The one & only War On Terror thread

[Zorin Industries 0]

Yeah, im glad the "Axis of Evil" wasn't mentioned.

 

I thought that was a bad move originally, I think hes learn't from that.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Given the shrill reactions it elicits in a morally vacuous feel-good world, I'd agree.

Check it out. Marney agreed with me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Only insofar as I agreed that referring to morality when addressing an audience of moral degenerates is pointless.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

An official transcript of the President's remarks at General Assembly can now be found at the White House website. It also contains links to reports on UNESCO and Iraq's behaviour after the Gulf War.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

America should kick UN out of America, I meant that the U.S should kick the U.N parliament out of NY

 

Eleven minutes and two cigarettes ago, I finished writing a position paper which specifies in detail the reasons for precisely this necessary and long overdue action. The very existence of the UN in its present form and with its present membership rolls is antithetical to the nature of our democracy.

 

great, great speech by president bush yesterday. i'm guessing a)your position paper was laughed out of the building, or b)the president's speech was a mere front to legitimizing a withdrawal from and expulsion of the u.n. i sincerely hope it was the former.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

As usual, you heard what you wanted to hear, rather than what the President said. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post in this thread: "Note that every foreign official is getting the implications of the speech exactly wrong in order to save face. The President said he'd engage the UN, yes, but he didn't say that America would work with the UN regardless of what the UN did. He said that we know what we're going to do, and it's up to the UN to make the right decision and stand at our side."

 

The UN was slapped in the face. Hard. The General Assembly had their noses rubbed in their collective failure and their moral cowardice, and they were told what America will do regardless of what the UN does. They were challenged to take the side of justice for a change.

 

And finally, though it isn't directly relevant to the subject at hand... you saw fit to take a cheap, smarmy shot at me, so I'll answer it.

 

My papers are never "laughed out of the building." Since you don't know everything that one said, and I'm not at liberty to go into further detail, you're in no position to make such unsubstantiated assumptions.

Some of my proposals were accepted. Some have already been implemented. Some are still being discussed. Some were rejected outright, and some were returned to me or others for further clarification and detail work.

That's how these things work. You might understand that someday, assuming you ever do anything remotely important with your life.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

i merely think ejecting the u.n. from new york would be a particularly stupid and dangerous move on behalf of the united states. if you're not prepared to go into more detail, i make my judgement based on what detail you are prepared to give. and based on what you divulged, i think you made a stupid and dangerous suggestion. don't reveal little tidbits of classified information if you're not prepared to go into further detail with them, i'm sure giving advanced previews of your work to an internet wrestling message board isn't the most professional of behaviour in the first place.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

<eyeroll>

 

You are in no position to judge my professionalism. I don't work for you.

First of all, I expressed most of those views long before I wrote that paper or that post, both in public and in private official channels.

Second, all sensitive details were excised from the post.

Third, no sensitive topic was even touched on. And since part of my job involves deciding what is sensitive and what isn't, I'm not sure exactly where you get off trying to berate me for being unprofessional.

 

Obviously, the kicking-out-the-UN proposal wasn't accepted. I never imagined for one second that it would be. I wrote it for a different reason: to draw attention to the fact that it is an anti-American organisation and to emphasize that we need to do one of two things: either regain control of it from the hijackers or blow it up. Guess what? Working for the government doesn't mean you can't express your opinions anymore.

The fact is that you decided to make this personal simply to get a cheap laugh and you came off like a sniggering smartass.

 

"Ooh look, everything she wrote in her paper didn't come true! The President didn't shut down the UN! She was wrong! She was wrong!"

 

Spare me, you complete infant. No one dictates anything to the President. And I'm not stupid enough to ever even have dreamed of trying.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

the only reason i brought it up is because there seemed a discrepancy between how pleased you were with the president's speech provoking them to action, and your earlier expressed contempt for the u.n's utter worthlessness and irrelevancy. i didn't bring it up for a cheap laugh, i brought it up because i was confused over where you stood on the matter, and because i was concerned over the legitimacy of president bush's gesture towards co-operation. if i ask whether it was laughed out of the building or not, it is because i think it deserves to be. if you didn't even write the thing with the intention of it being accepted, then why boast about doing so within this forum?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You really don't understand politics, do you?

