buried in the Iraqi desert (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/a/1/att13761_sm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mig_buried_iraq2.htm&h=301&w=400&sz=24&tbnid=ay1C2pOmh54J:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DIraq%2Bburied%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%) 26lr%3D%26sa%3DN). If they can hide fighter jets under the sand, who's to say they couldn't hide missiles, or even chemical or biological weapons agents, which take up far less space than jets or missiles? I wasn't saying it was definite, but it is undeniably a possibility.
http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/a/1/att13761_sm.jpg)
http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/b/1/att13762_sm.jpg)
http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/d/1/att13764_sm.jpg)

There is also the possibility that the weapons were hidden in Syria. I've heard reports (though I don't know how accurate they are) that Syria has agreed to hide WMD for Iran in exchange for Iran's granting assylum to some Syrians implicated in the murder of the Lebanese PM (Source (http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20671)). If they're willing to do it for Iran, who's to say they didn't already for Iraq?

But all of that aside, the purpose of the weapons inspections wasn't to keep the Iraqis from producing weapons, it was to see if the Iraqi government had disposed of the weapons we knew they had after the Gulf War. The last UN resolution on the topic (UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf)) told Iraq that they were non-compliant to past resolutions, and if they didn't comply fully, both through forclosure of any and all documents relating to their chemical/bio weapons projects, as well as providing "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates," they would "face serious consequences" (and on a side note: 'more inspections,' 'more sanctions,' and 'pay Saddam off with the Oil-For-Food program' do not count as "serious consequences").

To start off with, Saddam tried to bury the UN in paperwork by dumping thousands of documents on them, only some of which related to actual weapons programs. Then, they started monkeying around with the inspections process, both by insisting that 'minders' be present at the interviews with inspectors, and by denying access to areas the inspectors wanted to inspect for periods of time, giving the express impression that they were hiding something in those locations.

Basically, Iraq decided they were going to give the UN the finger (yet again), because the UN has proven they don't have the stomach to back up their resolutions with force (there are 9 violated resolutions that I counted listed in Res. 1441, dating back to 1990), and the UN decided they were going to let Iraq get away with it. In Res. 1441, the Security Council reminds Saddam that they have warned Iraq it will 'face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,' yet Saddam obviously hadn't faced any serious consequences - after all, while the UNSC was shaking its finger at Saddam with one hand, the other hand was making Saddam richer with the Oil-For-Food program. The US and the UK could hardly undermine the UN by going to war with Iraq (besides the fact that it's impossible two nations to make a unilateral strike...and we had and have many more than two nations on our side). The UN was undermining itself by not enforcing its resolutions. If anything, the US gave the UN legitimacy...which the UN then outright refused by speaking out against the invasion, proving the whole organization is nothing but a sham and all of their resolutions are nothing but the world's biggest joke.

This is a pretty standard line, I guess - if a news agency comes out with a story that refutes your argument, bring its credibility into question...

Well, okay, but the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all say there's no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. A neo-con magazine that says there is a link doesn't override the claims of official sources.

No, but rccar just made my day. I'm not going to even bother with debating today, he really brought up points that are fantastic, and proven. And trust me, if I knew about the planes hidden in the sands I'd have brought it up long ago. Anyone can look back on my discussion of 'where the WMDs are' and they'd see that that was an appropriate place to bring this up. But I honest-to-God didn't know that. http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/209114.gif), rccar!

When it gets right down to it, we had all kinds of reasons to go to war. WMD was reason #1, and it hasn't panned out (to the point, as StaffSaberist pointed out, that the President admitted that the intelligence was wrong). I've heard various theories about where the alleged WMD may be, if they are still around somewhere (everything from being burried somewhere in the Iraqi desert to being hidden in Syria, both of which are plausible yet unproven and therefore not really worth arguing over). However, there were other reasons:

The main reason they're not worth arguing over is that science should have been enough to tell us that the alleged "WMDs" (a broad and worthless term by itself) were nonexistent. See previous posts in previous threads by me to see why.

-Saddam had been violating UN resolutions for around 12 years, and the resolution just prior to the war threatened the use of force...

Which made it a UN problem, not a United States one. One which the UN believed it was acting on with sanctions and inspections, which were working in the opinions of those that were responsible for oversight. Moreover, the United States and Israel have violated numerous UN resolutions: therefore the "UN resolution" argument is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that we invade a sovereign nation because they are a violator of UN resolution any more than it follows that we invade every nation that whose head of state is a dictator/despot.

...the Oil for Food investigation and other evidence has shown that some of the main opposition to the war from the Security Council had financial interests in Iraq, in violation of UN sanctions.

No it didn't. It demonstrated that a few individuals had financial interests in Iraqi oil, but not the Security Council itself. To state such nonsense is evidence of ignorance or deception. Of course, if you can source that claim -demonstrate that it was the Security Council itself that was benefiting from the corruption that exists in the "Oil for Food" scandal, I'll freely retract my accusation of ignorance or deception.

But with regard to oil and corruption, it is clear that the United States interest in Iraq was, indeed, oil and the prevention of Iraqi oil being introduced in the European market, which in turn, would have prompted OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro in it's currency of choice. In short, the war was about oil.

-Saddam was supporting terrorism. Documents obtained after the invasion of Iraq show that around 8,000 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp) terrorists were trained in Iraqi training camps between 1999 and 2002 (at a rate of about 2,000 per year). This information has been gleaned from a collection of around 5 million 'exploitable items' - documents and so forth, about 2.5% of which have been examined closely.

Which, number one, is completely unverified information. The author of that article cited no sources except to say that they were "documents retrieved." Where are the documents? If they're this convincing, why has the Bush regime not revealed them as evidence to support his claim that Iraq is a war on terrorism? Even if they're top secret, yada yada yada, surely the President could state that there is epigraphical evidence to support his wild claim. Indeed, if they are super-dooper secret, a hack like Hayes wouldn't have been privy to them. In other words, this is poppycock being promoted by the radical right that wishes to ensure the moderate right buys into the illogical nonsense that this is a war on terror. That untold billions of their tax-dollars aren't being wasted in a war for oil.

-Saddam's regime terrorized its own people.

So did the governments of Korea, Uganda, Sudan, Chechnya, etc. What's your point? Oh, the "we must attack the despot" non sequitur, eh?

I could probably go on,

Doubtlessly. In spite of the lack of evidence or logic, there are those that are inclined to believe in all sorts of wierd things. ESP, telepathy, Miss Cleo, UFOs, alien abductions, ghosts, spontaneous human combustion, the validity of the war in iraq, chupacabras, crop circles, that the hollocaust was a hoax, that the moon landing was a hoax, etc., etc.

If they can hide fighter jets under the sand, who's to say they couldn't hide missiles, or even chemical or biological weapons agents

Science. The shelf life of these weapons is very, very limited and storage must be strictly controlled. It requires power to maintain climate and even then the shelf life is still limited though can be prolonged a few years. Science tells us that the chemicals and biologicals in question would have been long rendered inert by time even before the invasion. But we all understand that the Bush regime is disinterested in science, as is this regime's supporters.

This is all characteristic of people who have pre-conceived conclusions and seek only the data, however incomplete or wrong, to support their conclusions.

Well, okay, but the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 9/11 Commission all say there's no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. A neo-con magazine that says there is a link doesn't override the claims of official sources.
For clarification's sake, re-read the article. It does speak explicitly of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Al-Qaida, however, is never brought up. Maybe the Weekly Standard has more credibility than you thought: there was no proof that they were specifically Al-Qaida training camps, so they didn't assert that they were. It does say that "intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis."

Try reading the article next time instead of judging it purely on who wrote it...

Reading the article is a waste of time. There are no primary sources cited. There is no validity to the material.

It's highly doubtful that any of those planes would ever fly again. They're scrap.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3116259.stm)
It would most likely take a complete strip-down and re-build of all those planes before any pilot would ever think about getting anywhere near one of those fighters. It would take months and millions in parts and labor of a highly skilled maintenance crew to ever hope of getting them operational again. Frankly, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just buy a new air force.

Desert sand is one of the most harmful things you can ever expose high tech mechanical systems to,.. perhaps short of leaving them submerged in salt water for an extended length of time.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/AAR.htm)

Any theoretical missile and rocket systems Iraq might have had buried in the desert would very likely fare little better. It might be easier to protect a rocket or missile from sand getting near it, but special care would need to be taken in the burying and extracting processes.

... proving the whole organization is nothing but a sham and all of their resolutions are nothing but the world's biggest joke.
OK,.. but what exactly is the better alternative, pray tell?
Perhaps a bunch of unconnected nation states trying to work out their differences without any kind of international moderation, having to resort to hair trigger military posturing to solve every dispute? Or perhaps forced global hegemony under a power bloc lead by whoever proves themselves biggest and strongest on the world stage?
If we were to disband the U.N. as a failed experiment, what would you propose we replace it with? Or is it just to be "every nation for themselves?"

For clarification's sake, re-read the article. It does speak explicitly of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Al-Qaida, however, is never brought up. Maybe the Weekly Standard has more credibility than you thought: there was no proof that they were specifically Al-Qaida training camps, so they didn't assert that they were. It does say that "intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis."

Try reading the article next time instead of judging it purely on who wrote it...

I did read it, and found these references to al-Qaeda:

"Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda..."

"Speaking of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group that operated in northern Iraq..."

And that doesn't include the numerous references to 9/11 terrorist training in Iraq, which would also tie in al-Qaeda.

I apologize: my scanning skills aren't that great. I probably should've worn my glasses...

But my inability to pick one word out of almost 3,500 (or 3 words, as it was repeated...) aside, terrorist groups with ties to al-Qaida are not al-Qaida themselves - whether the article mentions al-Qaida or not, it never directly links al-Qaida to Iraq. Furthermore, the article doesn't go to any great lengths to link Iraq and 9/11. This was the only reference I could find:
"Spanish investigators believe that Ghasoub Ghalyoun, the man they have accused of conducting surveillance for the 9/11 attacks, who also has roots in the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, was trained in an Iraqi terrorist camp in the early 1980s. Ghalyoun mentions this Iraqi training in a 2001 letter to the head of Syrian intelligence, in which he seeks reentry to Syria despite his long affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood."

All it says is that one terrorist whom Spanish investigators believe (but don't know) was involved in 9/11 was trained in Iraq...hardly a 'smoking gun' type assertion.



And on the topic of the buried fighter jets, from that BBC article:
"Our guys have found 30-something brand new aircraft buried in the sand to deny us access to them," said Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Porter Goss.

If they buried the MIGs to 'deny us access to them', who's to say they wouldn't bury chemical or bio agents (or the remnants of them) for the same reason? Regardless of whether or not the original documented chemical or biological agents were still viable or not (and if they were in carefully controlled storage, or if Iraq had developed new agents), they still could have buried them to hide the evidence, and even if the agents were no longer viable, there still would have been some evidence of their existence that Saddam would have wanted to hide.

But I'm not going to argue WMD anymore...there's little point to it, considering that we've invaded, and Saddam is out (though I think I've said that before...).

With all the intelligence gathering on Iraq in the build-up to invasion, it's a bit hard for me to imagine that we might have missed a convoy of trucks driving from all the WMD depots we had tagged out to the desert where there were backhoes and bulldozers waiting. If they had chemical and biological weapons in the quantities that we were told they had, it couldn't have been that small or quick an operation, especially when you consider the products we are talking about and the care people moving them would have had to take.
(I suppose anything's possible, but I have to suspect activity like that would have been noted by the satellites or flyovers. I've no doubt that we had almost every inch of that country mapped out in detail long before the full force was gathered in the Gulf. I'm also positive that we had those WMD locations we were so sure about monitored 24-7 in the months we were building up our forces.)

And how come nobody has come forward to show our troops where they are? Some of the people involved in that operation have to still be around, and they can't all be insurgents. Or if they all are, why haven't they dredged some of them up and tried to use them on our troops yet?

Also, the biggest thing that has been bugging me since this whole thing started: If Saddam had WMDs at the time of our invasion that he intended to use to kill Americans, why didn't he use them when the Americans started to set foot on his soil? Seems to me the perfect opportunity.

Also, the biggest thing that has been bugging me since this whole thing started: If Saddam had WMDs at the time of our invasion that he intended to use to kill Americans, why didn't he use them when the Americans started to set foot on his soil? Seems to me the perfect opportunity.I think it would have done more damage to his cause to use them - even if he had, do you think it would have saved his country? I don't think he's that stupid.

Right now, America is the major player in the 'war vs terror'. If he had used WMDs, he would have proven that America was right, and the other countries would have no excuse not to join in...

