@Xi:

@Yanny:

To compare this to WWII is pathetic.

Not comparison . . an example of choices. Another example . . .
Yanny = Neville Chamberlain…or Russia (in a RR game) waiting til R2
to make any noncombat movement.
@Yanny:

…thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will die when we attack Iraq…I charge Americans to break the chain of history. I charge America to be the first Superpower to do good in the world.
Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia.

Millions of citizens of many countries will die if we
don’t do something. America will do something different. Bush will not
respond with nukes. Most likely he will repond or better yet, once
proof is laid out, initiate, with surgical incision of strike units. The
neighboring countries will be asked to help Iraqis to restructure their
government. The USA is not capable of doing that as we have a different
mindset(yes, this is an admission of American weakness, but we see it.)
If Saddam is permitted to build, use, and/or distribute biological,
neurological, and/or weapons of mass destruction millions of
citizens of many technologically advanced non-Islamic countries
will die. This will leave little help for the Third(or Second, depending on
your view of divisions) World countries.
America has done more to rebuild and help the world than any other
country. Most people quote the Charity statistics, but that is a drop in
the bucket. The US saved Europes’ sas in WWI and WWII. That’s why
Americans love to play these games(it makes them feel better about
their incosequential existence.) The US bailed out G.B., France, and
the U.S.S.R.(and dropped the debt). The US rebuilt Japan and Germany
so that WWIII would not resemble WWII. We founded the Red Cross
which helps all over the world and Caused the Muslim countries to found
the RED Crescent. We have defended pockets of democracy
(West Berlin, Taiwan, South Korea) which have helped strain and change
China, North Korea, the U.S.S.R.and Soviet satellites.
@Yanny:

Saddam Hussein is a bad person. But you shouldn’t punish the Iraq people for that! We all know Bagdag will be leveled to the ground if we go to war.
Saddam Hussein is not a dangerous person. He’s not crazy like Hitler, He isn’t going to commit virtual suicide by attack us or Israel.
Why are we attacking him?.

Sadie and his sons are sickos. Saddam has lackies poor gasoline down
the throats of suspected traitors, watches them suffer a couple of hours,
and then has one lacky light a match, play with it, and then torch the
suspect. Saddam would watch films of himself torturing suspected
traitors before having sex with his mistress(her testimony). His oldest
son learned to take hours to disembowel human prisoners by practicing
on sheep. I forget his second son’s perversions as I was distracted.
You think the worst of what will happen. That is your imagination
and indoctrination. Watch the Middle East join against Saddam
as they have experienced his dreams of grandeur. But, they will not lead.
They and the rest of the world need a point man. Someone and some
country taking the most risk. That is the Pesident Bush and USA. We
have the most to lose as we are the greatest power, target, and obstacle
that any warped country, religious figures, or anyone has to overcome.
Yes, we must be cautious to not overstep our limits, but that is why GWB
goes to Congress and the UN.
@Yanny:

We’re attacking him for Oil and votes…

Look at history. When EVIL Bush41 went into Iraq in 1991 the price
of oil dropped to $10 a barrel. The price of gas dropped to below $0.80
per gallon. This did not help the businesses that are accused of profits.
Remember, Chaney was part of the Bush41 admin. and didn’t run
Halibertin(sp.?) until later! It helped vacationers for a short time, but
that didn’t win EVIL Bush41 re-election,now, did it?
@Yanny:

…there will be long term consequences, death, and a happy Republican party.

Yes, the Republicans will be ALMOST as happy as when they took food
out of the mouths of starving elementary school students and
made senior citizens eat dog food by cutting programs.
I wouldn’t even accuse Clinton of murder for the aspirin factory or
Yugoslavia, which is where it looks like you might be headed with
EVIL Bush43 on your mind.

Another moderate reads verbatum from the LIBERAL Democrat
playbook. - Xi

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.” - Francis M. Voltaire

Here it is, Y.
Not any more, T_6. - Xi

So your entire post was a quote? Right…

What about the Kurds Yanny? Should they suffer because of Saddam?

@Mr:

Cowards because they didn’t want missiles in their backyard?
I guess USSR were cowards too, they didn’t like U.S. missiles in Turkey.

Maybe your country had enemy missiles so close because, your country didn’t have the power to do anything about it.

You have some serious American envy.

Saddam might not be a threat to the world, but is certainly a threat to the U.S.
After 9/11 the USA isn’t taking any chances and I dont blame them.
If " the World" dosen’t like the way American conducts itself, why not do something about it.

