Libya to dismantle WMD program?

[Vyce 0]

Libya to Allow Weapons Inspections

 

credit: FAUX.

 

Excellent news. Now, let's make sure they cut the terror-support bullshit as well.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Good for Libya. It was either that or face Bush and Blair invading them in the future.

[Firestarter 0]

Precisely so. And that is why the President's policy of pre-emptive strikes makes the United States, and the world, safer.

[Guest hunger4unger]

The policy of pre-emptive strikes is ridiculous. You do realise that Iraq had no means to attack the US and they weren't even planning an attack? The UN weapon inspectors and the British and US armies have yet to uncover any WMD. God knows how many iraqi civilians and military personel have died because of this stupid policy.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hah. Gadhafi is every big a piece of shit as Saddam is.

[Guest hunger4unger]

No, Gadhafi isn't. He's done a lot of good for his country in recent years. He's changed his stance as leader since following Nelson Mandela's advice. He's not the dictator or evil person he's painted to be.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, Gadhafi isn't. He's done a lot of good for his country in recent years. He's changed his stance as leader since following Nelson Mandela's advice. He's not the dictator or evil person he's painted to be.

He was pretty much one of the original terrorists, as we know them today.

 

Still, chalk one up for friendly relations.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well hopefully Libya's WMD program was actually in existence, unlike the seeminly obsolete Iraqi WMD programs. Ok that came out wrong. Dammit, I need a beer.

[Tully316 0]

The policy of pre-emptive strikes is ridiculous. You do realise that Iraq had no means to attack the US and they weren't even planning an attack? The UN weapon inspectors and the British and US armies have yet to uncover any WMD. God knows how many iraqi civilians and military personel have died because of this stupid policy.

If a group of terrorists in a backwards-ass country like Afghanistan can attack the U.S., you damn well better believe that Iraq is capable of doing it.

 

People in this day and age need to quit hugging fuckin trees and realize that putting dictators in the corner for "time outs" will not keep them from opressing others. Hussein's ass should have been wiped out back in '91. In all honesty, Sadam has probably caused the death of over a million people in his region. He is without a doubt the Adolph Hitler of our generation.

 

People need to start reading history books, because we repeating this shit.

[Justice 0]

God knows how many iraqi civilians and military personel have died because of this stupid policy.

I believe they estimate the Iraqi Civilian death count to be around 15,000 at the max right now, and our own are 535, which is definitely below what we thought it would be.

 

Considering Civilian casualties during the war were estimated at something like 100,000 and 400,000 after the war due to starvation and disease, I'd say we've done pretty good here. And hey, God only knows how many would have died if Saddam had stayed in power anyways, eh?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The policy of pre-emptive strikes is ridiculous. You do realise that Iraq had no means to attack the US and they weren't even planning an attack? The UN weapon inspectors and the British and US armies have yet to uncover any WMD. God knows how many iraqi civilians and military personel have died because of this stupid policy.

Something I never got with this UN shit...

 

The supposed last chance, end-of-the-line resolution, 1441, was unanimously approved by the UN. It stated that Hussein possessed WMD and called for him to produce them and/or tell the weapons inspectors where they were. The inspectors weren't supposed to find anything, just oversee Saddam giving them up. According to 1441, failure by Hussein's regime to comply would result in the use of force. He failed and the U.S. and Britain spearheaded the effort to enforce the UN's own resolution, which every other member backed away from (despite their earlier approval). How can the U.S. get UN "approval" if the UN won't approve itself?

[Highland 0]

Precisely so. And that is why the President's policy of pre-emptive strikes makes the United States, and the world, safer.

You nearly convince me with your arguments until you shoot yourself in the foot with assinine comments like the one you just made.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If a group of terrorists in a backwards-ass country like Afghanistan can attack the U.S., you damn well better believe that Iraq is capable of doing it.

Bin-Laden had untold millions of his own, though. And since he wasn't a government official of any kind, he couldn't be personally investigated by the U.N.

