That hasn't been shown yet...

3/20/03 11:07:26 AM

It should also be pointed out

That a missile is not in and of itself a WMD; it's the payload on the missile that may or may not be a WMD.

--\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 #89,750

by admin

3/20/03 11:09:58 AM

Except

That the ban also prohibited missiles that could fly over a certain range. Generally this get lumped in with the WMD restrictions, even though they aren't the same thing.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #89,751

3/20/03 11:13:13 AM

Agreed...

So a SCUD without a warhead *IS_NOT* a WMD... but then again neither is a *WAR_HEAD* that is not mounted.

I see... IRAQ HAS COMPLIED!!!

DAM THIS WAR!!! WHAT ARE WE DOING THERE!!! THAT IRAQI LEADER IS OF THE KIND, CARING, FOSTERING SORT...

Ooops, I was yelling there...

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints.

Post #89,763

3/20/03 12:26:38 PM

Sarcasm aside

I don't like the idea of living in a world where governments exist only at US suffrance, particularly as I'm not in the US. Your lampoon is an attempt to create a falsely simplistic black and white picture of the positions that one can take about this war.

I don't think Saddam Hussein is a good person; OTOH, it's not my job to impose "democracy" on the Iraqi people. They have to do it themselves, or it's not really democracy.

Scott: a warhead requires a delivery system. That delivery system can be someone with a suitcase. The means of transportation is besides the point, once the ability of transportation exists. The kind of missile used is completely irrelevant to the issue of WMD. Finally, calling up the UN restrictions is false anyway, as the UN has pretty clearly decided (over the objections of the US) that it doesn't think war is necessary for disarming Iraq, at least not yet.

Greg: what the fuck exactly did you think the Iraqi were going to do once there was an attack? Lie down and give up? This is NOT the same as Kuwait; this time they're not defending another country; this time they're defending their homes. It makes all the difference in the world to the kind of reaction you can expect to get from the Iraqi army.

--\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 #89,770

by admin

3/20/03 12:43:44 PM

I'm not sure what points you are addressing...

But they aren't mine.

Scott: a warhead requires a delivery system. That delivery system can be someone with a suitcase. The means of transportation is besides the point, once the ability of transportation exists. The kind of missile used is completely irrelevant to the issue of WMD.

Right... which is pretty much exactly what I said.

Finally, calling up the UN restrictions is false anyway, as the UN has pretty clearly decided (over the objections of the US) that it doesn't think war is necessary for disarming Iraq, at least not yet.

Errr.... my point had nothing to do with whether the UN thinks war is necessary or not. It simply addressed the common vague use of "WMD" to cover everything that Iraq isn't supposed to have (including long range missiles), which is the usage that I believe Greg was using.

Regarding the point "the UN has pretty clearly decided", I believe that you are incorrect. The UN's decisions are represented in resolutions. The member states on the Security Council have made their views (that war isn't necessary) known, outside of any UN resolutions. However, the resolution that would have made these views into an official UN decision was never voted upon, so the UN has made no such decision. Yes, this is pedantic, but so is law in general, and this is an important distinction that Bush is relying upon to fight his war. The last UN resolution regarding this issue (1441) stated that serious consequences would occur; the consequences were never determined and their nature is (obviously) up for interpretation. UNR 1441 is a study in how to be selectively blind to interpretations in order to get something passed that all sides can agree with.

Do not confuse the above with me supporting the war; I'm of the opinion that a 30 day period with an ultimatum would have been much better (this is pretty much what France suggested at the last minuted before the war started -- had they been less obstinate in the beginning, and had Bush not been so inflexible concerning time limits, we wouldn't be having a war right now).

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #89,869

3/20/03 6:05:50 PM

Sorry, I'm probably coming on a bit strong

This war deeply offends me, and I know that you are not a hawk on this one. However, weaseling about SCUD missiles being WMD is just wrong, UN sanctions or no.

And no, I don't necessarily think that's what you're doing:)

--\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 #89,780

3/20/03 12:58:58 PM

But ... SCUDS?

Wait... *** greg takes a few deep breathes and then a few more...

Already we have them laying down their arms and surrendering... before the Deadline ahd even passed.