You are right, my country was not strong (and smart) enough to prevent the US from placing nuclear weapons on our territory.

But: I am not envious.
The problem is much more that “the world” can’t do anything (better: a lot) against the USAs will.
The USA frequently blackmailed the UN, blackmails/buys bilateral treaties (like in the case of the International Criminal Court), gives a shit on the rules they want others to follow (steel tariffs vs. free trade), defends “freedom” by cutting down individual rights.
And the world can’t / doesn’t do much more than watch, and let their discomfort grow.

And let’s have a look at the threat Saddam poses towards the US:
All he could do is provide training and equipment for single persons/ small gangs to infiltrate the US and do damage there. He is not capable of standing an open war against the US. He is capable of bringing more destruction to the areas closer to the Iraq (mainly Israel) though.

How does the USA react to this threat: Having noticed that someone could actually harm the US (a thought most unpleasant, but once you get used to it, you start to act and behave differently, more sensible, as you think of what your actions might provoke!) for the first time after Pearl Harbor, the USA reacted in shock (understandibly, the truth can be unpleasant), and a combination of force and denial (like: This must never happen again, therefore we kill everyone who we think could do that).

The geographical isolation that the USA long had lead to a sense of invulnerability on ground soil. This in our times of means of transportation and communication of course is a false dream of security. To maintain that dream, the USA is using drasric measures, instead of opening their eyes: Instead of trying to adapt to changing times, the USA seems like they want the time to stop at an earlier point.

The USA has, whatever it does, a big impact on the world. Unfortunately, it looks like they are not aware of how big that impact is. I do and don’t blame them for that, as it is hard to see yourself with outside eyes, but they also don’t listen to the “outside eyes” tell them about themselves.

So, i hope that the US comes to its senses, and notices that in our globalized time you need globalized thinking, especially if you are a land as powerful and influential as the USA.

@TG:

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”.

Already way ahead in terms of what? :-?

in the “amount” of hate/dislike/discomfort already accumulated.

There is so much more that materialistic jealousy -prestige, power, ect. A lot of it is simple thumbing of the nose rebellion without cause. I see a lot of those.

but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.
I am not too sure of that. Saudia Arabia is a rich land, and one of the most islamic fundamentalist country around.

You didn’t answer me. Do UN weapon inspectors have unrestricted access to anywhere in Iraq or what? Also, what will be the size of such a UN peacekeeping effort?

From what i now, the UN and Iraq are having talks about the terms, but in the first letter the talk was of unrestricted access.
It will not be a peace-keeping effort, as there was no war, and there are no two sides to be held away from each other.

For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there,

You seriously believe this? “Germany Disarmed and Rearming, 1925-1935” by Berenice Carroll and tell me other wise. Go ahead.
This tells us something. Will the UN rigorously check to make sure Saddam has NBC weapons or become lax after a while?

Yes, i do believe that. I know there were secret programs in the Reichswehr and the construction of a “state inside the state”, but i haven’t found any evidence (in the net just now or before) that there were inspectors in post WWI germany searching for secret weapon facilities.

And i don’t think that the UN will become lax. Counterquestion:
Even if, would the “lazyness” of our side be enough reason to start a war?
That would change my view of you quite a bit….

Perhaps you did not understand my question: is Iraq a perfectly stable country except for George Bush’s tough talks? Has Saddam been directly and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands (maybe even millions)? Has Saddam used chemcial weapons before on his own people? Has Saddam purposely ejected UN Inspectors from Iraq and endured UN sanctions on his own people? Has Saddam violated the Cease-Fire agreement after the Gulf War?

perfectly stable: no; stable enough: yes
for the others: yes
Counterquestion: did the US and Britain frequently bomb the Iraq without any legal background but in self-proclaimed self-defense?
The violation of the cease fire and the bombings are skirmishes. You could say these are enough reason to let it escalate into a full war. The other points above are not. The ejection of the UN inspectors would have called for an immediate reaction, and as it looks the Iraq is taking back that step, so that reason fails as well.

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq

Why not? If Iraq does become a place different from today, I could see it happen.

You mentioned that growing up in context with a not-changed Iraq……

In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.

No, it proves what Saddam has done in the past and what he’s capable of doing again. And to amend past mistakes.

You deny him the right to learn (even though i don’t think he did learn the right things)? The only proof the above gives is what he has done in the past. Nothing more, nothing less. It tells us to have an open eye on him, to not let it happen again, but it doesn’t tell us that he still is capable of doing it (both mentally or equipment-wise).

Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.

The so called game theory is flawed. So should I have Americans hijack one a plane and crash it into one of their buildings?

