Iraq's al-Samound missiles

[ssibal]

Do you think that Iraq will destroy its al-Samound missiles as Blix has asked them to do? If they do not, do you think this is justification for military action?

[Richard G]

I think they will be destroyed by laser guided bombs come the first week of March.

[Jon_in_london]

Saddam will wait as long as he possibly can before destryoing them.

[Reginald]

I suspect that they will be destroyed. (well the ones that are known about).

Here's the dilema.

He dosn't want to destroy them, that would be a waste. However to disregard Blix would put the possitions of France, China and Russia in question. Simply because you could give arms inspectors from now till doomsday to look for this stuff, but it will make no difference if he refuses to destroy what is found.

To destroy them would be proof that he is eager to appear to be complying.

BUT if he is convinced that The US/UK will attack whatever, he will potentially be destroying weapons he could use to defend himself.

I find it rather reassuring that a) Blix has finally decided to word things a bit more strongly and b) Saddam has something to think about, appeals to the UN that these missiles only have range X once the guidance system is fitted will fall on deaf ears.

Its his next move and checkmate could be just a few moves away.

[cavin]

He doesnt need missles at all. What's he going to do with them, crop dusting? Send a scientific team to Mars? Hunt camels ( in Kuwait and Isreal and Iran...well yeah)?

[Michael Redman]

He need missles to deliver the chemical weapons he doesn't have, of course.

[Doctor X]

I mean, there is no evidence he planned to use these missles in a military fashion . . . we need to think about this for a few more months. . . .

--J.D.

[CapelDodger]

From Doctor X:
I mean, there is no evidence he planned to use these missles in a military fashion . .

Is he perhaps planning to scatter his ashes in space?

[crackmonkey]

They're for launching satellites, obviously.

[Peter Jenkins]

Iraqs missiles (http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/missile.html)
The Al-Samoud has a maximum range of, around, 300 KMs. This means that the missiles would have to be, almost, on the Syria - Jordan Border to hit Israel. IIRC, Iraq was allowed to own these missiles (under certain controlled circumstances) under UN rules.
If we're going to attack Iraq, let's be sure that it's for well considered & logical reasons.
Peter

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
Iraqs missiles (http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/missile.html)
The Al-Samoud has a maximum range of, around, 300 KMs. This means that the missiles would have to be, almost, on the Syria - Jordan Border to hit Israel. IIRC, Iraq was allowed to own these missiles (under certain controlled circumstances) under UN rules.
If we're going to attack Iraq, let's be sure that it's for well considered & logical reasons.
Peter

What about Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? We would not want another repeat of the blowing up of oil fields.

[Peter Jenkins]

I agree, in part.
However, the UN (and, up 'til recently, USA) has approved Iraq having these missiles in controlled circumstances.
Peter

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
Iraqs missiles (http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/missile.html)
The Al-Samoud has a maximum range of, around, 300 KMs. This means that the missiles would have to be, almost, on the Syria - Jordan Border to hit Israel. IIRC, Iraq was allowed to own these missiles (under certain controlled circumstances) under UN rules.
If we're going to attack Iraq, let's be sure that it's for well considered & logical reasons.
Peter
Your source gives the maximum range of 150-180 kilometres of the al-Samound missiles, not 300 km. According to Security Council resolution 687 Iraq is allowed to have missiles with a range of 150 kilometres for self-defense. 180 km range would still mean that they are a few hundred kilometres short of reaching Israel.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Richard G
I think they will be destroyed by laser guided bombs come the first week of March.

Second week of March....you may quote me. ;)

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Why doesn't he just sell them to North Korea?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by bangdazap

Your source gives the maximum range of 150-180 kilometres of the al-Samound missiles, not 300 km. According to Security Council resolution 687 Iraq is allowed to have missiles with a range of 150 kilometres for self-defense. 180 km range would still mean that they are a few hundred kilometres short of reaching Israel.

the slight increase in range is apparently due to the test missiles not being weighed down with a guidance system. either way, it is not that much more than what they are permitted to have, nothing like 300km.

[Reginald]

With all due respect, if he's not allowed to have them, he shouldn't have them.

Nor should he have developed them. The fact that he has implys (IMHO) that he didn't expect the UN to go back.

The Iraqis are currently "studying" the UN demand to destroy them....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2792267.stm

Is there rooom for negotiation on this one?

I don't think so.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Maybe he could weld them together, end to end, in a pipeline?

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Reginald
With all due respect, if he's not allowed to have them, he shouldn't have them.

Nor should he have developed them. The fact that he has implys (IMHO) that he didn't expect the UN to go back.

The Iraqis are currently "studying" the UN demand to destroy them....

Is there room for negotiation on this one?

I don't think so.
It's not a major breach of the resolution and in the end they'll probably destroy them. There's no rush to war (right?), and this shows that the inspections are working.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
They're for launching satellites, obviously.
From the surface of the moon where there is a low enough escape volocity is low enough and the rockets he uses to get them there are buried deep in underground bunkers.

At least that is what our foreign minster Alexander Downer believes

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Why doesn't he just sell them to North Korea?

Because in North Korea they are only considered "toys"

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Note that the USA is NOT making a big deal of the missiles. The UN inspectors are. The reason is that they can be disposed of easily, maintaining the fiction that the inspections are working.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Note that the USA is NOT making a big deal of the missiles. The UN inspectors are. The reason is that they can be disposed of easily, maintaining the fiction that the inspections are working.

That is because the US have already made up their mind that they are going to invade Iraq regardless of whether they destroy the missiles or not.
But if Saddam had half a brain he can fire the ultimate propaganda missile by destroying all his al-Semounds and then if America still invades Iraq it will send the message to the Arab and Islamic world that America is less interested in liberating Iraq from a cruel dictator and more interested in taking control of the Iraqi oil fields to appease the wealthy American oil barons.

What use will they be for him, he can't use them as shoulder launched missiles in the streets of Baghdad in urban guerilla warfare. The only likely place where he can put up any kind of stfff resistance against America

[Reginald]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


But if Saddam had half a brain he can fire the ultimate propaganda missile by destroying all his al-Semounds and then if America still invades Iraq it will send the message to the Arab and Islamic world that America is less interested in liberating Iraq from a cruel dictator and more interested in taking control of the Iraqi oil fields to appease the wealthy American oil barons.



Looks like (by your definition) he has half a brain then. He refuses to admit the missiles are in breach and he isn't going to destroy them. I am quite suprised at this turn of events TBH. It could be that this is just posturing until the deadline of sunday however (THAT wouldn't be such a surprise).

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Reginald


Looks like (by your definition) he has half a brain then. He refuses to admit the missiles are in breach and he isn't going to destroy them. I am quite suprised at this turn of events TBH. It could be that this is just posturing until the deadline of sunday however (THAT wouldn't be such a surprise).

You are correct, he has half a brain.

Here's the point from the US point of view. We will be going in, and nothing will stop us. No French or German or UN position will stand in our way. My guess is we will have more than three times the number of troops to do the job. There's a fair chance we'll go right through Iraq and on through Iran as well.

From the Iraq point of view, look at what he did in Gulf War I. I was in an Air National Guard unit at the time, and we had Iraqi units plotted on a map. We couldn't believe they were where they were, since they were placed in a manner like the world hasn't seen since World War One. I'm no longer in the Guard, but I'll bet it looks fairly similar to Stalingrad around their Baghdad deployments now. That's how the guy thinks, and he just never learns.

He won't show his WMDs now since he wants to use them on our troops. Well fine, but doesn't he realize we know where they are and will kill them before he uses them? It does little good to reason with him, since his own generals cannot. If they do they are executed.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Here's the point from the US point of view. We will be going in, and nothing will stop us. No French or German or UN position will stand in our way. My guess is we will have more than three times the number of troops to do the job. There's a fair chance we'll go right through Iraq and on through Iran as well.


There is absolutely no chance you'll go "right through Iraq and on through Iran as well." Dubya and friends might have all the diplomatic skills of wet dishrags, but they know there's no way in heck they will be reelected after commiting american troops to a permanent presence in yet another hostile country full of rebel forces.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by bjornart


There is absolutely no chance you'll go "right through Iraq and on through Iran as well." Dubya and friends might have all the diplomatic skills of wet dishrags, but they know there's no way in heck they will be reelected after commiting american troops to a permanent presence in yet another hostile country full of rebel forces.

Exactly, but they may have to go on the N Korea then maybe to Iran and if they continue going down that road then America through all that defense spending will only mount up a huge budget deficit and send itself broke, and America being the engine room of the world economy would take the rest of the world with it.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by bjornart


There is absolutely no chance you'll go "right through Iraq and on through Iran as well." Dubya and friends might have all the diplomatic skills of wet dishrags, but they know there's no way in heck they will be reelected after commiting american troops to a permanent presence in yet another hostile country full of rebel forces.

Most Iranians are actually pro-American. In fact, pre-Jimmy Carter, our relations were excellent, and would be just fine now except for the Islamofascists with towels on their heads. They even had excellent relations with Israel, which supplied instructor pilots for their air force. I wouldn't worry so much about the aftermath of war.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Exactly, but they may have to go on the N Korea then maybe to Iran and if they continue going down that road then America through all that defense spending will only mount up a huge budget deficit and send itself broke, and America being the engine room of the world economy would take the rest of the world with it.

