Bush Gored!
 

Gore suprised me with a little common sense here.

I had a discussion with a hard core Democrat who is pretty upset about the pending conflict. His belief is that the elected Dems are almost universally opposed to the war but can't resist because of the upcoming election. Of course he also believes that the escalation in Vietnam was the fault of the Republicans not the Johnson administration. That was one reason I quit supporting Democrats, holding office is more important than anything else.

Anyway, Gore who is conveniently not up for election comes out with comments anti-war Dems can hang their hats on. I don't think the Green read communist impact on the Dems last election cycle was a fluke. Its a direct result of mouthing ideals while running, which they have no intention of following up on. Of course, the other war party does the same with small government platitudes and huge spending increases.


New York Times
Gore Calls Bush's Policy a Failure on Several Fronts
By DEAN E. MURPHY


SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 23 — Former Vice President Al Gore accused the Bush administration today of weakening the war on terrorism by turning the country's attention to Saddam Hussein. He also said the Congressional resolution on Iraq sought by President Bush was too broad and did not do enough to seek international support for a possible military strike.

"From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of the solidarity among all of us as Americans and solidarity between our country and our allies," Mr. Gore said.

Mr. Gore said that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 had yet to be avenged and that Mr. Bush's approach would make it more difficult to punish those who were responsible. He suggested that the administration had become distracted by Iraq because Mr. Hussein was an easier target than Al Qaeda.

Mr. Gore seemed careful not to minimize the threat posed by Mr. Hussein, at one point describing him as "an evil man." He pointed out that as a senator he supported the Gulf war resolution in 1991. But he harshly criticized Mr. Bush's willingness to go it alone against Iraq, especially since the war on terrorism was unfinished.

"It is impossible to succeed against terrorism unless we have secured the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations," Mr. Gore said. "And here's one of my central points. Our ability to secure that kind of multilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism can be severely damaged in the way we go about undertaking unilateral action against Iraq."

In one of his strongest assessments of Mr. Bush, Mr. Gore said the administration had wasted an opportunity to rally international support after the attacks. He cited new instances of anti-Americanism even among traditional allies of the United States, including in this week's national elections in Germany.

"In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of good will and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world," Mr. Gore said. "That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do."

Republicans reacted angrily, accusing Mr. Gore of using the Iraqi situation for political advantage.

"It seems to be a speech that was more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate, by someone who clearly failed to recognize leadership," said Jim Dyke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "There's clearly a lot of people stepping forward with productive solutions, productive ideas, as far as how to address the problem that face us, and this seems to be someone content to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks."

Mr. Gore made the speech to the Commonwealth Club of California on short notice and before a largely partisan crowd of about 450. Some welcomed him to the lectern by humming "Hail to the Chief." Mr. Gore, who took California by a large margin in the 2000 presidential election, responded by telling jokes about the voting problems in the Florida primary this month and remarking about how much he likes California.

Mr. Gore's speech came under increasingly scrutiny by Democrats over whether he would run for president again in 2004. Until today, he has kept a low profile over the past two weeks as other potential Democratic presidential contenders have offered their views on Iraq.

His appearance here suggested a shift in positioning by Mr. Gore, who has for 10 years portrayed himself as a moderate, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy, and repeatedly invoked his 1991 vote on the gulf war resolution as a way of distinguishing himself from the rest of his party.

Asked pointedly about his ambitions, Mr. Gore said he would not decide on whether to seek the presidency again until the end of the year. After the speech, he said that his motivation in criticizing Mr. Bush was not related to electoral politics. Rather, he said, he hoped to encourage a greater national debate about the war on terrorism and Mr. Bush's proposed policy of pre-emptive strikes against enemies like Iraq.

"The intention is to present what I think is a better course of action for our country, and to advance debate on a real important challenge that we face as a country," Mr. Gore said.

Yet with most prominent Democrats lining up behind President Bush on Iraq, Mr. Gore was certain to attract attention by taking a contrary view. Copies of his speech were handed out to reporters by a former California campaign worker and the choice of venue — a friendly crowd in a friendly state — invited speculation about his future.

Mr. Gore was asked after the speech whether his remarks were out of step with the Democratic Party.

"I don't know and I don't really care, in the sense I am going to do and say what I think is right," he said. "I was accused of being out of step with my party back in 1991 when I supported the Persian Gulf war resolution. A lot of people who criticized that later came to believe that was the right decision."

Programming officials with the Commonwealth Club, which is a nonpartisan organization founded in 1903 that has also recently featured speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said that aides to Mr. Gore expressed an interest in the club because of its long history of presenting important public figures. The Gore aides specifically mentioned an appearance before the group by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a club official said.

Re-elect gore in 2004! ;)

Gore got it right, which is unusual, never really was my favoirte pollie.

I think this issue will make or break the UN and certainly put some shape into what has been a shapeless international community since the cold war finished. What i fear is that shape is going to be rather ugly. If the US ignores international law the results could be disasterous, it will give a precident for everyone to, fundamentally changing international politics, International law is used as a lever to do things, without that lever and the method of being a GIC, things could be very ugly.

America's stance is making even america's closest allies termble. If Blair is not careful he's going to lose allot of support over this, the British don't support it. In German it won that slick bastard another term, here the sentiment is turning against Howard on this.

Unless bush can find an igniter, an actual justification, unlike the utter crud they've tried to pull far (weapons of mass destruction! On his own people! oh by the way we sold them to him and authorised thier use on Iran... ) this will polarise the international community and few will be willing to go with the US.

Bush isn't trying to "avenge" the attacks. He's trying to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, even if much of the rest of the world doesn't hop right on the bandwagon.

It's called leadership, and I can understand why the flaccid Mr. Gore may not comprehend that. The Bush administration seems to have made great strides in swaying world opinion on this situation of late, instead of caving in at the first sign of resistance.

But as a very last resort, if the UN fails us, we must be prepared to act in our own interests. Having the world behind us is great, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should just lay down and do whatever the world body wants.

<i>weapons of mass destruction! On his own people! oh by the way we sold them to him and authorised thier use on Iran...</i>

Nuh-uh.

Well, other nations have WOMD too. What makes Iraq so special?

How doesattacking Iraq do this exactly? This is the bit i seem to be misssing. You destabilise the most volatile reigon on earth and justify the hatred of exactly the people you're trying to stop. Remind me how this stops the attacks again? When will the US learn that in asymmetrical warfare minds are more important than land, and you cannot win those with blind force.

Oh? Really?
Sure? Really Sure?
Need more?

If your links would only agree with each other you'd have a stronger case.

I think this is my favorite rebuttal of all time. :)

On a side note... is anyone else here not totally convinced of the validity of an attack on Iraq? Am I missing all the news or have they completely <b>not</b> presented any evidence to the public that says "we need to spend a boatload of money and numerous American lives to get him out of power"?