 

Sometimes when you say or write something, you aren't making the case because you think it'll actually happen; you're making the case in order to embarrass your opponents by throwing their mistakes, their incompetence, or their evil into sharp relief.

The President did just that by shifting the onus from America to the UN. When he walked out of the General Assembly, America was no longer the focus of everyone's attention. The UN was. His speech was brilliant precisely because it jammed the UN between a rock and a hard place.

You can judge the "legitimacy" of the gesture for yourself. That's one of those questions it's pointless to even try to answer.

 

As for where I stand, I still think we should kick the UN out of New York, but I don't make those decisions. The President's challenge was excellent on a different level... and the two things aren't mutually exclusive anyway.

 

why boast about doing so within this forum?

I don't boast. Anywhere. I don't need to.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

i know it all. i read in nhb you were sick of the sycophants following you around in here, realised i had pretty much agreed with all you've said recently, so had to trawl back in time to find something to be a dick over. i actually happen to think bush should tell the u.n. to go fuck themselves if they decide to take no action over this; what originally outraged me was the fact he was refusing go before them in the first place. but he did, and in truth i was completely blown away by how good a speech he delivered, i'd go so far as to say it will be remembered as one of the great speeches of modern history. and i never thought i'd see bush capable of pulling that stunt off.

 

anyway, a link for the delectation and delight of the board:

 

http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/091102.htm

 

marney = ultimate warrior. unexpected.

 

EDIT: marney, i'm sure you have no idea who ultimate warrior is/was. he ran around in face paint, shook the ring ropes, and prayed to mysterious higher forces before disappearing from the wrestling world and seemingly up his own ass. he now occasionally blesses the internet community with his 'warrior wisdom', much of which is actually fantastic. he now seems to be waving old glory with a passion from atop his arizona mountain. the thought of this makes me strangely happy.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"The clear message is: knowledge is irrelevant and any opinion is as good as any other. We are teaching young people to feel more intensely, not think intellectually."

 

I like that.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I don't. That's exactly the problem, IMO. Not being rational, just flying off the handle, which thankfully, we're moving away from. BTW, Ultimate Warrior is a fucking idiot, no matter how much someone may agree with him. If you really want, I'll post some of his work in the WWF. If you think, "Oh, he was just playing his role there that he was told to do." I beg to differ. This guy actually changed his name to "Warrior".

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You idiot. Obviously, I was saying that I liked his criticism of that trend. And we aren't moving away from it; the more we tell people that Islam is just another religion, and that Americans are just as guilty of terrorism as al-Qaeda, the more we indulge in it. I don't care about his WWF "work," and it isn't relevant in the CE folder. If you post it, it should be deleted. Whatever he did in wrestling, his opinion column was spot-on (albeit clumsy).

 

Christ, I wish you people would take English classes.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

Bizarrely, I found myself in admiration of Bush over that speech, something I never thought I'd say.

 

It was very clever and hopefully the UN can respond to it. I doubt it, but you never know...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And another young Jedi slowly begins to succumb to the lure of the Dark Side...

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

Only if I can have one of those cool two handed light sabres.

 

They rock.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

They do. Strive to prove worthy young Jedi, and the Sith Lords may yet grant you such a weapon.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Coming into this conversation very late, I will only share a brief little nugget...

 

It's obvious that if Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction with an obvious intent to attack us, we would be forced to respond and respond angrily... with malice... against the purpetrators.

 

However, the United States has done to even prove this threat exists. We, as a people, haven't been given one speck of evidence (besides Cario-Cheney's rants) to show that Mr. Heussein posesses, is attempting to aquire, or intends to use weapons of mass destruction. Not one speck of evidence.

