fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Yomar...you have got to be kidding. Talk to an inspector some time. They are subjected to relentless intimidation (death threats, laser scoping, etc). The whole process has been a sham......even so, there have been discoveries of resolution violations. what kind of game are we playing here? it seems to me that if you feel the case isn't meritted, then you have to answer why he has been laboring to develop WMDs for so long. What does he need them for? How would he use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 The argument of moral equivalent is stupid. Sure other nations do the same thing, that doesnt make it right or acceptable. All in due time. [/Quote]All is due time my ***, we have never, NEVER, gone to war because of human rights violations, or genocide for that matter (no this had nothing to do with why we or anyone else entered WWII). So that is not the reason why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Saddam Hussein, for all his evil, ultimately is a man interested in power, you would never see Saddam on a suicide bombing run would you? Well, he knows that is what any WMD attack on the US would be, so I'm not too worried. More likely I think he is trying to develop WMD for the same reason most governments do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 So in your mind should we simply leave him alone to amasss all the weaons he wants? Should we not hold him to the surrender terms he agreed to in 91? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I have to go to lunch and will be back later, but bottom line, from where I'm standing, this is a war our administration is trying to pick, and it doesn't make sense to me. The timing couldn't be worse in terms of the repurcussions it would create throughout the Arab world, we should be dealing strictly with Al Qaeda for now, and so I don't understand why we would go out of our way to pick a fight with Iraq right now. You guys said stuff like "all is due time", well thats what I'm saying but in a different context. First Al Qaeda, then, if need be Iraq, but not now, and not without a legitimate reason (ie one that hasn't existed for 10 years already) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 well...that's a pretty convincing argument! He's a rational guy after all (all evidence to the contrary)!!! hmmmmm.....how much power? over whom? obtained how? at who's expense?.......no matter how many dead bodies float under the bridge you seem to sleep pretty well at night!!! and, btw, most governments don't develop WMDs. Since 1988 there has been a concerted effort to reduce the presence/threat of nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 The great hypocrisy of the left. "No Nukes No Nukes, unless Saddam wants them, then he can have them."! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 and how do you know he hasn't been involved with al queda? because you haven't seen anything in the media doesn't mean it isn't so..... and arguments about what is going on elsewhere are irrelevant. is there a Robert's Rule of Order that the same methods have to be applied to all nations? as it is...let's dispense with the ankle deep arguments about this being over oil and ask ourselves why the administration is pursuiing this. what is your thought process on this? these guys aren't fools. what is the rationale if not the publicly stated one? incidently...the list of evidence presented earlier was done to establish a track record of unending violence by this man. i believe statisticians would term it a trend. your respsonses are wholly inadequate. as an example....economic warfare can certainly be a cause for war. as can genocide. as can terrorist support. you seem to have changed your tact and are now arguiing not that there aren't valid reasons, but that the timing isn't appropriate. that is a credible thought. the following questions then arise: - what evidence do you have that the Arab world cares and loves Saddam Hussein so deeply that the terrorist threat would actually increase if we overthrow Saddam? - what evidence do you have that the stockpile of terrorists will not follow the course it is on now REGARDLESS of what actions the US pursues? - how is the fight against terrorism undermined if Iraq is attacked? don't many of the dissenting countries still have a vested interest in fighting the anti-terrorist war? - if we do stand down, what do you think Saddam will do? inevitably, if we do stand down, it will be due to some sort of negotiated settlement. what makes you think that this will be any more enforceable than past agreements he has violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Re the moral-equivalent argument, I heard this quote: "When we (the US) don't live up to our ideals, people suffer but we are not perfect. When you (people like Hussien) live up to your ideals, people suffer worse " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 well...that's a pretty convincing argument! He's a rational guy after all (all evidence to the contrary)!!! hmmmmm.....how much power? over whom? obtained how? at who's expense?.......no matter how many dead bodies float under the bridge you seem to sleep pretty well at night!!! and, btw, most governments don't develop WMDs. Since 1988 there has been a concerted effort to reduce the presence/threat of nuclear weapons. Talk about a rational and convincing. We have to attack Saddam now because you never know what he might do tomorrow. And you talk to me about sleeping well at night while dead bodies float under the bridge, and you are championing war...now thats funny. and if you don't believe most governments develop WMD, I want to sell you that bridge with the dead bodies floating under it. Spare me your rhetoric, although without it you would have nothing to say, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The great hypocrisy of the left. "No Nukes No Nukes, unless Saddam wants them, then he can have them."