Saddam is a maniac. We don't like maniacs having nukes. Especially maniacs who hate us.

This isn't an issue of fairness. "Iraq should have 'em because lots of other countries do too" doesn't work. We had 'em first, and we're bigger and stronger, so now we get veto power (both in the U.N. and in real life) when other regimes who hate us try to build 'em.

Like it or not, that's the way the real world works.

I didn't say enough about Jag's links and exactly how much they suck.

Common Dreams: According to a Scottish newspaper, US Sen committee says we sold Hussein biological agents. (Not weapons.) Immediately it contradicts itself; we didn't sell to *Hussein*, we sold to their universities, for study. The problem, says CD, is that they're DUAL USE. That is, the antidote for a nerve agent might be reverse-engineered to produce the nerve agent itself. Damn, does that count? Because doves are saying DUAL USE doesn't constitute an act of war. In fact I would be surprised if this was not the policy of Common Dreams. Just because a centrifuge can also be used to separate out fissionable materials doesn't mean they wanted it for that reason, right?

Business Week says the CDC sent biological samples to Iraq in the 80s. (Not weapons. A pattern emerges.)

smh says that some former US officers say that Iraq would build chemical attacks into the battle plans drawn up by the US. The "smoking gun" in this story is that one single "veteran of the program" said that the Pentagon "wasn't horrified." Somehow "not horrified" indicated "backed use" to the headline writer.

The Guardian - I could stop right there - says the US participated in a "covert program" to help Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. It then goes on to quote the same "veteran" that smh quoted, with the same "not horrified" quote. That's interesting reporting! The Guardian headline-writer is even more schemy: "US helped as Saddam plotted chemical attacks". The reader is encouraged to draw the inference that the US helped with the chemical part. This is not journalism.

The Yahoo/AP story: Is a piece about statements made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking on state-run radio.

Rense: I'm not even going to address this pathetic excuse for a rumor-mongering web site.

So, why is he a maniac?

I like the story about how after he assumed power, he went through their parliament and had members executed, on the spot, for "thinking about conspiring to overthrow" him.

I would say that definitely lends itself to the "yeh, he's a maniac" camp.

Not to mention using biological agents on his own people. I'd say that qualifies one for maniac status.

Just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't make it untrue.

Gore Bushwhacked!
 

Unfortunately, those Democrats who are interested in winning elections aren't exactly coming out in droves to hang their hats on Gore's words:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7M8S1GO1.html

<I>Some top Democrats are distancing themselves from former Vice President Al Gore's criticism of President Bush's policy on Iraq while others are just keeping quiet.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Gore's running made in the 2000 election, said Tuesday he did not agree with Gore's assertion that action against Iraq could detract from the overall fight against terrorism.

"I respectfully disagree with that part of it," said Lieberman. "I am confident the American military can do, and will do, both at once."

...

Terry McAuliffe, national chairman of the Democratic Party, said through an aide he would have no comment and House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt offered no immediate response.

...

With Gore campaigning for Democrats in New Mexico for two days this week, one congressional candidate in the state, John Arthur Smith, distanced himself from the former vice president's remarks.

Smith "is supporting President Bush. He's the commander in chief. If John Arthur Smith were a sitting member of Congress he would ... support President Bush," said a spokesman, Tony Bawidamann.</I>

The best points made here were the ones that looked at the whole region's security and didn't focus on the single-minded goal of Iraq.

There are several problems I see with the whole Iraq invasion idea. First, it's going to infuriate the region. It's going to stoke the flames of anti-Americanism that our relative inaction on Israel/Palestine (and other actions) sparked. This could very easily lead to the toppling of some pro-American governments; namely Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. (Egypt's been headed down that path ever since Nasser left office.) You don't fuck with people that hold the keys to your economic stability.

Second, Iraq has made no move of attack on the United States or any of its allies. Even the hawks stopped trying to link Hussein to September 11th because there just wasn't the evidence to do so. Some will say that Hussein's promise of money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers constitutes such an attack, but it does not. It has been a relative non-issue in this debate, and that would be like saying American assistance in helping Afghan or Nicaraguan or any other fighters in the Cold War constituted an attack on the Soviet Union.
Now, without an attack, there is no legal (according to international law that we not only signed but helped write) recourse to attack him. That's where Bush's whole pre-emption doctrine comes in. The problem with that is it gives any state anywhere the right to do the same, as it has set the precedent. So what's to stop Pakistan from invading India to stop them from using WMD? Russia to take over Georgia? Or some other state with an even less valid reason?

Third, the administration has offered no plan of what this regime change is going to entail. Are they going to put the Shiites, who have strong ties to Iran up? (I might have been wrong, it might not be Shiites - but whatever group is the majority ethnicity.) Maybe the Kurds, another minority group, will rise to power. And how long are we going to stay to ensure the stability of the nation? It could very easily dissolve into civil war, and then there'd be more concerns, ie. al-Qaeda or some other operative gaining access to unguarded WMD.

Fourth, and this is the most shaky reason for going in and not going in, is the actual availability of WMD. Blair's report (I haven't read all of it, but I've gone through a good portion of it) unfortunately offered no real evidence. But then again, Hussein's history has shown that he is hungry for these toys. So that one's a toss-up.

Fifth, if we can't convince the rest of the world and just go it alone (with England's support, of course), then we risk upsetting the order of the entire international system. We will be completely rebuffing the UN (which wouldn't be the first time, but it would be the most glaring example of it) and it would spread an imperialistic image of the nation. The French paper Le Monde compared it to the US's imperialistic tendencies at the beginning of the 20th century. This could upset the authority of the UN, further enrage our allies in Western Europe (and possibly give the EU a better stand in world affairs, which could then upset the balance of power) and kill our credibility on the war on terrorism in places like Pakistan.

I'm fine with going into Iraq to punish Hussein for violating UNSC resolutions. But that would require the backing of at least the security council, and hopefully a good percentage of the general assembly. It would also require assistance from a coalition, even if its not as broad as the one in 1991 or 2001. Any way we spin this, it's going to be incredibly difficult to get some of the conservative sections of the Arab world on our side, but this is the only viable path that I can see, Ann Coulter's laughable reccomendations aside.

What I'm not fine with is the fact that this seems like GW getting back at Hussein for his dad, or trying to set up an Arab oil colony. The second is obviously more far-fetched than the first, and even that one is by some means a stretch. But that doesn't make it invalid.

Re: Gore Bushwhacked!
 

The problem is that Republicans have the image of being war and military friendly, and Democrats have the image of being more domestically focused and dovish. So with support for an invasion fairly high, and in a time of almost over-patriotism (although that is fading), they can't risk being seen as anti-war. So Dems have to seem overly friendly to the idea of war, even if much of their base isn't so keen on the idea. Republicans, on the other hand, have been asking the valid question on this debate because they have the political room to do so.