 

Speaking as a man who recently recieved his draft card, I don't see the logic behind attacking a country that... eh, may or may not have weapons of mass destruction... a country that may or may not be attempting to aquire them... and a country that may or may not even consider using them (probably leaning towards 'may not' on the last point). I would refuse, as an eligible draftee, to consider a war against a soveriegn state based on drivel that may or may not be true. I need facts, dammit, and I'm not getting them.

 

I am under the school of thought that we have no business attacking a country that may or may not be a threat to us. Since the Gulf War, Saddam Heussein... while he may not have been exactly cooperative... has been annoying the hell out of us. Who can blame him? We fucking attacked him and now we're dictating his foriegn policy. Fair enough, he disobeyed the U.N. Fair enough, we bombed him for it. Twice.

 

Frankly, I'm not convinced and I refuse to back a war where we may be leaving our allies behind in the process. Frankly, Mr. Bush... however many bad jokes I've pointed at him... can change my opinion by giving me COLD HARD EVIDENCE. Frankly, I doubt there is any. Frankly, this war smells. It smells like finishing his father's business for the sake of protecting daddy's legacy. It smells like a ploy to boost his sagging approval rating back up to the seventies where it may be safe for re-election. It smells like the United States is once again trying to cross that thin little line between "World Power" and "Imperialist Pigs". It smells bad, ladies and gentlemen.

 

Oh, and before Marney goes and blasts me as a 'liberal anti-American', I'd like to clarify that, while I'd vote Democrat over Republican, I'm above all else a pacifist... and if you truly support this war, I'm confident you'd be the first one to throw away your female draft exemption and enlist to fight in a war that may or may not be necessary.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No, I won't bother to "blast" you as a "liberal anti-American." I think you're just a coward.

That's more than obvious in your final lines - people like you always use your own innermost fears in an attempt to cow your opponents. Getting drafted scares you, and you're trying to transfer that fear to me and use it as an argument.

Sorry, I've seen this tactic before. It didn't work then and it isn't working now. Being scared is fine; you should be scared of war - although being scared of a draft is simply silly, and claiming that you have a "draft card" is a lie. We aren't drafting anyone. We don't need to draft anyone, and we won't draft anyone. The SSS issues a proof of registration, but it would require an act of Congress to reinstate the draft. We haven't drafted anyone since 1973.

Anyway, trying to equate your fear with an argument already refuted is an exercise in futility. From the publicly available White House report:

 

In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations - and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.

 

Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.

 

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq's declarations on biological agents vastly understated the extent of its program, and that Iraq actually produced two to four times the amount of most agents, including anthrax and botulinim toxin, than it had declared.

 

UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents.

 

The Department of Defense reported in January 2001 that Iraq has continued to work on its weapons programs, including converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons.

 

The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through the UN.

 

Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development.

 

Chemical Weapons

 

Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq's Kurdish population in the late 1980s, killing thousands. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein's military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Saddam Hussein continues his efforts to develop chemical weapons:

 

Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard.

 

Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads.

 

Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.

 

Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could quickly divert to chemical weapons production, such as chlorine and phenol plants.

 

Iraq is seeking to purchase chemical weapons agent precursors and applicable production equipment, and is making an effort to hide activities at the Fallujah plant, which was one of Iraq's chemical weapons production facilities before the Gulf War.

 

At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq now has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water treatment, and the evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports are being diverted for military purposes.

 

Nuclear Weapons

 

Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf War and continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon:

 

A new report released on September 9, 2002 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization - concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material.

 

Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

 

Iraq has withheld documentation relevant to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, experimental data, and technical documents.

 

Iraq still has the technical expertise and some of the infrastructure needed to pursue its goal of building a nuclear weapon.

 

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling his continued interest in developing his nuclear program.

 

Ballistic Missiles

 

Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers - as prohibited by the UN Security Council Resolution 687.

