Re: Stupidity by association

Post #51,177 by dmarker2 9/10/02 12:53:49 AM 9/10/02 6:42:46 AM Reply	Re: Stupidity by association Question 1 If you know someone who is obviously stupid, would that in anyway justify me in accusing you of being stupid? Ans: absolutely not. ** Question 2a Who has a right to defend themselves from a hostile invasion & who doesn't have that right ? Ans: USA? (We all know this is a yes) - UK (yes?) - Italy (yes?) - China (yes?) - Pakistan (yes?) - Saudi Arabia (yes?) - Iran (yes?) - Serbia (Yes?) - Iraq (Yes? - if not why not ???) Question 2b To what extent is any country allowed to defend itself against an aggressor ? Question 3 For what purpose was the United Nations formed ? Question 4a If one member nation openly defied the will of the vast majority of the core members of the UN by invading another country what do you think should be done ? Question 4b What did America seek from the UN, at UN, when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Question 5 What do the words 'burden of proof' actually mean, especially as a basis for going to war ? Ans: ** Back to stupidity by association - Question 6 How do you associate that Iraq might be building a nuke, with Iraq actually using the nuke they don't yet have, against America ??? ** Question 7 If the answer to 6 is along the lines of, "of course we don't expect Iraq to use a nuke against US, but Saddam will use it against another country" ? Question 8 If the answer to 7 was as indicated, please name the other countries ? Question 8b Why is it that these other countries unanimously oppose US invading Iraq ?????? Question 9 Please explain the meaning of unilateralism Question 10 Please explain the meaning of supreme arrogance Question 11 Do you believe Iraq would attack America with a nuke even if they had one (or two - even if untested) ??? if yes, why ??? Question 12 Do you believe Saddam Hussien is a complete imbecile ??? ** Question 13 Pakistan has a dictaor, several nukes, rockets & might have Bin Laden (who has attacked US) - shouldn't we attack Pakistan ??? **** DSM ### Spelling etc: Edited by dmarker2 Sept. 10, 2002, 06:42:46 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #51,197 by deSitter 9/10/02 10:18:29 AM Reply	Doubts I thought my mind was made up about this matter, but in the past few days I've been leaning toward rooting him out (as should have been done in 1991), because if the Brits are for it, there must be a really good reason. But it wouldn't work - if not Iraq, then someone else will float a nuke into a harbor. We can't attack everyone who might not like us. Once they have the A-bomb, the H-bomb is technical details. Therefore the only guaranteed solution is coalition-building and respect for your neighbors/allies. It sounds corny, but love should win over hate. Hate will just create more hate. The best thing we could do is admit we are hurt, and ask the world to help us get better. The larger problem up the road is proliferation of nukes for everyone, including Iraq. That is the thing that needs the most attention, not some general whining about "war on terrorism" (you can't fight ideas, only things). Now, if hard evidence exists, then bring it out in the open and build a consensus among countries to go root it out once and for all. Then I'll support it all the way, as in 1991. -drl
Post #51,206 by Silverlock 9/10/02 11:11:39 AM Reply	Brits are for it? Most of the reports I've seen indicate that support for a war with Iraq is pretty low among the general populace in the UK. As to those who do support it, call me cynical but I seem to remember that the UK is the worlds second largest (after the US) profit center for oil companies. "Can you wage war against an abstract noun?" -Terry Jones
Post #51,208 by a6l6e6x 9/10/02 11:16:16 AM Reply	Yep, mostly it is Tony "W's poodle" Blair for it. Alex The Website you seek Cannot be located, but Countless more exist.