That is completely false, since those are almost Bush's very own words. Here is a <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/11/181118.shtml">headline</a> from the far-right Newsmax at the 1-year anniversary of the attacks (i.e. not just said in anger immediately afterwards), and here is a Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2Bbush+%2Bavenge">search</a> following that up.
The foreign press and foreign public opinion remains in the vast majority against an American bombing/invasion of Iraq. People sympathise with the 9/11 deaths, but they won't accept retaliation against Iraq as a means of avenging that. If anything, public opinion is moving further against an American war in Iraq.
Iraq is a sovereign country; as long as they comply with UN resolutions, there is nothing the US can do, and Bush actually knows that. With Germany about to chair the UN Security Council, Iraq appearing to follow the resolutions, and with Bush having refused to congratulate the German chancellor's re-election victory, thus sending diplomatic sparks flying between Germany and the US (some of Bush's and Ari Fleischer's quotations on that matter during the last week were particularly venomous), this could get interesting. To use your own words, "Bush has made great strides in" being offensive to the country whose support he is pleading for.
It is difficult to accept the truth if it conflicts with your emotional world view. The US support in providing 'weapons of mass destruction' to Iraq in the fight against Iran is well-documented in Congress yearbooks. Those are very thick, hard-bound yearly summaries of speeches/committee meetings held by the US House and the US Senate, I believe they are published by the Library of Congress. I studied them myself as part of my degree; go to your largest local public library, and ask the librarian if they have those. (I am uncertain on what the exact title is, but they definitely exist) Get the 1982/83 volume (it has a green hard cover, I believe they all do), and skim for Iraq. You will find references in meetings where US support with weapons deliveries is outright stated, but specifics regarding the weapons are denied.

In the meantime, please address the issue that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi-Arabian, and were acting out of hatred for US support for the feudal Saudi dictatorship.
The UN can't and von't veto Iraq having nuclear weapons (since they don't have any). The US doesn't have veto rights for anything apart from UN Security council resolutions. The US was frothing back when France started testing nuclear weapons again in the mid-90s, and couldn't do anything about it, either.

Lots of regimes have nuclear weapons, and the US can't do anything about it, either. Get used to it. That's why Iraq isn't being invaded right now - because the world isn't having any of it, and Bush isn't enough of an idiot to try to go ahead and annoy everybody. If Iran suddenly announced they had nuclear weapons tomorrow, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it, either. I am still waiting for Bush to give the go-ahead on Iraq, despite all the sabre-rattling. The reason it hasn't happened is because the UN Security Council won't give a go-ahead, simple as that.

Like it or not, that's the way the real world works.
In that case, the US has a long history of 'maniac status', under both Democrats and Republicans. US experimentation with biological and chemical agents on its own citizens is also well-documented, usually in declassified documents. The post scriptum includes several web references, from both left-wing and right-wing sources.
In politics, are always those who follow their ideals, and attempt to do what they believe is right, and those who attempt to remain in the populist public eye - with the latter usually being in the great majority. Since nationalism and authoritarianism is in vogue in the US right now, populism follows.

X.

PS:
http://www.radix.net/~jcturner/Church-1.html (this is an actual Senate report)
http://www.fox5dc.com/dynamic/images...whitecoat.html
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...84871580&pwb=1
http://www.eaec.org/biologic.htm
http://www.duotone.com/coldwar/biowarfare/
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/200...omo/index.html

Is that really the best you can do?

Sure.

<i>It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.</i>

(There, I've addressed it.)

But OK, let's address it one step further. Let's assume that the US *has* in fact gone into these little countries and royally screwed the pooch. Given chemical and biological weapons to tinpot dictators. Supported terrible regimes and armed them to the teeth. Helped them to set up terrible dictatorship governments that kill, torture, etc.

Would it not then be the US' moral obligation to go in and correct its terrible errors?

Do you realize just how many countries we'd have to do that too? We don't have the best record on the matter.

You have failed to show where those are Bush's words. What you've shown is headline writers putting words in his mouth. Even so, I'm not saying that he never uttered the word "avenge"; it's pretty much a no-brainer with two billowing piles of wreckage behind you and untold thousands of people dead to say "we'll avenge their deaths". I was saying the reason for Bush's stance on Iraq has nothing to do with revenge or "getting them back" for Dad, and you haven't shown at all how that's "completely false".

You're confusing "couldn't" with "wouldn't". We didn't stop France from acquiring WMD because we aren't really that concerned with France using them against us. Iraq is another matter. And if you're using "couldn't" in the sense that it's against UN rules, that's a poor choice of words as well. <B>We will play be the UN's rules only as long as it serves our own interests.</B> Up until now, it has served our interests to follow "international law". If that no longer is the case, we will buck the UN, as we have done in the past.

Ah, the irony. Saying and doing what you believe is right, versus buckling under pressure, even if that pressure is coming from the majority. Tell me why again Bush should listen to the UN?

As others have stated before, this issue could test the very legitimacy of the UN. Now I'm not advocating isolationism or ignoring the impact of our actions on the rest of the world. But people keep talking about this or that UN rule as if that's the final say. I'll say it again, when the UN no longer serves our purposes, we'll act on our own.

We have a sitting president who wants regime change in Iraq. The majority of Americans support military action. That means it's gonna happen; it's as simple as that. If we can convince the world that it's in their interest as well, and get them to support us, great. If not, we'll take care of it ourselves.

Yes, I don't remember the exact title of the Library of Congress compilation volumes that contain Senate transcripts. I've given a reasonably accurate description of what they look like, and what they contain. This is the closest you will get to documentary evidence that the US supplied unspecified types of weapons and financial aid to Iraq in the early 80s. It's been several years since I skimmed those volumes, and since I didn't reference them in dissertations or thesis, I can't provide you with the exact data. It's worrying that a Googled link to some newsbite PR source is considered acceptable, whilst actual Senate transcripts that I cannot provide an ISBN or web link for are thought of as insufficient, or outright ridiculed.
I don't understand why you seem to mock the provided proof; unless you provide better evidence that the US did not supply Iraq with weapons, we can safely assume that your ridicule of jaguar's earlier post has been proven to be untrue.

I re-iterate: Senate hearings transcripts, 1982-1983.
You will note how the warmongering was first in order to bring the terrorists to justice, to catch and try Osama bin Laden. Having failed to deal with Osama, the spin machine started focusing on Iraq, and how Iraq was behind much of the terrorist problem. Having spectacularly failed to prove that, the focus moved to Iraq's WMDs, and how he used them against his own people - which was well-known for much of the late 80s and all of the 90s. As a cause was needed, the PR machine focused on the human plight, and on the possible danger for the US from bioweapons, with the justification being that Saddam won't hesitate to use them, since he's 'a maniac.'