Ah... but that goes against all the arguments made in the build-up to the war about how Saddam had no qualms about using WMD against Iran as well as against his own people. That he was a total madman willing to kill thousands without a thought. If he hated America as much as we were led to believe, then attacking us should have been totally in his character. He was already considered by us then to be a war criminal, what did he really have to lose? I don't think he would have cared what other countries would have thought, if he could have been seen giving the U.S. forces a real fight, and then go out as a martyr as he goes down with his country. He would have become a hero in the radical parts of the Arab world, if nothing else.

The second American troops began arriving in the Gulf in real numbers, I've no doubt that he realized at that point that his country was lost already.

I was surprised as anyone when we got into Baghdad as easily as we did. I fully expected him to fight back with the very weapons we were going in after him for having. When it didn't happen I seriously began to doubt the reasons we were all given to be over there in the first place. And when no trace of any real evidence ever turned up after being there for months searching every nook and cranny, I truly began to believe that we had all been deceived by someone, somewhere.

Ah... but that goes against all the arguments made in the build-up to the war about how Saddam had no qualms about using WMD against Iran as well as against his own people. That he was a total madman willing to kill thousands without a thought. If he hated America as much as we were led to believe, then attacking us should have been totally in his character. While I don't think that Saddam really *believes* Islam, I do think he understands its value as a tool to control people. If he made America right, even one time, it would have undermined his arguments about how evil we are. While it probably wouldn't have mattered to the fanatics, it would likely have made more ordinary people question why they were supporting insurgents after the invasion (which have cost us more deaths and wounded than the invasion itself, I might add).

About terrorists though - here are some 'cartoons (http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=146#)') from Iran. I can't express in words how absolutely abhorrent these are, and I only watched half of the middle one. Little wonder that there are more fanatics coming into Iraq. Iran's president-elect's statements (http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=782) are not helpful either.

I was surprised as anyone when we got into Baghdad as easily as we did. I fully expected him to fight back with the very weapons we were going in after him for having. When it didn't happen I seriously began to doubt the reasons we were all given to be over there in the first place. And when no trace of any real evidence ever turned up after being there for months searching every nook and cranny, I truly began to believe that we had all been deceived by someone, somewhere.I don't think there's much belief required on that one. You'd have to believe we weren't (or at least suffered some really abysmal intel problems). :)

It's highly doubtful that any of those planes would ever fly again. They're scrap.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3116259.stm)
It would most likely take a complete strip-down and re-build of all those planes before any pilot would ever think about getting anywhere near one of those fighters. It would take months and millions in parts and labor of a highly skilled maintenance crew to ever hope of getting them operational again. Frankly, it would probably be cheaper and easier to just buy a new air force.

Desert sand is one of the most harmful things you can ever expose high tech mechanical systems to,.. perhaps short of leaving them submerged in salt water for an extended length of time.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...rt/1995/AAR.htm)

Any theoretical missile and rocket systems Iraq might have had buried in the desert would very likely fare little better. It might be easier to protect a rocket or missile from sand getting near it, but special care would need to be taken in the burying and extracting processes.

But what if the intent wasn't to use them, but to hide them, as I've been saying? If we find planes, even scrap planes, then maybe we'll find something else in the sands, as rccar pointed out.

It's not that hard to get rid of some jets. Could just burn them... or sell them to the UN. Either way, no one's going to find them again.

I mean WMD's. They could be buried in the sands. These planes sure as hell were.

I mean WMD's.

In that case, my post still stands, minus the burn them part.

What would you expect to find? What would be the point of hiding Vx, Sarin, or anthrax if it would be rendered useless and inert in a matter of months?

Again, let me reiterate. The justifications for the invasion of Iraq are merely poorly constructed arguments in support of a preconceived conclusion. The conclusion is that it was right to invade a sovereign nation, kill thousands on both sides, permanently crippling thousands more -many children. The justifications are all poppycock. Non sequiturs. Conclusions in search of data rather than the other, logical, way around.

What would you expect to find? What would be the point of hiding Vx, Sarin, or anthrax if it would be rendered useless and inert in a matter of months?

Preventing us from finding it.

And our reason for going to war is hardly a non sequitur. Of course, the only logical way to refute that WMDs were in Iraq is to say every dingle one of my and rccar's sources are non-reputable. I really don't want to do it, but I can easily rip through your and ShadowTemplar's sources as well. See, this thread is deteriorating, rapidly, because now it boils down to us ripping at each other's sources. And a lot of 'How can you not see how obviously I'm right?' from both sides. I tire of this. I'm going on a two-day vacation from politics. See ya 'round.

I am certain the Saddam Hussein, though his sons are dead, his palaces destroyed, he had to live in a hole in the ground for I dont know how long until he was captured by his greatest enemy, lost his country, was forced to stand trial, and may end up being executed for all we know, still takes great solace in the fact that we never found his WMD's! Take THAT America! He really showed us I guess.

I've yet to see a reason for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq that didn't boil down to a non sequitur.

Except protecting the dollar hegemony and preventing the Iraqi oil from causing OPEC to switch to the euro for its primary currency.

No WMD's (whatever they are)... science demonstrated long before the war these were gone.
No terrorism. No evidence to support the wild claim.
No need to remove a dictator (when there are plenty more just as bad or worse).

What else? What other after-the-fact-justification can the illogical supporting base of right-wing politics devise to say why we went to war? Let us not forget the reason was the alleged existence of so-called WMDs. The President's henchmen used the term "mushroom cloud" in media outlets all to willing to print and air their lies and deceit.

It was all poppycock. It still is. We abandoned the War on Terror and pursued a waste of time, money and political capital by invading Iraq.

Finally, as a matter of point, I welcome, even encourage, criticism and skeptical comment on any source I cite. If found to be invalid or questionable, I would update or retract it. I tend to use primary sources or at least secondary sources that actually cite primary sources, however. Not vague articles by radicals who appear to invent stories to support conclusions they want their readers to believe in.

Iraq did have WMD's, not long after the Gulf War. But I am not stupid enough to just say that.

That's not in dispute.

You see, I happen to have a triple-digit IQ,

Never meant to suggest you didn't. You just read the wrong newspapers and watch the wrong TV stations.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

Either Billy Boy is being Quote Mined (something I wouldn't put beyond the Weakly Standard) or he's talking out of his arse. Either way, there's no way those weapons could have remained functional by the time he left the West Wing.

And most of what everyone knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with this or any other government's intelligence collection and analysis. [...] Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.

Funny that. Our PM was royally grilled in Parliament over that issue. Wonder why he didn't bring up those admissions. Wonder, for that matter, why Mr. Powell didn't bring them up before the UN. Mayhaps because those admissions are (c) Weakly Standard.

And guess what? There's an entire second page to this. Find the second page here. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp?pg=2) Read to your heart's content. It's too long for me to go over it all on this post. But I've covered Page I, and Page II is linked. I believe this should explain it to you.

The article has already been covered as extensively as its questionable pedigree justifies.

I will not answer this directly. Instead, I will ask you to direct your comments of that type to the families of the 3,000 dead.

Gladly. I'd positively love to ask them why they think W is going after Al Qaida rather than the Ku Klux Klan, when the KKK murder far more Americans than Al Qaida.

Low does not equal nonexistant. Going to war with every single nation that harbors terrorists is the wrong way to go. But at the very least, we should take steps to prevent 9/11 from recurring. They don't have to be tight as hell. They just have to be there.

So, you're against nuclear power too?

[WMD] was our original reason, what of it?

Weeell, just the tiny little fact that W and co. have been backpedaling from that very statement ever since 2003.

But using the same effort towards providing clean fresh water for everyone would save upwards [of] 3 million. Every single year.
I have no problem with that, so long as we aren't providing services knowingly to the terrorists. Other than that, fine. But who's to say both cannot be done?

I'm not saying that both cannot be done. I am specifically saying that the 'war on terror' is a bogus witch-hunt that's wasting resources and curtailing essential liberties, but hey if that's how you want to spend your time and money on your side of the Pond, who am I to tell you no? I simply submit that it seems to show a rather - ah - peculiar sense of priorities to engage in bogus witch-hunts and other fun pastimes while simultaniously leaving the parts of the world most in need of intervention - military, economic, and political - out to dry.

The US cannot be responsible for all the world's water, it must be a worldwide effort.

Nobody disputes that.

We can provide security for America and help with the water services.

I most certainly agree. I just wondered why you aren't doing it.

Military strength has no bearing on vulnerability to terrorism.
It has bearing on our ability to stop it. So yes, it does.

Really. The British, the French, and the Germans (and the Spanish and the Turks, now that I think about it) have really awful track records trying to use military force to prevent or stop terrorism. What makes you think that the US can do better?

Do you commonly experience [deaths from air and water pollution]? Because it is far from a common thing in the US, esp. since people would sue over it for more than it costs to clean up the water system.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html#data_usa)

Item #4 is respiratory problems. While it is of course hard to quantify the contribution from air pollution, it is a major issue in congested, smog-infested cities.

The other 94.4% didn't get health insurance handed to them on a silver platter.

That's "[t]he other 84.4 %" by my math. And in fact the effective number is somewhat lower, because the 15.6 % is a snapshot of any given time - the lack of insurance cycles between individuals, so the lack of a proper, government-funded health care system affects maybe twice as many people.

They work at jobs that pay well enough to afford it or jobs that grant such benefits. And then they work at the company.

Your point?

Also, how many of the 15.6% of people are freeloaders that can't for some reason haul @$$ enough to work?

You seem to be missing a point here. You can get substantially cheaper and much better health care by letting the government handle it and distributing it universally throughout society. You also get a much more stable and equitable society. So even assuming that - say - a quarter of those without social security in the US are good-for-nothing freeloaders, the people who work for their health care would still save money on the deal.

If they want coverage so bad, they can earn it the way the rest of us do.

Except that they can't when their job's in India. And thanks to the fact that American education is just as unequally distributed as American health care, there's a substantial chance that they can't even educate themselves out of the hole.

In fact it would be both cheaper and more efficient than what you have. If you raise taxes for the income brackets that pay health insurance, they would get better health care for less increase in taxes than what they'd save in insureance.
Or, as I said, they can get a job that provides/allows you to afford health insurance.

You're not paying attention here. The people who are ensured today would get cheaper and better healthcare in a universal, government-funded system. Is your dislike for providing a tiny minority of 'free-loaders' with services they don't deserve powerful enough to deter you from embracing a system that benefits everyone including yourself?

I hate to burst your bubble, but every thing costs money. Our economy isn't in the best of shape. It is turning around, but we seriously can't afford to just give away healthcare.

Actually, if you reinstated the taxes that W removed from the top 1 % income brackets and channeled the money to improving healthcare, you'd get a faster recovery. Y'see tax-and-spend policies are good for the economy.

Illegal immigrants cost California alone $10.5 billion a year as is. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm)

Which is how big a percentage of their GDP?

Maybe [the thought of]getting a cruise missile dropping in for an unscheduled dinner party [caused Husseins security to bar inspectors from the presidential palaces].A well-deserved cruise, no less.

I'm sure that many people would say the same thing about Bush. Personally, I find it a distasteful pastime to assassinate heads of state, no matter how big arseholes they are. Legally, it's messy. Diplomatically, it's messy. And it invites retaliation.

That and because you can't PanzerBlitz a mountain range.But it can be bombed...

Not really. You have to be able to see the enemy before you can shoot them. And if you doubt that lightly armed infantry can harm fully equipped American forces with panzer support and air cover, I suggest you read up on what the Finns did to the Russians in the Winter War.

Oh, I KNOW that Blix switcherooed on us, a total betrayal in the UN.

In which way could his actions possibly have been construed as betrayal? He was an expert called in to give his expert opinion - and he did exactly that. The expert opinion happened to not conform to the American regime's desires, but that can hardly be Blix's fault. After all, it's hard for an honest expert opinion to conform to accusations created out of whole cloth.

But that is still one man's opinion.

Nope. As it happens, it was and is the opinion of every single inspector from non-US countries. Every. Single. One.

And regardless of that, Blix was the one who had to make the call. A judge's decision is also just 'one man's decision', but that doesn't make it any less binding. You could have appealed the decision had you wanted to. But you decided to resort to vigilante 'justice'. And the result - predictably - was that you invaded a country that posed no threat, had no WMD, harbored no terrorists, and trained no terrorists. That's what happens when you ignore expert advice.

Less to do with the fact that I don't like the Democrats. I just don't like the - uh - political climate in the US. Specifically I have a problem with mister Carl 'Scooter Libby' Rove.
What I meant by "trash heap". The majority of Democrats don't even support this nonsense, but the politicians don't care so long as they get their paycheck. Heh. I'll argue for free.