Iraq and Iran have oil-a-plenty. We can suck that spiggot till we pay for the wars, then there's no deficit to worry about. And no terrorists get the financing anymore. And North Korea has no more Million Target Army any more.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

You see, guys, a few well placed and timed tactical nuclear weapons will go a long way toward explaining to all the lesser ragheads without the law that America means business and must not be trifled with. Terrorists will no longer be tolerated. We will pump Iraqi and Iranian oil until we pay for the war. We will convince Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians that they will either give up terrorism or die. And they will understand we mean it, unlike the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush I presidencies. Sordid Arabia will have to learn to behave or our imports will diminish from them even further, buttressed from Russia and our own ANWR. Perhaps internal strife will overtake the royal family.

I do believe that we will buy peace on the cheap this way, and Pax Americana will last quite a while.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by ssibal
Do you think that Iraq will destroy its al-Samound missiles as Blix has asked them to do? If they do not, do you think this is justification for military action?


Saddam says he WILL NOT destroy missiles (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030225-0545-iraq.html)

From the web article:

Saddam also belittled an order from chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to begin destroying the Al Samoud 2 system by the end of the week.

"Iraq is allowed to prepare proper missiles and we are committed to that," the network quoted Saddam as saying.

Asked whether the Al Samoud 2 missiles are "proper," Saddam was quoted as replying: "We do not have missiles that go beyond the proscribed range."


Nah...Saddam's not lying or hiding anything from the inspectors... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Dear Dan Rather: JUST SAY NO!!!!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll



But if Saddam had half a brain he can fire the ultimate propaganda missile by destroying all his al-Semounds and then if America still invades Iraq it will send the message to the Arab and Islamic world that America is less interested in liberating Iraq from a cruel dictator and more interested in taking control of the Iraqi oil fields to appease the wealthy American oil barons.



Well,, He could "unilaterally" destroy the al-Samouds like he did with the scud and scud launchers...and the al-Husseins. Just show the UNSCOM guys a bunch of scrap metal and ingots and tell them "missiles? what missiles? we destroyed them!" while moving them to another chicken farm owned by a member of the Al-bu Nasir tribe. :rolleyes:

-zilla

Maybe he's just getting tired of playing the game???

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well,, He could "unilaterally" destroy the al-Samouds like he did with the scud and scud launchers...and the al-Husseins. Just show the UNSCOM guys a bunch of scrap metal and ingots and tell them "missiles? what missiles? we destroyed them!" while moving them to another chicken farm owned by a member of the Al-bu Nasir tribe. :rolleyes:

-zilla

Maybe he's just getting tired of playing the game???

From the web article:

Bush will not be satisfied even if Saddam does destroy the missiles, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. He said stockpiles of sarin and VX nerve agent were still missing.

"This is not about public relations. This is about protecting the lives of the American people," Fleischer said. "If Saddam Hussein destroys the missiles that he said he never had ... you've got to wonder what other weapons does he have?"

[crocodile deathroll]

I said f Saddam had half a brain he can fire the ultimate propaganda missile by destroying all his al-Semounds and then if America still invades Iraq it will send the message to the Arab and Islamic world that America is less interested in liberating Iraq from a cruel dictator and more interested in taking control of the Iraqi oil fields to appease the wealthy American oil barons.

Now he agree to destroy them now what then (http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=168903&in_page_id=2)

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
There's a fair chance we'll go right through Iraq and on through Iran as well.

What happened to Syria, BD? And Jordan: doesn't their reigning monarch have both a bin and a Hussein in his name?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


What happened to Syria, BD? And Jordan: doesn't their reigning monarch have both a bin and a Hussein in his name?

Jordan is on our side.

Syria would be just fine with me, though probably unnecessary. If we hit Iraq and slice through to Iran at the same time, the shock to Syria (together with the warning from our people that they will be next if they continue to sponsor terrorism may well make actual invasion unnecessary. On the other hand, if that doesn't work, what the heck, nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Jordan is on our side.

Syria would be just fine with me, though probably unnecessary. If we hit Iraq and slice through to Iran at the same time, the shock to Syria (together with the warning from our people that they will be next if they continue to sponsor terrorism may well make actual invasion unnecessary. On the other hand, if that doesn't work, what the heck, nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!

Hey BD,

Don't you ever worry about shorting out playing that Genghis Khan Nintendo NES on your bedpan?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Hey BD,

Don't you ever worry about shorting out playing that Genghis Khan Nintendo NES on your bedpan?

Is your problem that you don't think there will be a war at all? Or that you don't think there will be a war against Iran? Just what is your major malfunction? We now have about three times the armed forces it takes to take on Iraq. Why do you think that is? Just to take Iraq? That's possible of course, but taking Iran as well would kill two targets at once. Targets which were identified by President Bush as members of the Axis of Evil, and are also on each other's borders. So why, exactly, do you feel that's so farfetched?

By the way, what the heck is a Nintendo NES?

[Reginald]

Thats what he says.....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html

However, in a letter received by the United Nations late Thursday, Iraq asked for talks on how the Al Samoud 2 missiles, should be destroyed.

Stall!

The letter gives no indication that the destruction will begin ahead of the Saturday deadline given by Blix.

Obviously.

In the letter, Iraq said it does not know how to destroy the weapons and wants a technical mission to discuss the details, and repeated its contention that the order is unfair.

Stall!

Again a headline grab, but still laying beneath is a reluctance to commit. Why did it take this long to come up with this request?

These are the missiles that Saddam was still claiming were not in breach just the other day.

They put them together, they can take them apart and destroy the bits.

I dont see war as the only option, and yet again I have to take my hat off to this guy for knowing the right string to pull. When is his luck going to run out I wonder?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Reginald
When is his luck going to run out I wonder?

I give it 2-3 weeks.

[crocodile deathroll]

I smell the putrid odor of American Christian Fundamentalism wafting around the world. I feel now it is not so much oil that is motivating the war but a so called prophecy in revelations (http://members.aol.com/Godclock/footnote_Q110.htm) and amongst the Christian Fundamentalist lobby in the US this may be self forfilling. The site of the ancient city Babylon is really in suburban Baghdad.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Is your problem that you don't think there will be a war at all? Or that you don't think there will be a war against Iran? Just what is your major malfunction? We now have about three times the armed forces it takes to take on Iraq. Why do you think that is? Just to take Iraq? That's possible of course, but taking Iran as well would kill two targets at once. Targets which were identified by President Bush as members of the Axis of Evil, and are also on each other's borders. So why, exactly, do you feel that's so farfetched?

By the way, what the heck is a Nintendo NES?

If we can get Iran to turn into a democracy or even get the royalty back in power, the middle east will be reshaped in a way I would never have thought possible ten years ago.

Now, as for Syria, all we have to do is get one massive angry Turk army to plant itself on their border and...well..I don't think the Syrians would be saying too much about it lol. They would be home at night awake in their beds thinking "Now, no one say bad things about America's actions in Iraq".

JK

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Is your problem that you don't think there will be a war at all? Or that you don't think there will be a war against Iran? Just what is your major malfunction? We now have about three times the armed forces it takes to take on Iraq. Why do you think that is? Just to take Iraq? That's possible of course, but taking Iran as well would kill two targets at once. Targets which were identified by President Bush as members of the Axis of Evil, and are also on each other's borders. So why, exactly, do you feel that's so farfetched?

By the way, what the heck is a Nintendo NES?

Was I right about the bedpan then?


Is your problem that you don't think there will be a war at all? Or that you don't think there will be a war against Iran? Just what is your major malfunction?

I'm trying to ignore my own concern that our so-called political leaders are up to exactly what you suggest. I believe both Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz to be suffering from some variety of delusional coprozoic monomania.


We now have about three times the armed forces it takes to take on Iraq. Why do you think that is? Just to take Iraq? That's possible of course, but taking Iran...

Iran, in some ways, resembles the United States: a republic trying to look like one ruled by politicians rather than ideologues. Likewise with a president who has pledged to put its destiny in the hands of its people. And both suffering parts of government beyond their reach they think they must win conservatives' support to make good on these pledges. That Mohammed Khatami won his presidency in a democratic landslide is an obvious difference.


...as well would kill two targets at once. Targets which were identified by President Bush as members of the Axis of Evil, and are also on each other's borders.

I believe that President Bush has been misinterpreted concerning this famous quote. What has been understood as his naming of that country was actually a reference to his personal conduct during the Vietnam War.

So why, exactly, do you feel that's so farfetched?


By the way, what the heck is a Nintendo NES?

That implant aft of your bazoo telling you this is all one great *********** idea.

[K-W]

The US has basically garunteed to everyone that they will invade iraq. Meanwhile the UN is disarming Iraq. Its almost comedic the way we are screwing them over. Weve been illegally bombing them for years, we shipped massive amounts of troops to the middle east from the get go. It was as clear to them as it is to most people that the US plans to go to war were not congtingent on much of anything. Saddam should get to keep his weapons, hes being illegally attacked and his nations soveriegnty is threatned he has every right in the world to defend himself.

