Dialog of war and peace...

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, konichiwa , things change. You state the obvious as if you had some point to make.

What is our problem with Iraq?

Q) They have nuclear weapons
A) Ok maybe they don't. But NK, Israel, US, among others...do. But we'll stick with Iraq

Q) They could give weapons to other people who may be threats to us in the future
A) Hmmm...sound familiar?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I agree! Saddam was a happy, peaceful man just like you or I until the evil US twisted him into the poor, demented, all-together pitiable person he is today. Before US involvement, I'm sure he had 0 interest in military buildup.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
hahahahah, you're so dense you must have small objects in orbit around you (or maybe you enjoy being stubborn and/or difficult). Seriously though, I'm glad you take yourself that seriously, cause no one else does. 😎

Direct to the insults, you are a lightweight debater.

ah heck off dude, you are not worth my time.


Hayabusarider

The comics in the Sunday paper are kind of funny sometimes also. I give this about as much importance in world affairs as I do them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

hahahahhahahhahha

actually i'm just in a good mood today, so i'm not going to get involved in anything that would bring me down...especially since I've done little but debate and campaign for the last month. The insults aren't venomous man, i'm just hackin on you. 😎 Gotta find enjoyment in life, else why live it.

Peace.

Kristin

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
hahahahah, you're so dense you must have small objects in orbit around you (or maybe you enjoy being stubborn and/or difficult). Seriously though, I'm glad you take yourself that seriously, cause no one else does. 😎

Direct to the insults, you are a lightweight debater.

ah heck off dude, you are not worth my time.


Hayabusarider

The comics in the Sunday paper are kind of funny sometimes also. I give this about as much importance in world affairs as I do them.

I love Dilbert. Notice I did not comment on the merit of it as a serious debate, though one might. Like I said, I thought it was funny.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, konichiwa , things change. You state the obvious as if you had some point to make.

What is our problem with Iraq?

Q) They have nuclear weapons
A) Ok maybe they don't. But NK, Israel, US, among others...do. But we'll stick with Iraq

Q) They could give weapons to other people who may be threats to us in the future
A) Hmmm...sound familiar?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I agree! Saddam was a happy, peaceful man just like you or I until the evil US twisted him into the poor, demented, all-together pitiable person he is today. Before US involvement, I'm sure he had 0 interest in military buildup.

In the same vein, I'm sure Bush was a perfectly peacable, docile and benevolent leader interested only in leading his own people into the future until the September 11th attacks. Before 9/11, he had no intention of war on Iraq or "persecuting" err...prosecuting Saddam, or limiting his own peoples' rights (see PATRIOT act, or the front of today's NYT)

 

[PrinceofWands]

see PATRIOT act, or the front of today's NYT

Got a link by any chance? I don't get the times. 8-(

 

[oLLie]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, konichiwa , things change. You state the obvious as if you had some point to make.

What is our problem with Iraq?

Q) They have nuclear weapons
A) Ok maybe they don't. But NK, Israel, US, among others...do. But we'll stick with Iraq

Q) They could give weapons to other people who may be threats to us in the future
A) Hmmm...sound familiar?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I agree! Saddam was a happy, peaceful man just like you or I until the evil US twisted him into the poor, demented, all-together pitiable person he is today. Before US involvement, I'm sure he had 0 interest in military buildup.

In the same vein, I'm sure Bush was a perfectly peacable, docile and benevolent leader interested only in leading his own people into the future until the September 11th attacks. Before 9/11, he had no intention of war on Iraq or "persecuting" err...prosecuting Saddam, or limiting his own peoples' rights (see PATRIOT act, or the front of today's NYT)

Hmm... now I'm gonna go see if I have any straws that I can grasp at.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: oLLie

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, konichiwa , things change. You state the obvious as if you had some point to make.

What is our problem with Iraq?

Q) They have nuclear weapons
A) Ok maybe they don't. But NK, Israel, US, among others...do. But we'll stick with Iraq

Q) They could give weapons to other people who may be threats to us in the future
A) Hmmm...sound familiar?

Hypocrisy at its finest.

I agree! Saddam was a happy, peaceful man just like you or I until the evil US twisted him into the poor, demented, all-together pitiable person he is today. Before US involvement, I'm sure he had 0 interest in military buildup.

In the same vein, I'm sure Bush was a perfectly peacable, docile and benevolent leader interested only in leading his own people into the future until the September 11th attacks. Before 9/11, he had no intention of war on Iraq or "persecuting" err...prosecuting Saddam, or limiting his own peoples' rights (see PATRIOT act, or the front of today's NYT)

Hmm... now I'm gonna go see if I have any straws that I can grasp at.

link

<< In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. >>

January 26, 1998, signed Donald Rumsfield and Paul Wolfowitz

 

[etech]

Good read konichiwa


It was as true then as it is now. Saddam needs to be dealt with. Now is the time to do it.

