It was Jason that made that statement, not me.

Weapons of mass destruction consists of a triad, commonly referred to as "NBC". NBC stands for nuclear, biological, and chemical. There are thousands of sites in Iraq to check, people to question, etc. But it doesn't matter, the debate will then just shift to the next excuse.



"Oh maybe the terrorists will like us if we're nice to them." I'm sorry but the US isn't going to stop supporting Israel because of a few Bin Ladens, or even because of a great many of them. Let's be honest, the "foreign policy" excuse in this discussion is just code for "because of the jews".

Why not address the real root cause of terrorism? The regimes they live under. Regimes that keep huge segments of their population in poverty, and feed them a diet of hate and bigotry so they'll focus on external problems instead of internal.

What is different after 9/11 is that the US is no longer going to wait. We stepped forward to take action.

Others can cower if they want,

You mean after the US gov't puts a spin on finding no evidence of WMD?

I wasn't referring to Israel as the "foreign policy" problems, but more America's heavy-handed way of dealing with other countries in the world, in which Israel is only a small part. This assumption that other countries should want to be like America cannot possibly be good for America or the rest of the world, and that attitude is what people resent.

I agree - Bin Laden should not dictate American policy. But let's face facts here: a terrorist attack happened against the US. Why did it happen? Because the terrorists involved hate America. How do you prevent future terrorist attacks? Stop the hatred. How do you stop the hatred? I don't have the answer for that one - but I don't think declaring war against other countries is the answer.

The US has some problems under its belt - as anup has pointed out before, America has taken out honest democratic leaders and put in their place its own America-friendly democratic leaders. Funny - I'd always thought democracy meant the people and leaders of democratic nations could like or dislike whatever they want - including America. But perhaps those were mistakes of a past America - I certainly hope so, and I'm willing to give that the benefit of the doubt.

But my objection is in how this war has been presented: as a way to stop terrorism. How is attacking Iraq - which has little terrorism connection aside from a bit of terrorist sympathy - going to stop terrorism? By the time the US has started a war with a country, the terrorist factions present in that country are already long-gone. Many of the terrorists involved in 9/11 had been living in the US - not Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Afghanistan - for years. That said, I don't think America is a bad place, I don't think America deserved terrorist attacks, and I don't think America's war against Iraq is a bad thing. The world could definitely use fewer brutal dictators! But present it as a war to try to make the world a better place, rather than a war to prevent terrorism, because I think it will have little effect on terrorism - one way or the other.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

Howz about cutting links with terrorists and stopping any of Saddams WMD's getting into terrorist hands.

How about first showing facts that A) he had any significant amount of WMD, and B) that he was supplying terrorists?

Again, I don't think Saddam's removal is a bad move - but I've yet to see any evidence that either of these are happening. Yes, Bush and Blair keep saying so - but neither have offered any shred of proof. Saddam isn't allied with terrorist - given a choice, he'd probably rather keep all of his WMD's to himself so that he could use them against his next hated enemy.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

We'll find lots of WMD evidence. I'm saying it won't matter to the critics, they'll just move on to another more saleable topic. Or just claim its a giant conspiracy.



Removing Saddam takes away the most unstable regime source of financing, aid, and technical support for the terrorists.

That big terrorist training camp south-east of Baghdad is not imaginary nor is it a "new" discovery. It's been known about for years. Now with boots on the ground they find all kinds of disturbing evidence of Islamic Jihad and Hamas having trained there.

Saddam's direct financial support for suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories cannot be denied. Not when each payout was celebrated in the media.

Saddam's pursuit and development of WMD is not a myth or propaganda creation. Even France was onboard with that determination.

Who is putting up the most resistance in Iraq, not the Iraqis. It's foreign terrorists and terrorist want-to-be's. Better they throw themselves on our swords now than down the road.

The information on what Iraq was all about will be coming out for years. The story will be told by Iraqis and the regime's own words and documents will testify to it.

You've not seen evidence of Saddam's removal?...where have you been for the past 4 weeks.

I realize we live in a music video world, where attention spans longer than 3 mins are consider deviant, but let's take a deep breath here.

We're not even to 30 days since the start of the war.

As the troops shift from direct combat operations to other duties there will be a change of focus. The primary concern has been defeating the enemy and protection of forces (safety).

There are some 600+ scientists and technicians to track down and make safe. Regime leadership to hunt down and interrogate. CENTCOM just this weekend says they have some 3,000 sites to inspect.

Part A will be shown in good time. Part B isn't even a question. The war was primarily about the linkages between A and B, leading toward terrorists being supplied with A.

Jason,

I actually agree with most of what you have said. Some things I have a little different perspective on.