 

Discrepancies identified by UNSCOM in Saddam Hussein's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads.

 

Iraq continues work on the al-Samoud liquid propellant short-range missile (which can fly beyond the allowed 150 kilometers). The al-Samoud and the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both systems are nearing operational deployment.

 

The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal site for testing liquid propellant missile engines. Iraq has been building a new, larger test stand there that is clearly intended for testing prohibited longer-range missile engines.

 

At their al-Mamoun facility, the Iraqis have rebuilt structures that had been dismantled by UNSCOM that were originally designed to manufacture solid propellant motors for the Badr-2000 missile program.

 

This report also contains an extensive section on Saddam Hussein's evil repression, torture, and murder of his own people. If you can't see the case for war, it's because you don't want to. And no one can do anything about that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations - and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.

 

Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.

 

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq's declarations on biological agents vastly understated the extent of its program, and that Iraq actually produced two to four times the amount of most agents, including anthrax and botulinim toxin, than it had declared.

 

UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents.

 

The Department of Defense reported in January 2001 that Iraq has continued to work on its weapons programs, including converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons.

 

The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through the UN.

 

Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development.

 

Chemical Weapons

 

Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq's Kurdish population in the late 1980s, killing thousands. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein's military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Saddam Hussein continues his efforts to develop chemical weapons:

 

Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard.

 

Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads.

 

Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.

 

Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could quickly divert to chemical weapons production, such as chlorine and phenol plants.

 

Iraq is seeking to purchase chemical weapons agent precursors and applicable production equipment, and is making an effort to hide activities at the Fallujah plant, which was one of Iraq's chemical weapons production facilities before the Gulf War.

 

At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq now has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water treatment, and the evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports are being diverted for military purposes.

 

Nuclear Weapons

 

Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf War and continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon:

 

A new report released on September 9, 2002 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization - concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material.

 

Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

 

Iraq has withheld documentation relevant to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, experimental data, and technical documents.

 

Iraq still has the technical expertise and some of the infrastructure needed to pursue its goal of building a nuclear weapon.

 

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling his continued interest in developing his nuclear program.

 

Ballistic Missiles

 

Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers - as prohibited by the UN Security Council Resolution 687.

 

Discrepancies identified by UNSCOM in Saddam Hussein's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads.

 

Iraq continues work on the al-Samoud liquid propellant short-range missile (which can fly beyond the allowed 150 kilometers). The al-Samoud and the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both systems are nearing operational deployment.

 

The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal site for testing liquid propellant missile engines. Iraq has been building a new, larger test stand there that is clearly intended for testing prohibited longer-range missile engines.

 

At their al-Mamoun facility, the Iraqis have rebuilt structures that had been dismantled by UNSCOM that were originally designed to manufacture solid propellant motors for the Badr-2000 missile program.

Mmmm... gotta love the smell of my cowardly ass in the morning... or something retarded like that.

 

Forgive me in advance, I'm in a pissy mood.

 

Miss Marney, I believe we got off on the wrong foot... I'm Mark, pleased to meet you.

 

Under normal circumstances, I would absolutely say "Well, shit. You're right." In fact, the argument you place on the table is, in fact, very convincing. However, what you fail to mention is that this article... put out, conveniently, by the White House... insinuates as many points as it actually makes.

 

For every point like this one:

 

"Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads."

 

There's one like this:

 

"Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium."

 

Provide me some hard evidence that tells me they have been seeking out these tubes. Someone please show me the reciepts of these purchases.

 

Someone please give me some hard evidence.

 

"Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers - as prohibited by the UN Security Council Resolution 687."

 

I'm sure you believe it too, don't you? Of course... there's no PROOF, but since Saddam is Saddam... sure, he's doing that.

 

"Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development."

 

Oh? So, you have documentation on this?

 

I could go on and on, but I'm too pissed at my girlfriend's mother right now to care. However, the fact of the matter is that their case is FAR from airproof. In fact, it is still a possibility that half of that entire, wonderful report is massive propoganda.