Any basic schooling in PR uncovers the zig-zagging methods the US administration is using, 'releasing' information bit by bit to the media, which is eager to lap up any sensationalist PR piece on how the US is about to be wiped out by Saddam's evil weapons.

In the meantime, the genuine cause for the terrorist attacks in 1993 and 2001 - US support for the Saudi dictatorship - remains untouched, for obvious reasons.

That is why it's relevant to the discussion; snapping up whatever spin piece the administration is allowing the media to overhype on any given week doesn't address the fact that the current focus on Iraq is intended to cover up domestic and foreign-policy shortcomings with the one supposedly certain people-pleaser: winning a war, protecting America from Iraq's certain bioweapon attack, and bringing democracy and freedom to the world.

Here is one piece of information that I haven't told you yet, since you seem to be automatically assuming that I am against war in Iraq: I am fully behind an UN intervention in Iraq, under two conditions:

That UN troops are stationed for several decades there, to protect democracy, personal freedoms, and ensure stability. (akin to Germany, after-WW2)

That all other dictatorships in the region are also removed and replaced by democratically elected regimes; with UN troops stationed in force in all those democracies.

If you remove one tumor, but leave all the others intact, the cancer will spread again. Yes, it's the moral duty of the US and UN to go in, and deal with that evil - since I consider dictatorships and murderous dictators to be evil. But the proposed half-fix is an obvious PR ploy, and will cause more evil than good in the region.
1. The last time the US attempted to remove a foreign regime of a non-microscopic nation on another continent without the consent of the UN, it was severely beaten and had to airlift its troops out in shame (and leave its allies to be tortured and brainwashed). This is not to say that the same would happen if the full force of the US came down on Iraq: Iraq is much weaker now than it was in 1990, and it has no nuclear weapons at all, with very few remaining biochem weapons left. It is merely a response to your "we have bucked the UN before" point: that the US has bucked the UN before doesn't mean that the US has been successful in similar endeavours. Thus, you cannot use that as an argument to back up your point and show that the US will do it successfully again, because it hasn't always been been successful previously. (If y relies on x being true in order for y to be true, and if x isn't always true, you cannot claim that y is always true either. QED.) The same logical fallacy is committed in the statement "We have a sitting president who wants regime change in Iraq. The majority of Americans support military action." That there is a will is undoubtable; that there is a way, however, is not. Simple logical mistake, illustrated here: "We have a sitting president who wants illegal hard drug importing/dealing eliminated. The majority of Americans support eliminating importing/dealing hard drugs. (crack, heroin, etc)." I do not equate remove hard drugs with remove Saddam, it is merely a comparison of fallacious logical conclusion-drawing.

2. Bush will not act without considerable UN support (unless there is some cataclysmic domestic event). I stand by that statement. Your quoted words are mostly posturing and sabre-rattling along the lines of "we will do whatever we want to and nobody can stop us." While the barking is very impressive in its own right, you will have to do some biting to back it up. The very second Bush backs up his claims of wanting to remove Saddam by having US troops occupying Baghdad, I will retract my words. Until that very moment, your claims are merely a paper-tiger argument. It's all nice and good to shout about how you'll kick major ass no matter what the UN says, but you need to get on with it, or find another PR angle to the whole affair.

3. Your posting accurately represents why the US has such a bad image overseas. While you may be sneering at the turtleneck-wearing, goateed, bespectacled, smelly French imbeciles who are mocking the US, the US tunnelvision modus operandi is the main cause behind foreign antagonism. I am not criticising the US for acting in such a manner - wanting "to act in whatever way you consider right, and damn the consequences, if you are strong enough to be able to do so", is probably the only natural reaction. I am merely pointing out what the cause is.

Thus, summing up: We are waiting to see how Bush will defy the UN and remove Saddam Hussein without a UN resolution. At that very moment, I will retract my words; until then, your argument must be considered a threat at best, and a delusion of foreign-policy grandeur at worst - until it is proven correct.

I would like to note that all of my points showing the parallels between the 'maniac' Saddam and domestic US policy went unchallenged. No evidence whatsoever has been provided that the US did not supply with a variety of arms during the 1980s. I am more than happy to acknowledge a fellow debater's point, if it is correct, and I am somewhat saddened that people simply choose to ignore truthful statements so their own arguments don't appear weakened by previous perceived 'losses'. Psychology 101, Debating 101, I'd assume.

X.

Then I guess we better get started... OK, Panama -- check. Phillipines -- check. Argentina -- check. Chile -- check. Haiti -- check. Iraq -- pending...

<i>I re-iterate: Senate hearings transcripts, 1982-1983.</i>

Well, thanks for telling me the color of the fucking book, anyway. But I'll check. One question before I go: was it chemical, biological, or nuclear that we gave Hussein?

<i> You will note how the warmongering was first in order to bring the terrorists to justice, to catch and try Osama bin Laden.</i>

Wow. You just -- well, you take my breath away.

Just so we understand, was 9/11 "warmongering" as well, or was that merely on the order of, say, leafletting for a particular cause?

"We don't want you to help out our countries again, especially if they ASK like they did last time. So we're going to fly your planes into your buildings." "Well we're going to hunt you down and kill you, then!" "What? How fucking provocative!"

<i> Having failed to deal with Osama, the spin machine started focusing on Iraq,</i>

Wait, what would that much-ballyhooed "international community" have wanted to do with Osama, if that operation was such a failure?

Oh, I forgot, they were IN on that one. Good WORK guys!

Oh, but let's be fair; they wanted to get Osama, they MISSED and ACCIDENTALLY liberated a country. What a glorious fuckup! Who's gonna be called out on the carpet for this one! We better cover it up quick by starting another war!

<i>Iraq is intended to cover up domestic and foreign-policy shortcomings with the one supposedly certain people-pleaser: winning a war, protecting America from Iraq's certain bioweapon attack, and bringing democracy and freedom to the world.</i>

Right, even Hitler did that.

Er, well except for that democracy and freedom stuff.

Oh, on that idea of "certain" attack: I don't really favor even a 5% chance of a mushroom cloud over my favorite city.

Meanwhile, Bush first mentioned the idea of regime change during the first presidential debate, and started planning the war at a time when his popularity was about 80%.

In fact, when Bush was more popular, the progressive community was accusing him of pushing for war solely on the basis of his political strength.

And one more:

<i>Your posting accurately represents why the US has such a bad image overseas. While you may be sneering at the turtleneck-wearing, goateed, bespectacled, smelly French imbeciles who are mocking the US, the US tunnelvision modus operandi is the main cause behind foreign antagonism.</i>

Right. The Germans can now safely open their borders without worrying about their discos being bombed any longer. The French can lower their guard against the burning of the soon-to-be-rebuilt Israeli embassy, and can snooze through the threat of plans against the Eiffel Tower. The Dutch no longer have to assassinate politicians who talk about the threats of immigration.

