To everyone clamoring for an invasion of Iraq...

[Corn]

Moonie sez:

I would need more proof to actually believe it too. That doesn't, however, constitute, in my mind, a gag preventing me from repeating what I heard. I think ideas need the light of day.

This is the reason why I pretty much ignore most of what Moonie sez. I'm glad to see, however, that he does admit to parroting anything that would agree with his sensibilities regardless of the fact that it may, or may not, actually have merit.

Typical liberal behavior, and I thank you Moonie for continually providing evidence of the inherent dishonesty used in the voicing of your "opinions".

Because of your insulting behavior to Etech (no different than I've done myself on occasion, but for different reasons...), its plain to see you don't enjoy being labled to be a liar. The problem is that if you wish to not be accused of lying, you will need to be honest in your charges.

An honest man doesn't parrot what he heard some nut on the radio said about the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact.

I think ideas need the light of day.

Perhaps one of the most dishonest arguments ever made (yet one of the most common used by the more liberally inclined). Of course "ideas need the light of day", but then again I don't think that anyone had argued the contrary.

One can only hope that you personally are never accused of some morally reprehsible behavior against your fellow man (especially if meritless)--but I would surely bet that you would not be championing the promotion of that "idea".

 

[MinorityReport]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A solid majority of Americans believe President Bush ( news - web sites) should give U.N. weapons inspectors time to act and should wait for support from allies before invading Iraq, a new poll says.





The CBS-New York Times poll out Sunday also found a large and growing number of people want Bush to get congressional approval before going to war, with many saying Congress has not asked enough questions about Bush's policy toward Iraq.

The poll comes as Bush prepares to address questions about potential war in a prime time speech Monday evening. Congress is preparing to vote on authorizing force in Iraq later this week, and Bush hopes to persuade Americans ? as well as skeptical world leaders ? that now is the time to confront Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites).

The poll suggests Americans want him to move slowly.

By a 2-to-1 margin, they said they would prefer to see U.N. weapons inspectors have more time to do their work before military action is taken.

A majority, 56 percent, said that one country should not be able to attack another country unless it is attacked first. When people were asked the same question specifically about the United States, they were evenly split.

Two-thirds said they approve of military action to remove Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq, but a large majority ? 70 percent ? want the Bush administration to get approval from Congress. Sixty-five percent think it would be better to wait for allies before acting against Iraq.

And 51 percent think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy, while one in five said it is asking too many. Last month, 44 percent said Congress was not asking enough questions.

The poll of 668 adults was taken Thursday through Saturday and has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Among the poll's other findings:

_Despite concerns about the possible war, seven in 10 would prefer to hear political candidates talk about the economy over war with Iraq.

_More than one-third think the economy will get worse if the United States attacks Iraq, and half think military action against Iraq would increase the risk of terrorist attacks.

_Six in 10 said a war with Iraq is likely to lead to a wider war involving other countries in the Middle East.

_More than half, 57 percent, said they would base their vote for a candidate on economic policy before foreign policy.

_Four in 10, 41 percent, said they approve of President Bush's handling of the economy, while 46 percent disapproved. His overall job approval was at 63 percent.

_More than half said they consider the economy fairly bad, 42 percent, or very bad, 14 percent. Almost two-thirds said Bush should be spending more time on the economy, while a third said he's spending as much time as he can.

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

We are about to succumb to a Communist plot to take over our country

Nothing could be closer to the truth. Even better, buy a house and have kids, then you'll have everything to lose and you'll keep your mouth shut!

 

[Moonbeam]

I have to tell you Corn, I was thinking a lot about you when I was arguing with etech, wishing instead that he were you. You take things seriously, but not THAT seriously. You are a breath of fresh air. Glad to see you've waded in.

