We stood a better chance with inspectors.

Post #90,890 by mmoffitt 3/23/03 9:24:49 PM Reply	We stood a better chance with inspectors. For who, now, when the US and Britain's only legitimate reason for going into Iraq are these fabled "WMD", could believe the US and Britain should they claim to find evidence? The BL is that now we will never truly know if Iraq had banned weapons or not. bcnu, Mikem Osama bin Laden's brother could fly in US airspace 9/15/01, but I had to wait for FBI and CIA background checks, 'nuff said?
Post #90,895 by cybermace5 3/23/03 9:39:42 PM Reply	Re: We stood a better chance with inspectors. Heh...imagine this scenario: Hans Blix finds nasties. His cushy UN job is over, and he is the focus of some powerful people's undiluted hatred, and also essentially takes the burden of declaring war on Iraq. Now look at the UN, basically since the beginning it has been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way to shut them up. Then the human rights council is led by Libya, and the weapons disarmament council is headed by...Iraq. Now who still thinks the UN isn't a complete joke? And you trust their investigator to risk international hatred by taking extra care to root out any WMD?
Post #90,896 by jake123 3/23/03 9:40:45 PM Reply	Nice lampoon. Too bad it's complete bullshit. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #90,898 by cybermace5 3/23/03 9:42:39 PM Reply	Re: Nice lampoon. When you've formulated an actual rebuttal with some actual points, I'll listen.
Post #90,905 by jake123 3/23/03 10:00:52 PM Reply	Reasoned rebuttal. Heh...imagine this scenario: Hans Blix finds nasties. His cushy UN job is over, and he is the focus of some powerful people's undiluted hatred, and also essentially takes the burden of declaring war on Iraq. \r\n\r\n So, are you saying that Blix is venal at best, and mendacious at worst? Or what? Like I said, nice lampoon... \r\n\r\n Now look at the UN, basically since the beginning it has been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way to shut them up. Then the human rights council is led by Libya, and the weapons disarmament council is headed by...Iraq. Now who still thinks the UN isn't a complete joke? And you trust their investigator to risk international hatred by taking extra care to root out any WMD? \r\n\r\n And now here you are talking about the big bad UN doing exactly what you were just doing above wrt Blix. Nothing quite like a little drive-by character assassination to make yourself feel better, eh? \r\n\r\n If you think the UN has "basically ... been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way", then you have a very narrow view of the world. The UN was the organisation that got 100% behind the US in Gulf War I... was that them "standing up and swearing at the US ... for a few billion dollars"? How about when the UN set up the WTO, at US request, to form a single venue to manage trade disputes between nations? Was that the UN being all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? How about when the UN took on North Korea in the 1950s? Sure, there were plenty of Americans there, but despite what you saw on MASH there were a lot of Canadian, Australians, French, and other troops there too. Was that the UN being all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? \r\n\r\n When the US decided to go to war in Afghanistan a year or so ago, was the UN all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? We went to war with you in Afghanistan, and stayed there (there are over a thousand Canadian troops in Afghanistan right now) despite the fact that some of your National Air Guard people dropped a bomb on a bunch of the Patricia's doing night exercises and are going to get off with a slap on the wrist. Was that about us "standing up and swearing at the US"? There was barely a peep in Canada about going to war in Afghanistan. It was very clear to us why you wanted to do it and why it had to be done; bringing the people who did 9/11 to justice is worth almost any price. However, this war is not about 9/11, no matter what your media is saying. This is naked power politics taken to the extreme of war, and that's all. And that's not OK. \r\n\r\n The first victim of Imperial Rome was Republican Rome. The second victim of Imperial Athens was Athens. Read the papers at [link\|http://www.newamericancentury.org\|http://www.newamericancentury.org], take a look at the signatories of the statement of intent, look up the names of the Bush cabinet, and do some thinking. Maybe you'll understand why most of the world thingks US motives in this war are a little suspicious; because what's true for Iraq today could be true for many other countries tomorrow. \r\n\r\n Because your little lampoon above certainly displayed no thought whatsoever; just a facile grasp of cheap potshots. \r\n --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #90,920 by cybermace5 3/23/03 10:53:18 PM Reply	Re: Reasoned rebuttal. So, are you saying that Blix is venal at best, and mendacious at worst? Or what? Like I said, nice lampoon... Yes. Obviously anyone would feel the same reluctance to instigate a war, but the UN was incapable of appointing someone who wouldn't cave in. And now here you are talking about the big bad UN doing exactly what you were just doing above wrt Blix. Nothing quite like a little drive-by character assassination to make yourself feel better, eh? Big bad UN? Please...it's pitiful. And I doubt that mere character assassination would be the end of it, for some countries with a few issues. If you think the UN has "basically ... been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way", then you have a very narrow view of the world. The UN was the organisation that got 100% behind the US in Gulf War I... was that them "standing up and swearing at the US ... for a few billion dollars"? They had absolutely no choice in the matter. Saddam invaded another country, and they had no possible way to escape the fact that action was needed. How about when the UN set up the WTO, at US request, to form a single venue to manage trade disputes between nations? Was that the UN being all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? How about when the UN took on North Korea in the 1950s? Sure, there were plenty of Americans there, but despite what you saw on MASH there were a lot of Canadian, Australians, French, and other troops there too. Was that the UN being all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? Sure, if it involves finances and the U.S., they're all over that. But again, the UN had no choice in Korea...there was an obvious invasion and action was inescapable. Either that or completely lose any shred of credibility. When the US decided to go to war in Afghanistan a year or so ago, was the UN all about "standing up and swearing