Like you, I don't know for sure what the "right" answer is. 12 years of UN sanctions and 14 resolutions did not seem to work. Looking back to WWII, Hitler and Chamberlain, appeasement does not seem to work. The "peace" created by France at the end of WWI was not successful. That leaves????

As far as the war with Iraq stopping terrorism, it seems some countries (mostly dictatorships), harbor, aid, abet, train, supply and/or support terrorists. Up till now, there has been no downside to doing assisting terrorists. There are reports Saudi Arabia paid bin Laden to go somewhere else instead of dealing with him, which he did.
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

I agree that proof of WMD would be justification for war. However, any way you slice it, America and Britain (let's not beat around the bush [no pun intended] - there really aren't any other allies who amount to much) have yet to offer any conclusive proof beyond mere suspicion that Iraq indeed has these WMD. Do you not think that you should justify war before declaring it? If the justification were that Saddam is an evil, dictatorial tyrant that must be taken out for world peace - great, go ahead. But instead the justification, by your own admission, seems to be "we're pretty sure we'll be able to find proof after the war is over." Do you see nothing wrong with that?

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

The UN Security Council agreed 15 to 0 that Iraq had to disarm. UNSCOM offered great detail on what Iraq still had yet to address toward disarmament.

The failure in the UN was over process, not detail.

And let's be clear, because I have been, I have no doubt that WMD will be found. My point is that proof won't matter, the anti-war movement isn't about that. It's about American power in general, and President Bush specifically.

The weapons inspectors commented that Iraq was making some progress in disarming - not to the state yet that they would have liked, but getting there. But yes, you are right, there is a dislike of Bush in particular because he is perceived as not wanting to cooperate with the rest of the (developed) world, but that he wants instead to do everything the American way, and is seen as unwilling to make any compromise. Bush's recent actions against the security council simply heightened that perception among non-Americans.

---

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com

President Bush's primary responsibility is to the American public - not any other. Where the desires of "the world" diverge with our own, the choice is clear.

Bush went to the UN, gave the members a chance to address the Iraq issue once and for all. All that came out of it was more of the same old delaying tactics. French actions in particular solidified broad American opinion about that international body and the US 'need' for it.

Now somebody has to figure out how to allow the UN some appearance of credibility in post-war Iraq. A UN where Libya heads the Commission on Human Rights and where Iraq was to chair the next Conference on Disarmament.

The UN does do some things very well, things like bloated budgets and byzantine bureaucracies with little to no accountability.

If the justification were that Saddam is an evil, dictatorial tyrant that must be taken out for world peace - great, go ahead. But instead the justification, by your own admission, seems to be "we're pretty sure we'll be able to find proof after the war is over." Do you see nothing wrong with that?[/reply]

Everybody agreed, even Hans Blix, that Iraq had not cooperated with the UN inspections, that they had not fulfilled their obligations under various UN resolutions. Banned missiles were discovered and destroyed. Tons of chemical and biological weapons which Iraq admitted to having after the first Gulf War were unaccounted for even though they were required to destroy and account for all of this after GW1.

That in and of itself is justificaton.

Please go thru the transcripts of what Blix had said to a swedish channel after he resigned as inspector.

I'm talking about his reports on weapons inspections to the UN, I believe the last two actually would cover what I said.

I don't know anything about transcripts of a Swedish TV channel after he failed his job, got cranky and quit (second time he failed weapons inspections in Iraq).

However, I found one thing in the transcripts which seemed peculiar: "BORK! BORK! BORK!" ;)

I know

Cheers

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk

---

Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!

Yes i'm sure the CIA will see to that.

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com.au

I am sure Saddam has already taken care of the situation.
--
Rob

SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading

Exactly! It doesn't matter if we find WMD or not as the anti-America/anti-Bush/anti-IMF/anti-Right turns on Friday movement will just say it's a giant conspiracy.

As it always has been.

Oh really. By his own admissions it seems he feels that he is answerable to God who has sent him to do what he seems to be doing.

You're going to have to do much better if you ever have a chance at replacing Al-Sahaf. Those last two replies had nothing catchy about them, no zip at all.

Now your rantings about Toney [sic] Greig were much better, more "on the edge of sanity". Great stuff that, most entertaining.

Well i am sure if Tony would have said that to any American Lady with some amount of self respect U would not be 'ranting' equally loud given the fact that some president in the past has demonstrated no restraint with an intern.

Yr Al Sahafish obsession with disrupting facts are not going to lessen my convictions though. And BTW some American is going to take Al sahaaf's position. Americans seems to derive sadistic pleasure at insulting non whites.

Now see that's more like it, much better effort.