This is one of those times that I wish I had a magic power where I could switch everyones roles, so that americans could be the ones facing a massive humanitarian disaster just because of a two bit dictator and a giant world power that is hell bent on controlling the land you just happened to be born in.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If we can get Iran to turn into a democracy or even get the royalty back in power, the middle east will be reshaped in a way I would never have thought possible ten years ago.

Now, as for Syria, all we have to do is get one massive angry Turk army to plant itself on their border and...well..I don't think the Syrians would be saying too much about it lol. They would be home at night awake in their beds thinking "Now, no one say bad things about America's actions in Iraq".

JK

Iran is already a democracy, it is just that it has not got an American puppet dictatorship in power like in Saudi Arabia.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Was I right about the bedpan then?




I'm trying to ignore my own concern that our so-called political leaders are up to exactly what you suggest. I believe both Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz to be suffering from some variety of delusional coprozoic monomania.




Iran, in some ways, resembles the United States: a republic trying to look like one ruled by politicians rather than ideologues. Likewise with a president who has pledged to put its destiny in the hands of its people. And both suffering parts of government beyond their reach they think they must win conservatives' support to make good on these pledges. That Mohammed Khatami won his presidency in a democratic landslide is an obvious difference.




I believe that President Bush has been misinterpreted concerning this famous quote. What has been understood as his naming of that country was actually a reference to his personal conduct during the Vietnam War.

So why, exactly, do you feel that's so farfetched?




That implant aft of your bazoo telling you this is all one great *********** idea.

You are about as incoherent as one can get. Have you forgotten to take your lithium? You've made several references to bedpans, etc., so this is what I must assume. So far as President Bush's personal conduct during Viet Nam, I assume you have something in mind here to back up the insinuation. I cannot imagine what it might be, since it cannot have anything to do with his Air National Guard service or Reserve affiliation. By the way, what was your record during that era, if you are about to cast aspersions on him?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


You are about as incoherent as one can get. Have you forgotten to take your lithium? You've made several references to bedpans, etc., so this is what I must assume. So far as President Bush's personal conduct during Viet Nam, I assume you have something in mind here to back up the insinuation. I cannot imagine what it might be, since it cannot have anything to do with his Air National Guard service or Reserve affiliation. By the way, what was your record during that era, if you are about to cast aspersions on him?

Hey BD,


This looks like one nifty unit (http://www.franke.fi/deko/Tuotteet/Sairaalatuotteet/Deko_190/deko_190.html). Maybe it'll work on the old bazoo while you're at it.


To answer your other question read this (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774513871&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795).


"...Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.

After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit's commander and the commander's assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.

Military records show that Bush's two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed.

It should be noted that reporting for military duty is not something that's optional, particularly during a war. Those caught shirking National Guard duties were usually punished by being drafted into the real army — the one that landed you in Vietman, where some 350 American soldiers were killed each week. But, despite more than a year absent from duty, nothing happened to the well-connected George W. Bush.

Favouritism is a sore point among those who actually went to war, including U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. As Powell wrote in his autobiography: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units ... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal ..."


I turned 18 in March of 1974 and registered for the Selective Service as required by law.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Hey BD,


This looks like one nifty unit (http://www.franke.fi/deko/Tuotteet/Sairaalatuotteet/Deko_190/deko_190.html). Maybe it'll work on the old bazoo while you're at it.


To answer your other question read this (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774513871&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795).


"...Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.

After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit's commander and the commander's assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.

Military records show that Bush's two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed.

It should be noted that reporting for military duty is not something that's optional, particularly during a war. Those caught shirking National Guard duties were usually punished by being drafted into the real army — the one that landed you in Vietman, where some 350 American soldiers were killed each week. But, despite more than a year absent from duty, nothing happened to the well-connected George W. Bush.

Favouritism is a sore point among those who actually went to war, including U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. As Powell wrote in his autobiography: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units ... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal ..."


I turned 18 in March of 1974 and registered for the Selective Service as required by law.


Very interesting!!

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by K-W
The US has basically garunteed to everyone that they will invade iraq. Meanwhile the UN is disarming Iraq. Its almost comedic the way we are screwing them over. Weve been illegally bombing them for years, we shipped massive amounts of troops to the middle east from the get go. It was as clear to them as it is to most people that the US plans to go to war were not congtingent on much of anything. Saddam should get to keep his weapons, hes being illegally attacked and his nations soveriegnty is threatned he has every right in the world to defend himself.

This is one of those times that I wish I had a magic power where I could switch everyones roles, so that americans could be the ones facing a massive humanitarian disaster just because of a two bit dictator and a giant world power that is hell bent on controlling the land you just happened to be born in.

#1 - supply evidence that the UN is actually disarming Iraq. Do not give information about the few empty bombs and missles.

#2 - supply evidence that the UN was originally tasked with "disarming" Iraq. You will find no UN resolution that states that the UN or it's inspectors were to "disarm" Iraq. Why? (Hint - you do know that Iraq was supposed to disarm itself, right? Also, you do know that UN Weapons Inspectors were not there to play a detective game. Don't you?)

#3 - Iraq agreed to these terms in 1991, and signed a cease fire. They have balked on the terms since. Supply evidence over the past 12 years where Iraq showed any meaningful cooperation with the terms of the cease fire they agreed to.

#4 - Explain how Iraq is being illegally attacked? (Hint - you do know that the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions threaten consequences if Iraq does not comply, right?)

#5 - Iraq must comply with the terms they signed in 1991, or we revert to the original state of war. All subsequent UN resolutions are just meaningless fluff (but ignored by Iraq at any rate).

Now the loaded question: Why do you hate your country? I'm guessing (correct me if I am wrong) that if war does happen, you will not wish for a US victory. I do understand you correctly, yes?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Reginald

Stall!

Stall!

Again a headline grab, but still laying beneath is a reluctance to commit. Why did it take this long to come up with this request?

These are the missiles that Saddam was still claiming were not in breach just the other day.

They put them together, they can take them apart and destroy the bits.

I dont see war as the only option, and yet again I have to take my hat off to this guy for knowing the right string to pull. When is his luck going to run out I wonder?


...and there aren't just a few "dozen" of these missiles... (http://www.msnbc.com/news/878474.asp?0cv=CA01)


From the web article above:

A senior U.N. official told NBC News that Iraq has built “at least 100 Al Samouds — 50 already delivered to the Iraqi army and 50 in assembly ... and there may be more, as many as 120.”

U.N. inspectors have tagged around 100 missiles, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Previously, U.N. officials had only said that they had found “dozens” of Al Samouds, without providing a specific number.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

"...Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.

After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit's commander and the commander's assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.

Military records show that Bush's two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed.

It should be noted that reporting for military duty is not something that's optional, particularly during a war. Those caught shirking National Guard duties were usually punished by being drafted into the real army — the one that landed you in Vietman, where some 350 American soldiers were killed each week. But, despite more than a year absent from duty, nothing happened to the well-connected George W. Bush.

Favouritism is a sore point among those who actually went to war, including U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. As Powell wrote in his autobiography: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units ... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal ..."


I turned 18 in March of 1974 and registered for the Selective Service as required by law.

__________________________________________________ __


First of all Frank, you shouldn’t post when you are drunk. You wind up with posts like the ones like you did last night. Second of all, you have no military service yourself, so it is little wonder that geostrategy is beyond your ability to comprehend. Third of all, you post an article, which has been kicking around for a while, concerning President Bush and his alleged lack of military service during the Viet Nam War. Unfortunately, your own lack of service, even National Guard service, interferes with your ability to analyze this information. Your registration for Selective Service in 1974 is laudable (you don’t say whether that preceded a lengthy vacation in Canada or Sweden or a sex change operation) but does not qualify you to understand whether what you read has merit or not.

Prior to looking at President Bush’s record, I will state my own record, which actually does qualify me to understand whether what I read has merit.

Active Duty. 1970-1978, US Air Force Duties: Radar controller at remote location, Western Pacific, Instructor navigator, C-141 Transport (flew worldwide missions), Weapon Systems Officer (back seater,) F-4 Phantom II fighter bomber. Left at grade of Captain. Entered District of Columbia Air National Guard in 1980 as a Weapon Systems Officer in the F-4 Phantom II. Retired as Lieutenant Colonel (0-5), USAF Reserve, 1993.

OTHER MILITARY DUTIES
Wing Public Affairs Officer: Handled public affairs duties for the wing, assisted with the D.C. National Guard public affairs office, prepared and delivered briefings concerning unit capabilities to visiting U.S. and international officers.
Wing Headquarters Squadron Commander: Responsible for the training, medical, and mobility requirements of more than 60 officers and enlisted personnel
Wing Mobility Officer: Responsible for preparing the entire Wing for deployment anywhere in the world the Commander In Chief ordered us to go.
Anti-Narcotics Operations Officer: Responsible for tracking joint Federal-National Guard drug interdiction air surveillance operations in the Washington area.