No, it says “react equivalently” not “react exactly the same way”. If it is flawd, then i wonder why it is so successful.

And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.

And what would’ve happened? Let them get away with it? Guess what, yesterday Pearl Harbor was bombed. I say we sit buy and watch it happen over and over without doing anything about it. :roll: Now who is worse off? So our so called “terrorist” didn’t belong in Europe, didn’t belong in South Korea, didn’t belong in Vietnam?

Did i say “do nothing”?
quote me on that!

The bombing of pearl harbor did have a different quality: it was conducted by the official military forces of a different country. That is not terrorists.

And please explain that last sentence, i don’t understand what you want to say with that.

So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

There has already been proof of this, and I would end it. And your alternative would be? Let them openly arm and train terrorist for future operations?

to quote you:
You did not answer my question ;)

For your question: No, and please find where i made any proposal like that (openly arm and train terrorists).
The alternative would be sending in UN inspectors, they did a good job before, otherwise the Iraq wouldn’t have sent them out!

Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you?

And I sure ICBM’s didn’t matter much, did they? Sure… :roll: I would never give the Soviets a chance of pre-emptive strike. As Ghoul said, missles pointed at Russan and they wanting them gone – they must be cowards too! :roll:

exactly…. the ICBM were already poised at you, and still you went mad during the Cuba Crisis… it was just a few more missiles, with a shorter reaction time (the only weak point in my arguing :), and i have to bring it myself).
Why do you assume that the Soviets planned a pre-emptive strike? Chrustchev was following a “co-existence” doktrin. Were you afraid because you would have done it and think that your opponent would have done the same?

At least our actions were condoned by the UN. Did the Russians and Saddam every bother to do that?

The russians: yes. The iraq: No
The US in Granada or Panama: No
Israel: consistenly no

(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

I am sure you would’ve said the same thing 10 years ago.

Well, 10 years ago: yes
during the Quwait war: no, i was fearing that either Iraq or Israel would go nuts and attack the other.
Both didn’t.
One of the reasons why i think that Saddam is “stable enough”, but if you start a war with the only reason to kick hom off, he will no doubt use the full potential he has. That will be different! Read Sun Tzu on that topic: if your enemy has no option but to fight to his death, then you will not “win” (in the way he defines “winning”).

Y, @Y:

Let me list all the places we’ve gone into to “help”

I couldn’t agree more, but in most cases we had to do something. Each case should be dealt with sepatately. How bout we solve this in the “Change the Ploitical System” string? I propose keeping past admin. available as advisors…40-50 years of experience and wisdom might help or muddle.
You don’t believe the Ukrainian president re: 200 missing missles? Which can be turned into a lot more nukes since each one has 7-10 warheads.
Hollywood? No, that’s a liberal tool(see Clinton admin. history). You don’t believe Saddam’s Bombmaker(the person and book)? He says Saddam had 400 missle sites 5years ago. He estimates that Saddam will be capable of nuke delivery within 6 months. Oh, Scott Ritter has been paid by Saddam Hussein to pooh-pooh this information. THAT IS PROPAGANDA. Too many sources verify these facts… defectors, family members of victims, reporters, inspectors(Scott Ritter before Saddam’s $). Then there’s Saddam’s own family who defected, returned, and IS DEAD NOW.
@Y:

Bad comparison

Your opinion. Hitler (Saddam) played games for 6 (11) years. WE’LL SEE.
We must all recognize that a war on terrorism will be like no other war.
Because of tech. advances, freedom and democracy(an impossible utopia for the world to attain.Whoa, I cannot believe I just typed that!) may have to take a back seat for a while. A better opportunity for a socialist/communist world government to evolve. If that’s what it takes…
@Y:

the true democracies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran setting up this new government.

NO, I said help, not control. They don’t have the moral mindset to handle democracy. Not for about 200-400 years, maybe.
@Y:

get a nuke in response in doing it… he isn’t suicidal.

Already handled in the previous post. No US nuke response.
@Y:

merica rebuilt countries it is responsible for destroying & made profit

Ew-who-who-who-who! Name me a major power that won a war, stayed a major power, and didn’t make a profit doing it. Whoop de do.
@Y:

Prove it! Saddam has no way of delivering his weapons.

I don’t have to…Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and a few other countries would disagree. Who says it’s gonna be missles? Moscova can worry, too, since they are only 500 miles(the next step in missle ranges) from Iraq. Shipping containers in our harbors (before inspections occur) would make a nice glow(a current scenario discussed by world experts on tv.)
@Y:

When we rebuild Germany, we let half the country go to the USSR and turn into a shithole which we’re seeing the fallbacks of today.