And NO they are not defending their homes this time... They are defending a cruel, sadistic, dictatorship. We are not going to destroy homes were are destroying the mechanism that keeps the regime in place and we are removing the WMD.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,868

3/20/03 6:05:13 PM

Re: homes

Um, Greg, home is more than just a building.

The US has told them they intend to drop thousands of bombs on their cities, invade, and put them under a military dicatorship for at least a few years.

The Iraqi have been bombed before; they know what it's like. What do you think they're going to believe... "we blew up your homes ten years ago, but we're not going to do it this time, honest"?

The last time they had a war with the US, at least a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers were killed in the bombing leading up to the retaking of Kuwait. You don't think the fact that over half the population of Iraq is under the age of fourteen just happened, do you? It's because the generation that is my age was largely wiped out in '91.

What's going to be better from their point of view, a military dicatorship run by a country on the other side of the world that has demonstrated major contempt for their faith on many occasions, or a military dictatorship run by someone local?

Finally, the Iraqi people have a completely different comprehension of what a US war on their soil will mean than most US citizens, thanks to the effects of depleted uranium ammunition on the inhabitants in places where it has been used. Instead of southern Iraq living under a cancer plague, it's going to be the whole country that will be living under a cancer plague, with no end in sight as the cancerous effects of DU ammunition lasts for several billion years. This different understanding is driven by direct experience; the average US citizen's understanding of this is driven by what they're told on TV. Which understanding do you think is more accurate?

Keeping all this in mind, if you were an Iraqi soldier, what would you do?

--\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 #89,769

3/20/03 12:40:12 PM

That's why I find euphemisms so disgusting.

They encourage sloppy thinking.

So a SCUD without a warhead *IS_NOT* a WMD... but then again neither is a *WAR_HEAD* that is not mounted.

Incorrect.

A SCUD is a missile. Not a "WMD".

A SCUD with a conventional warhead is a missile. Not a "WMD".

A warhead of conventional explosives is not a "WMD".

Nukes are "WMD's".
Nukes can be delivered via "briefcase", missile, artilery round, bombs etc.

Chemical agents are "WMD's".
Chemical agents can be delivered in much the same fashion as nukes.

Biological agents are "WMD's".
Biological agents usually require a "vector" to deliver them (mosquitoes, fleas, etc) although some are capable of being delivered as powder which can be delivered in more ways than I can name.

A bomb is NOT a "WMD".
A nuclear bomb IS a "WMD".
A chemical bomb filled with chemical agents is a "WMD".
A bio bomb filled with anthrax powder is a "WMD".

Please to be taking notes of the presence of the adjectives "nuclear", "chemical" and "bio" that preceed the noun "bomb".

I see... IRAQ HAS COMPLIED!!!

Possibly. As of this moment, there is NO EVIDENCE that Iraq has NOT complied with regards to NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL weapons.

The absence of evidence is NOT the same as evidence of absence, though.

Which is why so many people were pushing to CONTINUE the inspections.

Despite ALL THE CLAIMS of the US about "secret information" that it had, NO nuclear, chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq.

Post #89,785

3/20/03 1:15:36 PM

BUT 12 EFFING YEARS?

12 years... so would you give him another 12 years?

Why not 50 years... shoot why not wait untill we all die... then it isn't our problem at all.

When or where are you going to draw the line.

Treat your kids like this... and you get kids that will not follow your directions. Raise them for 12 years like that from being a baby... hellion on wheels in the teens (which is 1 year away)

Blah Blah Blah... if you can honestly say he was 100% helpful in inspecting... then why even inspect. He has already given up all the WMD he has then.

If you CANNOT say was 100% helpful in inspections... when do we make that deadline? 12 years... And you want 2-3 more months... he is showing more... but then that means he HASN'T complied... the deliver mechanisms with ranges greater than ??? distance are also included in the disarm resolutions... yet he still uses them... today even.

Are we clear yet as to why 12 years hasn't been LONG enough... or HAS it been long enough... How much longer do we need for him to comply? Wait, complying means he doesn;t have any of the excluded weapons (of MD or not) the UN has decreed. Why does he still dangle the carrot... by giving the inspectors 1 or 2 more pieces... progress... why after 12 years does he decide...

