"Wait! Don't leave!"

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

You know I've got to say that this issue is on of the few issues that I have flipped flopped on repeatedly. Months ago I was firmly opposed to the war. Recently, I have been convinced that we must go in.

Actually, I am beginning to think now that it is more and more likely that we will not go in at all.

Interesting, days ago I was firmly against the war. More recently I've had a "fuck it!" sort of an attitude.

Saddam is an evil bastard. If he falls it's good. Who cares if it's for the wrong reasons? If he falls it's good. If he's replaced by another evil bastard, then that's a shame... better the devil you know? I don't think so.

I thought the UN was who should have the final say... but then look at the dickhead tinpot dictator "guest" members on the security council. Hands out for aid, selling their vote to the highest bidder. The US/UK snubbing the UN will have consequences. Resulting in what? The end of the UN (not good) or a decent shake up (good)?

What is not good are the innocent victims that inevitably happen in a war. What also is not good are is the inevitable increase in anti-US terrorists.

I think I'll stay on the fence, the view is good from up here.

The UN should be comprised of Western Democracies only.

[ramchop]

The UN should be comprised of Western Democracies only.

Agreed. It'd make for a pretty small UN. I think there'd be problems with semi-super powers like China not having a voice on world matters though.

[DJEB]

Excuse me. More reading and less distortion please. Since you quoted me above show me where I stated there was a proven direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. What I said was there is a connection between Iraq and terrorist movements including their direct support of suicide bombers.

You certainly are good at abrasive language - just not very good with the facts. First off, this is the first I have seen you mention the term 'suicide bomber'. (Did I miss it in an earlier post?) I have heard the claim a number of times that Saddam supports Palestinian suicide bombers, but I've seen no proof offered to back this claim up. Considering the amount of lies and distortion regarding the Iraq crisis since 1990, one would be a "buffoon" for taking any claim about Iraq at face value.

You are completely full of shit and a buffoon for even thinking that Iraq has not had any connection to terrorist organization for 15 years.

Really? Then it should be easy to offer some proof of this. All you need to do is show a connection.

In addition, the costs are high here and there is no requirement that we give Saddam the benefit of being treated as innocent until proven guilty.

The costs are high as CIA director George Tenet pointed out. He said 'Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States,' and 'Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means ... or CBW." 'Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the US would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.' [ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1013-04.htm ] In other words, the risk is in forcing Saddam into terrorist links that don't now exist.

Given the nature of his regime, his use of force on neighbors, his probable use of nerve agents against US servicemen during the gulf war and his continued recalcitrance in face of a direct order to disarm he has done enough. We don't need a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq to move him out.

You left out the words "with U.S. support" when you refered to Saddam's use of WMD against his neighbours (Iran). Furthermore, I know of no evidence that Saddam used chemical/biological weapons during the Gulf War. If such evidence exists, I'd love to see it.

What the fuck more do you need. Does he have to fly a plane into Picadilly Square before you will get off your fishbelly white ignorant British ass and deal with him while there is still time.

Uh... I'm not British, but... Nice rhetoric though. Too bad it's a fallacy. Show me the threat that Iraq poses (admittedly this will be hard - the Bush Administration has been unable to do this with all of it's resources, so it will be tough for you to do it with just your computer).

[ramchop]

The costs are high as CIA director George Tenet pointed out. He said 'Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States,' and 'Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means ... or CBW." 'Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the US would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'

A couple of questions:

- how can Saddam assist terrorists with anything if he is removed from power?

- how can Saddam assist with chemical and biological weapons if (as has been claimed) he doesn't have them?

[DJEB]

[DJEB]

A couple of questions:

- how can Saddam assist terrorists with anything if he is removed from power?

- how can Saddam assist with chemical and biological weapons if (as has been claimed) he doesn't have them?

I don't think I understand the questions. The first is sarcastic and thus has no need to be answered (except for the fact that the U.S. can then use the claim to terrorist link with any country and be justified in overthrowing it). The second one I don't get. Please rephrase it.

I won't be able to answer it until 12am. I must go off to work...

[ramchop]

I don't think I understand the questions. The first is sarcastic and thus has no need to be answered (except for the fact that the U.S. can then use the claim to terrorist link with any country and be justified in overthrowing it). The second one I don't get. Please rephrase it.

OK, let's ignore those questions, just because you quote the director of the CIA doesn't mean you agree with him.


What is your solution to the Iraq situation? (that's a seriously big question)

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Excuse me. More reading and less distortion please. Since you quoted me above show me where I stated there was a proven direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. What I said was there is a connection between Iraq and terrorist movements including their direct support of suicide bombers.

You certainly are good at abrasive language - just not very good with the facts. [I'M NOT GOOD WITH THE FACTS????? YOU DUMB FUCK YOU COMPLETY FABRICATED A "QUOTE" FROM ME - I'M NOT GOOD WITH THE FACTS????] First off, this is the first I have seen you mention the term 'suicide bomber'. (Did I miss it in an earlier post?) I have heard the claim a number of times that Saddam supports Palestinian suicide bombers, but I've seen no proof offered to back this claim up. Considering the amount of lies and distortion regarding the Iraq crisis since 1990, one would be a "buffoon" for taking any claim about Iraq at face value.

You're an imbecile plain and simple. No one disputes the fact that Iraq has funnelled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Get a grip Puffenstuff you are just making yourself look silly now. Read the link above in my post and there are plenty more. Do your own fucking homework.