 

I will not dispute the fact that Saddam is an utter asshole for assaulting his own people as long as you don't dispute the fact that we encouraged them to rise up without our support. I wonder why Saddam would attack his own people... wouldn't you?

 

Miss Marney, I thoroughly respect your opinion and applaud your attempts to back it up. However, I will not change my opinion until you, or Mr. Bush, can provide an airproof case that isn't based on hear-say.

 

In the meantime, when do you plan to enlist again?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

In the meantime, when do you plan to enlist again?

Let's cut to the chase. This is the central point of your post. It isn't so much that you find the evidence unconvincing; you're just scared.

Look. We've gone into this before. No one's getting drafted. We simply don't need to draft anyone. Do you feel better now?

 

(Incidentally, what happened to your "draft card?" Was it a lie or is Congress doing something behind my back? If so, I'd appreciate a heads-up, since it's my job to stay current on these things.)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, but that little Selective Service card I have in my wallet is evidence enough, wouldn't you say?

 

I'm simply stating with that inflammitory 'enlisting' comment (I admit, I did that to piss you off) that it's a lot easier to say "LET'S BOMB 'EM, NUKE 'EM, DESTROY 'EM!" when there is no risk of your being sent onto a battlefield.

 

And, before you go and say otherwise, let me say that there is ALWAYS a risk with ANY conflict we send in the ground troops that, if things go horribly wrong, we may need more soldiers. That is the simple purpose of Selective Service, is it not? Else, I wouldn't have to fill out this damn form telling them they fucked up my last name, would I?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Evidence of what? You aren't going to be drafted. No one is. We have over 2 million people in the services already, as you'll see if you read the thread which deals specifically with this inane topic, and we can barely find jobs for all of them. We don't need anyone else.

 

SSS is for use in an emergency. No current projections anticipate any emergency wartime measures. We aren't even being asked to ration anything, not even oil, and that usually happens long before a draft. It's a little pointless to predicate your entire argument on the remote possibility that something which isn't expected to happen in a million years might happen. Anything might happen.

 

You aren't pissing me off because I've heard this silly "Why don't you enlist" comment a hundred times before. I won't enlist because a 5'7 98 lb girl would be utterly useless on the front lines. I'm a military analyst, a combat trainer, and a political operative. That's how I can best serve the nation, not by struggling to carry (let alone fire) a gun which weighs a third of my body mass.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

My issue with this whole campaign is the unknown, actually.

 

You DO realize that if we simply run in, guns ablazing, we're gonna go in WITHOUT our allies... and we're bound to piss someone off. Saddam Heussein has been actively pleading with our allies (Russia and France come to mind) and has been succeeding in convincing them to back IRAQ, not the United States. Forgive me if I don't scavange the internet to find a specific source to back that up, but I haven't slept in two days and that doesn't appeal to me right now.

 

I rambled there, but the point remains. If we go in guns-ablazing, we're gonna piss off more than just Iraq. We need to prove to our citizens, and the world, that there is HARD EVIDENCE putting the smoking gun in Saddam Heussein's hands. Otherwise, we absolutely cannot justify this war. If you use the abuse of his citizens as justification, you must then invade Saudi Arabia.

 

If you use... eh, suspicion of nuclear weapons as a reason, you must attack Pakistan.

 

If you use the funding of terrorism as justification, you must attack Kazakstan (sp...), North Korea (apparently, I think that's a load of crap as well...), Iran, and probably more I'm not mentioning.

 

If you cannot give me hard facts stating Saddam DEFINITELY has been trying to get nukes (no hearsay...), we cannot go to war. It would be a PR nightmare and we may piss off more people than we actually save.

 

Also, off that particular subject, who's to say that taking Saddam out will solve ANYTHING? The people will likely resent us even more for intervening, even if we eradicated the 'evil dictator'! Case in point: the new Afghan leadership. How many times do they have to try to assassinate that man?