He decides mainly because there is a serious force of troops looking like they are gonna kick his ass... wouldn't you? But he still hasn't proven he has complied... only stated it. Oil wells burning presumably at the hands of the military... yet Saddam stated he would NEVER destroy the *ROYAL* Riches... like Oil wells owned by Iraq... Lies... Lies... Lies... yeah...

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,789

3/20/03 1:25:55 PM

Re: BUT 12 EFFING YEARS?

We could have worked it out in the UN. It's our arrogance and stupidity that are the economy-destroying, suicidal factors here.

Saddam was not the issue. The cooperation of nations is the issue. The US used to stand for something - now we are no better than Russia sitting on Chechnya, China on Tibet, or Israel on Palestine.

-drl

Post #89,790

3/20/03 1:26:57 PM

Okay how long? When to draw the line?

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,791

3/20/03 1:28:24 PM

Re: Okay how long? When to draw the line?

Like a good neighbor, husband, friend, classmate, hospital roomie, you work things out. It's simple deceny and civilized behavior.

-drl

Post #89,794

3/20/03 1:41:55 PM

Yep. I like that too... BUT...

Saddam wasn't co-operating... the others were not seeing that 12 years was an inordinate amount of time...

The UN is in-effective as of 2130 EST March 19, 2003. They can't even agree to disagree and move along on *A* path... some of the members don't even care *WHAT* is going on... *IN* Iraq.

That time and date was the beginning of the end of the UN. Some may argue it was in 1998.

Pretty soon, it'll be "good" ole colonialism setting in...

If you think it wasn't about Saddam it wasn't... it is about UN not being able to resolve anything and enforce it.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,795

3/20/03 1:43:46 PM

Re: Yep. I like that too... BUT...

No one likes Saddam - no one, not the French, Russians, Chinese, East Timorese, Ivory Coastians, Senegalese, Tuvans.

It could have been worked out.

We suck.

-drl

Post #89,803

3/20/03 1:51:48 PM

Nope...

When in the course of human events... has there EVER been an agreement to go to War?

Let's see... WWII... it *US* getting attacked by a third party to get us to connect...

Let's see... WWI... similar.

When France and Germany get Terrorist attack at them on the scale and magnitude we did... heck even Uzbehcistan(sp) knows how badly coutries cannot get along...

Unfortuneately WE will be able to take care of the problem before they would have gotten "involved"... it's ashame.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,797

3/20/03 1:47:09 PM

3/20/03 1:47:30 PM

..also..

Here's an answer for you - how we fucked even Blair:

[link|http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/bookman/|http://www.accessatl.../opinion/bookman/]

-drl

Edited by deSitter March 20, 2003, 01:47:30 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #89,815

3/20/03 2:39:49 PM

When he attacks another country.

Until that point is reached, we act like civilized adults.

Post #89,822

3/20/03 2:55:30 PM

Okay...

So when the Police tell you that they cannot do anything about your Missing Daughter for 72 hours... YOU act like a civilized Adult, right?

Or you see a Timer counting down through your window in the Garage next door... and also see 2 Tons of Explosives there... You call the police and they say they cannot do anything about it until they have probable cause... You of course act like a civized adult. The bomb then goes off... destroying your house and two blocks around.

You see a guy brandishing a Squad Automatic Weapon with belts of ammo strapped to him on his porch... with a determined look on his face... You call the police... they say he has a Permit fo the weapon... but won't do anything untill *SOMETHING* happens... Did I mention this person JUST HAPPENS to live next to you... You act like a civilized adult. He then attacks and kills your wife because she came home and happen to drive in front of his house...

I can come up many more situations where the circumstances are the same...

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,827

3/20/03 3:13:47 PM

Your analogy fails.

So when the Police tell you that they cannot do anything about your Missing Daughter for 72 hours... YOU act like a civilized Adult, right?

So......

Police == UN (I think)

Missing Daughter == what?

72 hours == more time for inspections?

Or you see a Timer counting down through your window in the Garage next door... and also see 2 Tons of Explosives there...

Okay, if someone puts explosives on my house, that is an attack.

Saddam has NOT attacked any other country in the past 12 years.

When he DOES, we can invade.