Blame the USA for not starting WWIII before WWII is over? That’s ludicrous! I would like to insult you here. However, I feel that all these avowed conservatives arguing with you, a self-perceived moderate, would only make you a liberal. Therefore, I will restrain myself.
@Y:

I support this. But we’re not going after Iraq for democracy. Oil and votes. And we did a lot of good in China and North Korea didn’t we.

Thank you. Democracy…see above. Oil and votes…see previous post (it didn’t work for Bush41, so why would Bush43 tryit, if that was the plan? Yes, Evil Empires, no matter how big (China) nor how small (N. Korea), must go through growing pains. This includes the USA! Oh, Clinton helped a little here. He signed documentation allowing the Loral Corp. (owned by a big Dem. contributor [and “friend of” Bill (Clinton’s words)]) to sell and set up tech. which allowed China to pinpoint target 200 American cities with nukes. Clinton also gave N. Korea nuclear reactor tech. which they can use in their nuclear weapons development program. But, the N Koreans did promise not to do that.
@Y:

there will be long term consequences, death, and a happy Republican party.

Another moderate reads verbatum from the LIBERAL Democrat playbook. Yes, the Republicans will be ALMOST as happy as when they took food out of the mouths of starving elementary school students and made senior citizens eat dog food by cutting programs. I’ll be NICE this time.
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, I feel funny! Is this what it feels to be a moderate
conservative? Ew-who-who-who! Excuse me,v I gotta hurl. - Xi

"Don’t walk in front of me, I may not follow; don’t walk behind me,
I may not lead; walk beside me, and just be my friend. - Albert Camus

Hmm. I might try that. Naah! - Xi

Haha, I couldn’t agree more XI. :D

You are right, my country was not strong (and smart) enough to prevent the US from placing nuclear weapons on our territory.

Yeah, forget about deterrence from the iron boot of Stalinism.

The problem is much more that “the world” can’t do anything (better: a lot) against the USAs will.

I’m sure if “50%” of the world banded together against the US, they could do more than something. US is only one country. Then why haven’t they?

defends “freedom” by cutting down individual rights

The same as how liberals try to take away individual rights. You cannot have the absolute amount of both security and freedom. Guess what, most Americans would choose more security in these times.

And the world can’t / doesn’t do much more than watch, and let their discomfort grow.

A world of 6 billion vs. 275 million. They could do a much more than watch; act much more then they whine.

And let’s have a look at the threat Saddam poses towards the US:
All he could do is provide training and equipment for single persons/ small gangs to infiltrate the US and do damage there. He is not capable of standing an open war against the US. He is capable of bringing more destruction to the areas closer to the Iraq (mainly Israel) though.

You seem to belittle the amount of damage “single persons/ small gangs” can do to the United States. We live in a where one man can be responsible for the deaths of millions. As the events of 9/11 proved, it doesn’t takem many to inflict serve desturction.

combination of force and denial (like: This must never happen again, therefore we kill everyone who we think could do that).

Force and denial? So we should just forget everything that happened and go about completely the same as normal?

To maintain that dream, the USA is using drasric measures, instead of opening their eyes: Instead of trying to adapt to changing times, the USA seems like they want the time to stop at an earlier point.

Yeah, this coming from the “Ecological Axis of Evil.”
but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.

I am not too sure of that. Saudia Arabia is a rich land, and one of the most islamic fundamentalist country around.

A rich land in terms of what? Maybe to the wealthy oil princes there, but not to the average Saudi. Most of Saudia Arabia is made up of barren deserts. More than half the country’s people live in Riyadh or Jidda. It also seems strange how Saudi Arabia is also the biggest outlet for US goods in the Mideast.

From what i now, the UN and Iraq are having talks about the terms, but in the first letter the talk was of unrestricted access.

Read on. Saddam no longer wants to allow unrestricted access. He is going against his word the same way he did in 1991 (“unfettered access” - sure :roll:). What does he have to hide. His Prime Minister even said, “Iraq posses no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.” If this is true, then why the coverup?

Yes, i do believe that. I know there were secret programs in the Reichswehr and the construction of a “state inside the state”, but i haven’t found any evidence (in the net just now or before) that there were inspectors in post WWI germany searching for secret weapon facilities.

All I can say, is read that document. I think it is available for download on the internet.

Even if, would the “lazyness” of our side be enough reason to start a war?