! First of all, don't presume. I am not a liberal. Secondly, when did I say I want Saddam to have nukes? Let me help you out, I didn't. We don't even have any evidence that he has any or is building any, we just know that he was trying to bsck in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 There is proof of Saddams past evils, so it's not a stretch to see he will do it again. The left has 2 arguments We cant go into war because we have no proof of his intentions OR We cant go into war because his past evils have no bearing on todays climate. Yes we do have evidence of nukes. We have a former Iraqi scientest who has proclaimed that Saddam is within a year of having a fully operatable weapon. We have former inspectors who saw evidence of the program. Furthermore we found evidence last week and this weekend of his chemical weaponry. Does this mean anything at all?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Yomar.... in all your posts you have only convinced me that you are clueless. you don't have the details so you presume nothing has happened. my suspicions are that you don't feel disposed to revealing the real reasons for your sympathies. and this is ok. but don't whitewash away the cruelties and risks by some empty handed generalizations about WMDS and status quo arguments over the level of revealed intelligence. btw...an inspection team is ready and headed for andora, rhodesia, somalia....you know the balance of world nations with WMDs. get a grip fella....you're the one adrift in rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 That Mr Hussien is a near term-threat is obvious. This is a threat we should deal with while the costs are low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 and how do you know he hasn't been involved with al queda? because you haven't seen anything in the media doesn't mean it isn't so.....[/Quote] Because if we had any evidence, even if it was circumstantial, it would be all over the media. In fact after 9/11, one of the first rumors was of a meeting between the cell and an Iraqi intelligence officer. Our government then had to re-cant that rumor. and arguments about what is going on elsewhere are irrelevant. is there a Robert's Rule of Order that the same methods have to be applied to all nations?[/Quote]When it comes to going to war without a reason, and as far as the US government goes, yes, I'd like to think so. as it is...let's dispense with the ankle deep arguments about this being over oil and ask ourselves why the administration is pursuiing this. what is your thought process on this? these guys aren't fools. what is the rationale if not the publicly stated one?[/Quote]Nowhere will you see me say this has anything to do with oil, so maybe you should put down your "pat answer guidebook" and actually have a conversation as you propose in your "ankle deep" post. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE GOING TO WAR, WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN A LEGITIMATE REASON, AND I DON'T THINK ITS TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR ONE, THATS WHAT I ASKED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Not "yelling", just trying to get yours and Kilmer's attention to what I'm saying. incidently...the list of evidence presented earlier was done to establish a track record of unending violence by this man. i believe statisticians would term it a trend. your respsonses are wholly inadequate. as an example....economic warfare can certainly be a cause for war. as can genocide. as can terrorist support. [/Quote]your were taking one event and making 5 different reasons out of it, I stand by what I said in response to each one. Saddam is a horrible tyrant, I'm aware of this, but when you weigh the pros and cons of going to war and your biggest pro is that you would be getting rid of a really bad dictator, but the con is that you will be throwing fuel on the fire in regards to US relations in the middle east and provoking an already tense situation so that you are making it more likely that a real devestating terrorist attack on US soil could take place, not to mention the loss of life in war itself, its not a reason in and of itself to go to war. you seem to have changed your tact and are now arguiing not that there aren't valid reasons, but that the timing isn't appropriate. that is a credible thought. the following questions then arise: [/Quote]I am not changing my tact, the timing is wrong, and there is no legitimate reason to go, both are the case. How would you know if I am changing my tact if you don't even read what I say (see "lets dispense with the ankledeep arguments about this being over oil") what evidence do you have that the Arab world cares and loves Saddam Hussein so deeply that the terrorist threat would actually increase if we overthrow Saddam?[/Quote]It would have very little to do with Saddam (who is not well liked in the Arab world) and much more to do with validating misguided perceptions of the US as a tyrannical, unjust world power. Just because the perceptions are misguided does not make them any less dangerous or real. what evidence do you have that the stockpile of terrorists will not follow the course it is on now REGARDLESS of what actions the US pursues?