Eer, Carl 'Scooter Libby' Rove is W's spin doctor and a central figure in the neo-con wing of the Republican Party. He also happens to be a lying, fradulent, traitorous hypocrite, but I guess that's inevitable given the political company he keeps.

Seriously, these people will get their day in trial. The fact that it will take longer is because there are so many of them, and so few judges.

Oh. Pray tell, why hasn't there been a single public trial of an inmate at Guantanamo? Surely even shortage of judges - which by the way is the lamest excuse I've yet heard, as if a country of .3 billion people isn't able to find a couple of hundred qualified judges to take the cases (unless the qualifications are political - in which case it might be a mite harder. Fortunately the majority of the US legal system isn't prepared to countenance outright dictatorship - yet) - shouldn't be an insurmountable task. They have been sitting there for four and a half years by now. They could almost have taken a Master of Science in that time. Hell, they could have taken a Master in Law and held trial over each other.

It takes a long time to ensure that these trials are absolutely fair. Remember these are war crimes. You have to make sure the witnesses can safely talk, the judges won't be assassinated, so much to do for just one trial.

Bull****. If - and that's a big if - any of them had committed war crimes, it's the Haag's job to arrange the trials. Not some cowboy country with a bent on unilateral action. How long did it take for the trial of Milosevic to begin? Surely he's a much bigger fish than any of the people you're holding at Guantanamo.

And, finally, there's the central principle in all civilised countries that if you can't arrange a trial within a reasonable time frame - and 4Ѕ yrs is anything but reasonable - the accused walks. Period. End of story. No matter how big an ******* he is.

Alleged ['black' CIA flights], perhaps. Time will tell if this is accurate.

Indeed. Time will tell. And when the 'smoking gun' is found, there will be repercussions. Severe repercussions. Hopefully Poland will get it's fundamentalist ass chucked straight out of the EU over this.

And don't give me any "it was Bush" crap, either. Someone had to tell the guy to pull the switch, instead of reporting it, if it was actually Bush.

By that logic Saddam Hussein isn't responsible for the use his armed forces made of WMD before the second Gulf War.

[T]he Satanic Verses isn't a book about satanism. It's a novel. Written by Salman Rushdie. You do know Rushdie, right? Not his best from what I've heard. But the Ayatollahs in Tehran wanted it banned.
The fact that I do not recognize one book is completely irrelevant to this. But you know my religion, and you will understand why I wouldn't pick it up if I saw it in the library. And that has no bearing on my intelligence, either.

I give up. It simply speaks volumes of your contact with the rest of the world that you've never even heard of the book - or the author. It is, after all one of the best-known books in the world, by possibly the best-known living author in the world. Surely the name Salman Rushdie ought to ring a bell, even with Americans?

And what if he was registered on a political forum and you said that to his face? Your post there would be discounted as a flame. Which it is.

Nope. It's hyperbole. While you're certainly right that he is smarter than your average rock, he wouldn't be holding any candles to your average retard.

You are free to say [Bush] is a liar, wrong, and a maker of mistakes

You forgot hypocrite, traitor, fascist, neo-barbarian, fundamentalist, and war-criminal.

THE MEDIA: Ha! That's a laugh. You actually think the media even supports the government? It is quite ready to blast minor failures across the nation, but Fox is the only station I can find who will shout equally loud about the successes.

If you don't like the American media (for which I can't blame you) I suggest that you take out a subscription to the BBC World Service. They are generally recognised (by the rest of the world at least) to be the authoritative news source. Might learn something about Salman Rushdie there too.

ELECTION RIGGING: The Dems threw a fit because we won. [...] Had the Repubs rigged the election, wouldn't they have made it just a little more in their favor? [...] Or are the Repubs simply slightly better at cheating than the Dems?

The Democrats complained because they had cast-iron proof that the election had been fradulent in both 2000 and 2004. The republicans as a whole may not be better at cheating at elections, or even more inclined to do so, but the hard-core neo-con triumvirate that's hijacked the highest echelons of the Republican party certainly is both less scruplous and far more experienced when it comes to undemocratic methods.

I think it would have done more damage to his cause to use them - even if he had, do you think it would have saved his country?
Does it matter? A bear claws at your face, you don't just sit there, you fight for your life. Same as in war, someone shoots at you, you don't just sit there, you give it your all even if you know you're going lose.

And considering Saddam IS the type to fight to the death even if he's going to lose, if he had the WMD's we said he had, he'd have used them.

Does it matter? A bear claws at your face, you don't just sit there, you fight for your life. Same as in war, someone shoots at you, you don't just sit there, you give it your all even if you know you're going lose.

And considering Saddam IS the type to fight to the death even if he's going to lose, if he had the WMD's we said he had, he'd have used them.As far as I know, he wasn't in immediate personal danger (aside from bombing and cruise missiles). He had the opportunity for rational decisionmaking. When it's just some faceless person in your army dying it doesn't worry you as much as someone pointing a gun at your face, especially given Saddam's track record of giving up without a fight when he faced that decision.

Of course, I'm not saying that is precisely what happened. I have no way of knowing, and Saddam is not likely to tell. I just think he is intelligent (not necessarily sane) and what I said is a plausible explanation for his actions.

As far as I know, he wasn't in immediate personal danger (aside from bombing and cruise missiles). He had the opportunity for rational decisionmaking. When it's just some faceless person in your army dying it doesn't worry you as much as someone pointing a gun at your face, especially given Saddam's track record of giving up without a fight when he faced that decision.

Of course, I'm not saying that is precisely what happened. I have no way of knowing, and Saddam is not likely to tell. I just think he is intelligent (not necessarily sane) and what I said is a plausible explanation for his actions.

Yeah, but when the person at the charge of the invasion force just happens to be the son of the president who you tried to assassinate, you tend to opt towards a more gun ho approach.

OK, break's over prematurely. Wow, look at what happens in just one day.

I am certain the Saddam Hussein, though his sons are dead, his palaces destroyed, he had to live in a hole in the ground for I dont know how long until he was captured by his greatest enemy, lost his country, was forced to stand trial, and may end up being executed for all we know, still takes great solace in the fact that we never found his WMD's! Take THAT America! He really showed us I guess.

LOL


I am not saying Saddaam acted rationally when/if he hid the WMDs. It is entirely possible that he saw us coming and panicked, scrambling to get them away from him. Or, he was more rational than all of us, and he knew that if he hid the WMDs, then the war would end by political attrition. And damn, that's actually happening! I'm certain Saddaam didn't expect to be forced to live in a hole until he was captured, tried, and hopefully, killed. I won't cry for him.

Finally, as a matter of point, I welcome, even encourage, criticism and skeptical comment on any source I cite. If found to be invalid or questionable, I would update or retract it. I tend to use primary sources or at least secondary sources that actually cite primary sources, however. Not vague articles by radicals who appear to invent stories to support conclusions they want their readers to believe in.

Very well. Here's an article I found, not related to Iraq directly, but to the War on Terror in general This article I have triple-read, and it is quite balanced in it's story, concerning Iran's nuclear programs. It contains no commentary from the author, at least none that do not report fact, and even those are few.

TEHRAN, Jan. 14 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pushed back at President Bush and European leaders on Saturday, insisting Iran will press ahead with its nuclear program despite the threat of economic sanctions because "ultimately they need us more than we need them."

First off, let me say that I have no problem with Iran having power plants, even of the nuclear variety. However, I do have a problem with the small fact that the UN forbids the enrichment of Uranium.

At a news conference that lasted more than two hours, a confident Ahmadinejad posed a question to Western governments: "So why do you strike a mighty pose? I advise you to understand the Iranian nation and revolution in a better way. A time might come that you would become regretful, and then there would be no benefits in regretting."

I see. Now, what would we (yes, including you, you are included in Western governments) have to regret? Before you say Iraq, I'm not so certain that the Iranian president's agenda even cares about Iraq. If he does, I'll gladly concede that.

Ahmadinejad's remarks, broadcast live on international news networks, brought to a confrontational close a week in which Tehran defied a U.N. watchdog agency by resuming nuclear research that had been suspended for 2 1/2 years after going forward in secret for almost two decades. Iran's removal of seals on nuclear equipment at its enrichment plant at Natanz and preparations to resume research brought a cascade of criticism...

I can see why. Regardless of motive, Ahmadinejad is defying the UN that is held so dearly, and quite openly. Just as Saddaam did when he disallowed UN inspectors. See the pattern emerging, here? It's becoming painfully obvious.

Diplomats from the United States, Europe, Russia and China are scheduled to gather in London on Monday to discuss shifting Iran's file from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

The UN could be beginning to see Iran as a threat. Possibly. If they do, and if they are right to do so, then the UN will have redeemed itself in my eyes. If they don't, and they turn out wrong not to do so, I already find it difficult to think less of them, so no loss.

Ahmadinejad, a hard-line conservative who took office in August, said Iran remained open to negotiation and to foreign partnerships that would ensure it was not diverting uranium to a weapons program.

I dearly hope I am misreading this paragraph. It smacks of extortion. I mean, the way I read it, Ahmadinejad is saying, "Let's see what you can give us. Doing so will cause me to provide proof my intentions are peaceful". If I read correctly, that's the biggest "WTF is he thinking???" in the universe. He appears to be asking for trouble.

Ahmadinejad called it "laughable" that his assertions that Israel be "wiped off the map" and his reference to the Holocaust as a "myth" may have seeded doubts about the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.

At first glance, I thought he just threatened Israel with destruction. But no, he's already done that, and he's saying that it has no bearing on the intent of his nuclear program. Oooo...kay....

"We don't need nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad said, noting that religious doctrine restrained Iran from unleashing its own stocks of chemical weapons when Iraq gassed Iranian troops during the 1980s. "Nuclear weapons are pursued by those who want to solve everything by bullying everyone."

Oh, that explains it. He's drawn himself as a hypocrite! First, he claims to "wipe Israel off the map" and then he says that last sentence. Hmm... maybe he does want to bully? Or maybe he's saying he doesn't need the to achieve his goal. BTW, I didn't miss the "chemical weapons" bit, but I'll let that speak for itself.

He challenged the United States to open its own nuclear facilities to U.N. inspection. Reversing a warning Western leaders leveled this week at Tehran, he advised Washington and Europe "not to isolate yourself anymore in the family of nations."

OK. Sounds good to me. Let's get audited while we audit them. Ah, but wait - we aren't forbidden from enriching Uranium, are we?

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011401107.html]Source) and rest of article[/url]

Anyhoo, back to Iraq:

That's not in dispute.

That's the last thing I'd expect to hear you say. If so, then why the heck are we even having this argument? He disobeyed the UN by even having those weapons.

Never meant to suggest you didn't.

Well, I got a little cheesed off when I read

You may have believed it, but anybody with any real kind of access to information and a multiple-digit IQ knew it was bull.

that.

You just read the wrong newspapers and watch the wrong TV stations.

Actually, I don't get a newspaper, can't afford the subscription. But it really doesn't take much effort to analyze what you're reading against what you know and think. We've been doing that for about a month. I do that with Fox just as much as anything else.

Either Billy Boy is being Quote Mined (something I wouldn't put beyond the Weakly Standard) or he's talking out of his arse. Either way, there's no way those weapons could have remained functional by the time he left the West Wing.

Most scientists post the data that gives them conclusions, not just the conclusions. Please explain how you know the Iraqi's did nothing to maintain what they had left.

Funny that. Our PM was royally grilled in Parliament over that issue. Wonder why he didn't bring up those admissions. Wonder, for that matter, why Mr. Powell didn't bring them up before the UN. Mayhaps because those admissions are (c) Weakly Standard.

I'm not in control of your PM. As for it being made-up, well, I don't subscribe to the Standard, and had little way of knowing the credibility of the story. I read it, and I was foolish not to look for the paper's credibility. I'm sorry. I'll be more careful in finding sources.

Gladly. I'd positively love to ask them why they think W is going after Al Qaida rather than the Ku Klux Klan, when the KKK murder far more Americans than Al Qaida.

1. I somehow don't think they'll care, since they didn't lose family/friends to the KKK.
2. The KKK has been dossolved for how long now? Oh sure, activists pop up here and there, but liberals and conservatives alike shoot 'em down politically. And good riddiance.


So, you're against nuclear power too?

That has little to do with the defensive side of national security, but you know what? No. I have no problem with nuclear power, except for the possibilities of meltdown. (Remember 3-Mile island and Tchernobyl) It's nuclear weapons I have issues with. But I think you already knew I was going to say that.