If these UN inspectors do get lax, then I think it is more a reason for the US to take action. The US government should not wait around and let UN do nothing (or conduct only meager efforts)

Counterquestion: did the US and Britain frequently bomb the Iraq without any legal background but in self-proclaimed self-defense?

Without any legal background? Does Iraq have the right to fire on US planes over the 36th and 33rd Parallel? Those US pilots “frequently bombing Iraq” were authorized to attack these weapons sites if fired upon by them, and also to protect Iraq’s ethnic minorities.

You mentioned that growing up in context with a not-changed Iraq……

No, go back and reread my other post before that. It is a future where Iraq has changed for the better.

It tells us to have an open eye on him, to not let it happen again, but it doesn’t tell us that he still is capable of doing it (both mentally or equipment-wise).

No, I even stated before how close Saddam is to developing nuclear weapons and his stockpiles of BC’s. Do you really believe the Prime Minister’s respond, that “Iraq is without any weapons of mass destruction?” Saddam has learned from the mistakes, he now knows how to play the UN as fools.

No, it says “react equivalently” not “react exactly the same way”

React equivalently as in conduct terrorist attacks of our own? So instead of using a plane, we now use a bus?

Did i say “do nothing”?
quote me on that!

Oh then, what should’ve have done? Slap some offical reprimands and sit back?

And please explain that last sentence, i don’t understand what you want to say with that.

You say, “What you would have done is send in some terrorists of your own.'” Except according to your game theory, it’s perfectly right.

to quote you:
You did not answer my question

DS already, gave the evidence supporting the fact that Iraq indeed harbors, trains, and finances terrorist. Therefore, that part of the question is already answered.

For your question: No, and please find where i made any proposal like that (openly arm and train terrorists).

I posed that as a question ->?<-, not as an answer, though it might be what you’re implying.

The alternative would be sending in UN inspectors, they did a good job before, otherwise the Iraq wouldn’t have sent them out!

Even if that were true (which I highly doubt), in this case does that mean, the moment the UN inspectors do a good job of locating such plants, Saddam will send them out again?

exactly…. the ICBM were already poised at you, and still you went mad during the Cuba Crisis… it was just a few more missiles, with a shorter reaction time (the only weak point in my arguing , and i have to bring it myself).
Why do you assume that the Soviets planned a pre-emptive strike? Chrustchev was following a “co-existence” doktrin. Were you afraid because you would have done it and think that your opponent would have done the same?

You call the US cowards, though they were the only ones who stood up to the Soviet Union. I would except MAD from the Soviets, but if they had the capability of pre-emptive first strike, then that is something is get “mad” about. The Soviets may not have planned a pre-emptive strike (remains to be disputed), though the ability to do so with missiles point at the South of the United States is terrible enough.

The russians: yes.

Ha, so the Stalinist actions in Hungary, Berlin Blockade, Afghanistan, ect. were perfectly fine?

Scott Ritter? Hahahah :lol:

I think Clinton’s foreign policy was to lend military technology to the country with the highest bidder. That worked out well. :roll:

We actually had this debate in JSA yesterday.

The only thing I want to bring up is that Sadam is probably too smart to use weapons of mass happy time himself. However he is going to die soon. And when he does his insane son will come to power in the Junta. His son doesn’t care about living. It will be very bad.

@TG:

You are right, my country was not strong (and smart) enough to prevent the US from placing nuclear weapons on our territory.

Yeah, forget about deterrence from the iron boot of Stalinism.

The placing of Pershing 2s and cruise missiles in western germany in the 80s as a counter to the USSR stationing SS20s in the east didn’t really make sense. It’s more like: "ok, we have a dozen of overkills with our ICBMs, let’s add a few ones on short range weapons.

The problem is much more that “the world” can’t do anything (better: a lot) against the USAs will.

I’m sure if “50%” of the world banded together against the US, they could do more than something. US is only one country. Then why haven’t they?

Do you really think that the US would allow that? As soon as one country starts a “unifiy to statnd up against the US action”, what would be the USs reaction?

defends “freedom” by cutting down individual rights

The same as how liberals try to take away individual rights. You cannot have the absolute amount of both security and freedom. Guess what, most Americans would choose more security in these times.

Was it Lincoln, or Washington (or which former US president) who said something like:
Who wants to change his freedom for security is not worth any of it!

You seem to belittle the amount of damage “single persons/ small gangs” can do to the United States. We live in a where one man can be responsible for the deaths of millions. As the events of 9/11 proved, it doesn’t takem many to inflict serve desturction.