[/Quote]I'm sure they will, but we should be focusing on the terrorists with every resource at our disposal, and we cab't do that while at war with Iraq. how is the fight against terrorism undermined if Iraq is attacked? don't many of the dissenting countries still have a vested interest in fighting the anti-terrorist war? well it certainly wouldn't help would it? A war with Iraq distracts focus and resources from the main issue which in my mind is Al Qaeda if we do stand down, what do you think Saddam will do? inevitably, if we do stand down, it will be due to some sort of negotiated settlement. what makes you think that this will be any more enforceable than past agreements he has violated?[/Quote]I don't know what Saddam will do, and no one, including yourself can claim he does. What I do know is that nothing new or pressing has come to light in the last 3 or 4 years that would demand that we go to war. If that changes, then I would fully support a war, but I don't believe in going to war based on a series of suppositions. Last time we did that it didn't work out so well and more to the point, it turned out the suppositions are wrong - see Domino Theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 Yomar.... in all your posts you have only convinced me that you are clueless. you don't have the details so you presume nothing has happened. my suspicions are that you don't feel disposed to revealing the real reasons for your sympathies. and this is ok. but don't whitewash away the cruelties and risks by some empty handed generalizations about WMDS and status quo arguments over the level of revealed intelligence. btw...an inspection team is ready and headed for andora, rhodesia, somalia....you know the balance of world nations with WMDs. get a grip fella....you're the one adrift in rhetoric. you are so ridiculous, I am being completely upfront with you in what I think and why and you have the nerve to tell me I have a hidden agenda of some sort? Go suck a dick you blowhard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 you don't have the details so you presume nothing has happened. don't whitewash away the cruelties and risks by some empty handed generalizations about WMDS and status quo arguments over the level of revealed intelligence. I WANT the details, and if our govenment has them, why are they not sharing them? My only presumption is that if we had a concrete case to go to war with Iraq, it would be presented and since it has not been presented, I am left to presume that we don't have one. as for your second paragraph in the quote above, I don't even know what you are talking about, so how can I respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 There is proof of Saddams past evils, so it's not a stretch to see he will do it again. The left has 2 arguments We cant go into war because we have no proof of his intentions OR We cant go into war because his past evils have no bearing on todays climate. Yes we do have evidence of nukes. We have a former Iraqi scientest who has proclaimed that Saddam is within a year of having a fully operatable weapon. We have former inspectors who saw evidence of the program. Furthermore we found evidence last week and this weekend of his chemical weaponry. Does this mean anything at all?????????? If he has a nuke program, the inspectors will find it...so whats the rush? Why not wait the inspection process out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Yomar I WANT the details, and if our govenment has them, why are they not sharing them? My only presumption is that if we had a concrete case to go to war with Iraq, it would be presented and since it has not been presented, I am left to presume that we don't have one. as for your second paragraph in the quote above, I don't even know what you are talking about, so how can I respond? I haven't followed this thread, but, Yomar, I have to say this is so colossally dumb I'm surprised it's attributed to you. That you "want" the details is great. That you can't have them is the reality of the world. Your presumption that if we had a concrete case to go to war with Iraq it would be presented is childlike it the formulation. It's likely to me we have incredible evidence, and we can't reveal a great deal of it for the possible risk of exposing how we gathered the information. We have people on the ground who are friendly to the U.S. Indicating what we know clearly would only cause the death of those people and nothing more. You seem to think going to war should be conducted on Court TV. That's hogwash. We know things that can't possibly be shared with you because you want it to be. To presume that means WE are lying just disturbs me greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Yomar If he has a nuke program, the inspectors will find it...so whats the rush? Why not wait the inspection process out? Ack. Yomar. Man. You are way too smart to be this clueless. Iraq's weapon program is mobile. Hidden. Secret. Dispersed. When the inspectors move to a place, anything incriminating is gathered and moved. Saddam has more than one Palace that is greater than 11 square miles. If the inspectors walked in and began to search, anything Iraq didn't want discovered would be waltzed, calmly out through a tunnel and there's nothing anyone could do about it. I'd be surprised if anything is found by the inspectors, who are not really looking. It's already factually proven that Iraq lied in the declaration it provided because we knew from inspections years ago there were items not declared now. I'm disappointed to see posts like this from you on this subject. You are way too on the ball to be this oblivious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I just find it hard to believe that Iraq could have a nuclear weapons program and be able to hide it from the