 

The question is how much of Saddam's shell game was done out of genuine concern of exposed WMDs and how much of it was just trying to mess with people's heads. People close to him have said he's told them that he needed to project a stronger image of military might than there really was.

 

People in this day and age need to quit hugging fuckin trees

 

 

Hussein's ass should have been wiped out back in '91.

 

I agree. Many Iraqis who were eager to help us oust him in '91 were arrested and/or tortured and are not as high on us this time as they were before.

[2GOLD 0]

So, someone decides to avoid death and war to give up their WMD and people are STILL bitchin that Bush didn't do the right thing ?!?!?!?!

 

God, people are dying in the name of freedom and a bunch of people don't care just because it's not America freedom so people shouldn't be dying unless it benefits America. It makes me ill that people only want to complain when they don't think it concerns them.

 

I'm extremely sorry Iraq people are dying but they are dying in the name of freedom and can be remembered as such. Saying "the soldiers are dying for a worthless cause" means you are missing the big picture.

 

There is no greater cause to lose your life than in the name of than freedom. And freedom doesn't come from talking.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, someone decides to avoid death and war to give up their WMD and people are STILL bitchin that Bush didn't do the right thing ?!?!?!?!

 

God, people are dying in the name of freedom and a bunch of people don't care just because it's not America freedom so people shouldn't be dying unless it benefits America. It makes me ill that people only want to complain when they don't think it concerns them.

 

I'm extremely sorry Iraq people are dying but they are dying in the name of freedom and can be remembered as such. Saying "the soldiers are dying for a worthless cause" means you are missing the big picture.

 

There is no greater cause to lose your life than in the name of than freedom. And freedom doesn't come from talking.

Agreed. We, through diplomacy (yeah, I'm shocked too), managed to get Libya to agree to dismantle their WMD program and to allow int'l inspections.

 

I don't see how ANYBODY could have handled this better than we did.

 

And people ignore one of the simplest truisms of life: Freedom isn't free.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Our "diplomacy" was mostly our war. Unless they want to start living in bunkers, from now on, they'll play nice.

[Guest MikeSC]

Our "diplomacy" was mostly our war. Unless they want to start living in bunkers, from now on, they'll play nice.

But, the irony is we do EXACTLY what the left wants --- and they STILL bitch about it.

 

BTW, Marney, keep in mind the comments of the "Where's Osama?" bunch --- because when he's caught, I predict we'll be seeing more than a little backtracking.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

keep in mind the comments of the "Where's Osama?" bunch --- because when he's caught, I predict we'll be seeing more than a little backtracking.

Absolutely. And the funny thing is that they'll be saying what we're saying right now, but without the qualifiers - he's just one man but he happens to be a symbol and a major player in the game. Capturing or killing him won't end the war but it will bring us closer to the end and shorten the war. It's a PR victory but it is also a vindicator of past intelligence and a great help to future intelligence. It doesn't make us absolutely safe but it does make us safer. All these criticisms will be true to a degree - as they were of the capture of Saddam Hussein - but the extent to which they will take it is the problem.

Does capturing Saddam Hussein matter? Yes it does - quite a bit. It demonstrates absolutely to the Iraqi people that he is not coming back. It demolishes his self-created mythology of being a reincarnated Moslem war-leader, undefeated by the West.

Is it only a PR victory? No. It has PR aspects - it eliminates the last remaining hope of the Ba'athists - but it also has very material aspects, as demonstrated by the massive raids and captures immediately following Saddam Hussein's preliminary interrogations.

Are we still in just as much danger? Well yes - but we are a little safer now, and so are the Iraqis. When we went in not just to destroy, capture, humiliate, and punish, but also to feed, rebuild, give, and restore liberty, we inextricably linked our welfare to the welfare of Iraq. Just as our destiny and Japan's became intertwined the moment we appointed General MacArthur Supreme Commander, our destiny and Iraq's are now one and the same. A free, prosperous, and safe Iraq is a sine qua non for a free, prosperous, and safe America. Anything that hurts Iraq hurts us, and by the same token, anything that helps Iraq and Iraqis helps America and Americans. The capture of Saddam Hussein was a blessing for the Iraqi people, and therefore it's also a blessing for us.