 

[konichiwa]

Haha. Point was that Dubya and his cronies have been planning this attack (which happens to coincide with the attacks on the liberties of the American People as well as political/war prisoners ... see the PATRIOT act, etc) for years and 9/11 was only the tragedy they were waiting for to take the American people by surprise and to be able to successfully pull off the "either you're with us or you're against us," "patriotism or get out" attitude that repulses so many levelheaded Americans (and non-Americans)

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Haha. Point was that Dubya and his cronies have been planning this attack (which happens to coincide with the attacks on the liberties of the American People as well as political/war prisoners ... see the PATRIOT act, etc) for years and 9/11 was only the tragedy they were waiting for to take the American people by surprise and to be able to successfully pull off the "either you're with us or you're against us," "patriotism or get out" attitude that repulses so many levelheaded Americans (and non-Americans)

I think you are reading into it quite a few things that just aren't there.

Yes, people have for a long time seen the need to deal with Saddam. The current situation has drug out for far too long.

Other than that, I see a lot of fabrication on your part.

 

[konichiwa]

Such as?

 

[novon]

Good post!

 

[Loralon]

PN: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

Disarmament of Saddam Hussain. Specifically with respect to WMD.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

This isn't some contest whereby we declare war on the country with the most security council violations. Let's not be silly here. As a matter of foreign policy, the U.N. is just a tool to implement policy and not the foundation from which a policy is formed. The basis of foreign policy is national interest: national security and economic security.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

The IAEA also thought that Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program in 1990. They were obviously wrong about it then, but you would suggest that we should accept their current findings without hesitation. I'm not saying that Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program, but just that the IAEA saying so doesn't give me much confidence that Iraq doesn't. Let's be real, the IAEA doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to detecting secret nuclear weapons programs.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

Their current stock of short range ballistic missiles and rockets has sufficient range to reach Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

While quite a nations have chemical and/or biological weapons, none of them have goverments that are hostile to the U.S. and share a common strategic vision with international terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

Yes, so what's the point? :Q

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

Show me the money here! 🙂

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

No, the point to Afghanistan was to topple the Taliban and deny Al Qaeda a base of operations where they could gather, train and organize openly.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

Just because Saddam and Osama are opposite ends of a political pole doesn't mean they can't cooperate when they find common strategic interests. How in the world did the U.S. ever ally itself with Stalin? :Q

The next section is about whether Iraq has any WMD at all. The fact that Iraq refuses to fully and proactively cooperate with inspectors should suggest to everyone that Saddam has something to hide. The contention that Iraq is free of WMD is rather silly and tiresome.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

No. See above.

The next section is all about the UNSC. Again see above.

<skipping some semantics>

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

In 1995, Iraq admitted to it's continued production and weaponization of biological agents after the defection of Husayn Kamil, former director of Iraq's military industries. This just gets back to the same basic point. I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks that Iraq doesn't have any WMD.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

Obviously the threat to attack the U.S. directly is silly, even for KJI, with our nuclear deterrent. Similarly, given that North Korea has nuclear weapons already and such a large conventional force on the DMZ, it would be unwise to engage North Korea with a military option as long as they're not proliferating. Diplomacy would be the preferred option here, since North Korea's strategic goals aren't compatible with Al Qaeda.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

That's an open question simply because although the initial conflict will generate tension in the Islamic world, the subsequent liberation of the Iraqi people from this tyrant could ease tension as well. Let us not forget that the economic sanctions that have been on Iraq for so long already cause a great deal of anti-American sentiment on Arab street.

<more about the UNSC ... ugh, see above again>

 

[etech]

Loralon

Now that was a nice post. I'm not surprised it shut the discussion down. There doesn't seem to be a lot else to say.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: etech
Loralon

Now that was a nice post. I'm not surprised it shut the discussion down. There doesn't seem to be a lot else to say.

Actually I was out attending the anti-war rally in Portland. 😎 I'll read it soon (after dinner and such) and I'm sure I'll have plenty to say. 😎

 

[etech]

I hope it was more 'peaceful' than the one in Sept.

 

[tboo]

Good post Loralon

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Disarmament of Saddam Hussain. Specifically with respect to WMD.

This isn't some contest whereby we declare war on the country with the most security council violations. Let's not be silly here. As a matter of foreign policy, the U.N. is just a tool to implement policy and not the foundation from which a policy is formed. The basis of foreign policy is national interest: national security and economic security.

I guess that means that we're not trying to justify this war based on non-compliance? I mean israel really has been in non-compliance for a while. But yes you addressed that and said that it doesn't matter.

So, despite the CIA's assessment (prior to inspections and military buildup), we really believe that while inspectors are out searching through all of Iraq's crap, Saddam is likely to attack us or one of our allies? That would be the preemptive war. Otherwise it's called Preventive War... which is kind of illegal under international law.

I take your meaning though, that we're not talking about law enformcement, we're talking about greater national interest.

But that's where I think we differ. Healthy economies rely on stability and predictability. The rule of law is the specific mechanism that affords these qualities. Blindly brandishing force without at least plausible legal grounds undermines the stability of the system. In the end that will result in substantially more risk to our way of life than saddam is or ever was.

The threat of delegitimazation of the UN as a result of an unfavorable vote, is insane.

 

[Moonbeam]

loralon:
This isn't some contest whereby we declare war on the country with the most security council violations. Let's not be silly here. As a matter of foreign policy, the U.N. is just a tool to implement policy and not the foundation from which a policy is formed. The basis of foreign policy is national interest: national security and economic security.
-----------------------------
Ah so it is all about oil after all. And here I thought the United States stood for these enduring principles of truth. Instead it's what the fruitcake thinks is security and national interest. Like he'd know.