Weeell, just the tiny little fact that W and co. have been backpedaling from that very statement ever since 2003.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make what he said originally false. It means his political advisor said it would do less damage than if he continued to press it. I never said I loved Bush. He is far from the best of presidents. That doesn't mean everything he says is BS. I mean, logically it can't.

I'm not saying that both cannot be done. I am specifically saying that the 'war on terror' is a bogus witch-hunt that's wasting resources and curtailing essential liberties, but hey if that's how you want to spend your time and money on your side of the Pond, who am I to tell you no? I simply submit that it seems to show a rather - ah - peculiar sense of priorities to engage in bogus witch-hunts and other fun pastimes while simultaniously leaving the parts of the world most in need of intervention - military, economic, and political - out to dry.

You can call it a bogus witch-hunt if you want. I can't stop you from calling us stupid from the other side of the Pond, can I? I can only do what you're doing - which is say that you are wrong.

I most certainly agree. I just wondered why you aren't doing it.

*shrugs* I'm not in power, I can't set that in motion. Write to W about it.

Really. The British, the French, and the Germans (and the Spanish and the Turks, now that I think about it) have really awful track records trying to use military force to prevent or stop terrorism. What makes you think that the US can do better?

Do you have a Plan B for dealing with them? Let me hear it. Personally, I'd rather try than not.

Item #4 is respiratory problems. While it is of course hard to quantify the contribution from air pollution, it is a major issue in congested, smog-infested cities.

Every 10-year old who's read a Human Body book knows about smoking, and how it damages lungs. Smog too, yes, but what if nobody smoked for a generation, hmm? There's a lot of drugs out there that can cause emphesema and lung cancer. That can't truly be done, but it would help quantify how much smog plays into it.

That's "[t]he other 84.4 %" by my math.

Touche. by mine, as well. Damn, how tired was I when I posted that?

And in fact the effective number is somewhat lower, because the 15.6 % is a snapshot of any given time - the lack of insurance cycles between individuals, so the lack of a proper, government-funded health care system affects maybe twice as many people.

I got a sparkling idea for you: What if we created more insurance companies over here? That would


Keep the "Corrupt, evil" government out of the picture
Create jobs
and
*gasp* provide cheap, affordable health care!


How does that sound? And the government would pay less for that than it would pay to simply provide healthcare directly from the government down. The buildings would have to be built anyway, and if healthcare is kept very cheap, the US can still make a tiny profit in the long run from doing so.

Your point?

That healthcare can be earned, not just taken.

Except that they can't when their job's in India. And thanks to the fact that American education is just as unequally distributed as American health care, there's a substantial chance that they can't even educate themselves out of the hole.

If their job is in India, and they live there to work, are they American citizens? Even if they return to the US, during the time they were in India they were Indian citizens. Not of that nationality, just living there, and if they live there for a time... If it's just a business trip, they have a job to return to in America, don't they? So, I don't see your point on that.

You're not paying attention here. The people who are ensured today would get cheaper and better healthcare in a universal, government-funded system. Is your dislike for providing a tiny minority of 'free-loaders' with services they don't deserve powerful enough to deter you from embracing a system that benefits everyone including yourself?

No. But providing these things absolutely free is a false savings. It will hurt the US's pocketbook in the future. I have no problem with affordable healthcare. My problem is that I don't want the USA to be placed quite deep in the red over it. (I know, it is now, but it could easily be worse.)

Actually, if you reinstated the taxes that W removed from the top 1 % income brackets and channeled the money to improving healthcare, you'd get a faster recovery. Y'see tax-and-spend policies are good for the economy.

And why would the public be for higher taxes? Not only that, but healthcare is not the only part, or even the majority of, the American economy. Would it help? Yep. Would be the fix-all? Nope.

Which is how big a percentage of their GDP?

Let's see. According to Wiki, the state's GDP is 1.5 Trillion. While that sounds big, I am quite certain that we'd welcome an additional 10.5 billion.

I'm sure that many people would say the same thing about Bush. Personally, I find it a distasteful pastime to assassinate heads of state, no matter how big arseholes they are. Legally, it's messy. Diplomatically, it's messy. And it invites retaliation.

Is that what this is to you? A pastime? A game? To hell with that, we do not take war lightly. We have gone into two, but it's not like we picked these wars at random! To say we did is more than merely foolish.

Not really. You have to be able to see the enemy before you can shoot them. And if you doubt that lightly armed infantry can harm fully equipped American forces with panzer support and air cover, I suggest you read up on what the Finns did to the Russians in the Winter War.

I'm not the US military strategist. I don't know all of Iran's terrain, and I don't have any way of getting that kind of info, unless I spend hours on GoogleEarth. If we do go to war with Iran in the future, I'll leave it up to them.

In which way could his actions possibly have been construed as betrayal? He was an expert called in to give his expert opinion - and he did exactly that. The expert opinion happened to not conform to the American regime's desires, but that can hardly be Blix's fault. After all, it's hard for an honest expert opinion to conform to accusations created out of whole cloth.

You can look at it that way, or you can see that Blix saw that Saddaam was snubbing the UN, and then was horrified that we offered to do something about it.

Nope. As it happens, it was and is the opinion of every single inspector from non-US countries. Every. Single. One.

Total bull****. It is absolutely impossible for you to know that. And either way, the UN has been becoming more and more pacifist. It would hardly surprise me if the inspectors said something completely different and Blix wanted to cover his @$$.

And regardless of that, Blix was the one who had to make the call. A judge's decision is also just 'one man's decision', but that doesn't make it any less binding. You could have appealed the decision had you wanted to. But you decided to resort to vigilante 'justice'. And the result - predictably - was that you invaded a country that posed no threat, had no WMD, harbored no terrorists, and trained no terrorists. That's what happens when you ignore expert advice.

So, you would blindly follow the UN in everything it said, as if it's word was law? Funny, you say the same about me, even though I don't take W's word for law. That's one hell of a double-standard you've got going there.

Just a small postcard from the real world, where sometimes, people say things that are total BS, hell, sometimes even large groups of people (read the UN) can be so completely f****-up it doesn't even represent what it used to.

There. You got me angry. Are you happy?

Eer, Carl 'Scooter Libby' Rove is W's spin doctor and a central figure in the neo-con wing of the Republican Party.

True, but any and all BS from him is helping the Dems, correct? After all, if it's such BS anyone can see through it, then why should you care what he says?

Oh. Pray tell, why hasn't there been a single public trial of an inmate at Guantanamo?

Ever hear of Witness Protection? Or Judge protection? Jury protection? Who says there aren't trials that go behind locked doors, where cameras are forbidden?

Surely even shortage of judges - which by the way is the lamest excuse I've yet heard, as if a country of .3 billion people isn't able to find a couple of hundred qualified judges to take the cases...

Very well. The search is on. And while you're at it, let's build courthouses, more of them. I'm serious about that. And let's hire security guards, and everything else you need to run an adequate court. OK, fine. Let's do it.

Fortunately the majority of the US legal system isn't prepared to countenance outright dictatorship - yet)

Oh, wake up and smell what you're shoveling. If there was even an attempt to declare dictatorship, the government would descend into anarchy as a result of the mass mobs that would form. Cities would burn, laws broken left and right - hell would break loose in the US - and it would be justified, to protect civil liberties. To even suggest that the government would be stupid enough to not realize this shows the magnitude of how little thought was put into that little tidbit.

Hell, they could have taken a Master in Law and held trial over each other.

:lol: I can see it now:

"Okay, Akhmed. I'll find you not guilty if you find me not guilty."
"Oh, okay! Would the Infidels allow that?"
"Sure, they have to! If they don't, one of their own will start protesting, and demanding our release!"
"Let's do it!"

Bull****. If - and that's a big if - any of them had committed war crimes, it's the Haag's job to arrange the trials... How long did it take for the trial of Milosevic to begin? Surely he's a much bigger fish than any of the people you're holding at Guantanamo.

I say that it takes as long as it takes. If it's unduly delayed, fine! Give him his day in court! Get it over with! I'm not for delaying it. I'm just saying that you can't ask a Pentiuim II legal system to do a Pentium IV's job.

And, finally, there's the central principle in all civilised countries that if you can't arrange a trial within a reasonable time frame - and 4Ѕ yrs is anything but reasonable - the accused walks. Period. End of story. No matter how big an ******* he is.

Any normal judge would dismiss the charges - without prejudice. That means it can be brought up again, if evidence and due process can be achieved. But of course, then we'd have to hunt him down again...

By that logic Saddam Hussein isn't responsible for the use his armed forces made of WMD before the second Gulf War.

Not personally, no. He was the director of such programs, however. And I have major doubts that W was the person who ordered such atrocities. Think. Why in hell would W order something he knew would hurt him politically? Even if he didn't know, his advisors would. That order can't have come from the highest down, because of the utter stupidity that would require.

I give up. It simply speaks volumes of your contact with the rest of the world that you've never even heard of the book - or the author. It is, after all one of the best-known books in the world, by possibly the best-known living author in the world. Surely the name Salman Rushdie ought to ring a bell, even with Americans?

LOOK, HERE. I AM NOT SAYING hE IS A BAD AUTHOR!!! I am saying that if I saw the book on a shelf and knew nothing about the book itself (hence, my reason for buying a book in the first place) then the word Satanic would raise red flags. Do you understand that part? Now that I know the book's contents, I have no reason to be repulsed by it. There. Are you satisfied with that response?

Nope. It's hyperbole.

Ah. Then it has little weight in debate, then.

You forgot hypocrite, traitor, fascist, neo-barbarian, fundamentalist, and war-criminal.

Alright, let's go through these.

Hypocrite: Harsh wording, but correct. He has indeed changed his view of things since he took office. But he has never said he would do one thing and then done another.

Traitor: To whom? You? He isn't even on the same continent as you. To US citizens? That sounds very much like Howard Dean: "He betraaayed this country! He plaaayed on our fears!" Which was discounted for the BS that it is.

Neo-Barbarian: A neo-barbarian would use the nuclear arsenal at his disposal. Has Bush launched even one nuclear weapon? No. Has he bombed civilian areas? No. Has he shot down innocent civilians? No. I fail to see the connection.

Fundamentalist: WTF? He is not afraid of the fact that he is Christian, but he is not pushing it on anybody. He is having 0 tolerance for the ACLU's Anti-God crusade, but that is sticking up for freedom of religion, not forcing anything down anybody's throat. And I am certainly not sorry that he isn't secular. If you have a problem with it, move to the US and vote for a secular politician. Religion plays little part in this war, whether it is misguided or not.

War-Criminal: Oh, you succeded. You brought a smile to my face. President George W. Bush has ordered nothing more than a call to arms against terrorism. War atrocities did not come from him, as that would be at the very least, political suicide. Or, if he is a fundy like you say, he'd find such acts immoral.

If you don't like the American media (for which I can't blame you) I suggest that you take out a subscription to the BBC World Service. They are generally recognised (by the rest of the world at least) to be the authoritative news source.

BBC and Fox. I'll see. I would be happy to view more than two angles, and if it wasn't midnight I'd look it over.

The Democrats complained because they had cast-iron proof that the election had been fradulent in both 2000 and 2004. The republicans as a whole may not be better at cheating at elections, or even more inclined to do so, but the hard-core neo-con triumvirate that's hijacked the highest echelons of the Republican party certainly is both less scruplous and far more experienced when it comes to undemocratic methods.

And the Democrats are free from any and all possible imperfections, is that what I'm reading? The Republicans are political, to be sure. And just like all politicians, they do step outside the boundaries once in a while. As do the Democrats. I see both extremes, and frankly they annoy me. I'm officially an Independant, though I tend to support the Republicans more in this day and age. I'll vote for the Democrats when they put up someone worth voting for.

Does it matter? A bear claws at your face, you don't just sit there, you fight for your life. Same as in war, someone shoots at you, you don't just sit there, you give it your all even if you know you're going lose.

Sounds like how we responded to 9/11 to me.

And considering Saddam IS the type to fight to the death even if he's going to lose, if he had the WMD's we said he had, he'd have used them.

And if he was forced into exile before he had the chance to use them?

EDIT: I missed this last night:

Hopefully Poland will get it's fundamentalist ass chucked straight out of the EU over this.

Fundamentalist? I googled "Fundamentalist Poland" to see what complaint you might have in that department. I found several very wacked-out opinion articles, such as this one (http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2005/72/kitlinskileszkowiczlockard.html). If I may quote the sub-title:

Poland went from communism to fundamentalism: it is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-secular, and pro-Bush. Polish troops go to Iraq, women to kitchens, media to patriotic kitsch, and gays to hell, while politicians and the media rally around Bush.

Anti-woman? The article really says little to support this. and I fail to see even one example. If you please, find some sort of valid complaint about the "anti-woman' movement. This article was hit #1 on Google.