Happy anti-Americanism, happy Octoberfest, and happy trying to rebuild your economies after many years of only having to spend 1% on defense!

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Nowhere did I say that a war against Iraq would be successful. I'm merely stating that if we, as a nation, determine it's in our best interest, and we perceive the threat as real enough, the UN becomes relegated to second fiddle.

Don't think that just because I agree with most of Bush's views, that I'm blind to his political tactics. Although I don't buy the "make war in Iraq to cover up troubles at home" line one bit. But as far as how he's gone about building support -- deny repeatedly that military action is being planned (wink, wink); disseminate rhetoric regarding "regime change" and "Axis of evil"; wait for world to decry U.S. unilateral actions; then capitulate to the world body and call for a U.N. resolution while declaring their impotence if they fail to act.

A quote of your I missed earlier:

Yes, they remain opposed to a unilateral American attack. I was referring to military action against Iraq if backed by the U.N.

Sorry you feel entitled to some attaboy's.. UT doesn't have any gold-star smileys, so how about just some regular smileys? Here ya go: :) :D :) :D :) :D

But you still haven't really made a point as far as that goes. What sort of weapons were sold to Iraq in the 80's? If I have my history right, it was in our interest at the time to help Iraq fight the Soviet Union at the time, what with the cold war and all. So we sold some rockets and whatnot to them, maybe even some biological weapons.

That was 20 years ago; the world was a very different place back then (God that makes me feel old). But for us slow folks, please state how any of that has any relevance to whether we should attack Iraq today. No, the U.S. isn't squeaky-clean. What's your point?

Before anything else UT the yahoo story quotes rumsfeld saying that the US sold Hussein chem./bio in 83, try reading. Secondly the Dutch pollie was assassinated by an environmentalist.

I'd deal with the rest but I don't have time this morning.

Tobiasly For crying out loud! Justify an invasion by the use of weapons you gave and authorized their use?! That goes beyond hypocritical.

Well spending 300billion(?) a year sure helped the US, party politics killed the plan to attack Al Queda earlier and a massive military operation has not managed to capture 2 men, but killed a whole lot of others and has done a great job bombing that wedding. Money well spent. Net result? Top Al Queda are still untouchable so bush moves on to a new target.

Oh gee, feel warm and fuzzy now do you? Yea, they went in there with high minded ideas of democracy and liberty first and foremost I’m sure...

You have no concept of international law or politics do you?

See above/ Secondly, why the FUCK would Hussein use WMDs on America of all places? His aspirations are regional for a start. Secondly if he did use them he knows he'd get his ass whipped by the US, Hussein is a survivor, he wants to continue to be so he is not going to go out of his way to justify a war is he. That’s not basic logic now.

Because of the US finds inconvenient to totally ignore international law, the United Nations and the opinion of the international community it gives justification for any other country to do so and undermines if not destroys diplomatic mechanisms designed to avoid war, settles disputes, deal with issues and create forums for international communication. The long term effect of this will be far worse than Hussein having a nuke.

Secondly, no one has explained to me how destabilizing the most volatile region helps the 'war on terror'? It plays right into Al Queda's hands and justifies the hatred of most of the middle east.

Nicaragua, Guatamala, Iran, Colombia, Pakistan, Indonesia -- nada, besides the constant fiscal obligation of Colombia.

<i>He's a maaaniac, maaaaaniaac on the flooor!
And he's dancin' like he never danced before!</i>

I'm not a real librarian, but I play one on the Internet.
 

I'm not allowed to do your research for you, but I'd be pleased to show you where to look. ;)

http://search.loc.gov:8765/query.htm...te+transcripts

<i>Before anything else UT the yahoo story quotes rumsfeld saying that the US sold Hussein chem./bio in 83, try reading.</i>

It bloody well does not.

You're not supposed to actually read the story, UT. You're supposed to just take the links as bastions of irrefutability. Geez.

Jaguar, I think you should change your signature. Something along the lines of "I'm a very busy college student and don't really have time to properly devote my superior intelligence and comprehension of all things social and political to a silly website like this. Therefore please understand that all postings here are simply the tip of the iceberg when compared to what knowledge and brilliance I could bring here if I were so inclined."

That way, you could spare us all from the constant "I don't have time to explain this to you in a way that makes sense" and "I don't know why I even bother trying to get a point across to you people" and such.

Where did I say we weren't hypocrites? Read my above post -- "the U.S. isn't squeaky-clean". I'm only saying that if we perceive a very real threat to our nation, we can and should act on that threat. With the support of the world if possible, but without it if necessary.

I think we can all agree that whatever assistance we gave to Iraq 20 years ago, in hindsight, may not have been such a good idea. What the fuck is your point again? How does that in any way have any relevance on today's situation whatsoever?

Hall of Fame post here.

You're right on that article, i misread, my fault.
Although the 'no knowledge' thing is kinda funny.
BTW UT while the guardian may not suit your tastes it is one of the most respected pieces of international journalism and is synicated into newspapers all over the world.
Ok.
Here.(CNS)
Here.(Sunday Herald)
This one in the NY Observer is an extension of the Sunday Times one.
Try Those for size, to quote the Sunday Times:
It's also worth noting that article debunks claims about the production of WMDs.

Well pardon me. Oddly enough i *don't* have all the time in the world to make posts on here, so i thought i'd cover the quickest stuff before i left, and the rest when i returned which is what i'm doing now. In short, bite me.

Could you please find an example where i've posted either of the two lines you when qoute below please?

Well i've yet to hear you explain the the fuck attacking Iraq makes the world a safer place for anyone. Yea pushing a madman with bio/chem weapons into a corner (just before elections are coming up), without any firm evidence he's done anything recently, had any role with Al Queda or has done anything Isreal has not done in realtion to UN resolutions sure sounds good to me. Not to mention that if Isreal things which section of the UN charter those resolutions are made under makes the slightest bit of difference to their validity they have another thing coming.

Well again, those aren't weapons your links are talking about. The fact we sold them biological agents for study in good intention doesn't say much.

OK, sorry for the hyperbole on my part, my point was that we all know you're a busy college student, so you don't need to remind us all the time. If you don't have time to make all the points you want to, make them next week; we'll still be here. :) I do the same thing; I'm on my way out the door and want to make a point real quick, but then I say something stupid like how we used to "help Iraq fight the Soviet Union" in the 80's, which I'm surprised as hell no one called me out on.

I agree, if there's no firm evidence then we shouldn't do anything. But I think there is firm evidence that most of us aren't privvy to. There is news on the wires this morning about Rumsfeld sharing newfound intel with UN members that links Iraq to al Qaeda. Yes, it may well be more carefully-timed media puppeteering.