The problem the writer of the article has, and you have, and many people have, is that the antiquated army-oriented view of the National Guard. They believe that everyone in the Guard is from the same cookie cutter, doing one weekend of duty per month, plus two weeks in the summer. This is not true of the Air National Guard, nor is it true of any flying unit, Air or Army (or Marine or Navy).

Just where do you think 2nd Lt. Bush learned to become a pilot? At home? He had to become a pilot at an air force base, and it took him about one year, and that was solid active duty. That was followed by upgrade training in the F-106, the plane his unit flew at the time. He also had to go to land and water survival school, two weeks and one week respectively. So far we have about a year and a half of active duty straight through. Was that one weekend per month and two weeks per summer? Hardly that. That sounds to me like this was what George W. Bush really loved to do, since you can’t put up with that without loving it. And there was no record of his having an attendance problem until he had already been in the unit several years. Understand Frank?

Now a word on participation in flying units. It takes a lot of participation to stay current, since you have the same flying requirements as active duty pilots. It isn’t something that you can do one weekend a month, two weeks a summer. That would be dangerous. You couldn’t take off or land with that little training. My lowest participation level was about 150 training days, and my maximum was about 300. That’s some part time job, eh Frank? Usually about 200. A weekend gives you four pay periods, two weeks in the summer is 15 active duty days. You get 15 gratuitous points each year, meaning your army guy, and I’ll save you the math, gets about 78 training points. A guy in an air unit that drifts close to 100 points is in serious danger of losing his slot for non-participation. It’s just because of the requirements of the job and flight safety. That’s why guys with flexible jobs like airline pilots do well in the Air National Guard. They can participate more while still working.

GW Bush had excellent participation and was a very good pilot for several years, until he was asked to make out of state campaign trips by his father. He made arrangements to do some form of training while in Alabama, but after all, it wasn’t F-106 flying training, so for him and his unit it wouldn’t be worthwhile, so his question (and mine) is why bother? While you and non-serving numskulls like you are thinking “ooh, he didn’t go to drills, so he’s shirking his duty” in fact he’s already done several times his duty with his participation in his flying unit. He had participated several times the number of training periods and army enlisted person or officer would have done during the same time frame. Once his participation went below the level required for safe flying, they must have mutually decided to drop him from the unit.

Now for the kicker. You plainly buy the argument that when Bush left his Air National Guard unit he got away with something. Really? When he left his unit he was still a member of the Reserves, and was subject to involuntary callup. By the way, I still have a reserve ID card and I can be involuntarily called up as well. Bush wasn’t getting away with anything. That’s why you aren’t hearing complaints from anyone who is knowledgeable in Air National Guard matters. It’s all coming from people with no military service like you, or from Canadians like the author of that article.

Oh, and try to drink less when you post.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Andalyn


#1 - supply evidence that the UN is actually disarming Iraq. Do not give information about the few empty bombs and missles.

#2 - supply evidence that the UN was originally tasked with "disarming" Iraq. You will find no UN resolution that states that the UN or it's inspectors were to "disarm" Iraq. Why? (Hint - you do know that Iraq was supposed to disarm itself, right? Also, you do know that UN Weapons Inspectors were not there to play a detective game. Don't you?)

#3 - Iraq agreed to these terms in 1991, and signed a cease fire. They have balked on the terms since. Supply evidence over the past 12 years where Iraq showed any meaningful cooperation with the terms of the cease fire they agreed to.

#4 - Explain how Iraq is being illegally attacked? (Hint - you do know that the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions threaten consequences if Iraq does not comply, right?)

#5 - Iraq must comply with the terms they signed in 1991, or we revert to the original state of war. All subsequent UN resolutions are just meaningless fluff (but ignored by Iraq at any rate).

Now the loaded question: Why do you hate your country? I'm guessing (correct me if I am wrong) that if war does happen, you will not wish for a US victory. I do understand you correctly, yes?

1. Supply me proof that Iraq is armed. Supply me proof that Iraq poses a threat. Supply me proof that countries like south korea and isreal which have much worse and more weapons and are more aggressive, deserve disarming less. Simply because you claim they have weapons doesnt put the burden of proof on me to disprove them. Iraq may have some weapons, who cares. Theyve been welll contained for years, they are a shell of what they were and theyve not threatned anyone.

2. It must be fun to live in a world where things are as simple as they must be in yours. There arent good guys and bad guys running around. The weapons inspectors are doing thier jobs and doing them just fine. Iraq is a sovriegn nation that thinks they have a right to have weapons to defend themselves. If it was your country there is not a doubt in my mind you would think the same way. Iraq has slowly come around to cooperating more, which is a great achievement and there is no reason not to continue inspections in the light of these improvements and the lack of any reason to go to war.

3. They ceased fire? Once again, your acting like this is a black and white world. Its not. Iraq has not been hostile, has not rebuilt its military to its old size. And it does not have hugely reinvigorated weapons stocks. Expecting any nation to just bow down and kiss the feet of the rest of the world is silly. Look at the US, they dont much care what the world thinks, yet Iraq has to? Since when is the US the moral arbiter in the world.

4. THe no fly zone for one. It is not sanctioned by the UN and has consited of repeated attacks on Iraq. And this war, if it happens will be an unjust war by the general standards of international law. Iraq poses no immediate threat to the US or to anyone else, it is a totally agressive war.

Hate my country? heh

Maybe you should ask yourself why your allow yourself to be manipulated into a patriotic huff. Countries dont exist, people do. Nationalism is one of the top 5 ugliest things in human history, it is the root of power for facism, it clouds judgements. We live in a country founded on the prospect that citizens must be critical of the government, and now anyone who questions the actions of the US is labled unpatriotic. If the united states government chooses to go to war with Iraq I will be rooting for the innocent citizens of Iraq. I dont care if the bush regime or the saddam regime win. Ive got little sympathy for greedy leaders who use people like pawns.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

First of all Frank, you shouldn’t post when you are drunk. You wind up with posts like the ones like you did last night. Second of all, you have no military service yourself, so it is little wonder that geostrategy is beyond your ability to comprehend. Third of all, you post an article, which has been kicking around for a while, concerning President Bush and his alleged lack of military service during the Viet Nam War. Unfortunately, your own lack of service, even National Guard service, interferes with your ability to analyze this information. Your registration for Selective Service in 1974 is laudable (you don’t say whether that preceded a lengthy vacation in Canada or Sweden or a sex change operation) but does not qualify you to understand whether what you read has merit or not.


Hey BD,

Your attendant has a cognitive problem. If he or she would read these posts to you more slowly, perhaps you would get it.


Originally posted by Frank Newgent
I'm trying to ignore my own concern that our so-called political leaders are up to exactly what you suggest. I believe both Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz to be suffering from some variety of delusional coprozoic monomania.

You ought to be proud to have already figured out the real plan here. But have you been to see a doctor lately?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Hey BD,

Your attendant has a cognitive problem. If he or she would read these posts to you more slowly, perhaps you would get it.




You ought to be proud to have already figured out the real plan here. But have you been to see a doctor lately?

Frank, in other words, you don't know what you say, so you don't care what you say, so you don't know or care what anyone else says. Whether your problem is heavy drinking or a severe mental disorder, get help.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by K-W

Meanwhile the UN is disarming Iraq.
Then...

Originally posted by K-W

1. Supply me proof that Iraq is armed.

Make up your mind...or do you just have multiple personalities posting to this thread??

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by K-W


1. Supply me proof that Iraq is armed. Supply me proof that Iraq poses a threat. Supply me proof that countries like south korea and isreal which have much worse and more weapons and are more aggressive, deserve disarming less. Simply because you claim they have weapons doesnt put the burden of proof on me to disprove them. Iraq may have some weapons, who cares. Theyve been welll contained for years, they are a shell of what they were and theyve not threatned anyone.

Alright. If you wish to live in the dream world where Iraq is suddenly not armed with the weapons everyone knows they had... more power to you.

Containment. How much does that cost, btw? Also, understand that during this "containment", the US troops have been fired on several times.

Originally posted by K-W

2. It must be fun to live in a world where things are as simple as they must be in yours. There arent good guys and bad guys running around. The weapons inspectors are doing thier jobs and doing them just fine. Iraq is a sovriegn nation that thinks they have a right to have weapons to defend themselves. If it was your country there is not a doubt in my mind you would think the same way. Iraq has slowly come around to cooperating more, which is a great achievement and there is no reason not to continue inspections in the light of these improvements and the lack of any reason to go to war.

What was the inspectors job?

After 12 years they are slowly coming around? This is called a "delaying" action. If you'll check the history of this whole mess, you'll find that Iraq has "come around" many times. You fool easy.

Originally posted by K-W

3. They ceased fire? Once again, your acting like this is a black and white world. Its not. Iraq has not been hostile, has not rebuilt its military to its old size. And it does not have hugely reinvigorated weapons stocks. Expecting any nation to just bow down and kiss the feet of the rest of the world is silly. Look at the US, they dont much care what the world thinks, yet Iraq has to? Since when is the US the moral arbiter in the world.

They did sign a cease fire. You can't make that fact go away. Should they live up to their agreement?

Also, I guess you forget about Iraq massing troops on the Kuwait border, and firing at coalition aircraft during the ceasefire.