Anti-gay: The author seems to say that heterosexuals like me are evil and must be put down. I can't really say I blame them for doing so, though. I'd prefer not to see a nation infiltrated with HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C. Which reminds me: Does Denmark still have an AIDS epidemic?

Basically, I'm saying Poland is right to be anti-gay.

Anti-Secular: I'm sorry, but LOL.Is it that bad in other parts of Europe? Has religion almost been done away with? Funny, that, I remember reading in school how religious European nations were. Again, Denmark was one of them, and it topped the list, IIRC. Now, is religion such a bad thing? Let us and them believe what we and they want to, I don't go around trying to convert you; do us the same favor.

Pro-Bush: Ah, is that your problem with it? That a European country doesn't agree with you as a whole? That's hardly a reason to be so bitter about it, so I doubt that's your complaint.

...women to kitchens...

I have no problem with working women, but I also have no problem with stay-at-home moms/wives. Do you? And you must admit that in the US, where women are free to work as they please, that the number of working women is increasing slightly, but still a very small minority. It seems *omigosh* women may choose to stay home.

...gays to hell...

According to Christianity, that's exactly right. But religion aside, one can easily see why Poland takes such a stance because of medical reasons. My personal, secular reason for thinking that the gay community is abhorrent is because in order to get their way, they have no shame in even trying to indoctrinate children as young as first grade. That's 6 years old! Have you heard of the story, Heather has Two Mommies? It was meant to indoctrinate children into believing that lesbian couples were not only "OK", that it was to be as widely accepted as the traditional marriage that has stood firm since the Dawn of Mankind! That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.

I'm done for now.

But he has never said he would do one thing and then done another.

Uhm, yes he has.

To US citizens?

Yes, and our soldiers.

Neo-Barbarian: A neo-barbarian would use the nuclear arsenal at his disposal. Has Bush launched even one nuclear weapon? No. Has he bombed civilian areas? No. Has he shot down innocent civilians? No. I fail to see the connection.

Yes, he has. By waging war, he's done so.

Fundamentalist: WTF? He is not afraid of the fact that he is Christian, but he is not pushing it on anybody.

Uh, bull****. By passing laws based upon religious belief, he is indeed forcing religious view upon others.

War-Criminal: Oh, you succeded. You brought a smile to my face. President George W. Bush has ordered nothing more than a call to arms against terrorism.

Which he abandoned and ended up leaving Afghanistan in worse shape than it was before.

War atrocities did not come from him, as that would be at the very least, political suicide. Or, if he is a fundy like you say, he'd find such acts immoral.

First, you act as though he is incapable of being a complete and utter moron.
Second, Fundamentalists generally don't have an issue with senseless violence in the name of their beliefs. Hence their name.

Sounds like how we responded to 9/11 to me.

No, that's how we responded after we'd cooled down and went to Afghanistan. But for a while we were ****ing retarded, and still are.
We've since abandoned a justified battle.


And if he was forced into exile before he had the chance to use them?

Uh, how would he have been in exile before he had a chance to use them? We had troops on the ground well before the first battle started. And if he could indeed launch an attack on our soil, he would've done so once we dropped the first batch of troops.

Your post has added nothing to this debate, Insane Sith. Basically, you called me a bull****ting S-O-B because I disagree with you. The entire content of your post is "You are an idiot". That's very mature for a Super Moderator like yourself.

I mean come on here, if you're going to post that way, at least cite sources like ShadowTemplar and myself. No, I don't cite sources for everything, but at the very least I will cite sources when I go so extreme as to call someone a traitor, bigot, hypocrite, etc. etc. etc. to back up my theories or beliefs.

Then let's get back to the matter at hand: The Iraq war. And before you say anything, Insane Sith, I am not afraid of you. Don't think you can use your position to bully me into agreeing with you. It will not work.

Very well. Here's an article I found, not related to Iraq directly, but to the War on Terror in general This article I have triple-read, and it is quite balanced in it's story, concerning Iran's nuclear programs. It contains no commentary from the author, at least none that do not report fact, and even those are few.

Yep, that article jibes with what our media have been reporting. Can't see what it has to do with the WoT, though?

However, I do have a problem with the small fact that the UN forbids the enrichment of Uranium.

Wrong. The treaties you refer to prohibit weapons-grade enrichment, but allows full control over the nuclear fuel cycle. The operative word here is 'full'. It's stupid because it's fundamentally impossible to enforce given the state of modern nuclear technology, but that's what we have, and - frankly - I don't see a better way to slow down nuclear proliferation.

I see. Now, what would we (yes, including you, you are included in Western governments) have to regret?

I think he's basically saying 'yes we're developing nuclear weapons and you'll rue the day you crossed us'.

I can see why. Regardless of motive, Ahmadinejad is defying the UN that is held so dearly, and quite openly. Just as Saddaam did when he disallowed UN inspectors. See the pattern emerging, here? It's becoming painfully obvious.

Not really. Hussein's 'defiance of the UN' was highly disputed, while no-one with two eyes, two ears, and more processing power than a rock argues that Iran isn't trying to get nuclear weapons. The UN was divided over whether Iraq was a problem mandating attention, while the UN is anything but divided concerning Iran.

If there is a division at all, it is over how to best handle this. Iran should be treated with more care than - say - Syria, because Iran has a living and active reform movement. If Iran is left to itself, I find it highly doubtful that there will be Ayatollahs in Tehran in two or three decades. If sanctions are imposed or the country bombed or invaded, there is no telling which way the public would jump, but my money are on the Ayatollahs. So it's not as much an issue of what we want Iran to do, it's more of an issue of how to best get it to do so.

The UN could be beginning to see Iran as a threat. Possibly. If they do, and if they are right to do so, then the UN will have redeemed itself in my eyes.

They are considering Iran. Very, very carefully. But the solution here cannot be simplistic. Must not be simplistic. Give Iran time - and support their dissenters - and we could have a very valuable ally in the region in just a few decades.

I dearly hope I am misreading this paragraph. It smacks of extortion. I mean, the way I read it, Ahmadinejad is saying, "Let's see what you can give us. Doing so will cause me to provide proof my intentions are peaceful". If I read correctly, that's the biggest "WTF is he thinking???" in the universe. He appears to be asking for trouble.

I think he's thinking 'it worked for North Korea. No reason in the world it shouldn't work for us too.' Besides, if we in the West spin it right, it might turn around and bite the Ayatollahs right on the ass.

At first glance, I thought he just threatened Israel with destruction. But no, he's already done that, and he's saying that it has no bearing on the intent of his nuclear program. Oooo...kay....

Yeah, we've been hearing that line for some time. Personally I think he's playing to his domestic audience. He is certainly smart enough to know that Iran would be the first country to be bombed flat, tarmaced over, and turned into parking lots if something - ah - untowards should happen to Israel. And one thing the Ayatollahs aren't is suicidal.

Oh, that explains it. He's drawn himself as a hypocrite! First, he claims to "wipe Israel off the map" and then he says that last sentence. Hmm... maybe he does want to bully? Or maybe he's saying he doesn't need the to achieve his goal. BTW, I didn't miss the "chemical weapons" bit, but I'll let that speak for itself.

Wow. I agree 100 % with a whole paragraph of your writings. That must be some kind of new record.

OK. Sounds good to me. Let's get audited while we audit them. Ah, but wait - we aren't forbidden from enriching Uranium, are we?

Nope.

Oh, and you might want to fix the link.

That's the last thing I'd expect to hear you say. If so, then why the heck are we even having this argument? He disobeyed the UN by even having those weapons.

He didn't disobey the UN in 2003 by having those weapons, since by 2003 they couldn't have been used to poison rats.

Actually, I don't get a newspaper, can't afford the subscription. But it really doesn't take much effort to analyze what you're reading against what you know and think.

Oh. Meaning?

Most scientists post the data that gives them conclusions, not just the conclusions. Please explain how you know the Iraqi's did nothing to maintain what they had left.

Irrelevant. Even with perfect maintainance they couldn't have lasted a whole decade. And perfect maintainance facilities would have been visible from sattelite and overflight recon. They'd have to be producing them if they were to still have them, and it's been fairly conclusively demonstrated that they couldn't do that.

1. I somehow don't think they'll care, since they didn't lose family/friends to the KKK.

Which does nothing to explain why we should here, now, and in the present focus so much effort on the lesser threat.

2. The KKK has been dissolved for how long now?

Sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance#History) it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#The_Ku_Klux_Klan_today) has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations).

So, you're against nuclear power too?
That has little to do with the defensive side of national security, but you know what? No. I have no problem with nuclear power, except for the possibilities of meltdown. (Remember 3-Mile island and Tchernobyl) It's nuclear weapons I have issues with. But I think you already knew I was going to say that.

Ah, I think I was being too subtle here. The reason I mentioned being against nuclear power is that the anti-nuclear agitators use much the same 'logic' you employ in your defence of extreme anti-terrorism measures: "Sure, the risk is small, but it's there!" This fundamental unwillingness or inability to look beyond the frightening casualty figures of a major incident and onto the long-term average risk is characteristic of the anti-nuclear advocacy groups. It is, of course, fallacious. There are good reasons to be against nuclear power.* But the risk of a meltdown is not one of them.

*Mainly that, as Iran so clearly shows, it is hard to distinguish between a civilian and a military program, thus increasing the speed of nuclear proliferation.

You can call it a bogus witch-hunt if you want. I can't stop you from calling us stupid from the other side of the Pond, can I?

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling you ill-informed and lacking a sense of priorities. There's a difference.

Really. The British, the French, and the Germans (and the Spanish and the Turks, now that I think about it) have really awful track records trying to use military force to prevent or stop terrorism. What makes you think that the US can do better?
Do you have a Plan B for dealing with them? Let me hear it. Personally, I'd rather try than not.

As it happens, I have: Don't bother. It's not worth the time and effort. The risk of being murdered by a fedayeen is so slight that the WoT is litterally meaningless. It's like living near a dam or a nuclear plant. Sure, it might go boom, but there's nothing you can realistically do about it anyway, so why bother?

Every 10-year old who's read a Human Body book knows about smoking, and how it damages lungs. Smog too, yes, but what if nobody smoked for a generation, hmm? There's a lot of drugs out there that can cause emphesema and lung cancer. That can't truly be done, but it would help quantify how much smog plays into it.

Indeed. So let's look a bit at the actual numbers: There have been, by my count, five noteworthy terrorist attacks against Western targets in the past five years (London, Madrid, Bali, New York/Pentagon, Sharm-el-Sheik). They average at what? Let's be generous and say 775 fatalities (if you remove the spike from the data set you get an average slightly above 100).

Now, let's be conservative and say that .1 % of all lung cancers are caused by air pollution. That's 150 deaths. Pr. year. In the US alone. Europe has a third again the population of the US, and add another 350 k lung cancer deaths pr. year to the pot (give or take a couple of tens of thousand).

Still assuming that air pollution is the deciding factor in - on average - .1 % of all cases, we have a total for Western populations of 500 deaths pr. year from air pollution. And that's for lung cancer alone. That is five times as high a casualty rate than from the typical terrorism year, and even including the aberrant data point in our calculations, we're talking about 2/3 the average casualty rate of terrorism.

I got a sparkling idea for you: What if we created more insurance companies over here? That would


Keep the "Corrupt, evil" government out of the picture
Create jobs
and
*gasp* provide cheap, affordable health care!


The central assumption is that the government is less effective than the private sector in providing health care. That's assumption contrary to fact.

How does that sound? And the government would pay less for that than it would pay to simply provide healthcare directly from the government down.

Nope. The government could actually make money by providing universal health care. Not only would you get a healthier population - which provides a better tax base - you'd also get a cheaper and better health care system, and the citizens and the government could split the cost difference. The only people who'd loose money on that deal would be the insurance companies, and they don't pay taxes anyway, so my sympathy for them is rather limited.

If their job is in India, and they live there to work, are they American citizens?

Uh, maybe the reason they are unemployed is that their job wasn't in India a month ago.

No. But providing these things absolutely free is a false savings. It will hurt the US's pocketbook in the future.

No. The only pocketbooks it would hurt would be those of a couple of big multinationals who don't pay taxes anyway (courtesy of W's IRS reforms).

And why would the public be for higher taxes?

Let's see... Because it would give them social and medical security, because it would save them money overall, and because it would give them better health care. Oh, and it'd improve the economy too. Can't see why they shouldn't be all for it.

Let's see. According to Wiki, the state's GDP is 1.5 Trillion. While that sounds big, I am quite certain that we'd welcome an additional 10.5 billion.