But I think domestic support for military action would quickly vaporize if Bush were to prosecute a war without some firm evidence turning up real quick, and he's well aware of this. Words and ideas are fine for sabre-rattling, but when it comes to losing American lives, people are gonna demand proof. We all know this, and the president knows this, so we won't have a war unless that proof exists.

QED
 

Once more unto the breach:

If you ally with those who aid tyrants and genocidal dictators, you come into the crosshairs of those who oppose them. Why you use this as a pretext to cast shadows over Europe's safety (with Europe, in terms of terrorism, now being safer than ever) is baffling, and obvious fearmongering like that is rather reprehensible.

The German disco you referred to (La Belle) was bombed because it was a popular hangout for US soldiers, and at the time of the bombing full of US servicemen; the bomb killed three of them. One of the people behind the attack had previously <a href="http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb1-a27.shtml">worked</a> for the CIA and the Mossad. Attacking the Israeli embassy is akin to attacking Israel, it has nothing to do with France. France has had its own terrorist problems in the 90s, related to Algerian extremists, and handled them reasonably well. The Dutch assassination was purportedly committed by a far-left environmentalist.
You make the sad mistake of equating anti-Americanism with opposing certain limited policies of the current administration; I guess the 'be with us or against us' propaganda machine has worked a bit too well. Love it or leave it, perchance? God bless America? Let's roll?

I wouldn't waste my time talking to you if I didn't care about America's future, and if I wasn't genuinely concerned and worried. Some people don't just enjoy proving other people wrong and being 'on top' of intellectual debates for the sheer ego boost. I hope you will try to understand that.
Grammar Nazis rejoice (bad pun). If you mock something as a representation of an intrinsic aspect of another culture (as this is apparently intended to), please have the decency to spell it correctly? (I'd feel bad if I tried to mockingly congratulate the US by sneeringly involving 'Thangsgiving', for instance)
I understand now: you seem to be going on the offensive; instead of defending the indefensible, you are directly attacking Europe's perceived flaws, apparently either as an excuse for the current administration's mistakes, or in order to prove that two wrongs make a right. Just quote the correct numbers, please. After spending so much time making fun of jaguar's links earlier, and denying their truth content (incorrectly, as it turns out), you need to stick to your own high standards. Everything else would be hypocritical. (The average in 2001 between France, Germany, and the UK was at around 2.2%; the US was at 3.2% of GDP)
I guess admitting a contrasting point's correctness is too much. Personally I find that kind of humour puerile; why do you think you need to resort to such playground bullying tactics ("Awww, poor baby! Here's [...]" <insert contorted, mock-crying face>)? Can you not answer (or not answer) by either saying that you were right or wrong? Is straight-up discussion of correctness too much? Just imagine sitting in a board meeting or a parliamentary debate, or any sort of academic discussion with scholarly peers, in short in any sort of debate which requires solid discussion of facts, circumstances, and solution, and resorting to such methods. Who could take you seriously? Even in the English House of Commons, where debate is very spirited, personal attacks remain focused on subject matter, rather than personal characteristics.
Iraq has committed no acts against the US; there is no evidence that they are planning any acts against Americans, neither are they currently causing any major havoc in the Middle East. They were and are still being severely punished for their misgivings. Several nations have been associated in some form with the 9/11 attacks, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There are several countries that have in the past attacked and killed Americans, including Libya. The current administration has stopped using Iraq as a possible cause for terrorism or harboring terrorists, since even the spin machine could not produce any sort of evidence. Why Saddam would want to attack the US with WMDs, an act that would cause the instant destruction of Iraq, and of himself, is not obvious in the least.

Yet Iraq remains in the crosshairs. Even though there are other, much more obvious and considerably threats to the nation. (Pakistan's military dictatorship, which tolerates some extremist groups whilst aiding the capture of other terrorists, for their own geo-political motivations, Libya's terrorist head of state, the current Middle East crisis which is an incredible threat to the US due to their perceived support of Israel, Saudi Arabia - the breeding group of the 9/11 terrorists, who have the US in their crosshairs for propping up the feudal dictatorship there, etc) But Iraq is the real threat. No, really.
Saddam Hussein used biochem <a href="http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html">weapons</a> against the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq in August of 1988. (and other, unspecified dates) Iraq had - at this point - already <a href="http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html">used</a> chemical weapons against Iran in the early 1980s. Nonetheless, US officials denied that Iraq had access to deadly chemical weapons in 1982; after all, your ally would never resort to such methods. (the US was well-aware that European corporations, notably Dutch, German, and British companies, were involved in building facilities for Iraq, ostensibly for fertilizer products)

In 1984 (?), the US eased export restrictions to Iraq, having removed it from the list of countries that support terrorism, allowing Iraq to <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html">import</a> "supercomputers, machine tools, and even strains of anthrax. Weapons control experts say Saddam's regime could have used the anthrax to make biological weapons. "It was part of our overall policy of supplying him with a lot of very alarming things which allowed him to build up his weapons of mass destruction capability," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control." In fact, US forces joined with Iraqi forces in order to repel Iranian troops, and supplied them with considerable amounts of classified intelligence data. In 1988, Bush signed "a secret executive order, National Security Directive Number 26. It called for even closer ties between the United States and Iraq."

In 1982, when Iraq was removed from the aforementioned list, <a href="http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm">Abu Nidal</a> had his HQ in Baghdad, which enabled the US to provide significant economic and military aid to Iraq. Billions flowed into Iraq, and weapons were <a href="http://journalism.berkeley.edu/faculty/MarkDanner/wnyless.html">funnelled</a> through Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, and Egypt. When Congress tried to sanction Iraq for use of chemical weapons, the Bush administration changed the bill to pro-forma verbal protests.

And then for the proof of how biological weapons agents were given to Iraq: it's known as the <a href="http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html">Riegle Report</a>, its title is "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War". To quote from the <a href="http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html">introduction</a>:

"In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S. - manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Knee-jerk reactions aren't always correct, after all. You may want a link to a US military <a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/riegle_report_main.html">website</a> which hosts the original report as well as the hearing notes and committee staff report. Hopefully that'll stop you from deriding the provided proof, as you have previously done. (when I could only offer my own experience, which apparently isn't sufficient. 'Nuh-uh' is enough to discredit anything, but references to the 1982-83 congressional hearings yearbook, with physical descriptions of its size/colour so you'll be able to find it easily, is not. The LOC search didn't show up anything, most of their back catalogue doesn't seem to be electronically available.)

Here are a few more choice quotations from the actual hearing:

"Chairman: Because it's clear, when you go back and follow the pattern of what was being done here, that when they were requesting these biological specimens, they were being shipped over to, in some cases, the front operations within the Iraqi government, that were in fact part of their military apparatus. You are aware of that?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. I have read information to that effect yes sir."
====
"CHAIRMAN. Did you happen by chance to see the letter, which had a little bit of a frantic tone to it, from Secretary Baker in the Bush Administration, as the war was getting ready to start, that we suddenly stopped the shipments to Iraq of these kinds of items, things that could be either used in chemical weapons or biological weapons or nuclear weapons. Are you aware of that letter that was sent around?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. No, sir, I am not.