From Corn:


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moonie sez:

I would need more proof to actually believe it too. That doesn't, however, constitute, in my mind, a gag preventing me from repeating what I heard. I think ideas need the light of day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the reason why I pretty much ignore most of what Moonie sez. I'm glad to see, however, that he does admit to parroting anything that would agree with his sensibilities regardless of the fact that it may, or may not, actually have merit. (Actually what is happening here is that YOU are parroting anything that would agree with your sensibilities. You have made a conscious decision to categorize me as somebody with a particular sensibility and that further I parrot what agrees with that sensibility. You, my friend, have no idea what my sensibilities were in that example and can therefore make only a feint at reality by suggesting I was parroting a view. Let me make it clear. Unlike etech, I can entertain the unthinkable, the treasonous, the vial, the disgusting, the hideous, the evil possibility that things are not like I was taught they were. I can imagine and entertain the possibility that my government can be infected with power corrupted individuals who are cunning enough to want to conceal their activities by subterfuge. But I don't need to think that way. It?s just that I can think that way because I have spent a lifetime thinking about and trying to understand how the mind is programmed. "In my youth, said the sage, I took to the law and argued each case with my wife, and the muscular strength it gave to my jaw has lasted the rest of my life." I have a long experience with the fate of {reaction to} a flexible mind among the rigidly programmed. I am speaking to you from the dark, your dark, but it's ok. It just is. It's no big weenie to me. )


Typical liberal behavior, (More of that labeling by sensibilities) and I thank you Moonie (you're welcome) for continually providing evidence of the inherent dishonesty (subtle difference) used in the voicing of your "opinions". (I see we've returned to your favorite theme, "Corn as the last honest man." Hehe)

Because of your insulting behavior to Etech (no different than I've done myself on occasion, but for different reasons...)(that parenthetical was Corn's), its plain to see you don't enjoy being labeled to be a liar. (No, that's your projection. It's you who goes ape-sh!t about being called a liar, but nice try. I stated clearly that after numerous personal attacks by etech including ones he gets his kick from pretends are for other purposes, I did the same, showed him that that road runs two ways. I did, however, strive for accuracy. ) The problem is that if you wish to not be accused of lying, you will need to be honest in your charges. (A piece of advise to which you should pay special attention. Oh, Man, 'pot, kettle', think about it)

An honest man doesn't parrot what he heard some nut (In the first place you have know idea who it was and whether they are a nut and secondly, I never listen to Rush or Rush wannabes) on the radio said (say) about the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact. ( the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact-hehe, that sentence fragment is gobble beloved patriot enough to look like you're trying to mask an incomprehension of the issue)

( And Really? " An honest man doesn't..." Is that so? Did you get that out of the Boy Scout manual, that fine organization that helped to mold my upstanding character, or did you invent it from thin air. What a preposterous piece of balderdash. Jeez Corn, were you born only today. How many ditto heads do you think we have here? Or what did you hear on the radio today Moonbeam. Oh man, I heard this story about bombing... Who the hell do you think you are, the morality police. I don't live in your straight jacket. I think and quote what I feel like. I can have a million motives. I can be suckered in, I can be incredulous, amazed, excited, disbelieving. The last people who will have a shot at gathering my motivation would be people like you and etech who have things figured out before they happen. You have a case of the world stinks because of where you keep your nose.)

But now for the third time, Corn, why do you think I said I regretted those posts. I hope you don't imagine it's because of heat from etech or you. Unlike you and perhaps he, I pay great attention to what the two of you say or at least the attention my poor being has to devote, and I take your criticism very seriously for perspective and different insights, but I don't collapse under your fire. I'm a serious person. Criticism is a treasure the likes of which can't easily be found. I search, I postulate, and I can entertain a plethora of possibilities, but I don't like to distort or leave false impressions. etech didn't like the impression my post left. I didn't either because it has, as far as I know, led nowhere. I posted a link to tons of pipeline facts which bring us a long way but not that far yet. I hope it never proves to be the truth. )



Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think ideas need the light of day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps one of the most dishonest arguments ever made (yet one of the most common used by the more liberally inclined). Of course "ideas need the light of day", but then again I don't think that anyone had argued the contrary. (I think etech would disagree. My ideas threaten our troops)

One can only hope that you personally are never accused of some morally reprehensible behavior against your fellow man (especially if meritless)--but I would surely bet that you would not be championing the promotion of that "idea". (Well here I 'm not sure what you're on about, but etech managed nicely to do that. He called me a scurrilous liar and working for the enemy based on two erroneous premises. I think he went off the deep end. I'm just here shaking my head. Amazed. I just do the best I can. It's a beautiful day.