As for Usama bin Laden - is he just one man? Well, yes. Will killing or capturing him matter? Yes it will. No matter that he's just one symbol in a war saturated with them - that'll be one symbol less. Will it be only a PR victory? No - although it'll have PR aspects - but just as in our capture of Saddam, capturing or killing UBL will have intelligence benefits as well. Will we be safer? Unquestionably. There will still be terrorists, so no, we won't be completely safe and the war on terror will not end - but we'll have eliminated another major terrorist, and disheartened many, many more.

 

By refusing to accept any and all facts which do not work directly for their purely partisan advantage, the Democrats are throwing away the last pathetic shreds of credibility they have left.

[2GOLD 0]

All this proves to me is one absolute truth about the US and politics

 

No matter what, both sides will yell at each other for no other reason than to hear themselves talking.

 

I thought Clinton did a good job, I think Bush is doing a good job. I can't imagine being one way or the other cause I think both sides are severely flawed yet they both have some positives.

 

I just wish for once people would just admit "I don't like how we got here, but it worked."

 

Cause I don't think any of us really LIKES how we got here.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And the funny thing is that they'll be saying what we're saying right now, but without the qualifiers

Eh? I consider Osama the reason we went out there in the first place.

 

You, the President, Condolezza, Rummy, etc, are insane however, if you can think you can stop "terrorism" in a 3 year, 5, 10, 15, longer war. The problem that has always sat in the back of my head the whole time is that terrorism is not a person. It's not a group. It's not an organization. It's simply a concept, and there's no way that even a military like ours can stop every one fellow with a cause and the ingredients for a bomb (which can even be made with some rather traditional household items these days, appearantly, although I haven't read The Anarchist's Cookbook or anything so don't hold my nose to it.) There will always be people like that. What we need to do is remove the foreign element (i.e. Osama), then keep track of who and what is entering the country while deterring the Tim McVeighs of the world that are already here.

[Vyce 0]

Our "diplomacy" was mostly our war. Unless they want to start living in bunkers, from now on, they'll play nice.

But, the irony is we do EXACTLY what the left wants --- and they STILL bitch about it.

 

BTW, Marney, keep in mind the comments of the "Where's Osama?" bunch --- because when he's caught, I predict we'll be seeing more than a little backtracking.

-=Mike

I will laugh bitterly for a good solid hour or more if we actually do catch Osama and individuals on the left downplay it like the capture of Saddam has been downplayed.

[NoCalMike 0]

No one is "downplaying" Saddam's capture. It, it is what it is. A great thing. No one has said anything otherwise, however what it means in the big scheme of things is what people will question.

 

I agree with Jobber's commentary on the "war on terrorism" Now, while we can certainly do things to damage a terrorist group's mean to attack us, you can certainly believe that there is no such thing as "winning" the war on terrorism. All there is, are some bright spots on the road, that will be highlighted by the media in order to take our minds off the goal in hand, which if thought out, cannot be realistically achieved anytime soon.

 

 

Lets also realize, the capture of Saddam was hailed as making the world a safer place, and not yet what a week later, the terrorist warning level is raised to whatever color it was today. Now I don't remember anyone saying, "oh we'll be safer in due time, we might have to endure another attack or two, but then we will be safer" The debate going on in washington is not whether the capture of Saddam was a good thing or not, rather the debate is over whether the world(especially America) is safer TODAY.

Edited December 22, 2003 by NoCalMike

[Vyce 0]

No one is "downplaying" Saddam's capture. It, it is what it is. A great thing. No one has said anything otherwise, however what it means in the big scheme of things is what people will question.

 

You don't understand.

 

I can see it now, though.