So illegal aliens cost 2/3 of a percent of the states GDP? Why am I not impressed by the need to do something drastic to curtail that part of their public spending?

Is [assassination of heads of state] what this is to you? A pastime? A game?

Hardly. I am fully conversant with the diplomatic and political repercussions that would entail. And I would like to remind you that it was you who set the tone by suggesting that it would be appropriate to send Mr. Hussein a cruise missile for an unscheduled dinner party.

To hell with that, we do not take war lightly.

Oh. Really? That sure as hell isn't appearent from where I'm sitting.

We have gone into two, but it's not like we picked these wars at random!

And I was all with you on the first one... But the second one was illegal, illegitimate, and, frankly, stupid.

You can look at it that way, or you can see that Blix saw that Saddaam was snubbing the UN, and then was horrified that we offered to do something about it.

That's a serious accusation. I do hope that you have more than vague speculation to back it up.

Total bull****. It is absolutely impossible for you to know that. And either way, the UN has been becoming more and more pacifist.

Doesn't look that way to me. In the past decade and a half, there has been more soldiers deployed under UN flag than during the previous four decades. Put together. That's hardly the profile of a 'pacifist' organisation.

It would hardly surprise me if the inspectors said something completely different and Blix wanted to cover his @$$.

Again, serious accusations. Are you prepared to back them up?

So, you would blindly follow the UN in everything it said, as if it's word was law? Funny, you say the same about me, even though I don't take W's word for law.

As it happens, the UN's word is law. And that is what makes it different from W's whims. As I said, if the US disagreed with the decision, they could always have presented proof. They didn't have that proof, so they decided to engage in a little unilateral vigilante.

Just a small postcard from the real world, where sometimes, people say things that are total BS, hell, sometimes even large groups of people (read the UN) can be so completely f*****-up it doesn't even represent what it used to.

Pray tell, what makes the UN more '****ed-up' now than during - say - the wars in Korea and Vietnam?

There. You got me angry. Are you happy?

No. That was not my purpose. I regret that it has happened. But my points still stand.

True, but any and all BS from him is helping the Dems, correct?

Certainly. Amongst those of us who bother to look beyond the swiftboating. Problem is that the majority of the American news outlets don't have anything 'beyond the swiftboating'. And so, sadly, the noise machine can continue to drown out all critisism.

After all, if it's such BS anyone can see through it, then why should you care what he says?

Me? I should care because the US has nukes. You? You should care because Carl Rove has once before committed outright treason and he is in the business of telling bald-faced lies to you. Heck, he could probably give classes on that subject to the Discovery Institute. And that's saying something.

Ever hear of Witness Protection? Or Judge protection? Jury protection? Who says there aren't trials that go behind locked doors, where cameras are forbidden?

Good old KGB methods... Transparency in the public administration isn't a firm you've bought a lot of stock in, eh?

Very well. The search is on. And while you're at it, let's build courthouses, more of them. I'm serious about that. And let's hire security guards, and everything else you need to run an adequate court. OK, fine. Let's do it.

If the Bush administration had had any intention at all of proceeding with the trials in good faith, it would have started that search before the first inmate sat foot on Cuban soil. Heck, if it had had any intention of proceeding with the trials in good faith, it would have handed them over to the Hague.

Oh, wake up and smell what you're shoveling. If there was even an attempt to declare dictatorship, the government would descend into anarchy as a result of the mass mobs that would form.

Don't be too sure. The Bush regime has systematically expanded the power of the executive - 'black' house searches, spying on his own citizens, secret courts convened in closed sessions to authorise extraordinary investigative measures, condoned torture in so many words. The list goes on.

I say that it takes as long as it takes. If it's unduly delayed, fine! Give him his day in court! Get it over with! I'm not for delaying it. I'm just saying that you can't ask a Pentiuim II legal system to do a Pentium IV's job.

Which raises the answer of why the hell the legal system to handle it hasn't been upgraded since. It's been 4Ѕ years for crissake!

Any normal judge would dismiss the charges - without prejudice. That means it can be brought up again, if evidence and due process can be achieved. But of course, then we'd have to hunt him down again...

Cost of doing business.

Not personally, no. He was the director of such programs, however. And I have major doubts that W was the person who ordered such atrocities.

Precisely the same can be said for Saddam Hussein.

Think. Why in hell would W order something he knew would hurt him politically?

Because he has faith in his noise machine's ability to do a Manpower if it leaks.

That order can't have come from the highest down, because of the utter stupidity that would require.

But it did. We have hard evidence that Cheney personally authorised the use of torture by American forces. We have hard evidence that Bush personally condoned the mistreatment of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay holding pen.

Traitor: To whom? You? He isn't even on the same continent as you. To US citizens? That sounds very much like Howard Dean: "He betraaayed this country! He plaaayed on our fears!" Which was discounted for the BS that it is.

Which part is BS? Why is that particular part BS? Are you suggesting that he didn't betray the American people and their country by sending them to war over a lie?

Neo-Barbarian: A neo-barbarian would use the nuclear arsenal at his disposal. Has Bush launched even one nuclear weapon? No. Has he bombed civilian areas? No. Has he shot down innocent civilians? No. I fail to see the connection.

Then try this one: A neo-barbarian would attempt to push his own secterian belief system on his fellow citizens. Check. A neo-barb wouldn't care about civil liberties. Check. And a neo-barb would ally with his fellow neo-barbs in places like the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Focus on Family, and the Discovery Institute. Check.

Fundamentalist: WTF? He is not afraid of the fact that he is Christian, but he is not pushing it on anybody.

Really? He's pushing creationism in schools. When was that 'not pushing christianity on anybody'?

He is having 0 tolerance for the ACLU's Anti-God crusade,

The ACLU has no anti-god crusade. Indeed the ACLU spends most of its time defending the right of ignorant, fundie neo-barbs to remain ignorant, fundie neo-barbs - on their own money, of course.

I am certainly not sorry that he isn't secular.

So you prefer a theocracy to a democracy? I believe the word you're looking for is 'atheist'. 'Secular' means not letting ones religious bigotry and superstition interfere with the running of the state. So, if he's not secular then he's allowing his pet bigotries to influence his policies - to the detriment of society.

If you have a problem with it, move to the US and vote for a secular politician.

I would not permanently move to the US if I were paid to do so. I like living in a society that actually works, thank you very much.

Religion plays little part in this war, whether it is misguided or not.

Other than getting a lying war-monger elected, of course.

War-Criminal: Oh, you succeded. You brought a smile to my face. President George W. Bush has ordered nothing more than a call to arms against terrorism.

And torture. And the use of chemical weapons.

Or, if he is a fundy like you say, he'd find such acts immoral.

"Politicians don't have ethics. Sometimes they have a policy, but never more than that."

As an aside, have you ever heard of the Inquisition? They burned people as an act of mercy. Fundies are weird that way.

And the Democrats are free from any and all possible imperfections, is that what I'm reading?

If it is, then you have a reading comprehension problem. But they are free of radical revolutionary fundamentalists. And, frankly, given the fact that W and his gang are knee-deep in this line of thought (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/fundies.htm), I'd take almost anything over them.

Oh, and you forgot 'fascist' yet again.

Does it matter? A bear claws at your face, you don't just sit there, you fight for your life. Same as in war, someone shoots at you, you don't just sit there, you give it your all even if you know you're going lose.
Sounds like how we responded to 9/11 to me.

Nah. More like a mosquito landing on your nose and you deciding to swat it with the business end of a shotgun.

Funny, that, I remember reading in school how religious European nations were. Again, Denmark was one of them, and it topped the list, IIRC.

Yees, we always do come out on top of those lists... Because they are done by counting the members of our religious organisations. And they run well into the 90 % fractile. But actual church attendance is another matter entirely, and we have actually been quite effective in curtailing the influence of religion in the public sphere. Until now, at least.

Now, is religion such a bad thing? Let us and them believe what we and they want to, I don't go around trying to convert you; do us the same favor.

Oh, you forgot: Don't pass secterian laws and don't limit my civil liberties just because your stupid religious superstition and bigotry dictates limitations on your own.

Pro-Bush: Ah, is that your problem with it? That a European country doesn't agree with you as a whole? That's hardly a reason to be so bitter about it, so I doubt that's your complaint.

Not really. Oh, it certainly was an inexcusible insult when they sided with the US so soon after being admitted to the Union. But the main issue is that they serve as semi-official spokescountry for the illegitimate brownshirts that comprise the US religious right.

I have no problem with working women, but I also have no problem with stay-at-home moms/wives. Do you?

No, not as such. But I do have a problem with sexist discrimination, something that is rife in Polish legislature and society.

And you must admit that in the US, where women are free to work as they please, that the number of working women is increasing slightly, but still a very small minority. It seems *omigosh* women may choose to stay home.

Is proper day care available for the children? Nope. Are women payed equally for equal work? Nope. Do women have equal access to education? Nope. So how 'free to work as they please' are they really?

That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.

You know, that's an excellent description of my feelings vis-a-vis the Papacy and the Bush regime.

I think a very important aspect of the Iraq situation is being overlooked in this whole WMD debate here (yeah, I couldn't keep my mouth shut), and that aspect is Saddam Hussein himself, and his understanding of the UN.

Now, I've never met Saddam, so I can't claim any sort of accuracy in analyzing him, but given the history of the UN/Iraq situation, I think I can pretty well guess.

Saddam had been monkeying with (read: violating) UN resolutions and UN sanctions for around 12 years before Res. 1441 and the last round of inspections. He knew enough about the UN to know that the likelihood that they would take any significant (as in military) action against him were slim to none. Why wouldn't he hide evidence of WMD to fool inspectors in the hopes of staying in power? The discovery of WMD would light a political firestorm in the UN, at least slightly increasing the risk of actual action by the UN. And even during/after the invasion, he wouldn't use any WMD he had, because the absence of WMD would give him a sense of legitimacy before the UN, and possibly the World Court, if he were tried there (remember, his first tactic in his trial was to question the legitimacy of the court itself)...besides the fact that he may not have been able to use any WMD he may have hidden because it wasn't accessible enough to get into a weapon before the US invaded (besides the fact that with US surveilance stepped up prior to the invasion, the chanses of us seeing him trying to get to any hidden WMD were much greater, which would have proven our case).

And the argument that he wouldn't hide the WMD due to practical concerns (i.e. bio/chemical agents won't be viable anymore) makes absolutely no sense. He was willing to ruin over 30 MIG fighter jets, worth millions of dollars each, by burying them in the desert in order to hide them from us. To say that he wouldn't bury chemical or biological agents because they won't be viable any more just doesn't add up. If Saddam hid the weapons prior to (or sometime during) the inspections, the point was to get rid of the evidence and make it through the current political crisis, not to save the weapons for later.

And as to Skin's assertions:
No WMD's (whatever they are)... science demonstrated long before the war these were gone.
No terrorism. No evidence to support the wild claim.
No need to remove a dictator (when there are plenty more just as bad or worse).
We found weapons labs in Iraq after the invasion - and why have weapons labs except to develop weapons? I'm not going to go to the effort to find the source I cited all those months ago when I first brought it to your attention, because it's just not worth it. You ignored the evidence then, and you'll probably just ignore it again, simply through virtue of the fact that it destroys your argument.

There is indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq supported terrorism. It is no wild claim. There were terroist training camps in Iraq, terrorists fled to Iraq for refuge, Saddam publicly paid the families of suicide-bombers (terrorists!) - what better incentive to become a suicide bomber: 72 virgins, and your family is taken care of after you're gone. Again, when your argument falls apart, you simply ignore the evidence that stares you right in the face.

The idea that brutal dictators should somehow be safe just because there are many makes no logical sense - it just means that the world community (the United Nations included) has a lot of work to do if we are ever going to live in a truly peaceful world. After all, we could have some semblance of peace by not going to war, but that 'peace' has no meaning if it comes at the cost of people the world over being terrorized by their own governments. Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be removed (preferably before Iran gains nuclear capabilities), not to secure any oil interests the US oil industry may have in Iran, but to prevent Iran from becoming a further threat as a breeding ground for terrorism, and to keep them from becoming a nuclear threat to the Middle East and possibly Europe. Kim Jong Il should be removed from power to remove the nuclear threat from our allies in Asia, and to help the citizens of North Korea stop living under the terror of their dictator and have a chance of living in prosperity (though removing him will be very tricky, due to NK's nuclear capability). Saudi Arabia should either make drastic reforms or no longer be recognized as an ally of the United States, and that regime should be removed from power.

Saying that we shouldn't take decisive action against dictatorial regimes simply because they are numerous is just like saying that we shouldn't take action against child molestors because there are a lot of them out there. Not only are your own arguments non-sequiturs, but they have been disproven time and time again. The only reason they keep coming up is because you have wantonly ignored any and all evidence that contradicts your points.