CHAIRMAN. We ought to give you a copy of it, because it was case of suddenly it dawned on people that we were going to have real problem facing off against weapons that we had inadvertently, one presumes, helped create."

And that's part of our problem here, but your testimony is that you only looked at the things that were going to be transshipped to the so-called rogue regimes that were on the bad guy list at the time. Is that right?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. To the countries that were proscribed by CoCom, which were the Soviet Union, China, and the other communist countries of the Warsaw Treaty Organization."
====
"CHAIRMAN. Were they capable of incorporating those items into weapons systems?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. In my judgment, they would have been capable of doing that, yes, sir."
====
Dr OEHLER. We bad been quite aware of Iraq's chemical weapons development program from its very early inception.

The CHAIRMAN. I take it the CIA must have had a concern about it to have kind of zeroed in on it to that degree?

Dr. OEHLER. Very much so. And that was reported to our customers, and our customers attempted to take actions.

The CHAIRMAN. It would have been reported also to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, I assume, as a matter of course?

Dr. OEHLER. Yes, sir. Those are our customers, sir."
====
(this was in the early-to-mid 1980s; US policy and exports to Iraq then increased rapidly)

"The CHAIRMAN. You see, part of the picture that emerges here— this is really an extraordinary story that you are sharing with us, because, according to your testimony, the CIA was tracking this in real time as it was happening, and had a great concern about it, and had figured out that this robust program on chemical weapons and these other areas was going forward.

Yet, as we get down further in time, we are going to find out that, as Saddam Hussein needed other items to go into his war machine, that he actually came and got some from us, particularly in the biological warfare area, that required licensing."
====
"CHAIRMAN. Do we have any reason to believe or know that there were such firms founded by foreign nationals incorporated in the United States that, in fact, did ship items like this to Saddam Hussein?

Dr. OEHLER. As I say here, we did provide what we call alert memos to Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and the FBI on a number of possible questionable instances.
[...]
Between 1984 and 1990, CIA’s Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided 5 memos covering Iraqis' dealings with United States firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appear to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs."
====

There is so much more to say, but there is only so much time, so much patience both from writer and from readers, and so much evidence that one needs to collect in order to have an unassailable argument.

X.

PS: In the coming edition of Newsweek, a report <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,215594,00.html">describes</a>(German summary) the meeting between Saddam Hussein and a US official in 1983. The official brought greetings from his President, and arranged deals including weapons, intelligence (satellite) etc. through Egypt in the following seven years. A total of 711 export licenses were granted to Iraq by the US government. The name of that US government official?

Donald Rumsfeld.

You couldn't make it up.

Re: QED
 

Not too much, but it's unnecessary. That was my point.. if you're gonna feel "saddened" whenever someone fails to say "Wow Xugamad, you were right!" when you link to some info that supports your argument, you're gonna spend a lot of time feeling sad.

I can link to tons of irrefutable information on other websites too. But, since you fail to see the point I am trying to make, even with all of your quotes from various Senate hearings: yes, we sold precursors to biological weapons to Iraq. We never sold them the actual weapons, even though we likely knew that they could and probably were using these precursors to make weapons.

<B>SO WHAT HAVE YOU PROVEN? WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?</B> Please, please, answer this question. For the love of God, no more quotes or links about how we sold biological agents and nasty chemicals to Iraq. YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. YOU ARE RIGHT. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE.

OK, so 10 or 20 years ago, we sold some stuff and provided some support to a country we considered our ally. Oh, shit! It turns out they're not our ally after all! Whoops, our bad! So, what do we do now? Say "well, we're the ones who gave it to 'em, so we can't do anything about it now"? I ask for the third time, what relevance does any of this have to whether we should attack Iraq or force regime change today, in 2002?

We are well past the era where we can afford to act reactively to attacks against us. Regimes run by homicidal maniacs who hate the U.S. having WMD is something we can't let happen. Sure, Saddam may be interested only in regional domination, but what happens when he dies 15 years from now? Who takes over.. his charming son Uday? Maybe someone else who's interested in more than regional power?

And what if some al-Qaeda insider offers him a few million for <I>just one</I> long-range missile capable of dispersing VX nerve gas over an entire city?

All this bullshit about "if the U.S. proactively attacks other countries, that's the first step to total world anarchy" is ridiculous. Those sort of gentleman's agreements where countries are only supposed to attack if they're attacked first aren't gonna cut it anymore, because we're no longer dealing with countries that respect those sorts of agreements.

I followed up Undertoad's claims with the proof, not yours. It wasn't addressed at you, it was was proof to the doubters. Since it's a separate thread not involving you, please stay out of it, and don't shout at me. I clearly indicated that I was quoting you first - answering you - and then Undertoad - answering him.

If you are unable to follow two threads of discussion within one posting, then please refrain to following up to posts with more than a few hundred words. (I believe mine had slightly over 2100) I have no interest in entering shouting flame matches with you.
You seem to have failed to read my earlier posting in which I advocated removing Saddam Hussein and ensuring democracy and freedom in Iraq, and the region. If you cannot read, please don't put words in my mouth. (I also demonstrated why the use of the word 'maniac' is inappropriate, but this also seems to have gone unnoticed, and obviously unacknowledged since you continue to do it)
You shouldn't put that nonsense into quotation marks, since that seems to attribute it to me. I never said that, neither did I imply anything like 'total world anarchy.' Once again, why are you deliberately misquoting me and misstating my intent? You are committing fairly serious oversimplifications of poli-sci issues that are too complicated to be solved by 'let's bomb this and everything will be ok'.

Since you don't seem to understand why I'm eager to have others acknowledge mistakes and misstatements made, I'll clarify it once more: Those mistakes keep creeping up again and again, even those they've been clearly disproven, until they enter common consciousness as accepted truth. Since you are misattributing lots of phrases to me (I assume you thought you were humorously paraphrasing), and since you completely misstate my personal beliefs, even though I repeatedly stated them, I see no further reason to engage in conversation with you on this topic. My time simply isn't infinite, and I don't enjoy being flamebaited and figuratively shouted at.

Regarding the points on why the US shouldn't simply attack Iraq and then do nothing, they've been outlined in an earlier posting. I suspect that our positions are a lot closer than you would think, but it's difficult to see through all of the empty catchphrases, regurgitated PR spin, sound and fury.

If you really, really can't see what's going on, let's have a Republican campaigning advisor <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/21/politics/21REPU.html">spell</A> it out for you.