 

[etech]

Moonbeam
Read your quote again sometime.

"The above is probably just my usual sarcasm and in no way reflects my real opinion"

Basically what you are saying is that you are a dishonest poster. You do not stand behind what you post. If you feel like posting a lie then you will. But hey, it's only your usual sarcasm, right? Why don't you try posting "I really really mean this post" when it is not you?re a fabrication of your mind.

You lie, distort, fabricate, and obfuscate. You are a sad little man Moonbeam.


I?m going to end my participation in this thread with two reruns from previous posts.

Patriots do not spread the terrorist's propaganda for them. A true patriot will criticize with an eye towards improving the situation not tearing down. You are just another partisan drone Mooney, you just aren't bright enough to see it. You can say our country sucks, in fact you can take that as a permanent attitude and keep repeating it as you do but remember this. America will not be destroyed by an enemy from without but from within by the cynicism and decay that you spread and represent.


"During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

The dangers of taking yourself too seriously. etech has lost it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, Engine, probably the result of a long struggle with gingivitis, especially the rot from within thingi.


etech, you remind me of the Maginot Line.

Patriots do not spread the terrorist's propaganda for them. (Yup no terrorist wants his enemy to fight each other. RIGHT!) A true patriot will criticize with an eye towards improving the situation not tearing down. (You do a ton of tearing down) You are just another partisan drone Mooney, (you have few peers with regard to partisanship) you just aren't bright enough to see it (Yes, yes, more personal attack. It's your style.) You can say our country sucks (best sucking country in the world), in fact you can take that as a permanent attitude and keep repeating it( but ) as you do(,) but(move this but to where the other one is) remember this. America will not be destroyed by an enemy from without but from within by the cynicism and decay that you spread and represent. (My, my, my, and we don't see our own cynicism and decay in this remark? Extraordinary! You need a new mirror. And I don't know whether to be flattered of shocked. Imagine, I, Moonbeam, am the one who, by the propagation of my cunning lies, is, single-handedly, going to destroy America. Well in for a penny, in for a pound, I always say. I wonder if hyperbole is a lie? At any rate, when I'm being sarcastic, at least I know it.


There is a profound but oft overlooked truth that we see in others what we hide about ourselves from ourselves. The thief fears he will be robbed, the swindler that he will be cheated and so on. It bares some thinking about here. "During the course of [my] administration [as President], and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare." Exactly what you have done to me. You have called me a scurrilous liar. Well I never...

"These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation; but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation." Well, unlike Jefferson, I have some time for you, and whereas a court of public opinion is always welcome, it is not necessary. It is enough for me that I am quite comfortable, in my self skeptical way, right here in my own skin. I'm afraid you have, effectively, attacked the tar baby.

 

[Orsorum]

I have a question for those of you who support America's unilateral action towards Iraq -

What do you want to come out of deposing Saddam? What do you think the possible consequences will be?

Furthermore, what are we going to do after Iraq is freed from Saddam's maniacal grip?

 

[Moonbeam]

I support the removal of Saddam, Zak, and I have no profound differences with the course of events so far. What I don't support is a unilateral attack on a false pretext. I did not hear the Bush speech tonight so I'm not up to speed on our current direction. I favor a Declaration of War by congress, a strong unconditional UN mandate, and every effort to allow Iraqi citizens to flee if and when we go in if Saddam tries to weasel on the inspections including his removal. I want to see us keep our hands off Iraqi oil, a massive and sustained effort to rebuild the country and institute democratic government there. The war on terrorism will be one of ideas. We need to walk the walk of the best ones. Truth cannot be defeated. I could say much more but I'll end here because you wanted whole-hearted supporters and I'm whole-hearted, but perhaps not as you might have been looking for.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I support the removal of Saddam, Zak, and I have no profound differences with the course of events so far. What I don't support is a unilateral attack on a false pretext. I did not hear the Bush speech tonight so I'm not up to speed on our current direction. I favor a Declaration of War by congress, a strong unconditional UN mandate, and every effort to allow Iraqi citizens to flee if and when we go in if Saddam tries to weasel on the inspections including his removal. I want to see us keep our hands off Iraqi oil, a massive and sustained effort to rebuild the country and institute democratic government there. The war on terrorism will be one of ideas. We need to walk the walk of the best ones. Truth cannot be defeated. I could say much more but I'll end here because you wanted whole-hearted supporters and I'm whole-hearted, but perhaps not as you might have been looking for.