Originally posted by K-W

4. THe no fly zone for one. It is not sanctioned by the UN and has consited of repeated attacks on Iraq. And this war, if it happens will be an unjust war by the general standards of international law. Iraq poses no immediate threat to the US or to anyone else, it is a totally agressive war.

They agreed to this when they signed the cease fire. Can you quote an "international law" that somehow states their agreement was illegal? Blame Iraq's for lying about their intentions when they begged for a cease fire.

Originally posted by K-W

Hate my country? heh

Maybe you should ask yourself why your allow yourself to be manipulated into a patriotic huff. Countries dont exist, people do. Nationalism is one of the top 5 ugliest things in human history, it is the root of power for facism, it clouds judgements. We live in a country founded on the prospect that citizens must be critical of the government, and now anyone who questions the actions of the US is labled unpatriotic. If the united states government chooses to go to war with Iraq I will be rooting for the innocent citizens of Iraq. I dont care if the bush regime or the saddam regime win. Ive got little sympathy for greedy leaders who use people like pawns.

Good to know you don't wish for victory. Do you know anyone in the US military?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. In 1998, no one had peace protests or one care in the world when President Clinton sent troops, aircraft carriers etc and threated to attack / invade Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions and the cease fire. Clinton was quite clear in his speech. Saddam disarms, completely and fully - or he will be removed, and a new government will be put in place.

Why don't you just admit this is more about Bush and politics then your false concern for the "innocent" citizens in Iraq?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by K-W
Iraq may have some weapons, who cares. Theyve been welll contained for years, they are a shell of what they were and theyve not threatned anyone.
The 'cost' of this containment are sanctions, which of course have caused the deaths of many innocent Iraqis. (They can sell oil to buy food, yet Saddam lets his people starve while he builds palaces and sends money to Palestinian terrorists.)

Originally posted by K-W
The weapons inspectors are doing thier jobs and doing them just fine. Iraq is a sovriegn nation that thinks they have a right to have weapons to defend themselves. If it was your country there is not a doubt in my mind you would think the same way. Iraq has slowly come around to cooperating more, which is a great achievement and there is no reason not to continue inspections in the light of these improvements and the lack of any reason to go to war.
Last time (before the inspectors left/were kicked out), the inspectors totally missed Iraqi weapons programs. It took a defector from Iraq to show them exactly where the weapons were. And you trust that they're 'doing fine'? Blix himself said the Iraqis are not complying properly.

As for 'slowly' coming around.. they were told (and agreed) to come around immediately after the last gulf war. They lied. And if they have 'come around' its only because of the U.S. military buildup.

As for having the weapons to 'defend themselves', a lot of their stuff has been used on Kurd civilians in Iraq. So much for 'defending themselves'.

As for reasons not to continue inspections, we have many:
- Innocent Iraqis are dying now due to the sanctions necessary to keep Saddam in check. Invade now, and more innocent people will live
- Delaying an invasion much longer will make military action difficult, since protective gear that the Americans have cannot be used in the summer. Thus, if they don't act now, they will have to wait until next year (regardless of what the inspectors find)
- The build-up that was needed to make Iraq 'come around slowly' is a big drain on american/british resources. Do you expect America to keep all its troops there to force compliance? If the American troops leave, do you think Iraq will continue 'coming around slowly'?

Originally posted by K-W
Iraq has not been hostile, has not rebuilt its military to its old size. And it does not have hugely reinvigorated weapons stocks. Expecting any nation to just bow down and kiss the feet of the rest of the world is silly. Look at the US, they dont much care what the world thinks, yet Iraq has to? Since when is the US the moral arbiter in the world.
Again, the onlly reason Iraq has not rebuilt its armies is because of sanctions, which have greatly harmed the civilians.

As for Iraq having to 'bow down' to the world.... They agreed to disarm after the last gulf war, immediately. But they didn't. They lied.

Let me make sure you understand it: Iraq agreed to the terms to end the last gulf war, and went back on that agreement.
Originally posted by K-W

THe no fly zone for one. It is not sanctioned by the UN and has consited of repeated attacks on Iraq. And this war, if it happens will be an unjust war by the general standards of international law. Iraq poses no immediate threat to the US or to anyone else, it is a totally agressive war..
The 'no fly' zones are there to keep Iraq from killing innocent Kurds. You may think killing innocent people is OK. I don't.

And Iraq does pose a threat, both through its support of terrorism, and through the dangers of rearming (which is only kept in check by sanctions and the threat of U.S. military action.)

Originally posted by K-W


Maybe you should ask yourself why your allow yourself to be manipulated into a patriotic huff. Countries dont exist, people do. Nationalism is one of the top 5 ugliest things in human history, it is the root of power for facism, it clouds judgements. We live in a country founded on the prospect that citizens must be critical of the government, and now anyone who questions the actions of the US is labled unpatriotic. If the united states government chooses to go to war with Iraq I will be rooting for the innocent citizens of Iraq. I dont care if the bush regime or the saddam regime win. Ive got little sympathy for greedy leaders who use people like pawns.
Countries don't exist? Well, I guess I had better throw out my atlas :rolleyes:

By the way, I'm in Canada, and I support military action. The goverments of many countries in the world support military action.

You may be rooting for the 'innocent people of Iraq', but the fact is, the 'innocent people in Iraq' actually WANT the U.S. to invade, and force a change in government. Saddam is more popular around the world than he is in his own country.

This neads repeating: The Innocent people in Iraq want an invasion and a change in government.

You toss around terms like 'greedy leaders'. How is military action going to benefit the leaders that support it? If money were the issue, they'd just make a deal with Saddam and let things go.

Criticizing the actions of the government is not unpatriotic. However, basing your beliefs on unsupported allegations, contradictory statement, etc. is just silly.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
The 'no fly' zones are there to keep Iraq from killing innocent Kurds

Right. That's Turkey's job.

[Doctor X]

Oh my. . . .

Nothing like coming back, thinking of something to post, and seeing that someone else has done it.

For what [Little.--Ed.] it is worth. . . .

BD:

Commendable rebuttal with regards to George the Younger's service. I would have to disagree with the extent of some of your posts--invasion of Iran or threatening Syria, for example. I do not think those will be necessary.

Frank:

Yes . . . I did laugh outloud and frightened some of the local with your remark about Nintendo, Genghis Khan, and bedpans.

However, you did not really answer BD's response. Yes . . . perhaps there is a bit of a history of "less-than-cordial" relationships betwix ye; however, I found your article interesting and his rebuttal rather good. Who is correct? Argumentum ad [No Latin!--Ed.] insulting the poster does not convince me one way or the other. Granted, both of ye have hurled a bit of the spitoon contents--and I have been known, myself, to respond in terms "a triffle on the harsh side of strict." Nevertheless, it may be best to tone it down a bit?

[i]K-W:

Serves as an example. While I find her--apologies if I get that wrong, this is not some attempt at gender insult--protests facile, responding with insults or the like serve only to convince the "pros" that the "anti" are American-hating loons and the "antis" that the "pros" are warmongering Neanderthals. [No "h."--Ed.]

Right, so, to return to K-W's points, I would recommend the book I perhaps recommend too much: The Threatening Storm, Kenneth Pollack, Random House (Council on Foreign Relations).

This outlines--in detail--how "we know" Husseinj has weapons of mass destruction, his behavior, why sanctions have failed, why inspections have failed, et cetera. I hate to give the "just-read-this-book-and-you-will-agree-with-my-superior-wisdom" response, but I would be just plagerizing it

Now, you may disagree with his argument, but at least you would be addressing his points rather than rendering sweeping, though sincere, generalizations.

--J.D.

[K-W]

The issue is, the justification for war.

The criteria that are being used by the administration to justify this war (human rights abuses, having weapons, violating UN resolutions, having a history of agresssion) fit many many countries in the world into the justified war catagory. If this is a legal and well founded war, and preemptive strikes are ok, then we are looking at a world where pretty much any country can attack any other country. Take the US for an example, we have massive amounts of WOMD, weve used them in the past. We have a history of attacking our neighbors, we have violated UN resolutions in the past, and has made it clear that America decides waht is right for America and not the UN. Weve certainly got human rights abuses. Meanwhile our president gives speaches about an axis of evil, and rumors circulate that Iraq may not be the end of American military intervention in nations it deems a problem. If you go by the US's criteria for an acceptable attack, then I would think that a country like Iran could make just as strong a case for having the right to attack us as we are making about our right to attack Iraq.

War is an ugly, hard to predict thing with massive repercussions and I dont have confidence that the strategy men in the white house, many of whom have little military experience, know what kind of impact this will have on America and the world. War should and must be a last last resort. Iraq is not posing a threat to our security now, so we are not at a last resort situation. To want a war because you are tired of waiting for peaceful methods to run their course, or because the weather is good for it, doesnt, in my mind, justify rolling the dice with the peace of the world, and sacrificing the lives of so many.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by K-W
The issue is, the justification for war.

The criteria that are being used by the administration to justify this war (human rights abuses, having weapons, violating UN resolutions, having a history of agresssion) fit many many countries in the world into the justified war catagory.