Hey, did the Holocaust happen? Where's your proof? All those pictures of dead men/women/children are made up and were part of a plan to create a massive Jewish state. Yeah right. You're right up there with the morons who were afraid to stand up to Hitler. Oh my, what harm can he cause, how do we know we'll be attacked, let's just sit back and wait.

Yeah, good idea. If you even think the word of Saddam is more trustworthy than that of the United States government why don't you just fucking move to that Kingdom and find out for yourself. You utter dumbass.

You are completely full of shit and a buffoon for even thinking that Iraq has not had any connection to terrorist organization for 15 years.

Really? Then it should be easy to offer some proof of this. All you need to do is show a connection.

Did you read the link? You don't believe it ? Yeah, Saddam is just a charmer. You really are an independent thinker you shit for brains dumbass bitch. Zero credibility for you.

In addition, the costs are high here and there is no requirement that we give Saddam the benefit of being treated as innocent until proven guilty.

The costs are high as CIA director George Tenet pointed out. He said 'Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States,' and 'Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means ... or CBW." 'Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the US would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'

Drum roll please. This is the all time dumb ass post of the year. I thought Saddam doesn't really have WMD. On the one hand you say we shouldn't attack Saddam because he has no WMD. On the other hand you say we shouldn't attack because he will use WMD on us. Genius, if a war occurs Saddam is a dead man. He won't be using any WMD on anyone. He will put a gun to his own head and take the cowards way out like Hitler unless a smart bomb finds his stinking ass first. Unbelievable.

Given the nature of his regime, his use of force on neighbors, his probable use of nerve agents against US servicemen during the gulf war and his continued recalcitrance in face of a direct order to disarm he has done enough. We don't need a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq to move him out.

You left out the words "with U.S. support" when you refered to Saddam's use of WMD against his neighbours (Iran). Furthermore, I know of no evidence that Saddam used chemical/biological weapons during the Gulf War. If such evidence exists, I'd love to see it.

Dogbert speaks again. Bark for me Dogbert bark. Where did I say he used WMD against his neighbors where did I even mention Iran...HELLLLLLOOOOOO??????. Indeed what about the scuds launched into Israel. You didn't see that? You want proof. Sorry but I don't have a piece of rocket wreckage to send you because I sold the one I had on ebay the other day.

Yes, let's agree with you. Yes, let's just assume that this is some diabolic ploy of the US to spend billions of our dollars on a war and expend lives in some foreign shithole because we're just going to make out like bandits somehow and this is really a ploy for America to take over a country. Yes, we the US people are just hopeless warmongers. Look how we acted after WWII and how the world suffered so mightily under our boot. Our defeated enemies the Germans and Japanese to this day have not been able to recover from our sadistic zeal. Uhhhh....yeah we really clamped down on them didn't we and will treat the Iraqis the same way.

What this means in reality is that in 10 years I will be driving an Iraqi automobile on my way to a job for an Iraqi company that bought out the place I used to work for. Didn't you notice that losing to the US is the best thing that happened to Japan and Germany. Their former governments forced their youth to fight and die in foreign wars. Untold misery completely eliminated after the US showed them the better way.

You are a total joke and the posts above reveal what the US is really up against. Our biggest enemy is the heiwa boke that broke out after WWII and we became your big brother. You think that peace is a given, that blood doesn't have to be spilled to make this a safer world long term. You just don't understand. Our allies are populated with citizenry that is little more than schoolboys getting ready to move to college for the first time. You know nothing of what it means to take care of yourself and to be independent. When mommy and daddy have wiped your ass for you and kept the bullies at bay the world is a wonderful place. Until you grow up that is.

[cstaylor]

The about info I posted had nothing on Ansar al-Islam ,so while I'm at it I might as well debunk that lie, too.

Ansar al-Islam assassinated two high-ranking leaders of the Kurds up there in North Iraq... just like the Al-Queda murder of Moussad. I don't think those guys will be squatting for too much longer if the shooting starts.

[bejiita]

After all of the Debates the fact remains that Iraq's going to get a visit from the U.S.

Naw, my money is on a coup d'etat financed by covert CIA money just right before the deadline.

[Big Booger]

I really think many of the neighboring countries of Iraq want that bastard removed as well, they are just afraid of any retribution for coming out and stating it publicly.. but I could be mistaken.

I personally don't want the US to attack, pre-emptively, that is like taking Chemo Therapy without having cancer.
Wait till it develops before attacking it.

[Darkwing]

From the Onion.

"U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country."

http://www.theonion.com/onion3909/index.html

Forget the coup. The war is starting next week.

DW

[GomiGirl]

From the Onion.

"U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country."

This is priceless!! Well if somebody set up camp with heavy artillery outside my front fence, I would try to defend myself too!!

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

From the Onion.

"U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country."

This is priceless!! Well if somebody set up camp with heavy artillery outside my front fence, I would try to defend myself too!!

You would??? In the face of certain defeat you wouldn't just give up??? If I were an Iraqi soldier I would. The last time they gave up they got three meals and a shower. Who knows maybe they will get a hershey bar too.

Ummmm....I continue to worry about you.....

[GomiGirl]

You would??? In the face of certain defeat you wouldn't just give up??? If I were an Iraqi soldier I would. The last time they gave up they got three meals and a shower. Who knows maybe they will get a hershey bar too.

Ummmm....I continue to worry about you.....

Oh thank you oh wise one - I can see the error of my ways.. my life is incomplete without a hershey bar!!

what arrogance!!! idiot!!