I phrased it incorrectly - I support your sentiments, and I think Saddam needs to be removed - by whom, IMO, is another matter.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I have a question for those of you who support America's unilateral action towards Iraq -

What do you want to come out of deposing Saddam? What do you think the possible consequences will be?

Furthermore, what are we going to do after Iraq is freed from Saddam's maniacal grip?

1.A big supporter of terrorism will be done with.
2.A new democratic arab country.
3.Democracy in Iraq will cause problems in Saudi, Iran.
4.Possibly the end of OPEC.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I have a question for those of you who support America's unilateral action towards Iraq -

What do you want to come out of deposing Saddam? What do you think the possible consequences will be?

Furthermore, what are we going to do after Iraq is freed from Saddam's maniacal grip?

1.A big supporter of terrorism will be done with.
2.A new democratic arab country.
3.Democracy in Iraq will cause problems in Saudi, Iran.
4.Possibly the end of OPEC.

1. Supporter of what terrorists?
2. Has any plan of bringing democracy in Iraq been put forth?
3. Probably
4. Doubtful but hard to say

 

[Pocatello]

I don't think Saddam is a threat to the US right now, but do we really want to wait until he has the capability to pose a threat? If he gives millions of dollars to the terrorists, which I think he does (wouldn't you do the same to distract the US from attacking you?), you will never find the proofs. He has already given money to Palestinians to blow themselves up along with the Israeli civilians to divert attention away from him. The worst thing that could happen to Saddam is peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
I don't think Saddam is a threat to the US right now, but do we really want to wait until he has the capability to pose a threat? If he gives millions of dollars to the terrorists, which I think he does (wouldn't you do the same to distract the US from attacking you?), you will never find the proofs. He has already given money to Palestinians to blow themselves up along with the Israeli civilians to divert attention away from him. The worst thing that could happen to Saddam is peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Links?

I reiterate, I think Saddam has nothing to gain whatsoever by developing and storing WMD - there's no logical consequence.

 

[Corn]

You have made a conscious decision to categorize me as somebody with a particular sensibility................ More of that labeling by sensibilities

Does it matter that I label you if I'm correct? Would you disagree with the placement of the pigeonhole in which I've pegged you? Do not be ashamed of what you are Moonie, wear it on your sleeve proudly.

I see we've returned to your favorite theme, "Corn as the last honest man." Hehe

Really? I hadn't realized that you and I are the only two people on earth.

.....the vial.....

Eh? Vial containing what? Biological agents?

You, my friend, have no idea what my sensibilities were in that example and can therefore make only a feint at reality by suggesting I was parroting a view.

Oh yeah, I forgot, "the above was probably just your usual sarcasm"........not really all that suprising when you think about it.

No, that's your projection. It's you who goes ape-sh!t about being called a liar, but nice try.

You are going to have to much better than that Moonie. I can say the noon day sky is green, but that doesn't make it so. Show me.

(say)

Actually Moonie, the tense used was correct. If your arguments are so weak that you are now going to start criticizing my grammar, perhaps it would do you well to demonstrate an actual error, not an imagined one.

the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact-hehe, that sentence fragment is gobble beloved patriot enough to look like you're trying to mask an incomprehension of the issue...

If it looked like "gobble beloved patriot" to you, then I cannot be held responsible for your functional illiteracy.