 

No, my biggest motivating factor is not the fact that I fear being drafted... in fact, I probably could get around it anyway (I've had major surgery, I actually have six toes on my right foot... don't ask). However, why risk the lives of those 2 million people when all we have is hearsay to support our claims? Can you truly justify that?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Saddam Heussein has been actively pleading with our allies (Russia and France come to mind) and has been succeeding in convincing them to back IRAQ, not the United States. Forgive me if I don't scavange the internet to find a specific source to back that up

You don't need to; it's quite plausible.

 

we may piss off more people than we actually save.

Since our purpose is to save lives, not make friends, that's perfectly acceptable.

 

The people will likely resent us even more for intervening, even if we eradicated the 'evil dictator'! Case in point: the new Afghan leadership. How many times do they have to try to assassinate that man?

The "people" aren't trying to assassinate him. Warlords who hate the idea of the rule of law are.

 

However, why risk the lives of those 2 million people when all we have is hearsay to support our claims? Can you truly justify that?

Yes. As I've noted before, there is practically no risk. Our casualties, if any, will be in the tens or a couple of hundred, not in the millions.

And hearsay is all you get in a hostile country. We have satellite photos of convoys of trucks fleeing the site of suspected munitions factories hours before the completely ineffective weapons inspections. Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are a more than sufficient basis for a sound casus belli. As the President said, "The first time we may be completely certain he has a nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one."

I'm not willing to take that risk. No one else of sound mind should be either.

 

And by the way, if you're going to drop the "Enlist or shut up" fallacy, I'd like an explicit apology. It was a sleazy and offensive personal attack. (I haven't yet made up my mind whether or not to drop the cowardice angle.)

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

I actually have six toes on my right foot... don't ask).

Wow, thats pretty cool.

 

Um, anyway...

 

I'd admit freely to being somewhat of a coward on this. I personally would probably be too scared to go out and fight in Iraq (not least because I am terrible with machines and would probably shoot or blow up my own troops) and I'd be scared for anyone who does. Theoretically (because I have no involvement in the British Army, obviously) I would only do it if I had 100% certainty that what I was doing was right and proper.

 

I think the evidence that it is right probably does exist. We all know what Saddam is capable of. In Britain we've being hearing pretty constantly about a dossier of evidence that proves the extent of Saddam's capabilities. However, there's no sign of it yet. I just want to see this hard evidence before I can totally get behind attacks on Iraq.

 

EDIT- I just discovered this dossier is to be released on the 24th September.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Since our purpose is to save lives, not make friends, that's perfectly acceptable.

 

So... pissing off more countries with nukes just to defeat one country that may or may not have nukes is acceptable? Now, it's rather far-fetched to think France is gonna nuke us, but the point remains that we shouldn't exactly be pissing off people that have been helping us for decades. Keep in mind that without Pakistan, we most likely wouldn't have been able to take Afghanistan. As you obviously know, yet ignore for the purpose of argument, our allies are part of what makes us a global power.

 

The "people" aren't trying to assassinate him. Warlords who hate the idea of the rule of law are.

 

Agreed. However, you don't think this is going to be the same fucking thing with Iraq? An American-instilled ruling system in Iraq will probably be overthrown by the end of the decade at the very latest. Yes, that's speculation, but it's an educated guess.

 

Yes. As I've noted before, there is practically no risk.

 

Stop.

 

A cornered animal, in this case Saddam, poses no risk? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. This is a man who will obviously KNOW he cannot win this conflict. He knows he will fail and he knows he will be exited from office. I firmly believe if we begin to forcibly remove him from office, he will commit suicide before he will submit to capture.

 

You don't think he will try to go out with a bang? Those biological weapons he has... according to your White House report, even... you don't think he'll use every last drop of them to just haunt our troops' lives? You don't think there is ANY risk involved with this conflict? That's being a little optimistic, don't you think? Perhaps millions won't die, but hundreds may be grossly undershooting it.