You see a guy brandishing a Squad Automatic Weapon with belts of ammo strapped to him on his porch... with a determined look on his face... You call the police... they say he has a Permit fo the weapon... but won't do anything untill *SOMETHING* happens... Did I mention this person JUST HAPPENS to live next to you... You act like a civilized adult. He then attacks and kills your wife because she came home and happen to drive in front of his house...

Where do YOU live?

If the guy next door HAS such a weapon...

LEGALLY

Okay, Saddam is LEGALLY allowed (by the UN) to stockpile automatic weapons and ammo and grenades and rockets.

He is NOT allowed to have nukes or chem-bio weapons.

It has NOT been shown that he has those.

I can come up many more situations where the circumstances are the same...

Maybe to you they are the same.

You're all over the place in your analogies.

#1. Missing Daughter, are you suggesting that I start shooting up the neighborhood until someone tells me where she is?

#2. Explosives and timer, this is an illegal act, committed by someone who has crossed my property line. This would be the same as if Saddam had invaded Kuwait. And what did we do then?

#3. Legally owned weapon but owner is behaving erratically in public. This would be the same as if Saddam had organized his troops on the border of a nation that was NOT threatening him. In which case, the threatened nation would, logically, dig in its troops to provide maximum defense in case of attack.

And I would call my wife and tell her to NOT come home 'cause the neighbor went crazy and I would join her at a hotel downtown. If he shoots up the house, I get the insurance money and he gets years in jail. If I arrange it correctly, I'd even get HIS house as part of the settlement.

Post #89,842

3/20/03 4:41:03 PM

My analogy does not fail...

...your reading of the text has failed...

Too bad... I indeed feel sorry for your wife. I can see that you don't have a logical mind when it come to understanding examples... you, you just take them literally.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,846

3/20/03 4:48:24 PM

Your analogies failed. I'm NOT married.

Too bad... I indeed feel sorry for your wife. I can see that you don't have a logical mind when it come to understanding examples... you, you just take them literally.

No, I was showing where your analogies failed.

I even numbered them and showed you where they were inaccurate.

Your "justification" depends upon a false dichotomy.

Either we invade Iraq NOW
-or-
We withdraw the inspectors and remove the sanctions and do nothing at all.

I pointed out that this was flawed because the options are NOT

INVADE
-or-
Do nothing

There are LOTS of options that do NOT require an invasion.

Just as you didn't understand that a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" was NOT the same as a rocket.

Post #89,808

by Silverlock

3/20/03 2:12:34 PM

I assume then that for 12 years you have been shouting this?

No? Then why is it so important now?

Our government has consistently been lying to us on this topic. As a man with access to information not generally available to the public, Rep. Ron Paul in remarks opposing the handing over of the power to declare war to the executive branch states

Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.

Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

[link|http://www.amenusa.org/iraq2.htm|Source]

I too am unconvinced, especially given this administration's reflexively deceitful actions. Habitual, chronic and worst of all, clumsily transparent liars do not instill a sense of trust.

The world is only a simple place to the simple.

Post #89,812

3/20/03 2:34:17 PM

I haven't been as overt about this aspect...

As I get carried away with it...

And I don't really like getting that way... I have been "discussing" this with my father in law since ~1992.

Just not as clearly here. It's just I have to express today else, I'll go mad.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,814

3/20/03 2:38:39 PM

Why not? He has NOT attacked any other country.

He was contained and weakened.

Another 12 years and he'd STILL be contained and weakened.

Another 24 years and he'd STILL be contained and weakened.

Eventually, he'd die.

And Iraq would have been contained.

Treat your kids like this... and you get kids that will not follow your directions. Raise them for 12 years like that from being a baby... hellion on wheels in the teens (which is 1 year away)

Okay, I see we've managed to lose the ORIGINAL point which was whether Iraq had any "WMD's".

We are NOT "raising" Iraq therefore, your analogy fails.

The BEST analogy (if you have to do it in the "other person" mode) is an adult (Iraq is certainly not a child, nor is Saddam) who is confined to a specific area.

Such as being in jail.

Now, if he wants to LEAVE that area, he has to change his behaviour.

If he tries to fight his way out...... well, that would be similar to his invasion of Kuwait, wouldn't it?

lah Blah Blah... if you can honestly say he was 100% helpful in inspecting... then why even inspect. He has already given up all the WMD he has then.

