New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[PhillyKev 0]

Would someone please shut this dumb ass up????

"The prime minister's official spokesman has also sought to dispel speculation that American troops might go to war with Iraq without British involvement.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting the US had alternative plans if there was no second UN resolution and the UK decided not to go to war with Iraq.
"

[wildblue 4]

Actually, Tony Blair is doing some serious back-peddling. I think the last I heard, 80-90% of Brits oppose any sort of military action in Iraq.

Does this mean the French jokes will soon be replaced with Brit jokes? Or does this mean maybe a few more people will understand that the majority of the world doesn't agree with what we're doing.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[rhino 0]

Quote

Actually, Tony Blair is doing some serious back-peddling. I think the last I heard, 80-90% of Brits oppose any sort of military action in Iraq.

Does this mean the French jokes will soon be replaced with Brit jokes? Or does this mean maybe a few more people will understand that the majority of the world doesn't agree with what we're doing.

I think it means the clock is already counting down... 80-90 percent of Brits do not appose military action in Iraq. The issue they are having is doing it without the UN resolution. A few people in the parliment are stepping down because of it. Tony is still moving forward as is GWB..

Tic.. Toc... Tic... Toc.....

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Wrong! I'm not denying anything because I don't have any actual data. Neither do you. All we have are reports that amount to hearsay.

well the whole world thinks he does and You don't. I guess it's because he outlawed them.

You seem to have a serious reading problem. First you falsely attribute quotes, then get taken in by a simple hoax, and now you can't read what I wrote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhreeZone 15]

>Tony is still moving forward as is JWB..

At least get the initials right: GWB. And with France and Russia both willing to use their veto power unless its worded properly... I think there will be no UN resolution since the US is pressing a very aggressive time line. That means Blair will be gone at the end of his term for sure and its illegal for him to commit troops to a war with out either a UN resolution or an act via paralment (which will never happen). He may face jail time if things go wrong.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[wildblue 4]

Quote

The issue they are having is doing it without the UN resolution

Right, which right now we don't have the UN's backing, ergo we don't have the support of the British people. And I don't think we're going to have it by Monday, so if we go ahead and invade we look like aggressive war-mongers who just do as we want with no regard to what the rest of the world thinks. If we don't go ahead, then we're just making empty threats and SH (or whoever else) will never take us seriously. We're screwed either way because we have some dumbasses running this place.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

we look like aggressive war-mongers who just do as we want with no regard to what the rest of the world thinks

Why should it matter what we look like? If we believe that what we are doing is the right thing (as Bush does (or else he is malicious--which is doubtful)), and if we know that we have the power to do it (which we do), it would be wrong not to go to war with Iraq! (if war is indeed the only way to solve the problem, which seems unfortunately likely right now)

I realize that the above statement may sound very simplistic or naive, but at the very least I hope to show that we shouldn't let mere popular opinion sway us in our decision about such important matters, but instead look at the facts whatever they may be.

Note: I'm not picking on wildblue because he is only stating facts about our options, but only posting against the sort of reasoning I outlined above if that is a problem.

Note 2: This post is possibly useless and irrelevant, but at the very least

[PhreeZone 15]

The last time the US did a military action with out UN approval (Russia vetoed it) was Kosovo, that mission ended in a split decision on how much help it actually was.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[wildblue 4]

Quote

Why should it matter what we look like? If we believe that what we are doing is the right thing (as Bush does (or else he is malicious--which is doubtful)), and if we know that we have the power to do it (which we do), it would be wrong not to go to war with Iraq!

Replace "we" with "they" and "Bush" with "OBL" and "Iraq" with "the US"
Why is that such a hard concept for Americans - these people killing themselves to hurt us, think what they are doing is right. They are so convinced it's right they are willing to die. Are you convinced enough that SH is a terrible enough person, that you'd personally fly a jetliner into one of his palaces? I'm guessing not.
I hate how egotistical most Americans are - we believe something, therefore it must be right, screw the rest of the world and what they think. And we have a stronger military than most, so we can and do impose our views and beliefs on people.
...
See why it's important what we look like? If we're going against the will of the majority of the nations out there, how can we expect sympathy, help, or co-operation with anything else we want to do on the global stage in the future?