[DJEB]

[I'M NOT GOOD WITH THE FACTS????? YOU DUMB FUCK YOU COMPLETY FABRICATED A "QUOTE" FROM ME - I'M NOT GOOD WITH THE FACTS????]

Where did I do this? When did I do this? I am very careful not to make strawman fallacies (unlike some people I might mention).

You're an imbecile plain and simple.

Let me assure you that you are experiencing projection.

No one disputes the fact that Iraq has funnelled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Since I provided a link claiming that, obviously I don't dispute it either. However, I do not forget that you originally said "there is a connection between Iraq and terrorist movements including their direct support of suicide bombers." Additionally, you are ignoring the fact that blanket coverage of Palestinians families who have family members killed, including suicide bombers, is not the same as supporting the terrorists. Sure, one could make the argument that it encourages people to carry out suicide bomb attacks, but it could just as easily be said that it encourages Palestinians to fight against the Israeli military and get killed, or just get killed by Israelis. If you insist on calling it support for terrorist groups, it is still insufficient criteria for war with Iraq.

Get a grip Puffenstuff you are just making yourself look silly now.

Really? Then I should keep going to strength your argument, shouldn't I? Again, you are experiencing projection.

Read the link above in my post and there are plenty more. Do your own fucking homework.

I read the post - not much was there. The post I made on Iraq support for Palestinian families was many, many times more informative.

Hey, did the Holocaust happen? Where's your proof? All those pictures of dead men/women/children are made up and were part of a plan to create a massive Jewish state. Yeah right.

Non sequitur. What was that about looking silly?

You're right up there with the morons who were afraid to stand up to Hitler.

Non sequitur. If you don't see the differences between the Second World War and this situation, it's pretty hopeless, I think.

Oh my, what harm can he cause, how do we know we'll be attacked, let's just sit back and wait.

The idea that Iraq is a threat to anyone but the Iraqis is laughable. If not, the U.S. better watch out! Sure they had an easy time in 1991, but now that the Iraq army is many times weaker than it formerly was, we'd better all be really frightened.

Yeah, good idea. If you even think the word of Saddam is more trustworthy than that of the United States government why don't you just fucking move to that Kingdom and find out for yourself. You utter dumbass.

Non sequitur again. Where did I say something to suggest this?

You are completely full of shit and a buffoon for even thinking that Iraq has not had any connection to terrorist organization for 15 years.

Really? Then it should be easy to offer some proof of this. All you need to do is show a connection.

Did you read the link? You don't believe it ? Yeah, Saddam is just a charmer. You really are an independent thinker you shit for brains dumbass bitch. Zero credibility for you.

Already deal with above, more than once.

In addition, the costs are high here and there is no requirement that we give Saddam the benefit of being treated as innocent until proven guilty.

The costs are high as CIA director George Tenet pointed out. He said 'Baghdad, for now, appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States,' and 'Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means ... or CBW." 'Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the US would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'

I thought Saddam doesn't really have WMD. On the one hand you say we shouldn't attack Saddam because he has no WMD.

This was said where again? There seems to be a huge difference between what you think you read and what is written. Any child over the age of 8 knows that you can't prove a negative. Does the Iraqi regime have WMD? I don't know. It might. Hence the need for weapons inspections.

On the other hand you say we shouldn't attack because he will use WMD on us. Genius, if a war occurs Saddam is a dead man.

Genius, I was quoting George Tenet. If you have a problem with his words, send him an email and tell him.

He won't be using any WMD on anyone. He will put a gun to his own head and take the cowards way out like Hitler unless a smart bomb finds his stinking ass first. Unbelievable.

Just the same way he did during the Gulf War. Unbelievable. At any rate, go write and complain the George Tenet.

Given the nature of his regime, his use of force on neighbors, his probable use of nerve agents against US servicemen during the gulf war and his continued recalcitrance in face of a direct order to disarm he has done enough. We don't need a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq to move him out.

You left out the words "with U.S. support" when you refered to Saddam's use of WMD against his neighbours (Iran). Furthermore, I know of no evidence that Saddam used chemical/biological weapons during the Gulf War. If such evidence exists, I'd love to see it.

Dogbert speaks again. Bark for me Dogbert bark. Where did I say he used WMD against his neighbors where did I even mention Iran...HELLLLLLOOOOOO??????.

Ah. Sorry. An honest mistake, no need to get your panties in a bunch. How about this: You left out the words "with our support" for most of Saddam's "use of force on neighbors".

Indeed what about the scuds launched into Israel. You didn't see that? You want proof.

No shit. Attacking another country is a violation of international law. Launching Scuds against Israel was a crime - incomparison to his other crimes, it pales, but it is terrible enough.

Yes, let's agree with you. Yes, let's just assume that this is some diabolic ploy of the US to spend billions of our dollars on a war and expend lives in some foreign shithole because we're just going to make out like bandits somehow and this is really a ploy for America to take over a country. Yes, we the US people are just hopeless warmongers.

First off, thanks for the strawman attempt. Second, as I have pointed out on other threads and this one as well, Americans are not their government. Indeed, most people in America are against the war if it does not have UN authorization.

Look how we acted after WWII and how the world suffered so mightily under our boot. Our defeated enemies the Germans and Japanese to this day have not been able to recover from our sadistic zeal. Uhhhh....yeah we really clamped down on them didn't we and will treat the Iraqis the same way.

Again, another fallacy, but let's cut through some of the fluff just to say yeah, wasn't the Marshall Plan great. Too bad the U.S. didn't do the same for all the nations in which it carried out military action.
It is hardly surprising that the U.S., or any other nation, would try to further its power internationally as Britian did in its day. Just read some of the stuff by the Project for a New American Century that was set up by Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and others in the current administration.