 

We catch Osama.......and 24 hours later, liberals are talking about how Osama's capture means little, as he probably wasn't really behind many of the Al-Qaeda attacks anymore.

 

Or they'll take your tact, and argue, "Oh, well, that's great, but the War on Terror can't REALLY be won, so this doesn't matter much......."

[Guest JMA]

We catch Osama.......and 24 hours later, liberals are talking about how Osama's capture means little, as he probably wasn't really behind many of the Al-Qaeda attacks anymore.

 

Or they'll take your tact, and argue, "Oh, well, that's great, but the War on Terror can't REALLY be won, so this doesn't matter much......."

I sincerely doubt the same thing would be said about Osama. Almost all Americans (regardless of their political beliefs) want Osama either captured or dead.

[Firestarter 0]

I consider Osama the reason we went out there in the first place.

I somehow doubt you'd be saying that if we'd captured him.

 

You, the President, Condolezza, Rummy, etc, are insane however, if you can think you can stop "terrorism" in a 3 year, 5, 10, 15, longer war

We certainly can.

 

The problem that has always sat in the back of my head the whole time is that terrorism is not a person. It's not a group. It's not an organization. It's simply a concept

What a revelation! Goodness, it's nice to have people like you around. Whatever would we do without such brilliant insight?

 

there's no way that even a military like ours can stop every one fellow with a cause and the ingredients for a bomb... There will always be people like that.

Yes, but in order to coordinate anything on the scale of 9/11 you need state funding and state support. We aren't trying to eliminate every crazed Unabomber the world will ever produce. That has never been the goal of the War on Terror. That's a convenient name that you're conveniently misinterpreting in order to try to make people you dislike appear foolish. You're failing, though, because no one has ever defined this war as the kind of lunatic enterprise you're positing. We're talking about large-scale state-sponsored ideologically-based terrorism. That is what we are going to eliminate, through military action, intelligence gathering, and the inexorable spread of democracy. One firm, steady, irreversible step at a time.

 

What we need to do is remove the foreign element (i.e. Osama), then keep track of who and what is entering the country while deterring the Tim McVeighs of the world that are already here.

Precisely so. And, simultaneously, we need to eliminate the state actors who enable UBL and his ilk to carry out their evil on the scale that they do. That is exactly what we're doing now, and that is exactly what we're going to keep doing.

[NoCalMike 0]

No one is "downplaying" Saddam's capture. It, it is what it is. A great thing. No one has said anything otherwise, however what it means in the big scheme of things is what people will question.

 

You don't understand.

 

I can see it now, though.

 

We catch Osama.......and 24 hours later, liberals are talking about how Osama's capture means little, as he probably wasn't really behind many of the Al-Qaeda attacks anymore.

 

Or they'll take your tact, and argue, "Oh, well, that's great, but the War on Terror can't REALLY be won, so this doesn't matter much......."

Well liberals coundn't downplay it as much as the current administration has. Bush has already come out numerous times commenting on the insignificence of "two guys" yet I am sure he will unveil some master ad campaign centered around the capture of Saddam Hussien for his re-election. Oh and folks would be foolish to claim Osama had nothing to do with the attacks since that would be the first time anyone would hear that claim.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

 

Anyone else think Gadhafi looks like some coked-out classic rocker from the 60s?

[NoCalMike 0]

 

Anyone else think Gadhafi looks like some coked-out classic rocker from the 60s?

he looks like Gene Simmons in about 20 years.

[NoCalMike 0]

I also find it funny that the liberals of the board are accused of downplaying the capture of Saddam, when most of us have said from the beginning that the Iraqi war had little to do with the war on terrorism front. It isn't like we all came out of our cave with this brand new revelation.

[Skywarp! 0]

If a group of terrorists in a backwards-ass country like Afghanistan can attack the U.S., you damn well better believe that Iraq is capable of doing it.

But I thought a big part of the supposed conspiracy theory is that most of those hijackers were Saudi and the whole attack, while masterminded by Al-Queda and Bin Laden, was Saudi-backed.