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

we believe something, therefore it must be right

As for me, an American, you have it backwards.

Quote

And we have a stronger military than most

Most? Hate to mention this because we shouldn't act like Athens did to the Milesians, but we actually have more military might than any nation in recorded history. Heck, Texas alone has the 7th largest economy in the world. Maybe we should boot Germany off the ranking.

Quote

how can we expect sympathy, help, or co-operation with anything else we want to do on the global stage in the future

The 'global stage' can't even get Saddam's weak country to cooperate. Doesn't seem like much help to me.

[billvon 2,427]

>If we don't take a stand civilians in the free world will take double
>taps something like WTC or worse.

If we invade Iraq we will see MORE terrorism; every analysis I've seen indicates that aggression towards Iraq (especially unilaterally) will provide the arab street with very fertile ground for Al Qaeda and the like. War may be neccessary, but don't kid yourself that it will stop terrorism in the US - it will almost surely accelerate it. Perhaps war is neccessary, and we have to accept the increase in terrorism. Accept that BEFORE we go to war, and realize that the price you pay for the war won't just be military lives - it might be very close to home.

[billvon 2,427]

>I think 12 years of failed diplomacy and 17 failed UN resolutions
> pretty much constitutes failure of the diplomatic process.

I see war as the definition of failure of the diplomatic process. If 17 resolutions fail but he disarms to our liking and war is averted, the diplomatic process WORKED. The UN has been largely ignored by Iraq up until now; Hussein regularly complies with the UN to the bare minumum that he can to avoid an invasion. That's what he's doing now. So spell it out. Tell him exactly what he has to do by what date.

Will he comply fully? Probably not. But if he does not, we then have clear authorization to invade, and the world will (no doubt reluctantly) stand behind decisions they themselves have made.

[billvon 2,427]

>You cannot base your national security policy on "History" as Bill
>put is 10-20-30 years ago.

OK, then why not attack North Korea instead of Iraq? They are a far, far greater threat both in terms of arming terrorists (they have NUCLEAR WEAPONS) and in terms of a security threat to the US, are a lot worse. Kim Jong Il has directly threatened the US; Iraq has not.

>Our national security doctrine has changes as of Sept 11.

Well, not significantly when it comes to Iraq. The hawks in the administration were pushing for regime change way before 9/11. What else do you think has changed?

[rhino 0]

Quote

At least get the initials right: GWB.

OOPS!!

[rhino 0]

Quote

OK, then why not attack North Korea instead of Iraq? They are a far, far greater threat both in terms of arming terrorists (they have NUCLEAR WEAPONS) and in terms of a security threat to the US, are a lot worse. Kim Jong Il has directly threatened the US; Iraq has not.

Not sure... Maybe because we committed to Iraq already. I must admit I am interested in why we haven't been at all interested in North Korea..

[rgoper 0]

we (the usa) want's sadaam out of iraq, end game. he WILL be removed one way or another. we are already making plans for post sadaam reign in iraq. will this increase terroism? sure. it will also provide fertile grounds for al-queda recruiting. remember these people believe if they die for "allah" they are martyrs. so they have *in their belief* nothing to lose. it's going to be tough defending this type of mentality, in fact i don't believe there is a defense mechanism reliable enough to counter this measure. as i've said before we should just assinate him, many of you said this couldn't be done. today Zoran Djindic the Serbian prime minister who was the key leader of revolt that overthrew former president Slobodan Milseovic in oct. 2000 was assinated today, ("long range" rifle fire) no one is "untouchable" the price of a couple of bullets is significantly cheaper than a whole tirade of military presence.

blue skies Mr. Djindic. he was a good man.