What this means in reality is that in 10 years I will be driving an Iraqi automobile on my way to a job for an Iraqi company that bought out the place I used to work for.

Riiight. If you seriously believe this, you have now idea of the state of the Iraqi economy.

Didn't you notice that losing to the US is the best thing that happened to Japan and Germany. Their former governments forced their youth to fight and die in foreign wars. Untold misery completely eliminated after the US showed them the better way.

Who is in power now? The New Dealers, or recycled Reaganites? Take a look at the states that they (Reaganites) got involved in in their own backyard - Latin America. Have a look at the World Bank websites data on those countries - they are an absolute mess.

This whole line is a red herring though. If you are to justify a war against Iraq, you are going to need to offer sufficient, relevant, acceptable premises in a clear way. The burden of proof rests on you.

You are a total joke and the posts above reveal what the US is really up against. Our biggest enemy is the heiwa boke that broke out after WWII and we became your big brother. You think that peace is a given, that blood doesn't have to be spilled to make this a safer world long term. You just don't understand.

An argument about the horrors of peace. Amazing. War is peace in the long run, but peace is bad because you need war to make the world safer, which is bad... Orwell would love it. If I don't understand, then make a rational argument as I say directly above. (Hint, take some deep breaths, and don't use words like "dumbass" and "fucking idiot" because they usually become marker points for serioous fallacies.)

Our allies are populated with citizenry that is little more than schoolboys getting ready to move to college for the first time. You know nothing of what it means to take care of yourself and to be independent. When mommy and daddy have wiped your ass for you and kept the bullies at bay the world is a wonderful place. Until you grow up that is.

Truly stupid. You know nothing about me, why would you make such a silly claim?

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

You would??? In the face of certain defeat you wouldn't just give up??? If I were an Iraqi soldier I would. The last time they gave up they got three meals and a shower. Who knows maybe they will get a hershey bar too.

Ummmm....I continue to worry about you.....

Oh thank you oh wise one - I can see the error of my ways.. my life is incomplete without a hershey bar!!

what arrogance!!! idiot!!

I'll ignore the insults since I know it is just the menopause talking. Seriously though, Sweetheart, your comments above were truly moronic. The reason you bucktoothed Aussies haven't been on the receiving end of a candy bar is because you happen to share our cultural values and fell on the right side of the war. Before we rescued your country, Australia was about to fall under the boot of the Japanese empire which didn't take to kindly to foreigners like you and had charming ways to show the world that Japan was number one and everyone else was, shall we say, shit.

Think about that the next time your Japanese B/F blows the load on you. Think about how he would have been acting towards you had you both been born a mere 60 years ago. He'd be raping you and you'd be begging for your life. We, America, turned a nation that was absolutely fanatical in their views toward foreigners into reasonable members of the world community. We shaped their minds into something resembling a human form. And you don't need to tell me about the wonderful Japanese that were just waiting to come out on their own. My grandfather was Japanese and was staffed in the NY embassy where he met my grandmother. He had a mind of his own and left as soon as he could. Rare the Japanese that truly has a mind of his own. But this makes them a lot like Australians and Canadians and, etc. I am an American. I descend from rare and special stock. My grandfather was an American. My Quaker forebears were Americans and others who fought and died loyal to the Tory cause were oddly enough true Americans. You are distinctly less than that. Americans may be imperialists but we are the most benevolent imperialists the world has ever known. What was Australia's brilliant suggestion after the close of the Pacific War. Yeah, that's right we should just behead the Tenno. Glad we didn't follow the advice of your country's greatest thinkers and statesmen.

Utter white trash.

Bye bye!

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

DJEB, you jabbering baboon. When I get the time, I will parse through your increasingly bizarre and meandering post above and demonstrate where exactly you have competely misquoted me.

After that post I am going to have to start charging you for my time since you need a tremendous amount of educating. Try to start the ball rollling on your own. Imagine yourself an American. Your allies are weak in men, material and will. Conversely your enemies are very strong in will and difficult to find. How do you convince the free riders of 50+ years of the need to fight a war against an enemy that can strike us (including your weak allies) anywhere at anytime with undetermined weapons. How do you get through to people who have never lost a relative in a war, who have never fought a war, who have never thought about how the spector of war can obliterate major portions of their lives. How would you convince these folks?

[DJEB]

DJEB, you jabbering baboon. When I get the time, I will parse through your increasingly bizarre and meandering post above and demonstrate where exactly you have competely misquoted me.

If the post seems meandering, it is because I was responding to your post point for point. As far as me misquoting you, good luck. I made a minor error reframing one of your arguments (as I admitted earlier), but that is not a misquote. I'm not in the least concerned about it because I did it unintensionally and it didn't weaken your case - thus no strawman fallacy. Furthermore, I recognize my own fallibility(do you recognize yours?), so if you can make a credible case in favour of war, I will switch camps. Good luck.

After that post I am going to have to start charging you for my time since you need a tremendous amount of educating. [projection again] Try to start the ball rollling on your own. Imagine yourself an American. Your allies are weak in men, material and will. Conversely your enemies are very strong in will and difficult to find. How do you convince the free riders of 50+ years of the need to fight a war against an enemy that can strike us (including your weak allies) anywhere at anytime with undetermined weapons.