 

As the President said, "The first time we may be completely certain he has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbid, he uses one."

 

I'm not willing to take that risk. No one else of sound mind should be either.

 

If we're able to do this wonderful investigative reporting in which we reveal he has been attempting to purchase them... something that is, obviously, much harder to track than if he ACTUALLY HAS THEM... do you think we can figure out of he sneaks a nuke across the border? Methinks so.

 

And by the way, if you're going to drop the "Enlist or shut up" fallacy, I'd like an explicit apology. it was a sleazy and offensive personal attack.

 

Forgive me if I don't jump right at that demand, madam. My original comment was by no means an 'offensive personal attack' and was only made more significant by your absurd 'coward' comments. By blowing the comment way out of proportion, it shows that, in fact, you are trying to pull the same 'holier than thou' routine I suspect you attempt to pull on nearly every other poor soul on this board that dares disagree with you. Forgive me, madam... not for the comment, but for my overall underestimation of your stature.

 

You're smarter than I first estimated and I will certainly concede that point. However, our ideological differences (my pacifism and your pro-conflict mentality) seem to be an rift we may not be able to patch. It's a shame, really... I'm quite a nice guy if you took the time to get to know me.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I actually have six toes on my right foot... don't ask).

Wow, thats pretty cool.

Eh, it's kinda cool until you have about... eh, ten people ask you, "OMG!! WERE YOU BORN WITH THAT?!?"

[Guest Cancer Marney]

So... pissing off more countries with nukes just to defeat one country that may or may not have nukes is acceptable?

Yes. Because those countries aren't evil, just cowardly, and Iraq is.

 

Now, it's rather far-fetched to think France is gonna nuke us

Rather far-fetched? You think?!

 

our allies are part of what makes us a global power.

No. What makes us a global power is the fact that we account for 36.4% of the global economy and 40.3% of the global defence budget. And we spend more effective dollars on research and development than the rest of the world put together, and then some.

 

you don't think this is going to be the same fucking thing with Iraq? An American-instilled ruling system in Iraq will probably be overthrown by the end of the decade at the very latest.

And therefore we shouldn't even try to do the right thing? What sad defeatism.

 

A cornered animal, in this case Saddam, poses no risk? ...This is a man who will obviously KNOW he cannot win this conflict... You don't think he will try to go out with a bang? Those biological weapons he has... according to your White House report, even... you don't think he'll use every last drop of them to just haunt our troops' lives? You don't think there is ANY risk involved with this conflict? That's being a little optimistic, don't you think?

First of all, it isn't "my" White House report. I didn't write it.

Second, I'm sure he'll try to "go out with a bang." But the simple fact is that he really can't hurt us. We can destroy all his weapons before so much as one American soldier sets foot on Iraqi soil. We've done it before. There is no serious chemical threat to our soldiers. No biological threat. No nuclear threat. It will be child's play.

 

Perhaps millions won't die, but hundreds may be grossly undershooting it.

Actually, that's my absolute uppermost estimate. 100, 150, and a large percentage of those in the usual wartime accidents rather than due to enemy action.

 

If we're able to do this wonderful investigative reporting in which we reveal he has been attempting to purchase them... something that is, obviously, much harder to track than if he ACTUALLY HAS THEM... do you think we can figure out of he sneaks a nuke across the border? Methinks so.

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Clarify.

 

Forgive me if I don't jump right at that demand, madam... &c

Nope. Either continue with that line of attack or admit you were wrong and apologise for attempting it. If I'm ever convinced that your concerns about this war have nothing to do with your personal physical cowardice, I'll do the same.

I'm not concerned with whatever "stature" you think I have, and you shouldn't be either. Respond to the argument, not the person.

 

I'm quite a nice guy if you took the time to get to know me.

Since you're responding mostly civilly, I believe that. But I don't like unjustified attacks on my character. If you're going to drop the aspersions which appeared in your very first post, be straightforward about it.