Edit:

North Korea will be next.......????????????

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 2,427]

>as i've said before we should just assinate him . . .

There have been at least a dozen coup attempts, at least one sponsored by the US. None of them succeeded. He is a master at avoiding assassins in his own country; he's had a _lot_ of practice.

[rgoper 0]

if we wanted HIM bad enough, we could have him. he's just a couple of "squeezes" away. of course i believe wyubya has some x-hairs on him as well.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[jfields 0]

Quote

as i've said before we should just assinate him

So by those rules, it would be fair if Saddam just assinated our president. Whether we like him or not, he is currently the leader of a sovriegn nation. We should really think twice about doing that, unless we consider it fair game to have it done to ourselves.

Of course, it may help, but that isn't really the point. The issue is whether we want to be better than him or just like him. Are we standing on higher moral principles or not?

[Michele 1]

Quote

>I would like to see some "otherwise"...that's all. Parity. Balance...

***And you don't see that from Gawain's replies to me? I think he does a great job of presenting a rational argument for the other side.

I wasn't talking to Gawain...I was talking to you. Your parity. Your balance...not Gawain's.

Quote

>patriotism (or flag colored glasses...)

Patriotism is love for your country; seeing things through flag colored glasses means you change your perceptions based on your desire for the US to be right.

In the context of what you said originally, you indicated, by paranthesis, that you meant Patriotism as flag colored glasses. Therefore, I responded to what you wrote. As for flag colored glasses, I don't own a pair. But do I have a deep and abiding love for my country? Most definitely. Do I have a sincere desire to see it do right? Again, most certainly. Do we make mistakes? Most certainly. Is this still the country I'd choose to live in over all others? A resounding YES...but that doesn't preclude me from being able to see it's faults. Nor does it preclude me from being able to research and understand issues. Nor does it mean that I am anything bad or wrong, as I've seen others called for having strong feelings.

Quote

>Whatever the position, it does not negate others' positions...and
>doesn't render them thoughtless, inadequate, or insignificant. And if
>someone doesn't believe as another, there is NO call for labeling them
> "sheeple".

Of course. That's a given.

To your credit, you have not used that word to describe people. However, there are some who do, and that is what I am addressing...

Quote

If I could, I would. I tend not to believe things that are inaccurate, and many things about what we've been hearing _are_ inaccurate. If I couldn't, then I would accept it as another data point. It might not change my mind, but then, I don't take your refusal to change your mind as an insult.

Nope, I don't take your refusal to change your mind as an insult, either. However, that isn't what I was saying.

What I was saying was simply that, should anything be forthcoming, you'd work your best to pick it apart (even if it couldn't be), and then deny it because it threatens your position. That's human nature.

As to your thought that "many things we've been hearing are inaccurate", I would pose that yes, from all sides, we have inaccurate data. Not only is the data inaccurate, any conclusions based on inaccurate data must also be inaccurate. But what I was addressing in my post to you was simply this: when you only look at one data set, and not expand your consideration onto others, you are limiting your data and thus limiting your conclusions.

Quote

It's important to separate respect for ideas and respect for people. That suprises me a bit, since you seem to be able to separate personal attacks from attacks on someone's ideas when seen in other places in this forum.

I wasn't talking about me, Bill. And yes, it is important to separate respect for ideas and respect for people. I was talking to a friend last night about this, and she was saying something negative about you...and I laughed. I said, "look, I have bifurcated my opinions about Bill's policitics and rhetoric, and still have immense respect for him as a person". But it's also true for me that one needs to show ideas respect until they are undeserving of them. It doesn't mean that it is acceptable to attack them, demean them, out-of-hand. I haven't thought of all possible sides of things on everything. I can't.

A good example is this: Cajones' calling for the assistance of everyone's computer in this forum to resolve a medical issue is asking for input from everyone...and I think ideas are a lot like that. If someone poses something, an examination of all posts, positions, rhetoric or concrete, factual or tin-hat time, will lead towards a good, well-rounded conclusion . And if the information is not readily accessible nor available, then a search can contribute and fill in gaps. Immediate denigration and out-of-hand dismissal is useless, and disrespectful to that person.