at the US"? We went to war with you in Afghanistan, and stayed there (there are over a thousand Canadian troops in Afghanistan right now) despite the fact that some of your National Air Guard people dropped a bomb on a bunch of the Patricia's doing night exercises and are going to get off with a slap on the wrist. Was that about us "standing up and swearing at the US"? There was barely a peep in Canada about going to war in Afghanistan. It was very clear to us why you wanted to do it and why it had to be done; bringing the people who did 9/11 to justice is worth almost any price. However, this war is not about 9/11, no matter what your media is saying. This is naked power politics taken to the extreme of war, and that's all. And that's not OK. No one ever complained about Canada. Also, yeah, this war is not about 9/11. I'm the first to claim our media is a bunch of sensationalist empty-headed morons. This war is about Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people. Carter got Saddam all set up, Reagan was more concerned about local issues, and Bush had to deal with the huge instability due to the collapsing Soviet regime and the end of the Cold War. Bush took the only chance he had, which Saddam provided in the way of invading Kuwait. Unfortunately we abandoned the Iraqi people for eight years while revenge killings were sweeping areas the Iraqis had celebrated American arrival. Bush Jr. finally got the courage to go back in and finish what should have been finished a decade ago. This is what the Iraqis want. They are greeting troops with outstretched arms because they believe we'll finish the job this time. I hope they're right. On an interesting note, Hollywood celebrities are furious the war started now: they say Clinton would never have done this to them near their little self-aggrandising show. From what I understand there was a microscopic window for the strike to hit where it counted...Clinton (or so Hollywood claims) would have said, no, we need to wait until after the awards ceremony. The first victim of Imperial Rome was Republican Rome. The second victim of Imperial Athens was Athens. Read the papers at [link\|http://www.newamericancentury.org\|http://www.newamericancentury.org], take a look at the signatories of the statement of intent, look up the names of the Bush cabinet, and do some thinking. Maybe you'll understand why most of the world thingks US motives in this war are a little suspicious; because what's true for Iraq today could be true for many other countries tomorrow. Certainly you're not paranoid about the U.S. invading Canada, eh? Because your little lampoon above certainly displayed no thought whatsoever; just a facile grasp of cheap potshots. I give as good as I get. Your current response was the first response that displayed any thought whatsoever, and I do appreciate that.
Post #90,909 by dmarker 3/23/03 10:05:00 PM Reply	Re: We stood a better chance with inspectors. >> Now look at the UN, basically since the beginning it has been all about one country after another standing up and swearing at the U.S., in the hopes that a few billion dollars of FA get sent their way to shut them up. << Out of kindness I will assume you are well meaning but young. Hmmmmm Doug M Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003 Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
Post #90,916 by Brandioch 3/23/03 10:26:20 PM Reply	Another of Marlowe's friends from school? #1. No evidence of Blix ever doing what he claims. #2. A history of the US "refusing" to share its "secret intelligence". #3. A history of the US distorting facts and just plain telling lies about Iraq. #4. No nuke/chem/bio weapons used even when US troops are advancing on Saddam. Therefore..... Blix didn't want an end to his sweet job. The only proof is prediction. Marlowe can't explain why his predicted nuke/chem/bio weapons have NOT been used. I have predicted that they would not be used because they did not exist but that "evidence" of them would be "found" by our troops. The only proof is prediction.
Post #90,923 by cybermace5 3/23/03 10:59:04 PM Reply	Re: Another of Marlowe's friends from school? Why have biological and chemical weapons not been used? Simple. Saddam is dead. If the U.S. had not taken the opportunity to strike top Iraqi leadership when it presented itself, a lot of U.S., British, and Australian soldiers would be coughing up their lungs about now. No Iraqi leadership exists that could authorize use of WMD, and most of the remaining soldiers aren't too excited about releasing chemical and biological agents either.
Post #90,933 by Brandioch 3/23/03 11:25:24 PM Reply	Yep, another of his high school friends. No Iraqi leadership exists that could authorize use of WMD, and most of the remaining soldiers aren't too excited about releasing chemical and biological agents either. So the chem/bio rounds are still there with the units? But the units won't use them because they haven't been told to use them? Sooooo, shouldn't we be seeing reports of chem/bio rounds captured with the thousands of Iraqi troops that have surrendered so far? Strange, I don't recall seeing any reports like that.
Post #91,023 by screamer 3/24/03 10:41:24 AM Reply	Exactly, you finally are kind of getting it... The haven't been told to use the chem weapons. Yet. Our troops are not all neatly lined up south of Baghdad. The chem weapon factory they found on the way was surely a Revlon plant, right allknowingone? This is serious business now. The Iraqi's have the chems and bought the delivery systems from Russia (now the real reason for Russia's "pacifism"). There is an obvious strategy that Iraq's military commanders are following and I'm affraid our strategists are having our troups are grouping too close together south of Baghdad. I'm hoping they have a counter surprise, but not counting on it. I think our missiles are trying to pick them off a few at a time, but it's pretty clear that the RepoGuard units have been given directive to wait until our troups are massed (regardless of Hussein's health). Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #90,948 by jake123 3/23/03 11:53:30 PM Reply	Saddam's not dead He was on TV earlier today, in a meeting with his cabinet; they were talking about events that had happened after the initial strike. Saw it myself on BBC World Service and CBC Newsworld. They didn't get him; he's still alive and in control. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #90,950 by boxley 3/23/03 11:58:50 PM Reply	which sadaam, there is several you know will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
Post #90,969 by dmarker 3/24/03 1:42:30 AM Reply	One Dubya is one Dubya too many <grin> Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003 Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003

Welcome to IWETHEY!