Right, but that is something that they can do to any nation, not only to the United States!
Don’t think you are very special just because you suffered that horrible attack.
Israel has to live with it, and fights its war “soldiers vs. guerrila” for quite some time now, and it doesn’t look like they could win this way! Still, the US would like to repeat that for themselves?

Why does the US not stop and think for a minute: Why did they bomb us and not France …. what have we done differently? Could we change our behavior to reduce the “attraction” we obviously have towards terrorists?
No, this didn’t happen… As soon as anybody said “the terrorists attacks could have been provoked” he is muted by the public.

Force and denial? So we should just forget everything that happened and go about completely the same as normal?

Again your question asks for implication i didn’t make.
This seems to happen quite often, that you things that i didn’t think of (and from my point of view made clear that i didn’t!)
This is very bad style in an argument.

To answer your question: no

but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.

i dare you:
quote me on that!
That was more a point your brought up in a rethorical question.

I am not too sure of that. Saudia Arabia is a rich land, and one of the most islamic fundamentalist country around.

A rich land in terms of what? Maybe to the wealthy oil princes there, but not to the average Saudi. Most of Saudia Arabia is made up of barren deserts. More than half the country’s people live in Riyadh or Jidda. It also seems strange how Saudi Arabia is also the biggest outlet for US goods in the Mideast.

rich in terms of money.
No people in a desert, therefore no influence of the richness.
In Australia, the urbanization is the highest in the world: percantage of people in cities is not a a way to measure it’s wealth.
outlet for US goods = imports US goods? If so, how does that not back up my claim of richness? For the islamic fundamentalism, this is not an indicator, the laws are.

Read on. Saddam no longer wants to allow unrestricted access. He is going against his word the same way he did in 1991 (“unfettered access” - sure :roll:). What does he have to hide. His Prime Minister even said, “Iraq posses no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.” If this is true, then why the coverup?

I have heard that it might take less than 4 weeks for the first commando of inspectors go to the Iraq. Maybe he starts and started games, but he knows that he can’t overdo it.
What does he have to hide? Maybe not lose his pride?

Would you allow UN inspectors to go in and inspect everything of the US, including the white house? If you don’t, why do you expect that others eagerly will?
Pride, not losing your face or humiliation…. just think of that possibility.

All I can say, is read that document. I think it is available for download on the internet.

It came up in the Journal of Peace Research, my institut has not subscribed to that one…
took me 5 secs with google btw.

Even if, would the “lazyness” of our side be enough reason to start a war?

If these UN inspectors do get lax, then I think it is more a reason for the US to take action. The US government should not wait around and let UN do nothing (or conduct only meager efforts)

sounds like the US is not part of the UN.
sounds like you don’t feel like being part of the UN.
If the inspectors get lax, then the US should make the inspectors work again. Is it Saddams fault, when our workers go lazy ???

No, go back and reread my other post before that. It is a future where Iraq has changed for the better.

Misunderstood you there then, ok.

Saddam has learned from the mistakes, he now knows how to play the UN as fools.

WE have learnt how he plays as well. And this time the setting is different: there is a very angry superpower that just waits for him to be uncooperative.

No, it says “react equivalently” not “react exactly the same way”

React equivalently as in conduct terrorist attacks of our own? So instead of using a plane, we now use a bus?

Did i say “do nothing”?
quote me on that!

Oh then, what should’ve have done? Slap some offical reprimands and sit back?

And please explain that last sentence, i don’t understand what you want to say with that.

You say, “What you would have done is send in some terrorists of your own.'” Except according to your game theory, it’s perfectly right.

You ask questions i have already answered. The bus question is rethoric, i will not go into that one.
You do not quote me, instead you try to divert my attention, bad style again. I will therefore ignore the questions asked there.
Thanks for the explanation. And the answer to your question there is “yes”, they didn’t"

For your question: No, and please find where i made any proposal like that (openly arm and train terrorists).

I posed that as a question ->?<-, not as an answer, though it might be what you’re implying.

Well, if that is what you see in what i say, then my english must be pretty crappy.

You are always asking for alternatives: my alternatives are “use your brain another 15 minutes longer” and “listen to what others say”. The rest will follow.

The alternative would be sending in UN inspectors, they did a good job before, otherwise the Iraq wouldn’t have sent them out!

Even if that were true (which I highly doubt), in this case does that mean, the moment the UN inspectors do a good job of locating such plants, Saddam will send them out again?

He will not dare it this time, as long as GWB is in power in the US. He will wait for the next president.