In this specific example, if I said there was evidence that 9/11 was connected to Iraq, you would immediately lambast me and that posit. You've done it already...consider the post which began this conversation...and you did not even take the 30 seconds to verify data...it is that rush to judgment that I find disturbing. That immediate negation is detrimental, and prevents people from open and honest discourse. I know it has curtailed my willingness to converse with you on the subject, irrespective of learning information from you which I include in my data set...

Quote

Of course, if you just read my posts as fodder for another attack, then assume that I meant the one that you like the least

You know me well enough to know that reading something for fodder is not my nature. And lol at you for the last line. I don't like to make assumptions...and so, as I asked for and received clarification of your meaning, I shall accept that as truth...

Quote

Then why do you continually try? If you type as slowly as I do your replies to me probably took you a while; why not argue with someone you feel isn't an inflexible uncaring type

Look carefully at what I said, Bill....and you will not see the word "uncaring". I do not believe you to be uncaring...not in the least. As to inflexible, I do see you as such on certain things, and find it fruitless (after what, something like a year??) to engage you in discourse at times. Your refusal to consider other points of view at times is very frustrating.

As for why I continually try, I've asked myself that. And I think it's because I do respect you, as a person, and consider you intelligent. I enjoy reading your positions when they are clearly thought out and not rhetorical; when they are honest and not a general negation of everything around you; when they are presented as your opinion and not as a shoot-down to someone else's points. Much in the same way I read Gawain, and when presented with something I don't know about, I note it and research it later. I do learn from you, when you are not being inflammatory and dogmatic. I do think you have things to share, that you feel very passionate about. I would like to learn from that, and share with you my thoughts, and passions....but you're not willing for that to occur...that is what I meant by inflexible.

I never said uncaring.

As for the jumps, that was said to prove a point. If you don't see how that spurious and utterly untrue statement hurt me, then that is your loss. I do believe that you did it accidentally, but I also think you don't care that you did it. And buying jumps would've been nice...but I didn't think you'd do it, either.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[rgoper 0]

certainly you don't think we have not had certain individuals "taken out" in the past? c'mon now. i guess you believe the "warren commission" report is valid as well? kennedy "put a contract" out on fidel castro in the 60's, assination is cheaper, the math is simple. i'd bet a dollar to a doughnut there is contracts on more than a few of our nations leaders right now.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

If we believe that what we are doing is the right thing (as Bush does (or else he is malicious--which is doubtful)), and if we know that we have the power to do it (which we do), it would be wrong not to go to war with Iraq!

This is a very scary thing to read. It really is. Because it seems to imply that if you're strong enough, whatever you think is right is right, and you should enforce it.

If you limit the inputs you consider for decisions to those you agree with, your view of "right" becomes very very narrow.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jfields 0]

Quote

certainly you don't think we have not had certain individuals "taken out" in the past?

Of course we have! I'm not in denial. I just think we ought to be careful about doing it. The more we declare open season on the leaders of other countries, the more they'll do it to us. It also has the occasional side effect of creating martyrs and lots of willing suicide bombers.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

kennedy "put a contract" out on fidel castro in the 60's,

How'd that work out?

[rgoper 0]

Quote

It also has the occasional side effect of creating martyrs and lots of willing suicide bombers.

i'm just assuming you read this.

Quote

remember these people believe if they die for "allah" they are martyrs. so they have *in their belief* nothing to lose. it's going to be tough defending this type of mentality, in fact i don't believe there is a defense mechanism reliable enough to counter this measure.

you know, it's sad, but true.

Edit:

Quote

How'd that work out?

it's historical data, look it up. you already know how it turned out. only contrary to popular belief it wasn't castro who took out JFK. i'll give you 13 guesses who took him out, the first 12 don't count!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"