What a preposterous piece of balderdash

It's hard to argue that point against one so well versed in, and skillful of, balderdashedness. I award you a point.

Who the hell do you think you are, the morality police.

Yet another typical liberal argument: Don't judge me!

But wait, isn't my "opinion" regarding your so-called lack of morality also an "idea", and shouldn't "ideas" see the light of day? I guess that the freedom to express "ideas" is a right granted to those "ideas" that you happen to agree with.......why the sudden hypocrisy?

The last people who will have a shot at gathering my motivation would be people like you and etech who have things figured out before they happen.

The transparency of you arguments easily exposes your motivations Moonbeam. While a good self image is important to a healthy life, you are not nearly as complicated in your sensibilities as you believe yourself to be. Neither am I. But believe what you wish, for I am merely some guy in Detroit.

Well here I 'm not sure what you're on about, but etech managed nicely to do that.

I'm sorry, I guess the irony of that statement had escaped you, or hadn't it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have made a conscious decision to categorize me as somebody with a particular sensibility................ More of that labeling by sensibilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does it matter that I label you if I'm correct? (That would depend on what you mean by matter. I don't hold myself to blame for your irrationality. In that sense it doesn't matter at all. It would matter if you don't want to be subject to your own criticism. You accused me of parroting a particular sensibility by parroting a particular sensibility. Parroting should either be proscribed or it shouldn't. I will simply object to you doing it if you object to my doing it.) Would you disagree with the placement of the pigeonhole in which I've pegged you? (which one, you seem to think in pigeon holes.) Do not be ashamed of what you are Moonie, wear it on your sleeve proudly. (I have heard that we are three things, what we think we are, what others think we are , and what we really are. any particular preference?)



Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see we've returned to your favorite theme, "Corn as the last honest man." Hehe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? I hadn't realized that you and I are the only two people on earth. (Yes, and I hadn't known you were a woman.)


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....the vial.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Eh? Vial containing what? Biological agents? (Oh no you attacked my spelling. I hope I wasn't so pedantic as to attack your grammar.)


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You, my friend, have no idea what my sensibilities were in that example and can therefore make only a feint at reality by suggesting I was parroting a view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh yeah, I forgot, "the above was probably just your usual sarcasm"........not really all that surprising when you think about it. (Hehe, unfortunately you're no better at seeing behind the straight stuff. I put that in my sig, Corn, because the best way to illustrate absurdity is to carry it to its logical extreme, and too many poor souls took it as my literal position. Just goes to show how many absurdities people have gotten used to. A dynamic teaching style is not something with which conventional thinkers readily harmonize.)


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's your projection. It's you who goes ape-sh!t about being called a liar, but nice try.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are going to have to much better than that Moonie. I can say the noon day sky is green, but that doesn't make it so. Show me. ( No, no, Corn, it was your charge first and you showed me nothing then. No freebees. )


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(say)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually Moonie, the tense used was correct. If your arguments are so weak that you are now going to start criticizing my grammar(my spelling) , perhaps it would do you well to demonstrate an actual error, not an imagined one. (Oh man, do I have to? This is painful for me and I hate to bring that silly sentence up again. Oh well...:

"An honest man doesn't parrot what he heard some nut on the radio "said" about the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact." What you are doing here is propounding a rule or law of behavior. As such it needs to be phrased as a general case 'of hearing', not a specific instance of something 'heard' As a moral tenant you would say, "Do not parrot what people say", not, "Do not parrot what people said." Grammar and proper usage intertwine but needn't always be identical)

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact-hehe, that sentence fragment is gobble beloved patriot enough to look like you're trying to mask an incomprehension of the issue...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If it looked like "gobble beloved patriot" to you, then I cannot be held responsible for your functional illiteracy. (OK, OK, you want it translated, fine:

An honest man (as if only you know what that is- your assumption) doesn't parrot (the acquisition of knowledge and information via the radio is an accepted and time honored American tradition. It is best as an adjunct to and supplement for all manner of hopefully alternative sources. Stating information gathered from this that or the other source is not parroting or else everything you think and believe is also just parroting what you were taught) what he heard some nut (You know nothing about who it was, shat station, their reliability as a news source, nothing. A nut calls people nuts without basis or information. Bad, bad Corn.) on the radio said about the motivations of those who can make war as if it were, indeed, fact. (Speculations about people's motives for war fill the airwaves and libraries of the world. Get real.)




Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a preposterous piece of balderdash
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's hard to argue that point against one so well versed in, and skillful of, balderdashedness. I award you a point. (Thank you! You should get at least ten.)


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who the hell do you think you are, the morality police.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yet another typical liberal argument: Don't judge me!

But wait, isn't my "opinion" regarding your so-called lack of morality also an "idea", and shouldn't "ideas" see the light of day? I guess that the freedom to express "ideas" is a right granted to those "ideas" that you happen to agree with.......why the sudden hypocrisy? (What hypocrisy, I was simply exercising my right to morally critique your moral critique. I appreciate the admission to being a member of the morality police. Welcome aboard. You do need some work, though, on your notion of morality. As a card carrying member I become morally indignant and outraged whey people like you go around with torches burning witches in the name of good. Bad Corn)


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last people who will have a shot at gathering my motivation would be people like you and etech who have things figured out before they happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The transparency of you arguments easily exposes your motivations Moonbeam. (You are going to have to much better than that Corrine. I can say the noon day sky is green, but that doesn't make it so. Show me.)

While a good self image is important to a healthy life, you are not nearly as complicated in your sensibilities as you believe yourself to be. Neither am I. But believe what you wish, for I am merely some guy in Detroit. (I hear in these words the echo of a friendly and decent human being. I would say that we are all infinitely more complicated than we can ever imagine but I hope I don't have the egotistical notion of complication you impute. It ain't easy to see myself though.)


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well here I 'm not sure what you're on about, but etech managed nicely to do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm sorry, I guess the irony of that statement had escaped you, or hadn't it?

(you have no irony warning in your sig, and etech will hate you for false posting. I will continue to play along like I don't get it since that's especially easy when I really don't.

If you ever get tired trying to pigeon hole me, I'll tell you more about what I think if you bring up issues. There's more than one kind of light of day.

 

[Corn]

Oh no you attacked my spelling. I hope I wasn't so pedantic as to attack your grammar.

I didn't attack your spelling, I simply noted delight in the unintentional pun that resulted from your misspelling. Didn't you notice the winkie winkie?

Anyway, why the sudden trend in composing your posts in such a pain in the ass fashion? It was bad enough before just dealing with your new word of the day exercises, but now I don't know if I'm reading what I wrote or what you wrote, or if you wrote what I wrote about what you wrote about what I wrote..........it's all very confusing. *looking at birdies*

I'm not really as mean as I am (heh), just consider my criticisms to be the little angel on your shoulder (angels from Motown can kick your ass BTW ).......

I'm sorry to cut short this conversation, but I'm trying to grow the Corn family and Mrs. Corn has decreed this to be "ovulation day" and that it better count this time and to make it f'n pleasurable (I think she was asking for some ). Yep, she's a romantic, god I love her.

Wish me luck.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I reiterate, I think Saddam has nothing to gain whatsoever by developing and storing WMD - there's no logical consequence

Well let's step away from Iraq for a minute and examine a different situation. India - Pakistan. Both sides have nukes and there has been a lot of sabre rattling and posturing over the last months. Now ask yourself what the situation would be if only one side had nukes. Do you think that side would be more aggressive? Maybe more willing to attack or be more forceful with their foreign policy? I think there's a very good chance of it. Now put Saddam in the place of the one guy with nukes. Do you think he would be more or less likely to be aggressive towards Iran, Kuwait, etc.? Maybe the threat of our backing those countries keeps him out, maybe it doesn't. Would it be easier to prevent him from obtaining nukes or rooting him out of a country (again) after he has obtained them. I think the answer is obvious but the question remains as to method. Weapons inspections that have no consequences are worthless. The inspectors must be given complete and unfettered access to everywhere in the country. They must be allowed to inspect, develop intel from that, inspect those sites, lather, rinse, repeat. We aren't going in there blind, we have a certain amount of intel on the sites and more can be developed. It does take a certain amount of infrastructure to do this work, especially nukes and it is hard to keep it a secret. There must however be dire consequences for refusal of access. Leveling the site will work fine. Continuing refusal should result in a regime change by force done, if at all possible, by int'l coalition. IMO this is a threat to our financial and national security. He is a threat to the stability of the region if he obtains nukes. We should not allow him to do so.