Yes, there are countries which have some of the same criteria that the U.S. govermnet is using to justify war. But there are some very important differences:
- Iraq meets ALL of the criteria, not just some
- On the 'violating UN resolutions' point - the type of resolutions Iraq have violated are 'enforceable'. (There are different types of resolutions; some are 'enforcable', others are non-enforcable.) Also, Iraq had previously agreed to the terms of the first resolution, and then turned around and broke their agreement.
- Another justification for the war: the U.S. can easily win. As much as North Korea is dangerous, they have nuclear weapons (the type that Saddam wants), so the U.S. has to be a little more careful about using military solutions there

Originally posted by K-W

If this is a legal and well founded war, and preemptive strikes are ok, then we are looking at a world where pretty much any country can attack any other country. Take the US for an example, we have massive amounts of WOMD, weve used them in the past. We have a history of attacking our neighbors, we have violated UN resolutions in the past, and has made it clear that America decides waht is right for America and not the UN. Weve certainly got human rights abuses.... If you go by the US's criteria for an acceptable attack, then I would think that a country like Iran could make just as strong a case for having the right to attack us as we are making about our right to attack Iraq.

Are you trying to say that human rights abuses are as bad in the U.S. as they are in Iraq, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia? I'm sorry, you really nead to either justify your point, or clarify it.

As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the U.S. has... The US has used nuclear weapons in the past, but guess what? It was during a WAR, and using them prevented a much greater loss of life on the allied side. They have never used them in peace time, and in fact the U.S. has been reducing its stockpiles of these weapons. (They've done so voluntarily, unlike Iraq which has to be forced to disarm.)

And another difference... The U.S. used its nukes in a conflict with their enemies. Iraq used its poison gas on its own citizens.
Originally posted by K-W

War is an ugly, hard to predict thing with massive repercussions and I dont have confidence that the strategy men in the white house, many of whom have little military experience, know what kind of impact this will have on America and the world. War should and must be a last last resort. Iraq is not posing a threat to our security now, so we are not at a last resort situation. To want a war because you are tired of waiting for peaceful methods to run their course, or because the weather is good for it, doesnt, in my mind, justify rolling the dice with the peace of the world, and sacrificing the lives of so many.
Interesting; you complain about strategy men not having military experience. Most anti-war protestors assume that there is too much military influence.

As for 'saccrificing the lives of so many'... people in Iraq are dying of starvation, and are being killed by Saddam's government. An invasion will stop those deaths. Remember the Afghan invasion? Many people were against that war too, claiming a lot of civilians would be killed. But, the U.S. went in, removed the taliban, and guess what? Most people are happier there. Food aid gets to people who need it. And medical care has improved. I want the same thing to happen in Iraq.

By the way, I don't want war because 'the weather is good'. The weather provides a window of operations, nothing more, nothing less.

A 12 year wait for Iraq to comply I think is long enough.

I ask you 3 questions:
- How long do you think the U.S. should wait for Iraq to comply
- Do you think the U.S. should maintain its large presence in the gulf region? (Blix has credited what Iraqi compliance there is to the U.S. build up)
- If you are against war, then what course of action do you suggest that would prevent innocent Iraqi deaths, while at the same time preventing Saddam from rearming? If you can come up with a rational answer to that last question, I will change sides and join the anti-war movement.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Yes, there are countries which have some of the same criteria that the U.S. govermnet is using to justify war. But there are some very important differences:
- Iraq meets ALL of the criteria, not just some


Plenty of countries meet all those criteria, including North Korea, Isreal, and the United States.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

- On the 'violating UN resolutions' point - the type of resolutions Iraq have violated are 'enforceable'. (There are different types of resolutions; some are 'enforcable', others are non-enforcable.)


So when the UN tells isreal it has to stop occupying Palistinian lands, Isreal can ignore them and its not enforceable, but when the UN tells Iraq to disarm, and it doesnt fully disarm, that is enforcable. Explain the brilliant logic of this to me.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

Also, Iraq had previously agreed to the terms of the first resolution, and then turned around and broke their agreement.


Nations break agreements all the time. Since when is a broken agreement good cause for a war?
Originally posted by Segnosaur

- Another justification for the war: the U.S. can easily win. As much as North Korea is dangerous, they have nuclear weapons (the type that Saddam wants), so the U.S. has to be a little more careful about using military solutions there


Silly me, I thought that when we were talking about going to war, we should always be careful. So we attack saddam because he is a threat, but we dont attack North Korea because it is a bigger threat. That makes all kinds of sense.

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Are you trying to say that human rights abuses are as bad in the U.S. as they are in Iraq, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia? I'm sorry, you really nead to either justify your point, or clarify it.


No I didnt say that... so I dont have to justify a point I didnt make. THe point is that human rights abuses are not grounds for a war.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

As for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the U.S. has... The US has used nuclear weapons in the past, but guess what? It was during a WAR, and using them prevented a much greater loss of life on the allied side. They have never used them in peace time, and in fact the U.S. has been reducing its stockpiles of these weapons. (They've done so voluntarily, unlike Iraq which has to be forced to disarm.)


Ummm, Iraq was also at war when it used chemical weapons, was it not? Please explain to me how someone could use weapons in peace time. The act of using a weapon automatically makes it not peace time. The US has been reducing its stockpiles, but it still has the largest arsenal in the world, so Im not sure what your point is. The US has no plans to eliminate its arsenal, which is what we are demanding that IRaq do(if they havent already)

As far as the preventing loss of life, yah thats the justification that was used. That certainly cant be proven, and wiping out civilian populations to scare a country into surrendering sure isnt much different than saddam gassing civilian populations as a strategic move during a war.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

And another difference... The U.S. used its nukes in a conflict with their enemies. Iraq used its poison gas on its own citizens.


Ah, so as long as its someone elses citizens, killing is ok. I will have to remember that.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

Interesting; you complain about strategy men not having military experience. Most anti-war protestors assume that there is too much military influence.


There is no discrepency between thinking there is too much military influence and thinking that the plans for military action wont accurately account for many of the negative consequences of an invasion.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

As for 'saccrificing the lives of so many'... people in Iraq are dying of starvation, and are being killed by Saddam's government. An invasion will stop those deaths. Remember the Afghan invasion? Many people were against that war too, claiming a lot of civilians would be killed. But, the U.S. went in, removed the taliban, and guess what? Most people are happier there. Food aid gets to people who need it. And medical care has improved. I want the same thing to happen in Iraq.


lol, do you have any idea what kind of shape afghanistan is in right now? Iraq actually has a very good system of food distribution set up, and it is almost garunteed that it will fall apart when we attack, meaning starvation will skyrocket. We will hit their water and electricity, disease will run through thier cities. The US military is limiting the humanitarian organizations that will be alowed to go in and help, and the humanitarion community is massively skeptical of the militaries plan for the people in Iraq.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

By the way, I don't want war because 'the weather is good'. The weather provides a window of operations, nothing more, nothing less.


You stated very clearly that one of the reasons to go to war now was the weather wont be good for it in the summer.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

A 12 year wait for Iraq to comply I think is long enough.


Well, then I think you hold human life at a pretty low premium. Its not as if the inspections have lasted 12 years. They just started and they are making progress. Certainly if we waited 12 years, we can wait for inspections to run their course.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

I ask you 3 questions:
- How long do you think the U.S. should wait for Iraq to comply


First off, we dont know that they didnt comply. And they are currently complying at a higher level than ever before, so there is no reason to give up right now. And this is a silly question, it preseposes that a war to disarm Iraq makes sense in the first place.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

- Do you think the U.S. should maintain its large presence in the gulf region? (Blix has credited what Iraqi compliance there is to the U.S. build up)


Well, weve now reached a point where US invasion seems so inevitable that Saddam has to consider how he is going to defend himself from our attack, for the attack to get him to disarm he has to feel that he can prevent the attack. So something about the constant escalation and rhetoric that implies the decision is already made would need to change.
Originally posted by Segnosaur

- If you are against war, then what course of action do you suggest that would prevent innocent Iraqi deaths, while at the same time preventing Saddam from rearming? If you can come up with a rational answer to that last question, I will change sides and join the anti-war movement.

Its a flawed question. We allow innocent people to die all over the world every day. We support governements that committ human rights violations. And there are plenty of countries arming and who have already armed to a much much greater respect than Iraq, so before you cand demand a non war solution, you need to explain what justifies war.

But to answer your question, look at north korea. Unstable nation under a harsh dictator with weapons of mass destruction. The US government itself seems to think there is an alternative solution to war.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

FROM THE TORONTO STAR
"...Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.

After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit's commander and the commander's assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.

Military records show that Bush's two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed.

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

GW Bush had excellent participation and was a very good pilot for several years, until he was asked to make out of state campaign trips by his father.

What is your source please, BD?


Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Frank, in other words, you don't know what you say, so you don't care what you say, so you don't know or care what anyone else says. Whether your problem is heavy drinking or a severe mental disorder, get help.

You seem to fit the bill for a psychiatric emergency requiring comprehensive pharmacologic intervention yourself.


Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

We will be going in, and nothing will stop us. No French or German or UN position will stand in our way. My guess is we will have more than three times the number of troops to do the job. There's a fair chance we'll go right through Iraq and on through Iran as well.

This is not a forum, it's a bean-eating contest. Ain't it about time for a good clean fart?


Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Iraq and Iran have oil-a-plenty. We can suck that spiggot till we pay for the wars, then there's no deficit to worry about.

Don't let your poodle walk on the keyboard.


Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

...what the heck, nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!

BD: amidst the constant hustle and bustle of our daily lives there arise certain moments when we feel the need to pause and collect our thoughts or to seek inspiration. But as an Inspirational Quote for the Day, this one is not a keeper. Kind of like "I'm not drunk. I'm crazy. Give me some *********** money!"

And if either of us finds himself wearing that damned sign by the off ramp someday, may the other find it within himself to stop and simply hand out a new crayon.

[Doctor X]

K-W:

Plenty of countries meet all those criteria, including North Korea, Isreal (sic), and the United States.

This does not address the point of Segnosaur. To begin, your choice of the "United States" represents merely an ipse dixit--an argument to your authority. As Segnosaur indicated, you have not supported this. While the behavior of Israel is a topic into itself, as Segnosaur indicated, it and the United States have not fallen under enforceable resolutions. You need to counter that.

Finally, that, in your opinion, other examples exist does not, in anyway, excuse Iraq. You also forget that Iraq invaded another country and as part of its agreement for a cessation of hostilities, promised to abide by these resolutions. It has, thus far, not.

So when the UN tells isreal (sic) it has to stop occupying Palistinian (sic) lands, Isreal (sic) can ignore them and its not enforceable, but when the UN tells Iraq to disarm, and it doesn?t (sic) fully disarm, that is enforceable (sic). Explain the brilliant logic of this to me.

As above: the UN has not applied such to Israel and Israel has not agreed to abide by enforceable resolutions. Quod erat demonstrandum. Furthermore, as noted, your complain does not excuse Iraq.

Nations break agreements all the time. Since when is a broken agreement good cause for a war?

It has, actually. It is in reality. Otherwise, agreements prove worth less than the paper they be printed upon.

Segnosaur:

- Another justification for the war: the U.S. can easily win. As much as North Korea is dangerous, they have nuclear weapons (the type that Saddam wants), so the U.S. has to be a little more careful about using military solutions there


K-W:Silly me, I thought that when we were talking about going to war, we should always be careful. So we attack saddam (sic) because he is a threat, but we dont (sic) attack North Korea because it is a bigger threat. That makes all kinds of sense.

You mischaracterize his rebuttal. "We" deal with Iraq because we can. Indeed, part of the argument remains not waiting until he becomes a threat we cannot deal with.

You also miss a critical point concerning North Korea. Thus far, it has not acted outside of its country--it has not invaded South Korea since the cessation of hostilities. It has not "crossed a line" as Iraq has multiple times.

Segnosaur: Are you trying to say that human rights abuses are as bad in the U.S. as they are in Iraq, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia? I'm sorry, you really need to either justify your point, or clarify it.


K-W:No I didnt (sic) say that...

Unfortunately you did. See above.

THe (sic) point is that human rights abuses are not grounds for a war.

Here we will disagree.

Ummm, Iraq was also at war when it used chemical weapons, was it not?

In a war it initiated. It also used them "in peace time" against its own people.

As far as the preventing loss of life, yah thats (sic) the justification that was used. That certainly cant (sic) be proven, . . .

On the contrary, Pollack--see reference above--rather provides evidence for it. He is not the only one. I suggest him to understand the amounts of people killed by Saddam.

. . . and wiping out civilian populations. . . .

proves another ipse dixit since this has not happened. Indeed, it did not happen in Afghanistan.

War is, indeed, "all destruction" to quote General William "Fire? What fire?!" Sherman. However, Saddam commits more conceivable death and destruction than action does.

Your argument suffers considerably with:

Ah, so as long as its someone elses (sic) citizens, killing is ok. I will have to remember that.

since Segnosaur did not make that point at all. You have committed an argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandum--raising a ridiculous argument to cover the actual point. On the contrary, he recognized that the United States acted in a war which, I might add, that was against an enemy that started the war and committed considerably severe atroc . . . attocities . . . real bad things.


Not to parse up your entire post, so:


lol, do you have any idea what kind of shape afghanistan is in right now?

Not really that funny since it is in a better shape than it was in.

Iraq actually has a very good system of food distribution set up, . . .

No.

. . . disease will run through thier (sic) cities.

Already does.

Enough for now.

--J.D.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Frank Newgent

FROM THE TORONTO STAR
"...Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.

After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit's commander and the commander's assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.

Military records show that Bush's two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

GW Bush had excellent participation and was a very good pilot for several years, until he was asked to make out of state campaign trips by his father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is your source please, BD?


You or your author are confused. You are telescoping time frames. Bush joined the unit in 1968, not 1972, and he had to spend an entire year in Alabama at the request of his father. That was for a political campaign. Surely you don't believe a young man who loves flying would do that on his own idea, do you? "Bush Worked Campaign While in Guard", by Chris Williams (AP), Washington Post, May 23, 2000. If he had his druthers, he'd have stayed in Texas and flown fighters.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Frank, in other words, you don't know what you say, so you don't care what you say, so you don't know or care what anyone else says. Whether your problem is heavy drinking or a severe mental disorder, get help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to fit the bill for a psychiatric emergency requiring comprehensive pharmacologic intervention yourself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

We will be going in, and nothing will stop us. No French or German or UN position will stand in our way. My guess is we will have more than three times the number of troops to do the job. There's a fair chance we'll go right through Iraq and on through Iran as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not a forum, it's a bean-eating contest. Ain't it about time for a good clean fart?

Suit yourself. Your gas content has been rather high of late.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Iraq and Iran have oil-a-plenty. We can suck that spiggot till we pay for the wars, then there's no deficit to worry about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't let your poodle walk on the keyboard.


Poodles are French. I wouldn't have one of those.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

...what the heck, nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BD: amidst the constant hustle and bustle of our daily lives there arise certain moments when we feel the need to pause and collect our thoughts or to seek inspiration. But as an Inspirational Quote for the Day, this one is not a keeper. Kind of like "I'm not drunk. I'm crazy. Give me some *********** money!"

And if either of us finds himself wearing that damned sign by the off ramp someday, may the other find it within himself to stop and simply hand out a new crayon.

I'm sure you thought you had a point to make with the Bush article. Unfortunately it fell short.

[rikzilla]

K-W

Please read my points on the initial entry in the thread on why iraq has been in material breach of res 687 since inception. I'd like to see you try to poke holes in those. :rolleyes:

-zilla

BTW: Just bumped it again...just for you.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by K-W
So when the UN tells isreal it has to stop occupying Palistinian lands, Isreal can ignore them and its not enforceable, but when the UN tells Iraq to disarm, and it doesnt fully disarm, that is enforcable. Explain the brilliant logic of this to me.

The logic is that they are given different types of resolutions. Read here Chapter Six and Seven of the UN Charter. Israel has Chapter Six resolutions, Iraq has Chapter Seven.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Kodiak



...and there aren't just a few "dozen" of these missiles... (http://www.msnbc.com/news/878474.asp?0cv=CA01)


From the web article above:

A senior U.N. official told NBC News that Iraq has built “at least 100 Al Samouds — 50 already delivered to the Iraqi army and 50 in assembly ... and there may be more, as many as 120.”

U.N. inspectors have tagged around 100 missiles, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Previously, U.N. officials had only said that they had found “dozens” of Al Samouds, without providing a specific number.

These al Samouds will have negligible impact on invading forces from the US. They may deter Iran from invading but they will be useless against a barrage of cruise missiles in the shock an awe strategy.
It will give Iraq the propaganda edge on US if they were destroyed and force America to attack without UN backing or to abort the war plans altogether.
I do not think America will wait around too long till mid summer when there are severe dust storms and temperatures frequently reach 50°C (120°F) in the shade.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

You or your author are confused. You are telescoping time frames. Bush joined the unit in 1968, not 1972, and he had to spend an entire year in Alabama at the request of his father. That was for a political campaign. Surely you don't believe a young man who loves flying would do that on his own idea, do you? "Bush Worked Campaign While in Guard", by Chris Williams (AP), Washington Post, May 23, 2000. If he had his druthers, he'd have stayed....I'm sure you thought you had a point to make with the Bush article. Unfortunately it fell short.

You know BD, I am curious.

So I tried to find the article by Chris Williams. I did find this (http://www.kings.edu/twsawyer/awol/awol-bush.html). The following paragraphs are from assorted Chris Williams articles quoted on this site:


[May 23, 2000 Chris Williams, AP] "I served my full obligation with the Texas National Guard. That's why I was honorably discharged," Bush said. Bush aides provided a payroll document they said indicated Bush served nine days of active duty after returning to Houston from Alabama. [NOTE: No date for these nine days was given but it is likely they were the days required after Bush was found missing for the previous year.]

[June 24, 2000 Chris Williams AP] AUSTIN, Texas Gov. George W. Bush's campaign workers have concluded that no documents exist showing he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama with the Texas Air National Guard in 1972. They are looking for people who served with him to verify his story that he did.