world. Maybe that makes me naive, but I do believe that if its there, it will be found, either through the inspection process or through intelligence. Sorry to disappoint you btw hypothetical...what if, and it might be unlikely, but humor me, what if there is no nuclear weapons program and we go to war and american soldiers and innocent civilians die all based on an assumption, and that assumption turns out to be wrong? Is it worth the risk? To me its just not enough, if these programs exist, our intelligence should be able to get proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Art I haven't followed this thread, but, Yomar, I have to say this is so colossally dumb I'm surprised it's attributed to you. That you "want" the details is great. That you can't have them is the reality of the world. Your presumption that if we had a concrete case to go to war with Iraq it would be presented is childlike it the formulation. It's likely to me we have incredible evidence, and we can't reveal a great deal of it for the possible risk of exposing how we gathered the information. We have people on the ground who are friendly to the U.S. Indicating what we know clearly would only cause the death of those people and nothing more. You seem to think going to war should be conducted on Court TV. That's hogwash. We know things that can't possibly be shared with you because you want it to be. To presume that means WE are lying just disturbs me greatly. Powell has acknowledged that we don't have a smoking gun, world opinion is all that stands between the administration and their desire to go to war with Iraq, I feel pretty safe in saying that if we had a smoking gun, it would be presented before the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Our intelligence has proof. We've stated very clearly we know what Iraq has and what it's doing. We've not been assisting the U.N. weapons inspectors very much, because we don't trust them and we know revealing that info will just lead to our sources being exposed. An interesting thing that happened during the weapons inspection process was early on. It's well known Saddam has doubles and his movements are very hard to track. We gave a tip to the inspectors to go look at a specific palace. Within minutes of getting there, Saddam's main man appeared to let the inspectors in. Saddam was in that palace and the U.S. knew there weren't weapons there, but wanted Saddam to know we can track him. We can track weapons as well. We have. We've said so. We know they lied in their declaration. That's been proven and therefore our case has been made. American soldiers -- 100 percent of which are volunteers -- and civilans die in war. That will happen and there's little that can be done to prevent either from happening, especially in a country that builds a Mosque in the center of a weapons plant, and moves anti-aircraft missles into neighborhoods to use civilians as shields. But, you ask about the risk, Yomar. Your question is whether we are to go into Iraq and suffer the death of our own boys, and Iraqi civilians only to later discover the Iraqi weapons program is non-existent, whether it's worth the risk of going in. Well, to measure that you have to ask yourself what the consequence is of NOT going in. Of doing nothing, and discovering when Israel is hit by an Iraqi nuke that they have fulfilled their goal. Yeah. It's worth the risk. But, we KNOW they have a program. They did before the Gulf War. They did during the inspections. They have since they kicked the inspectors out. That we've delayed the completion is great. But, it's not a question of whether they are trying and have tried to build the big bomb. We know that to be true, which makes your hypothetical false on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Yomar Powell has acknowledged that we don't have a smoking gun, world opinion is all that stands between the administration and their desire to go to war with Iraq, I feel pretty safe in saying that if we had a smoking gun, it would be presented before the world. Yomar, A smoking gun can only be found once it's smoking. It has to be fired. You can't have a smoking gun until it's deployed. Then we can stand there, staring at the world saying, we have ourselves a smoking gun. We know they have various weapons that are of concern. We know they are working on their delivery method. You don't get to have a smoking gun unless the gun is built. You know there are pieces of the gun all around. But, until it's complete, it's not a smoking gun. Just ask North Korea. We knew they were working on it. We confronted them on it and the forgot and thought they would stop. Then they reveal they have their gun. I would prefer to assure this never happens again, because as you've led us down the path to conclude, the risk is far too great to wait until the gun starts smoking before we act. Sept. 11 was a smoking gun. I don't want or need another to know we can make sure it doesn't get to that point again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 P.S. BTW, could you send me the quote of Powell saying we didn't have a smoking gun? I don't doubt Powell, who is an excellent statesman, has said there is no one particular thing which overrides all other things with regard to Iraq, but, I don't know that I've ever seen him use that language that there is no smoking gun. I have seen that language used by leftists and the weapon inspectors who are against an attack and find that language persuasive. I just haven't seen that direct statement made by Powell. Rumsfeld has said something about it, but I hadn't seen it from Powell. Please show that to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.