No, please bring the sources up! I haven't seen them, and I would like to see if any rebuttal arguments are true.

Okay, I'll try to find them...but it may be a while before I have time to get to it, as I'm having internet issues at home, and finding where I posted them will be time-consuming and difficult.

And a point I forgot:
Someone brought up that if Saddam had hidden WMD in the desert, someone would be around to speak up about it, but that isn't necessarily true. Saddam wasn't really known for being a nice guy, and if he did hide WMD somewhere, there was nothing to stop him from killing anyone who knew where the WMD were hidden. For all we know, the only evidence is somewhere in the pile of documents that have been recovered, and may not be translated for quite some time (due to the sheer volume of documents).

Or shipped off to North Korea, who covets these things like jewelry.

And even during/after the invasion, he wouldn't use any WMD he had,

And this is where your argument starts to break down.

because the absence of WMD would give him a sense of legitimacy before the UN,

Which didn't matter at all, since the Americans were already ignoring the UN.

and possibly the World Court, if he were tried there

Can't be that. He'd already done enough and left behind enough evidence that WMD or not wouldn't matter - no matter which court convicted him.

(remember, his first tactic in his trial was to question the legitimacy of the court itself)

Which is the oldest trick in The Book. Every war criminal in the history of war criminals have done that. It doesn't work, of course, and everybody knows that it doesn't work, but usually war criminals who are brought to trial don't really have all that much to loose by trying.

...besides the fact that he may not have been able to use any WMD he may have hidden because it wasn't accessible enough to get into a weapon before the US invaded

So you're basically saying that he couldn't - in the two months between the time everybody knew Bush was about to unilaterally attack, he couldn't have dug up those WMD? Sure doesn't sound like a very dangerous weapons program.

He was willing to ruin over 30 MIG fighter jets, worth millions of dollars each, by burying them in the desert in order to hide them from us. To say that he wouldn't bury chemical or biological agents because they won't be viable any more just doesn't add up.

If he tried to hide them in the desert, they would have been rendered unfunctional in short order. So, although he might think he still had a weapons program, in fact he'd have already disarmed. The fact was that Iraq had no functional weapons of mass destruction during the war. Having played Sandbox with something or another can't possibly change that.

If Saddam hid the weapons prior to (or sometime during) the inspections, the point was to get rid of the evidence and make it through the current political crisis, not to save the weapons for later.

But then the inspections would have done their job, and there would have been no need for an invasion.

We found weapons labs in Iraq after the invasion - and why have weapons labs except to develop weapons? I'm not going to go to the effort to find the source I cited all those months ago when I first brought it to your attention, because it's just not worth it.

Bull. You're not going to cite those sources now because you didn't cite them in the first place.

I ran a 'search' request in the 'Chambers for the string 'rccar'. I found 20 threads. I then opened every single page of every single thread - except this one - and ran a search for the string 'weapon'.

The most common occurance was in Kurgan's sig. Significantly, I found not a single post where you mentioned the string 'weapons' and provided any sort of evidence pointing to an Iraqi weapons program. At all.

In fact, I didn't find any mention of anything remotely looking like it might once have known the third cousin of something approaching a tangential relationship with evidence for Iraqi WMD programs in any of those threads, except for:

A single link spammer making specious legalistic pseudo-arguments. The only remotely interesting one is this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21497), and it is only interesting insofar it claims to be written in Copenhagen, Denmark, and it shows something for the quality of the rest of the links. Like the rest of the crap noxrepare spouted it's based on hyperbole, outright lies, and accusations from either the Bush regime or people with an axe to grind.

An unconfirmed report that the Polish government had made an unconfirmed comment about an unpublished and unconfirmed report on an unconfirmed WMD find (the operative word here being unconfirmed, not WMD)
This report was, by the way, later shown to be unsubstantiated.

And a State of the Union adress by GWB.

And that's all there is. Not a single shred of evidence from you.

There is indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq supported terrorism.

Now it's your turn. I'm not going through another pointless search for sources that some random troll claims to have once posted - if only he could 'remember' where and when.

Saddam publicly paid the families of suicide-bombers (terrorists!)

It is a fallacy to equate suicide bombers with terrorists. Terrorists is not a subset of suicide bombers and suicide bombers is not a subset of terrorists.

The idea that brutal dictators should somehow be safe just because there are many makes no logical sense

And, indeed, is not the one we're advancing.

Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be removed

Iran lies squarely within the European sphere of interest. And we'll deal with it in our own good time. Hopefully without interference from ham-handed American president-wanna-bes.

Saudi Arabia should either make drastic reforms or no longer be recognized as an ally of the United States, and that regime should be removed from power.

Now we're talking.

Saying that we shouldn't take decisive action against dictatorial regimes simply because they are numerous is...

... not what we're saying. What we're saying is that if the reason for going into Iraq was to remove Hussein from power, then Bush is an incompetent idiot who hasn't got his priorities right, because if he really wanted to free oppressed people, he should have offered troops and logistical support to the UN peacekeeping operation in Sudan and continued the operation in Afghanistan instead of pulling out prematurely.

So, if you want to argue that the Iraq war was about freeing an oppressed people and removing an evil dictator, then Bush is a freckless incompetent. That's not even hyperbole, it's a straight-line conclusion.

Nobody's saying that Hussein didn't have to go. What we have been saying is that 1) Removing him by force of arms was just about the single most stupid way to do it, and 2) that he's a small fish in a big pond. If the objective was to free oppressed people, you should have looked to Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Burma (listed in no particular order), and other, similiar places looong before even tinking about Iraq.

Okay, I'll try to find them...but [...] finding where I posted them will be time-consuming and difficult.

Yeah, right. 'Difficult' as in 'impossible'. They aren't there.

Noxious Repares' link-spamming is in the John Kerry thread. But they aren't readworthy.

Someone brought up that if Saddam had hidden WMD in the desert, someone would be around to speak up about it, but that isn't necessarily true. Saddam wasn't really known for being a nice guy, and if he did hide WMD somewhere, there was nothing to stop him from killing anyone who knew where the WMD were hidden.

Yeah, because that would be, like, real smart... Quite apart from the simple fact that storing them in the desert would be the same as scrapping them (so if your real intention was to disarm Hussein's Iraq, why was useless weapons justification for a war? What did you say? I believe I didn't quite hear you the first time around?)

For all we know, the only evidence is somewhere in the pile of documents that have been recovered,

And which, for some unfathomable reason, nobody - including Hussein himself - pointed someone to... Yeah right. And if anyone believes any of that, please do not hesitate to PM me. I have a Golden Gate Bridge, a piece of the True Cross, and a majority share in Enron, and I want to sell.

Or shipped off to North Korea, who covets these things like jewelry.

Because if he was to ship them half-way around the world anyway, it wouldn't have been a lot easier to ship them to Washington, eh? Oh, I do believe I also found a share or two in the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty, if anyone's interested.

"And now I come in, saying something suitably heroic."
-Atton Rand, TSL (cut content)

Which didn't matter at all, since the Americans were already ignoring the UN.

And if we were proven right, who'd have egg on their face? US or UN?

Can't be that. He'd already done enough and left behind enough evidence that WMD or not wouldn't matter - no matter which court convicted him.

Please tell me I'm misreading this. WMDs were the crux of the entire operation in Iraq! The World Court, UN (and you, no doubt) would be interested in proof of WMDs.

Which is the oldest trick in The Book. Every war criminal in the history of war criminals have done that. It doesn't work, of course, and everybody knows that it doesn't work, but usually war criminals who are brought to trial don't really have all that much to [lose] by trying.

Your point being...?

So you're basically saying that he couldn't - in the two months between the time everybody knew Bush was about to unilaterally attack, he couldn't have dug up those WMD? Sure doesn't sound like a very dangerous weapons program.

I have a minor disagreement with rccar on this one. Sadaam was/is defiant to those who would oppose him. I'm willing to bet he didn't think we would attack until the first bomb struck. (As you said, you can't leave out the fact that a leader can be a total moron.)

If he tried to hide them in the desert, they would have been rendered unfunctional in short order. So, although he might think he still had a weapons program, in fact he'd have already disarmed. The fact was that Iraq had no functional weapons of mass destruction during the war. Having played Sandbox with something or another can't possibly change that.

Based on that paragraph, without any outside opinion, I may conclude one of two things:

1. He had a weapons program, and knowingly allowed it to be destroyed in the desert.
2. He never had WMDs but his officials said he did. (Hint: Not likely. Lying to Sadaam in power is bad for your health)

But then the inspections would have done their job, and there would have been no need for an invasion.

And how would anybody know that he had destroyed them? We didn't know about the planes until we found them, buried.

Bull. You're not going to cite those sources now because you didn't cite them in the first place.

Could that post have been deleted? If not, rccar owes an explanation. If so, it's a matter of re-finding the sources. That simple.

It is a fallacy to equate suicide bombers with terrorists. Terrorists is not a subset of suicide bombers and suicide bombers is not a subset of terrorists.

Funny, that. By your thinking, 9/11 was not caused by terrorists. *gasp!* The planes exploded, so they are suicide bombers! Not terrorists! Great theory, but it doesn't hold water. When does one stop being a suicide bomber, and start being a terrorist? Hmm?

Iran lies squarely within the European sphere of interest. And we'll deal with it in our own good time. Hopefully without interference from ham-handed American president-wanna-bes.

As I'm sure you'll deal with N. Korea in your own good time. Bull! You would sit on your ass while the rest of the world fell. Give us what liberals ask of W. GIVE US A TIMETABLE. You did not, and we had to assume what I just said: you'd do nothing. Except, maybe, put useless trade embargoes on them. Hate to burst another of your bubbles, but there is a time when negotiations fall, or would do nothing, and action is needed.

Now we're talking.

Really? If you didn't like going into Iraq, I'll have to hear your arguments for going into Saudi Arabia.

So, if you want to argue that the Iraq war was about freeing an oppressed people and removing an evil dictator, then Bush is a freckless incompetent. That's not even hyperbole, it's a straight-line conclusion.

Based on opinion, insults, and a complete lack of an open mind.

Nobody's saying that Hussein didn't have to go. What we have been saying is that 1) Removing him by force of arms was just about the single most stupid way to do it,

Oh, mister Sadaam, could you please step down from power? Oh, please, it'd be a huge favor! At least think about it...

That's pretty much what the UN has done.

Because if he was to ship them half-way around the world anyway, it wouldn't have been a lot easier to ship them to Washington, eh?

But then he'd miss out on a chance to make money. That'd get rid of evidence, make a profit, all while just being a good little fascist dictator.

And if we were proven right, who'd have egg on their face? US or UN?

Option c) the US and the UN. The UN for not finding them, and the US for starting a patently illegal war.

Please tell me I'm misreading this. WMDs were the crux of the entire operation in Iraq! The World Court, UN (and you, no doubt) would be interested in proof of WMDs.

Yes and no. First off, the existence or lack thereof of WMD was only relevant up until the first American soldier went into Iraq. Even if WMD were found tomorrow, they wouldn't justify the patently illegal war. At this moment in time, the lack of existence of pre-invasion evidence for WMD is what matters.

Secondly, for Saddam personally it wouldn't matter dip **** whether or not anybody found WMD in Iraq anyway, since there's already enough evidence to give him life in prison and/or capital punishment with or without any WMD.

So it makes absolutely zero sense for Hussein not to use any and all weapons against an invasion: His regime was going to collapse - anyone but an idiot could see that - and he was a dead man anyway if Americans got their hands on him.

Personally, I think the smart thing to do for him would have been to hand himself over to the British forces when Baghdad fell. That way he could be sure he would be spared of capital punishment, because Britan is a civilised country, and civilised countries don't hand over people to countries where they face the death penalty.

Your point being...?

That the fact that he challenges the legitimacy of the court proves absolutely nothing.

I'm willing to bet he didn't think we would attack until the first bomb struck. (As you said, you can't leave out the fact that a leader can be a total moron.)

I'm thinking the same thing. After all, he had to figure that there would be no attack to continue to be obstructionist about the inspections - especially since he had nothing to conceal anyway.

He probably had military advisors and foreign policy advisors telling him that there would be no invasion. He probably still had the day before - OK, maybe only the week before the invasion. After all, would you like to be the underling to tell Saddam Hussein that he'd screwed up?