First off, non sequitur. What has this is do with Iraq? Asserting that Iraq has terrorist links again and again and again does not make it so. Every piece of evidence the Bush administration has put forth attempting to link the secular state of Iraq headed by Saddam Hussein - one of ObL's stated enemies for over 13 years - has been debunked. Second of all, anyone serious about fighting terrorism knows that you don't do it by hammering nations. Utah and Michigan were not clusterbombed after Oklahoma City - although a few bigots called for blanket bombing of Middle Eastern countries right after the OC bombing. When it was learned that it was domestic terrorism, the FBI hunted the criminals responsible, then looked into the root causes of the crime. Same scenerio in Northern Ireland - the British government finally learned that hammering people was just feeding the cycle of violence. The former head of Irsaeli security said the same thing a few years ago. Anyone with their head screwed on knows that an attack in Iraq will increase Middle Eastern recruits for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations.

How do you get through to people who have never lost a relative in a war, who have never fought a war, who have never thought about how the spector of war can obliterate major portions of their lives. How would you convince these folks?

Mmm. So, what we need is a war to demonstrate the spector of war. Ridiculous. Just allow democracy. Looking at the "coalition of the willing" - http://www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm - it is full of nationswhose people do not want this war (so must for democracy).

BTW, did you berate George Tenet yet?

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

DJEB, you jabbering baboon. When I get the time, I will parse through your increasingly bizarre and meandering post above and demonstrate where exactly you have competely misquoted me.

If the post seems meandering, it is because I was responding to your post point for point. As far as me misquoting you, good luck. I made a minor error reframing one of your arguments (as I admitted earlier), but that is not a misquote. I'm not in the least concerned about it because I did it unintensionally and it didn't weaken your case - thus no strawman fallacy. Furthermore, I recognize my own fallibility(do you recognize yours?), so if you can make a credible case in favour of war, I will switch camps. Good luck.

After that post I am going to have to start charging you for my time since you need a tremendous amount of educating. [projection again] Try to start the ball rollling on your own. Imagine yourself an American. Your allies are weak in men, material and will. Conversely your enemies are very strong in will and difficult to find. How do you convince the free riders of 50+ years of the need to fight a war against an enemy that can strike us (including your weak allies) anywhere at anytime with undetermined weapons.

First off, non sequitur. What has this is do with Iraq? Asserting that Iraq has terrorist links again and again and again does not make it so. Every piece of evidence the Bush administration has put forth attempting to link the secular state of Iraq headed by Saddam Hussein - one of ObL's stated enemies for over 13 years - has been debunked. Second of all, anyone serious about fighting terrorism knows that you don't do it by hammering nations. Utah and Michigan were not clusterbombed after Oklahoma City - although a few bigots called for blanket bombing of Middle Eastern countries right after the OC bombing. When it was learned that it was domestic terrorism, the FBI hunted the criminals responsible, then looked into the root causes of the crime. Same scenerio in Northern Ireland - the British government finally learned that hammering people was just feeding the cycle of violence. The former head of Irsaeli security said the same thing a few years ago. Anyone with their head screwed on knows that an attack in Iraq will increase Middle Eastern recruits for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations.

How do you get through to people who have never lost a relative in a war, who have never fought a war, who have never thought about how the spector of war can obliterate major portions of their lives. How would you convince these folks?

Mmm. So, what we need is a war to demonstrate the spector of war. Ridiculous. Just allow democracy. Looking at the "coalition of the willing" - http://www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm - it is full of nationswhose people do not want this war (so must for democracy).

BTW, did you berate George Tenet yet?

I guess you don't have a job with all this free time on your hands. BTW, I don't berate George Tenet but I do berate you for glomming on to a completely illogical statement that is allegedly his. More to follow!

[DJEB]

I guess you don't have a job with all this free time on your hands. BTW, I don't berate George Tenet but I do berate you for glomming on to a completely illogical statement that is allegedly his. More to follow!

No job? Mmm. If that's true, I could say the same about you, couldn't I. Why you state such silly things, I'll never understand.

If you are not, as I expect, experiencing projection, then you will no doubt be able to point out where I have made illogical statements and why those statements are illogical. BTW, I sourced the George Tenet quote which is a very well known statement anyway.

More to come? Knock yourself out.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

The tragedy of 9/11 has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. No... that is not true. We know that Iraq supports terrorist organizations.

There has been no link made between 9-11 and Iraq. There have been a number of failed attempts to make a link, but all these have been debunked. Even the head of the CIA George Tenet said there was no link. As for Iraq links to terrorist groups, these have not existed for 15 years, ie. since Iraq was a U.S. ally. More fact, less assertions, please.

In early months of Bush administration, the [yadda, yadda, yadda for about two thousand irrelevant wors] .... strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States." - http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-10-24-oped-bamford_x.htm

Okay, dummy, here is one of your misquotes. I never indicated that there has YET been an established link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I only state that the nation of Iraq has been linked to terrorist activity. In spite of this, you began foaming at the mouth about how wrong I was and posting totally irrelevant links etc. In short you wrote a fucking book about something I never said. You now admit that Iraq has channeled money to the families of the Palestinian human bombs. What? This isn't funding terrorism. Come again. I am right and you have been educated.

Now, what is your master plan for dealing with global terrorism? Come on wise man, what would your silly ass do?

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Excuse me. More reading and less distortion please. Since you quoted me above show me where I stated there was a proven direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. What I said was there is a connection between Iraq and terrorist movements including their direct support of suicide bombers.