 

[Orsorum]

Moonbeam, corn and etech - I'm glad you're all having a pissing match with each other. Can you leave it to PM's?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

I reiterate, I think Saddam has nothing to gain whatsoever by developing and storing WMD - there's no logical consequence

Well let's step away from Iraq for a minute and examine a different situation. India - Pakistan. Both sides have nukes and there has been a lot of sabre rattling and posturing over the last months. Now ask yourself what the situation would be if only one side had nukes. Do you think that side would be more aggressive? Maybe more willing to attack or be more forceful with their foreign policy? I think there's a very good chance of it. Now put Saddam in the place of the one guy with nukes. Do you think he would be more or less likely to be aggressive towards Iran, Kuwait, etc.? Maybe the threat of our backing those countries keeps him out, maybe it doesn't. Would it be easier to prevent him from obtaining nukes or rooting him out of a country (again) after he has obtained them. I think the answer is obvious but the question remains as to method. Weapons inspections that have no consequences are worthless. The inspectors must be given complete and unfettered access to everywhere in the country. They must be allowed to inspect, develop intel from that, inspect those sites, lather, rinse, repeat. We aren't going in there blind, we have a certain amount of intel on the sites and more can be developed. It does take a certain amount of infrastructure to do this work, especially nukes and it is hard to keep it a secret. There must however be dire consequences for refusal of access. Leveling the site will work fine. Continuing refusal should result in a regime change by force done, if at all possible, by int'l coalition. IMO this is a threat to our financial and national security. He is a threat to the stability of the region if he obtains nukes. We should not allow him to do so.

How is he a threat to our national security? The technology for actually using ICBM's to deliver the warheads is, AFAIK, still unavailable to him. Again, as well, what would he have to gain by using it against us? The one or two correct strikes he might ever be able to make would be far outweighed by the immediate and complete destruction of Iraq.

What are our plans once he is out of power? (by our hand)

I still think it is in our best interests to aid his citizens, empower them to make the change. IIRC, his own personal guard can't be trusted - can they be used? Our direct intervention is, IMO, a mistake and a misguided, incorrect use of our power.

 

[UltraQuiet]

How is he a threat to our national security? The technology for actually using ICBM's to deliver the warheads is, AFAIK, still unavailable to him. Again, as well, what would he have to gain by using it against us? The one or two correct strikes he might ever be able to make would be far outweighed by the immediate and complete destruction of Iraq.

I know you are capable of making this connection. Was he a threat to our financial and national security(the two are so interwoven I don't know why I am differentiating them) when he invaded Kuwait? Yes he was by 1. being aggressive and forcing us to respond and 2. threatening the stability of the region and the flow of oil out of it. The free flow of oil is VITAL TO OUR FINANCIAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY and will be until we find an alternative. So yes it is about oil but not for the reasons many people spew forth. There are more things that threaten our security than a direct attack on our shores. To think otherwise is a myopic and ignorant view of the world that always ends up costing more than a little bit of prevention would. You're a smart young guy Zak and the questions you are asking need to be answered but don't get tunnel vision. See the whole issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

The very best of luck Corn Hehe, I didn't get your irony or note the winkie, but I was being factious about the attack since I knew perfectly well I'd earned it with the grammar correction. Everybody can use an angle, especially a kickass one, on their shoulder.

Zak, you could have PMed me with that criticism. And besides, I was fending off an attack, perhaps not very successfully. I wanted to demonstrate to terrorists what would happen to them if they attacked a Superpower.