Okay, just a question....

Is it POSSIBLE for ANYONE who supports this war to NOT LIE?

No, I have NEVER said that he was "100% helpful in inspecting".

He has the KNOWLEDGE of how to manufacture chem/bio weapons. We know this because WE funded his research.

Knowledge is NOT possession, but knowledge, without inspections, can lead to possession.

If you CANNOT say was 100% helpful in inspections... when do we make that deadline? 12 years... And you want 2-3 more months... he is showing more... but then that means he HASN'T complied... the deliver mechanisms with ranges greater than ??? distance are also included in the disarm resolutions... yet he still uses them... today even.

Simple, the deadline is when Iraq attacks another country (that hasn't attacked Iraq first).

Until that happens, we can run inspections.

Are we clear yet as to why 12 years hasn't been LONG enough... or HAS it been long enough... How much longer do we need for him to comply? Wait, complying means he doesn;t have any of the excluded weapons (of MD or not) the UN has decreed. Why does he still dangle the carrot... by giving the inspectors 1 or 2 more pieces... progress... why after 12 years does he decide...

Again, the sloppy thinking.

Are we going to war because Saddam has rockets that can go 14 miles further than they're supposed to?

Is that why we're going to kill innocent Iraqi children?

If the ONLY thing that has been FOUND so far are those rockets, then WHY do we have to kill Iraqi children NOW?

It's been 12 years, and all that is left are those rockets.
Nothing else has been found.

Here's a checklist for you:

Nuclear program.
Chemical weapons program.
Biological weapons program.
Rockets that go too far.

Now, check off what has been destroyed and, so far, verified.

Then explain why we couldn't wait longer.

He decides mainly because there is a serious force of troops looking like they are gonna kick his ass... wouldn't you? But he still hasn't proven he has complied... only stated it. Oil wells burning presumably at the hands of the military... yet Saddam stated he would NEVER destroy the *ROYAL* Riches... like Oil wells owned by Iraq... Lies... Lies... Lies... yeah...

Not "looking like they are gonna kick his ass".

Bush is pushing this war and claiming that it is to prevent an IMMEDIATE THREAT.

There is no immediate threat.

Bush has lied about Iraq's nuclear program.
Bush has lied about Iraq's chemical weapons program.
And so on.

Post #89,823

3/20/03 3:03:17 PM

True...

Okay, I see we've managed to lose the ORIGINAL point which was whether Iraq had any "WMD's".

We are NOT "raising" Iraq therefore, your analogy fails.

True we are not raising Iraq, but we are doing the same thing as raising it. Lack of training and use of in-action cause them to become beligerant (sp)...

But, Why is it that many countries *INCLUDING* the UN (not a country but an org) come to the US to help fix things... why all of a sudden when we want something fixed they WON'T do it. It's hogwash...

then WHY do we have to kill Iraqi children NOW?

Why does Iraq itself do that? So I guess that makes us equal there...

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,828

3/20/03 3:18:45 PM

You claim we are raising Iraq?

True we are not raising Iraq, but we are doing the same thing as raising it. Lack of training and use of in-action cause them to become beligerant (sp)...

Saddam is NOT an adult? I'm sure that Saddam's personality was developed LONG before now.

Or haven't you read how he became the leader of Iraq?

But, Why is it that many countries *INCLUDING* the UN (not a country but an org) come to the US to help fix things... why all of a sudden when we want something fixed they WON'T do it. It's hogwash...

Okay, the UN is NOT asking the US to invade Iraq.

In fact, the majority of the members of the UN were set to vote AGAINST the US's resolution that would have resulted in an invasion of Iraq.

Or are you one of those that believe that because we helped out other countries, that they SHOULD support us even when what we want conflicts with their beliefs?

It seems from your statement that you are.

Post #89,844

3/20/03 4:42:52 PM

We help them when ...

it is against our beliefs... why should they be able to not do the same.

To bad, I guess you will just have to deal with it.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Post #89,847

3/20/03 4:49:57 PM

"We help them when ... it is against our beliefs..."

I'm sure you can provide three examples of such.

Go ahead.

I say that we have NOT supported the UN when it was against our beliefs.

Post #89,875