You certainly are good at abrasive language - just not very good with the facts. First off, this is the first I have seen you mention the term 'suicide bomber'. (Did I miss it in an earlier post?) I have heard the claim a number of times that Saddam supports Palestinian suicide bombers, but I've seen no proof offered to back this claim up. Considering the amount of lies and distortion regarding the Iraq crisis since 1990, one would be a "buffoon" for taking any claim about Iraq at face value

Feel a little different now don't you. You have been educated.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

[I'M NOT GOOD WITH THE FACTS????? YOU DUMB FUCK YOU COMPLETY FABRICATED A "QUOTE" FROM ME - I'M NOT GOOD WITH THE FACTS????]

Where did I do this? When did I do this? I am very careful not to make strawman fallacies (unlike some people I might mention).

You're an imbecile plain and simple.

Let me assure you that you are experiencing projection.

No one disputes the fact that Iraq has funnelled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Since I provided a link claiming that, obviously I don't dispute it either. However, I do not forget that you originally said "there is a connection between Iraq and terrorist movements including their direct support of suicide bombers." Additionally, you are ignoring the fact that blanket coverage of Palestinians families who have family members killed, including suicide bombers, is not the same as supporting the terrorists. Sure, one could make the argument that it encourages people to carry out suicide bomb attacks, but it could just as easily be said that it encourages Palestinians to fight against the Israeli military and get killed, or just get killed by Israelis. If you insist on calling it support for terrorist groups, it is still insufficient criteria for war with Iraq.
[quote="&quot"]

Read it and weep forumites. Did you all know that providing impoverished families with money after their sons (and now daughters) blow themselves up with pipe bombs on buses filled with schoolkids is not funding terrorism? Oh!!!!!!!!!! Okay, I feel better about it all now.

And before you make any other stupid comments about other "allies" that also do this keep in mind that the other nations do it without the stamp of approval of their government. In addition, this is a major black mark against them. Dummy, this is not the only reason Saddam is going to be killed. It is just one of the MANY reasons he is going to meet Allah.

[DJEB]

Okay, dummy, here is one of your misquotes. I never indicated that there has YET been an established link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I only state that the nation of Iraq has been linked to terrorist activity. In spite of this, you began foaming at the mouth about how wrong I was and posting totally irrelevant links etc.

So, in short, I didn't misquote you. You could claim that reframed your argument incorrectly, but not that I misquoted you. I have lost count of the number of strawman attempts you've made.

You don't dispute that you claim links between Iraq and "terrorist organizations." This was the extent of your original post. Now most people who make the claim you do try to claim a link to al Qaeda, thus I posted a counter argument to the standard claims. Again, I ask you, if Iraq has links to "terrorist organizations", what are these organizations and what are the links?

You now admit that Iraq has channeled money to the families of the Palestinian human bombs. What? This isn't funding terrorism.

It's blanket coverage for families killed in the Israeli conflict. If the aim is to stimulate terrorism, why don't they offer more? If it is support for "terrorist organizations", why don't they offer the money directly to these "organizations" instead of the families who are undoubtedly unlikely to give the money up to anyone else. But again, I admit my own potential for fallability. For the sake of argument, let's assume that I am absolutely wrong, and you are absolutely right. Is this sufficient grounds for a war (slaughter would be a more appropriate term) against Iraq? Not on your life. First, this one issue is not enough - if it were, it would have been a major part of Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, wouldn't it. Second, as the source I quoted points out, Iraq is not the only nation doing this, so why Iraq and not one of the U.S. allies? Those allies are many times more powerful militarily than Iraq, so why not them? Why not at least do some police work to stop it? Why not suspend these payments as they come in? Do they sprout wings and fly in?

Now, what is your master plan for dealing with global terrorism? Come on wise man, what would your silly ass do?

I already made that clear. I certainly reject your approach of trying to increase the motivation for terrorism. This issue is a red herring, however. How about staying on topic and presenting a logical case for war with premises that are relevant, acceptable, sufficient and clear enough to meet the heavy burden of proof needed to justify war? You claim to have "many reasons", get busy and start presenting them.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

[/quote]
I already made that clear. I certainly reject your approach of trying to increase the motivation for terrorism. This issue is a red herring, however. How about staying on topic and presenting a logical case for war with premises that are relevant, acceptable, sufficient and clear enough to meet the heavy burden of proof needed to justify war? You claim to have "many reasons", get busy and start presenting them.[/quote]

I don't have to get busy and state the many reasons Saddam is going down. These should be self-evident to anyone who has even been halfway paying attention to the situation for the past ten years. But since I am dealing with a schoolboy who probably was in high school ten years ago and can't remember anything about the origin of the US/Iraq conflict here is a lesson.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and would not pull out in spite of direct orders from the US and the world to do so. The US (with meager assistance from the world) pushed him out. Serious consideration at the time was given to taking the war all the way to the capital. It was decided that this probably would not be necessary and that sanctions and diplomacy could rid the world of Saddam. Unfortunately we were wrong and this petty despot continues to grip on to his power.

Don't forget that many Americans were killed (thankfully few in view of the war but many died in the campaign including those who were killed in accidents). In addition, many of our servicemen are suffering from bizarre and well documented diseases that the medical community recognizes exist but can't explain fully. These casualties were suffered by men who were stopping Saddam from grabbing Kuwait and its riches. He was on his way to becoming the Hitler of the Middle East and the entire free world owes all of these men and the country that supported them a tremendous debt. Thankfully the US continues to push the issue. Following this war the world decided that sanctions and restrictions were necessary to rein in Saddam. No fly zones have been established and routinely flouted by Saddam. American pilots have periodically been locked on and fired at by Saddam's forces. He should not be doing this and must stop. He is in effect pointed a handgun at the cops. You do get shot for doing that. You do not use force against the police (which is what we unfortunately are).