Zak and Dave, I can sympathize with both your views. I don't think we 'should let the worst leaders have the worst weapons'. The difficulty I have are a couple. So far I think Bush has pretty much done everything effectively. What I don't know is if that's by design or because of political realities. What I am afraid of is that he is going to attack Iraq regardless of what other support he gets out of some sense of divine mission that is completely contrary to the notion of a respect for international law, i.e. that you don't start a war on a presumption of threat. So far we have to take Bush's word for the existence of such a threat. While our trust is being sought, we are exposed to countless alternate motive scenarios for the attack, a new world domination plan, oil, revenge, election politics, and on and on. It is not a clean or clear vision we are given for the need of this attack. Also why now. The stakes are huge and that's why a rush worries me. On the one hand we don't want nuclear weapons going off in our cities. On the other we should not want to become a rogue nation that, contrary to all our past efforts to create international law, throws that in the toilet the minute it has the power to ignore the rules.

The central fact of Saddam is core to the issue in my opinion. Inspectors will never be able to search every inch or Iraq. We really need there a country whose people get to voice how they want to be governed.

 

[Orsorum]

To ignore Saddam is foolish - he is a despot, and a very paranoid man. But to rush in there with a) no international support, and b) no regard for how our actions will affect the Iraqi people and the entire stability of the Middle East is just as foolish, if not worse. Unplanned or rushed actions of this sort, with no regard as to the people's wishes and abilities (i.e. is there any underground support for revolution?), IMO, lead to some of the worst terrorists - it relies on Western values and Western systems of government to rule a primarily tribal people and culture.

And, yes, I realize the hypocrisy of using a post to direct posts to a PM.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I have a question for those of you who support America's unilateral action towards Iraq -

What do you want to come out of deposing Saddam? What do you think the possible consequences will be?

Furthermore, what are we going to do after Iraq is freed from Saddam's maniacal grip?

1.A big supporter of terrorism will be done with.
2.A new democratic arab country.
3.Democracy in Iraq will cause problems in Saudi, Iran.
4.Possibly the end of OPEC.

1. Supporter of what terrorists?
2. Has any plan of bringing democracy in Iraq been put forth?
3. Probably
4. Doubtful but hard to say

1.Abu Nidal*Sp* was allowed to live in Iraq(until recently)
Hussein writes checks to familys of palestian suicide/homicide bombers.
Senior Al Queda members have been spotted in Baghdad

2. Nothing specefic other than regime change. But we seem to be putting a democratic goverment in afganistan, so i would suspect the the same.

3. We can agree
4. If we put a new goverment in IRaq, I cant see it being a member of opec. Even If they join opec, it will be a preferred nation to buy from. Would you rather buy from a democratic iraq or Saudi who helps spread militant Islam?

 

[laFiera]

full article


In a speech intended to frighten the American people into supporting a war, the president Monday again trotted out his grim depiction of Saddam Hussein as a terrifying boogeyman haunting the world. However, a CIA report released late last week and designed to bolster Bush's case for preemptive invasion instead provided clear evidence that Iraq poses less of a threat to the world than at any other time in the past decade.

In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States.

The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, although it lamely attempts to put the worst spin on that embarrassing fact: "Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them."
Of course, that is a statement about intent, not capability, and one that can be made about dozens of the world's nations, many of them run by dictators as brutal as Hussein.

None of the unstable nations already possessing deliverable nuclear weapons are targets of Bush's wrath. And in the case of the military dictatorship of Pakistan, which at some point is likely to use such weapons in a war with India, we have even eliminated the sanctions imposed as punishment for developing those nuclear arms.

More important than its psychoanalyzing of Iraq's megalomaniacal leader is the CIA's concession that the much-maligned inspections done by teams of experts organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency actually worked quite well: "More than 10 years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons."

Similarly, the report concludes that Iraq's chemical weapons "capability was reduced during the UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf War."

The report also notes that all cases of documented use of chemical weapons by Iraq occurred on or before March 1988, primarily against Iranian troops in a war covertly supported by the U.S., and that neither chemical nor biological weapons were used against the United States during or after the Gulf War.