[July 2, 2000 Chris Williams, AP] Retired Gen. William Turnipseed, now 71, a commander at the base, has said he never saw Bush appear for duty. Bush, however, says he remembers meeting Turnipseed and performing drills at the base."I was there. I was in the unit," he said last Wednesday when asked about it.

I am not skipping any articles favorable to your contention. I just can't find any. Could you please come up with something here, BD?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Doctor X
On the contrary, Pollack--see reference above--rather provides evidence for it. He is not the only one. I suggest him to understand the amounts of people killed by Saddam.



proves another ipse dixit since this has not happened. Indeed, it did not happen in Afghanistan

I think you misread the argument. The discussion of preventing loss of life and wiping out civilian populations was, IMHO, a reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Martin]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
These al Samouds will have negligible impact

Especially once they've been destroyed :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2810231.stm

Mr Blix said: "This is a very significant piece of real disarmament."

In a draft report written before Iraq agreed to destroy the missiles, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council that inspections had produced "very limited results".

He formally submitted that report - said to be very similar to the draft - to the UN on Friday evening New York time.

But he said his report had been largely overtaken by the Iraqi decision to destroy the al-Samoud missiles

[Doctor X]

Martinm:

I think you misread the argument. The discussion of preventing loss of life and wiping out civilian populations was, IMHO, a reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Misread?

Moi?

Are you an A-Theist?

You believe in "free willy!"

Go to www.infidels.org!

[Stop it!--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . of course . . . anyways, I think one can extend this to H and N in that the destruction by those bombs was less than the expected destruction that would be caused by the invasion--incidentally, it were less than caused by the incendiary bombing--and, probably, less than what the Japanese wrought in China and other countries.

--J.D.

[Segnosaur]

Doctor X did a good job at refuting your arguments, but I just wanted to make a few points...

Originally posted by K-W
You stated very clearly that one of the reasons to go to war now was the weather wont be good for it in the summer.

There is a huge difference between going to war just because it summer (What should we do for summer vacation? Visit the grand canyon? Nah, lets invade Iraq), and simply timing things to take advantage of proper weather. The invasion has to be done; it will just be done sooner than later.
Originally posted by K-W

Well, then I think you hold human life at a pretty low premium.

An invasion of Iraq may lead to a few thousand casulties. Many more people than that die every year, both from sanctions, and from Saddam's own government. Now, you'd rather let more innocent people die at Saddam's hand? Who holds life in low premium now?
Originally posted by K-W
Its not as if the inspections have lasted 12 years. They just started and they are making progress. Certainly if we waited 12 years, we can wait for inspections to run their course.

Inspections started at the end of the gulf war. That was about 12 years ago. There was a few years when the inspectors were not in Iraq (either kicked out, or withdrawn because of Iraqi non-cooperation). Either way, Iraq has had 12 years to disarm, most of that time with inspectors in place.
Originally posted by K-W
First off, we dont know that they didnt comply. And they are currently complying at a higher level than ever before, so there is no reason to give up right now.
Contradition allert. How could we not know that they didn't comply, and know that they are complying at a highter level?

Either way, Blix has said they aren't complying. They have not been assisting the inspectors as they should, they had materials they should not have had, and they didn't prove the destruction of the weapons they had before the inspectors left. So, they haven't complied.

It should also be noted that in the last round of inspections, the inspectors missed many key components of Iraq's weapons programs, and it took a defection by one of Saddam's top people to show them where to look. Inspectors cannot find everything. It is easy to hide stuff. If they find one thing (which they have), there could be many more items they've missed.

Or did you not know that Iraq had weapons inspectors in there after the gulf war?
Originally posted by K-W
But to answer your question, look at north korea. Unstable nation under a harsh dictator with weapons of mass destruction. The US government itself seems to think there is an alternative solution to war.
Although North Korea is a threat, there are several key differences, the biggest of which is that they are strong militarily, and could inflict massive casulties. Yes, they need to be taken out, but military action against them may not be proper. Pick the best tool for the best job. (Yes, its not fair to the people stuck under North Korean rule, but the U.S. has to pick its battles carefully.)

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Martinm


Especially once they've been destroyed :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2810231.stm



Even if they had not been destroyed, they would not of lasted more than a few hours with America's satellite guided weaponry, and I think Saddam Hussein knew it.
But this is also a propaganda war so he has politically a lot to gain by destroying them. Unless Iran uses it as an opportunity to invade and that would really muddy the waters.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Although North Korea is a threat, there are several key differences, the biggest of which is that they are strong militarily, and could inflict massive casulties. Yes, they need to be taken out, but military action against them may not be proper. Pick the best tool for the best job. (Yes, its not fair to the people stuck under North Korean rule, but the U.S. has to pick its battles carefully.)

It would be kind of like defusing a bomb in a crowded shopping mall

[Martin]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Yes . . . sorry . . . of course . . . anyways, I think one can extend this to H and N in that the destruction by those bombs was less than the expected destruction that would be caused by the invasion

If indeed an invasion were neccesary...but that's another story.

[Doctor X]

Methinks you would have quite a task proving that invasion would have not been necessary without the use of the bomb.

You may get it published.

--J.D.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Methinks you would have quite a task proving that invasion would have not been necessary without the use of the bomb.

You may get it published.

--J.D.

Agree with this point, since the already highly determined Japanese got all the more determined as the home islands were approached.

"Conventional" methods would have resulted in far higher casualties in any case, I'm thinking Japanese casualties from bombing/fire bombing to start with.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Methinks you would have quite a task proving that invasion would have not been necessary without the use of the bomb.

You may get it published.

--J.D.

Invasion by who?

Published in Russian...heh, heh.

[Doctor X]

Invasion by whom. . . .

--J.D.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Invasion by whom. . . .

--J.D.

Usage Note: The traditional rules for choosing between who and whom are relatively simple but not always easy to apply. Who is used where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, that is, for the subject of a verb or for a predicate nominative; whom is used for a direct or indirect object or for the object of a prepostion. Thus, we write the actor who played Hamlet was there, since who is the subject of played; and Whom do you like best? because whom is the object of the verb like and To whom did you give the letter? because whom is the object of the preposition to. ·It is more difficult, however, to apply these rules in complicated sentences, particularly when who or whom is separated from the verb or preposition that determines its form. Intervening words may make it difficult to see that Who do you think is the best candidate? requires who as the subject of the verb is (not whom as the object of think) and The man whom the papers criticized did not show up requires whom as the object of the verb criticized (not who as the subject of showed up). Highly complex sentences such as I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite require careful analysisin this case, to determine that whom should be chosen as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses away. It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward have often interchanged who and whom. Nevertheless, the distinction remains a hallmark of formal style. ·In speech and informal writing, however, considerations other than strict grammatical correctness often come into play. Who may sound more natural than whom in a sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? though it is incorrect according to the traditional rules. In general, who tends to predominate over whom in informal contexts. Whom may sound stuffy even when correctly used, and when used where who would be correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? whom may betray grammatical ignorance. ·Similarly, though traditionalists will insist on whom when the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom is at odds with the relative informality associated with this construction; thus they contend that a sentence such as Who did you give it to? should be regarded as entirely acceptable. ·Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the woman that wanted to talk to you or the woman who wanted to talk to you. ·The grammatical rules governing the use of who and whom in formal writing apply equally to whoever and whomever and are simililarly often ignored in speech and informal writing.

[Doctor X]

Probably written by a cretin who thinks "prioritize" is a word. . . .

He may even believe in FREE WILLY!!!! [Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Probably written by a cretin who thinks "prioritize" is a word. . . .

He may even believe in FREE WILLY!!!! [Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D. No doubt. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4)

[Doctor X]

Unless it is in the Original OED. . . .

--J. "It Breaks Orwell's Rule" D.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Unless it is in the Original OED. . . .

--J. "It Breaks Orwell's Rule" D.

"The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language over the last millennium."


Would that be the millennium which recently commenced or the former?

[Reginald]

"If it turns out that in the early stages during this month America is not going the legal way... why should we continue [destroying missiles]?" Iraqi presidential adviser General Amir al-Saadi said at a news conference.

They will certainly claim that the US is doing this, they will stop the break up of the missiles and blame the US, presenting to the FR/GE/RU/CH grouping some kind of "Catch 22" arguement.

I bet he plays a good game of chess.

Anyway he's a very nice man and he stood fast against us! It must be true it says so here.....

http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/

[Kodiak]

New chemical/biological weapon delivery system discovered in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.com/news/883129.asp?0ql=csp)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


"The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted authority on the evolution of the English language over the last millennium."


Would that be the millennium which recently commenced or the former?

"The last millenium" means the last 1,000 years. A milleneum needn't begin nor end with a 1 or 0. Hence the difference between talking about the last decade and talking about the 90's.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Kodiak
New chemical/biological weapon delivery system discovered in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.com/news/883129.asp?0ql=csp)

That means Blix withheld not one, but two systems from public mention in his speech. First was the RPV. Second were the 122 mm warheads for chemical delivery. Must have just slipped his mind.