In addition, inspections were conducted in Iraq before. Saddam tossed the inspectors out on their asses. Why would he do this if he had nothign to hide? The only reason he continues to semi-cooperate is because he is staring down the barrel of the world's largest gun. Weaponry that he should not have has been found. Stockpiles of WMD (antrax) have not been accounted for.

In addition, Saddam has indiscriminately gassed the Kurds (who oppose him) killing men/women and children and face a potential wipe out at the hands of Saddam unless the world continues to pay attention and care. You apparently don't care. In addition, Saddam has launched missiles into neighboring countries and allies (Israel).

Saddam directly supports terrorist bombers who blow themselves up in front of civilians by taking care of the families of the young people crazy enough to strap c-4 and nails to their chest. You are a complete idiot (plain and simple) for even suggesting this does not constitute the direct support for terrorist activity.

Also, just how long are we obligated to continue the absurd negotiations with Saddam. How long do hundreds and thousands of Americans have to have their lives put on hold in the face of this obvious foot dragging. What happens if we pull out and Saddam begins the process all over again and throws out inspectors. Do we have another military build up? Do we draw another line in the sand and watch as he jumps over it? As soon as we leave Saddam will start up again. He has been given enough chances and just must go. He has already done enough to warrant his removal. He can go quietly or not. He has that choice. Remember, Saddam could just step down and completely avoid the prospect of war. But then again it would be so so unfair to put the ball in his court.

Just so I know how old are you? I am guessing you are no more than 25. I beg of you to read more and think about the big picture of what the world is facing. When I think of a world populated by folks such as you I do worry about our future. The US has been doing the right thing by forcing these issues through the UN. It forces you guys to think about it a little (in spite of the fact that we absolutely don't need you). Try to come up with the right answer for once.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

But the most important reason is this. The world changed post 9/11. The Middle East nonsense will not be allowed to continue. The President of the United States just this morning has issued orders to both sides of the Palestinian/Israel conflict (which is a tinder box about to erupt the entire world into flames) and is making it clear that there will be a state called Palestine. I pity the side that does not listen to us.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

"But Bush on Friday called on Israel to stop building homes for Jews on the West Bank and in Gaza and to help in the emergence of a Palestinian state.

He also said the Arab states must oppose terrorism.

Ziad Abu Amr, a Palestinian legislator, said Bush appeared to be trying to reassure jittery allies as war with Iraq looms.

"He is trying to create linkage between the war on Iraq and the intention to work on the Israeli-Palestinian problem afterward," he told The Associated Press."


The above is a quote from AP from today. As I indicated here just days ago, this Iraq/US war is, in reality, the potential beginning of the end for the state of Israel. This is not a war for Israel as many suggest. Israel will be sacrificed for world peace.

[DJEB]

Iraq invaded Kuwait and would not pull out in spite of direct orders from the US and the world to do so. The US (with meager assistance from the world) pushed him out. Serious consideration at the time was given to taking the war all the way to the capital. It was decided that this probably would not be necessary and that sanctions and diplomacy could rid the world of Saddam. Unfortunately we were wrong and this petty despot continues to grip on to his power.

Mmm. You really think you know a lot about this, eh? What was the UN Security Council Resolution that authorized this? Have you read it? Apparently not. What did that UNSCR call for? Indeed, why did GHW Bush not take out Saddam. His official reason was that there was not a UN mandate to do so. Do I need to post that resolution here?

Iraq is not in Kuwait now though, are they. The mandate that had been given to the "Member States" in the UNSCR in question has been met. They forced out Saddam. He's out of Kuwait. Again, it is obvious that you have not read the Resolution.

Furthermore, it's not like the U.S. had suddenly discovered that Saddam was a nasty man - not after they spend so much time supporting him thorugh the worst of his crimes.

Don't forget that many Americans were killed (thankfully few in view of the war but many died in the campaign including those who were killed in accidents).

So the U.S. should invade again and get more servicemen killed in retaliation? Brilliant. Unfortunately for you, revenge is not mentioned in Article 51 of the UN Charter, so this issue is not relevant.

In addition, many of our servicemen are suffering from bizarre and well documented diseases that the medical community recognizes exist but can't explain fully. These casualties were suffered by men who were stopping Saddam from grabbing Kuwait and its riches.

And where did these casualties come from? There is no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the '91 Gulf War, but the U.S. did use thousands of tons of depleted uraniam. Unfortunately for U.S. servicemen, DU is toxic and slightly radioactive. This issue is not relevant either, however

He was on his way to becoming the Hitler of the Middle East and the entire free world owes all of these men and the country that supported them a tremendous debt.

Let's say that this incredible claim is true (you do need to brush up on your history), although you have given no reasons that it is so. If it's true, it is still ancient history. Saddam Hussein was stopped. Forced out of Kuwait, remember? His armies were devastated. No country in the region fears his power now. Moreover, Kuwait and Iran - two countries he invaded - have re-established relations with Iraq and are against the war.

Thankfully the US continues to push the issue. Following this war the world decided that sanctions and restrictions were necessary to rein in Saddam. No fly zones have been established and routinely flouted by Saddam. American pilots have periodically been locked on and fired at by Saddam's forces.