You call the US cowards, though they were the only ones who stood up to the Soviet Union. I would except MAD from the Soviets, but if they had the capability of pre-emptive first strike, then that is something is get “mad” about. The Soviets may not have planned a pre-emptive strike (remains to be disputed), though the ability to do so with missiles point at the South of the United States is terrible enough.

Ever thought of how the USSR felt? You say you can’t accept sitting on the wrong end of the barrel, but you are sure every one else feels at ease with you at the trigger.
Are USis so badly selfcentered that this thought doesn’t even cross their minds?

The russians: yes.

Ha, so the Stalinist actions in Hungary, Berlin Blockade, Afghanistan, ect. were perfectly fine?

Hungary: ok, a break of the rules.
On the other hand: you would have not come to west germanies aid, if a “communist revolution” had taken place there?
Hungary as a borderland could not be allowed to defect from the alliance. Simple as that, the US would not have reacted differently.

Berlin Blockade: was absolutley legal. There were no treaties about transit-rights for anybody on the ground to go to west-berlin. There were treaties for the air-transit, these were not broken.

Afghanistan: was the USSR coming, after the government called for help.
Sounds like Vietnam, and ended the same way for the involved superpower.

F_k,
Here’s a historical note… in 1974, official US estimates were that the US could destroy the world 49 times, but that the USSR could destroy the world ONLY 47 times. :o And I thought once was enough. Guess I was wrong.

T_6,
I added something to my “just a quote.” The quote was for Y, but the addition (a waste of time,electrons and thought_) was for you. Don’t look back!

T_6,
I mentioned Clinton’s Foreign Policy indiscretions on this string
in my long post of 9/19 on this string. Doubt you read it as it was
long and toward the end. However, I just thought I’d warn you
WE’RE THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINE.
–----------------------------------------------
Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

• Name the show and the character
  =======================================================
  “Today we can declare: Government is not the problem,
  and government is not the solution.
  We, the American people, we are the solution.”
• William Jefferson Clinton_

Russia has been posturing as I stated in a previous post. But, now we have a clearer picture. Russia wants a guaranteed payment of the 8 million $s Iraq owes them, and a free pass dealing with the Muslims in Chechnea.
Oh, well. The UN is just a place for every nation to go to get what they want. Will Russia get what they want? = Xi

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”

• Ronald Reagan. speech, Dec. 11, 1972.

Most of the time. - Xi

The placing of Pershing 2s and cruise missiles in western germany in the 80s as a counter to the USSR stationing SS20s in the east didn’t really make sense. It’s more like: "ok, we have a dozen of overkills with our ICBMs, let’s add a few ones on short range weapons.

Both sides had enough missiles to destroy the world many times over. It was about maintaining political power and not to lose face.

Do you really think that the US would allow that? As soon as one country starts a “unifiy to statnd up against the US action”, what would be the USs reaction?

You tell me. If the world hates us so bad, then they will make a stand regardless. Certainly we wouldn’t like it, but we would still have to deal with it.

Was it Lincoln, or Washington (or which former US president) who said something like:
Who wants to change his freedom for security is not worth any of it!

To this would be choosing absolute freedom for no security? A airpart without metal detectors, without baggage checks, or security guards – you could have all the freedom you ever want. Think about it. What would you choose?

Right, but that is something that they can do to any nation, not only to the United States!
Don’t think you are very special just because you suffered that horrible attack.
Israel has to live with it, and fights its war “soldiers vs. guerrila” for quite some time now, and it doesn’t look like they could win this way! Still, the US would like to repeat that for themselves?

Would terrorist go out of their way to plant a bomb in Mali? How are we so special? If it showed us anything, we aren’t that special. As for Israel, that has more to do with freedom of self government, the right to exist, and the creation of a seperate state. If that was what had happened in America (like the Civil War), I would support the gladly South.

Why does the US not stop and think for a minute: Why did they bomb us and not France …. what have we done differently? Could we change our behavior to reduce the “attraction” we obviously have towards terrorists?

Is France the dominant superpower of the world? Probably not. The terrorist would rather go against the us as it would make much more of a lasting impression for them and boost their ego.

No, this didn’t happen…… As soon as anybody said “the terrorists attacks could have been provoked” he is muted by the public.

He? Of course we provoked them - we had a better standard of life and they didn’t.

Again your question asks for implication i didn’t make.
This seems to happen quite often, that you things that i didn’t think of (and from my point of view made clear that i didn’t!)
This is very bad style in an argument.