Post #51,338 by deSitter 9/11/02 12:11:12 AM Reply	Sticky Wicket I don't see Blair as a toady. Great Britain seems to be remarkably prosperous in some indefinable sense. I don't know the numbers on their economy, and in any case that's not what I'm getting at. The people seem to be asserting themselves the way they always do, with restrained authority. We Americans are too quick to forget where we got these ideas. But the Brits are too quick to forget that our Revolution was more than happy words. We really did, we really DO, believe in being free of Kings, even elected ones - and by extension, too much reliance on the wisdom of the past. So I think the Brits are happy to side with us, because they know we need them. Without them we are nothing. That they survived our Revolution proves how strong they are, and how solid. After all, at the same time they had a few problems on the continent. And the Americans are happy to side with the Brits, because we love to show them how gracious we are with our inheritance. Blair and Bush. Where is Blair from, and how do the English talk about him? -drl
Post #51,344 by dmarker2 9/11/02 1:44:25 AM 9/11/02 1:53:58 AM Reply	Re: Actually Tony Blair is Scottish From Edinburgh. [link\|http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page97.asp\|Tony Blair] He has been immensly popular in the past & won his current term with a lanslide victory - he had a bad time a couple of years back but he is still highly regarded. But, his stance on Iraq is not supported - by the opposition tories or even his own back-bench. There has been talk of a back-bench revolt if it comes to the crunch. It doesn't seem to reach US news services as to the extent of dissatisfaction with this policy. This week Blair addressed the powerful TUC (Trade Union Congress) that supports his labour govt. He had a hard time convincing them of the merits of the policy. [link\|http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/story/0,12189,789968,00.html\|Blair at TUC] [link\|http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,667656,00.html\|Issue of legalities of pre-emptive attack] Exceprt: "What the lawyers didn't tell Blair is that any right of pre-emptive self-defence would be dangerous. Who decides that a threat justifies anticipatory action? How does one protect against opportunistic interventions justified on the basis of pre-emptive self-defence? The UN charter is clear: in the absence of an attack, the security council alone can act. " Cheers Doug Marker Edited by dmarker2 Sept. 11, 2002, 01:53:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #51,226 by ChrisR 9/10/02 12:37:24 PM Reply	Public Opinion Can't find the link, but there were some opinion polls a week or two ago that showed that general public opinion was fairly close between European and US citizens. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that change can happen very suddenly. How many would have thought one year ago that we would oust the regime in Afghanistan in short order? I could well be wrong, but at least to my way of thinking, plans to invade Iraq are mostly a contingency plan. What happens if a major terrorist attack happens within say the next 48 hours? My suspicion is that Public opinion would be substantially altered and Iraq would be toast. A year ago, there were some that looked at American opinion polls and figured they could act with impunity. This resulted in a miscalculation of what our response would be. This time around, our response will be much more predictable. Consider it the replacement strategy for Mutual Assured Destruction which waned with the demise of the Soviet empire.
Post #51,262 by Ashton 9/10/02 4:17:36 PM Reply	MAD is still on. Waned - as anyone's idea of 'species sanity'? Perhaps. But US, Russian missiles could be flying in minutes. Right now. Out of sight.. still these devices are tested, inspected and ready to go. Lots of them, even given retirement of a token few Model-Ts with dirty Tritium charges. NOVA spent an hour or so with Russian Missileers, about a year ago.. (First ever 'inteview' with these folks) Yeah.. probably spasm-war is pretty much trumped by the quality of instant communications. Probably. But once adrenaline passes into toxic levels: what would You bet, based on just the past century's overall "decision quality" ? Then throw in the confounding 2 words, Middle East. Ashton