There is no UN resolutionauthorizing the no-fly-zones. However, every UNSCR resolution I've read on Iraq states in the opening paragraphs that Iraq is a sovereign nation - ie. it has the right to self defense. Even the disarmament resolution acknowledges this. In the history of the no-fly-zone, no U.S. (or UK or French) planes have been shot down, but over a thousand civilians have been killed by U.S./UK bombing in the no-fly-zones after the war.

None of this is a reason for war yet.

He should not be doing this and must stop. He is in effect pointed a handgun at the cops. You do get shot for doing that. You do not use force against the police (which is what we unfortunately are).

Again, the "cops" are out of their jurisdiction. They have no mandate to be there.

In addition, inspections were conducted in Iraq before. Saddam tossed the inspectors out on their asses. Why would he do this if he had nothign to hide?

If I remember correctly, he did toss them out once or twice in the mid-90s, but no real stilnk was made about it. He did NOT kick them out in 1998. They were ordered out by the U.S. This at a time when the inspections were nearing an end - Iraq was nearly fully disarmed. Indeed, perhaps it was fully disarmed. There were just a few questions inspectors wanted to clear up. Too bad the U.S. ordered out the inspectors.

The only reason he continues to semi-cooperate is because he is staring down the barrel of the world's largest gun. Weaponry that he should not have has been found.

You mean the empty warheads? Not a sufficient reason for war.

Stockpiles of WMD (antrax) have not been accounted for.

Iraq's anthrax was in liquid bulk form which germinates after three years. If they are stockpiling some, it's useless now. I have read nothing of this issue in the Blix reports, so I don't know where the issue stands today. I do know that Iraq has no means to mass produce more.

No justification for war yet.

In addition, Saddam has indiscriminately gassed the Kurds (who oppose him) killing men/women and children and face a potential wipe out at the hands of Saddam unless the world continues to pay attention and care. You apparently don't care. In addition, Saddam has launched missiles into neighboring countries and allies (Israel).

I don't care, eh? Weak. You left out the words "with our support" again. The U.S. first tried to say it was Iran, then the Bush Administration increased agricultural credits to Iraq much to the dismay of some in Congress. Again, Saddam was a U.S. ally at the time.
This is no reason to have a war now either.

Saddam directly supports terrorist bombers who blow themselves up in front of civilians by taking care of the families of the young people crazy enough to strap c-4 and nails to their chest. You are a complete idiot (plain and simple) for even suggesting this does not constitute the direct support for terrorist activity.

You might be able to say he indirectly supports them, but directly? Weak. Even if it were true, again, it's not cause for war.

Also, just how long are we obligated to continue the absurd negotiations with Saddam.

What negotiations would these be?

How long do hundreds and thousands of Americans have to have their lives put on hold in the face of this obvious foot dragging.

What obvious foot dragging. Blix and ElBaradai say that inspections are going well. Blix says things should be setted in a matter of months. No cause for war here.

What happens if we pull out and Saddam begins the process all over again and throws out inspectors. Do we have another military build up?

First, the current crisis was from 98 when the U.S. pulled out the inspectors. Second, the inspectors would leave anyway - but monitors would not. No cause for war here.

Do we draw another line in the sand and watch as he jumps over it? As soon as we leave Saddam will start up again.

It's obvious you don't know that the inspections include monitoring. I think you have a lot of reading up to do on this subject.

He has been given enough chances and just must go. He has already done enough to warrant his removal.

Which is? Present this material.

He can go quietly or not. He has that choice. Remember, Saddam could just step down and completely avoid the prospect of war. But then again it would be so so unfair to put the ball in his court.

Again, there is no call for war anyway.

Just so I know how old are you? I am guessing you are no more than 25.

Irrelevant.

I beg of you to read more and think about the big picture of what the world is facing. When I think of a world populated by folks such as you I do worry about our future.

Fallacious. Try presenting a ration case.

The US has been doing the right thing by forcing these issues through the UN. It forces you guys to think about it a little (in spite of the fact that we absolutely don't need you). Try to come up with the right answer for once.

Read the UN Charter. It is illegal to threaten another country. As for coming up with the right answer, I'm still waiting for a logical argument with relevant, sufficient, acceptable, clear premises for the justification of war, which carries a heavy burden of proof.

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

You say I need to study more history???

Buddy you need to get your head out of your stupid ass.

It is hard to know where to even begin with someone as ignorant as you. Here's a start. You seem to be claiming above that the Gulf War was conducted without UN support. Dummy, READ. The UN ordered Saddam out. He refused. His people died. Saddam was responsible for this including the killing of so many in Kuwait as well. The US led action was completely blessed by the UN and don't even make yourself look stupid by suggesting otherwise (of course you have long been making yourself look stupid).

Also, you gave me a absolute belly laugh when you indicated that you think the Kurds are in Iran. Dummy, the Kurds that Hussein attacked reside in Iraq. In 1988 Saddam conducted a genocide campaign against them and orders were given to Iraqi soldiers to kill ever Kurdish male of breeding age. Over 100,000 men just were wiped off the face of the planet. Thousands of villages erased and many underwent chemical weapons attack. You were asking for comparisons to Hitler. Dummy, now you have it. Why the fuck don't you know this already?

I'll close for now with something new. Regarding Gulf War illness. Did you know that Iraq coughed up a list of Chemical companies that sold Iraq chemicals that produce WMD. Did you know that the overwhelming vast majority of these companies are from ---- yes. Europe.

BTW, you don't have to tell me how old you are. It is self-evident. You are barely out of school.