To answer your question: no

“How does the USA react to this threat: Having noticed that someone could actually harm the US (a thought most unpleasant, but once you get used to it, you start to act and behave differently, more sensible, as you think of what your actions might provoke!) for the first time after Pearl Harbor, the USA reacted in shock (understandibly, the truth can be unpleasant), and a combination of force and denial (like: This must never happen again, therefore we kill everyone who we think could do that).”

Ahhh… but the implication was there - unless you are supporting the US all along. Then tell me, if I don’t get this right (doubtful), then what meaning is this message? Again, I posed this as a question (unless you realllyy hate answering those). It was meant for clarification, not fact.
You assume many things from me, too.

i dare you:
quote me on that!

“but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.”

Well actually you did say this - though to me (Posted: 19 Sep 2002 08:31). However, it was meant to be included in the Saudi quote and not for something I was suppose to write. For clear up, treat that comment as it was included in the Saudi quote.

rich in terms of money.
No people in a desert, therefore no influence of the richness.
In Australia, the urbanization is the highest in the world: percantage of people in cities is not a a way to measure it’s wealth.
outlet for US goods = imports US goods? If so, how does that not back up my claim of richness? For the islamic fundamentalism, this is not an indicator, the laws are.

Lets take a look at the Saudi Arabia. More than 60% of Saudis are under 25 - among the highest in the world. The country also has a spiraling debt and falling oil revenues - per capita income has plummeted from $28,600 to $6,800 in the past 20 years. 1/3 of all Saudis are unemployed. How comparable is this to the United States? As for outlet of US goods - even though that country “dislikes us,” why purchase American commodities then? What does this tell us?

have heard that it might take less than 4 weeks for the first commando of inspectors go to the Iraq. Maybe he starts and started games, but he knows that he can’t overdo it.
What does he have to hide? Maybe not lose his pride?

I read that under existing U.N. Security Council resolutions, returning weapons inspectors would take at least five months to fully commence operations in Iraq and report on Baghdad’s initial cooperation, and up to a year to preliminarily assess whether Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or the capability to produce them.

Would you allow UN inspectors to go in and inspect everything of the US, including the white house? If you don’t, why do you expect that others eagerly will?
Pride, not losing your face or humiliation…. just think of that possibility.

How many Whitehouses do you know off? How many “palaces” did Saddam have that the UN inspectors did not have access to before 1998? However, to answer that question, if UN inspectors were so sure of finding illegal bombmaking and chemical facilities, then a tour of the Whitehouse for them would be appropriate.

BTW, the access is not just on the White House, what if I told you couldn’t have access to any school or other civilian building in America? Would you call that fair?

It came up in the Journal of Peace Research, my institut has not subscribed to that one…
took me 5 secs with google btw.

Your institute? Start subscribing! :)

sounds like the US is not part of the UN.
sounds like you don’t feel like being part of the UN.
If the inspectors get lax, then the US should make the inspectors work again. Is it Saddams fault, when our workers go lazy ???

Sure doesn’t feel like it. What were US’s annual dues to the UN last year? $300 million? What were Iraq’s total dues? $360,000? I’m not blaming Saddam, but the UN. Going to war will be their call, I hope the alternative will not be short lived.

You ask questions i have already answered. The bus question is rethoric, i will not go into that one.
You do not quote me, instead you try to divert my attention, bad style again. I will therefore ignore the questions asked there.
Thanks for the explanation. And the answer to your question there is “yes”, they didn’t

No, I was not going to ask the same exact question twice. [Except for: Do you really believe Iraq’s Prime Minister when he says Iraq posses no NBCs whatsoever]. You questioned my questions, and I responded to them for clarification. And now that I have, you get mad over it. In fact, I asked you what is to be done, and I still haven’t gotten an answer back. What is worse?

Well, if that is what you see in what i say, then my english must be pretty crappy.

No, it’s your American.

He will not dare it this time, as long as GWB is in power in the US. He will wait for the next president.

I would rather have a stern president than a Clinton-esque one. But here’s a question, do you think anyone would bother with trying to keep a check on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq is cooking if not for the current President?

Ever thought of how the USSR felt? You say you can’t accept sitting on the wrong end of the barrel, but you are sure every one else feels at ease with you at the trigger.
Are USis so badly selfcentered that this thought doesn’t even cross their minds?

Would the world feel at ease with only the USSR at the trigger?

On the other hand: you would have not come to west germanies aid, if a “communist revolution” had taken place there?

Ha, what type of “communist revolution” are you suggesting? Don’t you try to use that communism against me. :wink:

Simple as that, the US would not have reacted differently.

In the course of the Cold War in Europe, when would this have happened (ex. English voluntarily joining the Warsaw Pact)?