Based on that paragraph, without any outside opinion, I may conclude one of two things:

1. He had a weapons program, and knowingly allowed it to be destroyed in the desert.
2. He never had WMDs but his officials said he did. (Hint: Not likely. Lying to Sadaam in power is bad for your health)

There being a third option, namely that he employed third-rate weapons techs and their WMD Production 101 class didn't include the effects of desert sand on the employability of WMD. Sure looks like it didn't include the effect of desert sand on the employability of MiG fighter jets.

And, of course, nobody would tell him that afterwards, would they. People who screwed up under Hussein would probably have - ah - accidents be happened to them.

And how would anybody know that he had destroyed them? We didn't know about the planes until we found them, buried.

But the point is that weapons under the sand aren't weapons at all. Sure, he might have hidden them there with the intend to dig them up and use them later. In that case he would have been in for a sad surprise, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever of an operational WMD program when W launched the war. And there still isn't. What they've done with it is anybody's guess.

Could that post have been deleted?

Doubt it. I can remember only one case of an entire thread being deleted from the 'Chambers, and that was waay back in 2003, long before rccar had even joined. And Skin and C'Jais usually leave messages when they delete posts. So I suppose you could go back and search for all Skin's posts in the 'Chambers and see if you could find evidence of tampering.

If you really want to.

Funny, that. By your thinking, 9/11 was not caused by terrorists. *gasp!* The planes exploded, so they are suicide bombers! Not terrorists! Great theory, but it doesn't hold water. When does one stop being a suicide bomber, and start being a terrorist? Hmm?

You have a maajor reading comprehension problem. I said that the two are not subsets of each other, not that there is no overlap. Manifestly there is, but it is not upon me to disprove that that overlap includes those Hussein sponsored.

As I'm sure you'll deal with N. Korea in your own good time.

Unlike North Korea (and the US) Iran does have a functioning opposition. I say we support them - and I say we do it in a way that doesn't get them branded as 'western whores'. The US has a noticeable lack of success in that regard. The EU has a noticeable string of successes.

Bull! You would sit on your ass while the rest of the world fell. Give us what liberals ask of W. GIVE US A TIMETABLE.

I specifically did not want a timetable for the Iraq pullout. I do believe I specifically said that I thought (and think) that you have to stay in Iraq until the damn thing actually starts working. I also happen to remember critisizing Bush for wanting to pull out too fast. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

You did not, and we had to assume what I just said: you'd do nothing. Except, maybe, put useless trade embargoes on them. Hate to burst another of your bubbles, but there is a time when negotiations fall, or would do nothing, and action is needed.

And if you can find a way to topple the 'dear leader' without Seoul getting turned into a parking lot in the process, I'd be all for it. Oh, but do remember to touch base with Beijing. I gather they are rather touchy about that subject. And I also seem to recall from history class that they kicked your asses the last time you tried.

Really? If you didn't like going into Iraq, I'll have to hear your arguments for going into Saudi Arabia.

It's a theocracy, like Afghanistan, and there's no improvement in sight, unlike Iran, and it's headed for a civil war. Real. Fast.

But really, rccar's comment included a lot of options short of outright attack. Those options must be tried first, and personally I think the Saudi regime would blink first. Specifically, I think they'd collapse in the face of an embargo or a worldwide oil boykott.

Additionally I'd, of course, argue that we seek UN approval for any such attack - and that this time around some contingency planning and long-term strategy is actually thought out before we invade.

So, if you want to argue that the Iraq war was about freeing an oppressed people and removing an evil dictator, then Bush is a freckless incompetent. That's not even hyperbole, it's a straight-line conclusion.
Based on opinion, insults, and a complete lack of an open mind.

Based on the abundance of obviously far more relevant and legitimate targets around the world. Heck, your old bosom buddies just south of the Iraqi border would have made lots better targets. But y'know, maybe W did gun for those, and just got the names screwed up.

Oh, mister Sadaam, could you please step down from power? Oh, please, it'd be a huge favor! At least think about it...

That's pretty much what the UN has done.

And did they manage to start a civil war? For that matter, did the world need an invasion of Chile for it to rid itself of Pinochet (you know, your old friend in the region)? Did Spain need a war to rid itself of Franco? Did Argentina need a war to rid itself of its corrupt president (whose regime was (c) Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., btw)?

And what happened to your reply to my pt. #2, btw? I'm sure the post-bot must have eaten it, because I don't see it. Anyways, I'll repost so you don't have to scroll so much.

*ahem*

2) that he's a small fish in a big pond. If the objective was to free oppressed people, you should have looked to Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Burma (listed in no particular order), and other, similiar places looong before even t[h]inking about Iraq.

But then he'd miss out on a chance to make money.

Oh, but the line ran that he hated the US soo much... Surely if he could sell it to North Korea covertly (despite the fact that NK wouldn't need his obsolecent, second-line crap), what would prevent him from getting it into San Fransisco?

And the argument that he wouldn't hide the WMD due to practical concerns (i.e. bio/chemical agents won't be viable anymore) makes absolutely no sense.

I suppose it wouldn't if your grasp of science and critical thinking were deficit, but surely this isn't the case with you. Therefore, it would seem that because the conclusion you have reached isn't supported by the data -you reject the data. But in a way, you are right. He wouldn't have buried them except to dispose of chemical waste in the same manner most peripheral/developing nations do. The waste wasn't lethal to the point of being classed as a "WMD," however. Chemical compounds like VX and Sarin fail to maintain steady states without specific storage parameters and even then will break down. Much the same way milk only lasts for so long even in the refrigerator (Munro et al 1999).

He was willing to ruin over 30 MIG fighter jets, worth millions of dollars each, by burying them in the desert in order to hide them from us.

This is evidence of incompetence more than a desire to hide weapons for reuse. Only an incompetent leader would order his men to bury a complex mechanical and hydraulic system such as a Mig in desert sand if he intended to reuse it. It seems likely that it was inexperienced field officers that took this task upon themselves, probably to hide obvious targets from American bombers out of self-preservation. They were assigned to the post, and didn't want the Migs falling into the hands of enemies like Iran, etc. There are many reasons for burying the Migs. Show me the "WMDs" and then you have an argument.

To say that he wouldn't bury chemical or biological agents because they won't be viable any more just doesn't add up. If Saddam hid the weapons prior to (or sometime during) the inspections, the point was to get rid of the evidence and make it through the current political crisis, not to save the weapons for later.

Or the point was to dispose of the useless chemicals which the bio-chem agents had become. Do you keep sour milk in your refrigerator?

And as to Skin's assertions:

We found weapons labs in Iraq after the invasion - and why have weapons labs except to develop weapons? I'm not going to go to the effort to find the source I cited all those months ago when I first brought it to your attention, because it's just not worth it.

You won't find the sources. They don't exist. You might find a Fox news secondary/tertiary source or a right-wing op-ed piece, but where is the primary source that outlines these alleged "weapons labs" in detail? I read each of your posts with some eagerness "all those months ago." I don't recall you ever posting a citation that provided any evidence to "weapons labs." And I do hope you're referring to the so-called "mobile weapons labs" that the right-wing media made some hype about for about a week or so. Because I have several primary sources that state these were *not* weapons labs.

You ignored the evidence then, and you'll probably just ignore it again, simply through virtue of the fact that it destroys your argument.

All spurious evidence deserves to be ignored once it fails survive a test. If you provided the "evidence," what was undoubtedly ignored was the logical refutation of it. Cite it again, let us examine it. If you provide viable, testable evidence from a real source, I'll revise my position. I don't have pre-conceived conclusions to which I seek data. I let the data steer me to the conclusion.

There is indisputable evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq supported terrorism. It is no wild claim.

Where is this "indisputable evidence?" Can you cite anything beyond the Palestinian connection, a connection, I feel compelled to remind you, exists with nearly all Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and The United Arab Emirates -each alleged allies of ours. Simply put, the Arab World views Palestinian suicide bombers as freedom fighters. Show us the link with Al-Qaeda you used to claim existed. Show us the evidence. The indisputable kind.

There were terroist training camps in Iraq,

And, as I pointed out many times "all those months ago," these camps were in territories controlled by Allied Forces, like the Northern, Kurdish regions. Isn't that a bit of irony? Criticizing a government for allowing terrorists in a region they couldn't even police? A region that the Allied Forces controlled? If anyone should be held accountable for these camps, it should be us.

terrorists fled to Iraq for refuge,

Where is the evidence that the Iraqi government provided 'refuge' to known terrorists.

Again, when your argument falls apart, you simply ignore the evidence that stares you right in the face.

I'd like you to utterly destroy my argument. Show us this "evidence."

The idea that brutal dictators should somehow be safe just because there are many makes no logical sense

I think you're creating a bit of a strawman argument here. I'll let you argue it with yourself, since this clearly has nothing to do with what I said.

Not only are your own arguments non-sequiturs, but they have been disproven time and time again.

I'd like you to disprove any of them only once. My only real arguments, by the way, are that there is no evidence for the non-sequitur arguments presented by those who think it's cool to invade foreign nations and kill/maim thousands or allow good soldiers to die/be maimed. I've demonstrated each of those arguments to be non-sequitur. Where have you demonstrated my refutations to be the same?

The only reason they keep coming up is because you have wantonly ignored any and all evidence that contradicts your points.

Again, which evidence? Where are the data? I'm willing to revise my position with one simple demand: show the evidence. What would it take to get you to revise your position?

Reference:

Munro, N.B., et al. (1999) “The Sources, Fate, and Toxicity of Chemical Warfare Agent Degradation Products,” Environmental Health Perspectives 107(12):933–974.

Could that post have been deleted? If not, rccar owes an explanation. If so, it's a matter of re-finding the sources. That simple.

Doubt it. I can remember only one case of an entire thread being deleted from the 'Chambers, and that was waay back in 2003, long before rccar had even joined. And Skin and C'Jais usually leave messages when they delete posts. So I suppose you could go back and search for all Skin's posts in the 'Chambers and see if you could find evidence of tampering.

I sincerily hope my ethics aren't in question. If anyone does question them, I'll delete their post. :D


j/k

I haven't edited or deleted any posts. There were, however some threads lost just prior to the migration from one server to another, but I don't think the threads in question were among them. I do recall rccar posting a link to a newspaper/Fox News source that went on and on about the "mobile weapons labs" which were since declared by the Pentagon et al to belong to a Met unit of the Iraqi military. I was in the artillery and our own TAB batteries had similar vans to produce helium/hydrogen in sufficient quantity to keep their balloons in the sky. Good Met (meteorlogical) data is essential to the artilleryman. Balloons need to be flown to all altitudes the rounds will reach and the data needs to be checked many times a day.

The only threads we lost were the porn one and one about something far from the Iraq war, and they have since made their way back, minus a few posts.

A few points:

To start off, I have neither the patience nor the time to look through all of my past posts for the evidence I posted in whatever thread we last held this debate. A big part of this is the fact that I moved recently, and have no home internet connection...and I don't have enough free time at work to waste it all on arguments I've already made (multiple times). Sorry StaffSaberist, but I got obsessed with this forum a while back, to the point that I would've had no problem searching for hours for those articles, but I see little point in it now, as no matter what evidence I come up with, nobody will be convinced. No matter how many mass graves our troops unearth, or torture chambers they shut down, or terrorist training camps they discover, the libs around here are still going to say Saddam Hussein is a better man than George W. Bush.

Second, Skin, I'll concede the mobile WMD lab point to you, because I hadn't heard that they had announced that they'd discovered a different use for them. However, that has little bearing on justifications for the war, because as anyone here should know, all hindsight is 20/20.

If Saddam was so innocent on the WMD front, why'd he mess with the inspections and perpetuate the illusion that he had WMD? If the agents were no good any more, and he'd disposed of them somewhere, why not show the inspectors and get the UN off his back, so he could go back to terrorizing the Iraqi people?

If he had WMD and we just haven't yet found where he hid them (or the remnants of them), then he's guilty as charged, and got what he deserved. If he bluffed and had no WMD, then we've called his bluff, and he has to deal with the consequences - and the people of Iraq are better off for it, because they now have the freedom to choose their own government. Either way, Saddam is guilty as sin for crimes against humanity, and no one here can deny it...at least, not in any logical argument, anyway.

As for the arguments about links to terrorism, I again point you to the book Disinformation by Richard Minter.


ShadowTemplar, you said I won't cite my sources because I never did in the first place...talk to Skin about that. I may disagree with him (passionately, at times) on darn near everything, but if there's one thing I appreciate him for, it's that he did teach me to always cite my arguments - the guy's relentless on things like that. And he was there through those past threads, so if I was just throwing things around haphazardly without citing any of it, he'd know...and I've debated him enough that he ought to remember something like that pretty distinctly. He oftentimes didn't like the sources I cited, but the were cited. I haven't deleted any of my past posts, so if anything isn't there, it's through no fault of mine.