Post #51,293 by dmarker2 9/10/02 8:22:10 PM 9/11/02 8:59:38 AM Reply	Re: Guilt by what association What is this association that justifies invading Iraq against almost all opinion if some Saudi terrorists with no apparant connection to Iraq, carry out some mad deed. It is insanity to attack b because of the deeds of a, who is unconnected to b. Most of us (as per deSitter's point) will be ready to support invasion of Iraq if serious evidence of world threatening activity by Hussien are uncovered. But the evidence has to be both real & credible. The point that a terrorist attack renders Iraq 'Toast' is just bizzare - Did you realise that in the very early crusades (12th century) - some German crusaders hunted down Jews and killed them - their argument was that why go to Jerusalem to kill Islam when it was already in Germany - it was not part of their conciousness that Jews weren't Islamic & that they had been in Germany for 1100 or so years even if only allowed to live in certain areas and follow certain trades (these trades were leather work, processing dead meat, money lending, clothing trade, millinery (hats)). So where do you make the connection between Saudi terrorists acting out and Iraq ????????? Doug Marker (When will we learn?) #Spelling Edited by dmarker2 Sept. 11, 2002, 04:28:13 AM EDT Edited by dmarker2 Sept. 11, 2002, 08:59:38 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #51,380 by ChrisR 9/11/02 11:13:08 AM Reply	Connections So where do you make the connection between Saudi terrorists acting out and Iraq ????????? Two of the main complaints of the terrorists is that (a) there are American troops on Saudi soil; and (b) economic sanctions are imposing an undue hardship on Iraqi civilians. The problem with the status quo is that it is unmaintainable. We may not be currently engaged in a war, but there are American and British pilots that patrol the region, risking their lives, every day of the year for the last eight years. This may not be a full-scale war, but from an Iraqi perspective, they are violations of their territorial integrity. Now tell me how we get out of this mess? Should we stop patrolling the no-fly zones? Should we remove troops from Saudi soil? Should we lift the economic sanctions? Being of pacificistic tendency, I'm all for avoiding a further escalation of the conflict. In fact, I'm all for removing our troops and lifting economic sanctions. And I'm all for removing the war premium ($6 a barrel) on oil. Perhaps you mistake my reading on the situation with my personal preference? I don't think it too farfetched to assume that public opinion will be swayed in favor of intervention if more significant terrorist attacks occur. I also think that there is a strategy of deterrence being played out - and since deterrence is fairly ineffective when it's aimed at individuals, it's not unreasonable to assume that the strategy is aimed at rogue states - something along the lines of terrorist actions resulting in further meddling in MidEast affairs not less.
Post #51,465 by dmarker2 9/11/02 9:11:02 PM Reply	Re: Connections I take your point re intention. On the below point ... "Two of the main complaints of the terrorists is that (a) there are American troops on Saudi soil; and (b) economic sanctions are imposing an undue hardship on Iraqi civilians. " I've not heard that one before ? - I though the two main complaints were ... 'Two of the main complaints of the terrorists is that (a) there are American troops on Saudi soil; and (b) Lack of resolution of the Palestinian question & the harsh treatment of Palestinians by Jews. ' I just don't recall hearing the terrorists specifically list Iraqi sanctions as the justification for 9/11. Cheers Doug
Post #51,468 by a6l6e6x 9/11/02 9:30:41 PM Reply	Aye, you are right Doug. Thus spake Osama. Alex The Website you seek Cannot be located, but Countless more exist.
Post #51,470 by boxley 9/11/02 10:12:59 PM Reply	on 911 the Pals were an afterthought Osama, were not mentioning the perfidious jews in this communique, yes achnod cant declare a major event without damming jews, get the egyptian to write something. From most reports the problem was American infidels on holy soil. Prior to 911 the quedians never pressed for Palestinian relief. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html\|skill set] [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/index.html\|boxley's home page] qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
Post #51,488 by dmarker2 9/12/02 3:08:36 AM Reply	Re: PAL Peoples always featured in OBL's activity After fighting Ruskies OBL's funded group sought to send trained militants to all major & some minor theatres where muslims were fighting. They were sent to Bosnia & were instrumental along with US special ops people, in training & fighting for the Bosnian army against the Serbs (and at times Croatians). [link\|http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/hezbollahUS.htm\|One example report] They were sent to fight in Algeria. They were sent to train locals in Somalia. They were sent to Chenenya and to Georgia. They were sent to Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan. [link\|http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/asicent.htm\|Central Asia] They were sent to Kashmir. They were sent to Palestine. They were sent to Kosovo then Macedonia. A few were sent to Ambon (but much of that trouble was home grown). Some were in the Philipines & Malaysia planning terrorist activities. I tend to think the Palestinians were emotionally high on Al Queda list but in military terms agree they were just one of many focus points, perhaps not an afterthought. Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!