"Senior Republican Party officials say the prospect of at least two more weeks of Congressional debate on Iraq is allowing their party to run out the clock on the fall election, blocking Democrats as they try to seize on the faltering economy and other domestic concerns as campaign issues. ... The emerging dynamic has produced growing if quiet optimism among Republicans that they will be able to turn back the Democratic drive to take control of the House. ... Scott Reed, a Republican consultant, said: 'The secret to the election now is to beat the clock. Every week, you can hear the ripping noise of another page of the calendar coming off the wall. Another week has gone by. And there's only six more to go.' "

Simplified: The country is screwed. The economy is screwed. Your personal and civil liberties are screwed. A war in Iraq would cost hugely, not to mention the cost of keeping troops there, and its economic benefits are doubtful. But as long as Bush keeps talking Iraq, the media will keep propagating it, and nothing else will dominate the election. And since nobody will vote unpatriotically ("What if Saddam uses WMDs on us? He used them on his OWN PEOPLE! HIS OWN PEOPLE! That homicidal maniac!"), a Republican victory is assured.

X.


PS: <a href="http://slate.msn.com//?id=2071466">This</a> may be of interest to Tobiasly and others; it contrasts the positions of Democrats and Republicans on how to fight Terrorism better than I'd be able to sum up in a few words. (edit)

Re: Re: QED
 

That's about as ridicuolous as the rhetoric about our most dire threat being from a missile attack...and thus necessitating the bloated and unnecessary missile defense sinkhole. States can't attack other states because they think that sometime in the future they'll be attacked. If that precedent is set by the most powerful nation, what would stop other nations from doing so, and using the American attacks as their rationale?
The second problem with this is timing. Saddam's had 10 years since the Gulf War to launch attacks. And, despite the American view of the world, the incidences of terrorism worldwide have been on a general decline. So it's not like he hasn't had the opportunity, the motive, or the resources to attack in this time. This isn't to say that he won't attack tomorrow, it just shows that the
You're also missing the point that al-Qaeda and Saddam are pretty much sworn enemies. al-Qaeda views Saddam's secularism as anathema. In fact, one of the problems bin Laden has with America is that the Saudi government allowed us to come in for the Gulf War - not just because it soiled the holy ground, but also because he wanted to take care of it himself. Saddam does not rule according to Sharia and seems to pay only lip service to religion. bin Laden and his cohorting extremists want a non-corrupt government run by the church.

There was also an earlier post about anti-Americanism. In most cases, anti-Americanism means a dislike for American policies. American culture is still admired in most places of the world.

I wish I could believe that, but coming from this administration, with its obsession with secrecy...I want some proof, not behind closed doors decision-making.

There aren't two threads of discussion here; there is one thread with different facets and I was commenting on the one you were carrying on with UT. You seemed distressed that no one was giving you props for pointing out the truth; I was saying that the truth you were pointing out is irrelevant. UT's point is that we didn't sell biological weapons; we sold their precursors. My point is that regardless of what we provided Iraq in the past, the fact that we provided it (as opposed to someone else providing it) is irrelevant today.

"Shouting" wasn't my intention; I was trying to make sure that what I felt was the most important part of my post didn't go unnoticed as it seemed to previously.

I never intended to attribute it to you. It was a hypothetical paraphrasing of rationale I had heard in the past, and was trying to answer what I thought someone might reply to my post with beforehand.

I never said "let's bomb this and everything will be OK." You shouldn't put that nonsense into quotation marks, since that seems to attribute it to me. Why are you deliberately misquoting me and misstating my intent? Oh, wait a minute.. you were using it as a figurative example ("humorously paraphrasing") to make a point, since you never actually claimed that I uttered those words. I guess that's a pretty common thing to do in typed online conversations, huh?

I never said that the US shouldn't attack Iraq and then do nothing. And please give me examples of any "empty catchphrases", "regurgitated PR spin", or "sound and fury" that I've used here. I'll settle for the first two, since I can see why you thought I was shouting earlier.

Likewise, I never disputed that there is a heaping helping of politics thrown into all of this. The fact that an issue has been politicized in and of itself is pointless and has nothing to do with the issue itself. Issues like this will always be politicized, so as long as people can accept that and see through it, there isn't a problem.

Yes, a lot of people (probably most people) are taken in by most of the PR and spin that comes from any administration, but to assume that I've bought into it simply because I agree with them is an oversimplification itself. I wouldn't even bother posting here or anywhere if I weren't trying to discover all sides to an issue so that I could make an informed decision.

<i>The German disco...was bombed because it was a popular hangout for US soldiers</i>

Yup, who were there by accident, probably visiting their grandparents.

Oh, wait - they were defending Europe!

Well perhaps Europe will have less trouble with such events when the US pulls its troops out of Germany, and Germany has to deal with the Mossad directly. And Europe has to deal with Germany directly.

Or perhaps the international terrorist community will respect Germany's borders more when Germany is defending them - since Germany is such a gracious nation to respect Iraq's borders. It's an interesting notion! (My own guess is that the terrorists don't give two shits about what a nation's policies are, if the policies are set in place by infidels.)

<i>Attacking the Israeli embassy is akin to attacking Israel, it has nothing to do with France.</i>

Everything is normal. Nothing to see here. Keep humming and everything will be alright.

Hey, it's okay if Europe is late to this war. (I'm speaking about the unstated war here, the war against radical Islam.) After all, the US was not ready in 1939.

<i>'Nuh-uh' is enough to discredit anything, but references to the 1982-83 congressional hearings yearbook, with physical descriptions of its size/colour so you'll be able to find it easily, is not.</i>

My response was to Jag, not to you. Jag made an extraordinary claim with no proof. "Nuh-uh" is precisely the correct response. Jag's behavior thereafter backed up that response: he provided a bunch of shitty links that did not prove what he claimed. (Fuck you, I actually read 'em.) They didn't even say what he thought they did! "Nuh-uh" was too MUCH, I should have just ignored it!

Now, to address you. You have basically said, "I have proof of this point, even though the point is marginally related, irrelevant to the thread, and as I've said, irrelevant to my own considerations of whether or not war is currently appropriate. I've given this proof to you in the form of instructions that will take you a half-day to execute. Despite the fact that it is not really related to the thread, I expect you to trust me on this, even though it's been 20 years since I read it. The fact that I remember the colour of the book stregthens my credibility."

My response was <i>Is that the best you can do?</i> and I stand by that response. Instead of a two-page long screed, you could have just said <i>Yes, sorry.</i>

In the US we spell it Octoberfest. And sometimes it takes place at chain seafood restaurants.

I didn't. Re-read every single one of my posts on the Cellar. I use single-ticks to make a word or phrase stand out, usually in exaggeration, and quotation marks (" ") to quote. Interestingly, you transformed what I said in single-ticks into quotation marks in your reply. You seem to have no way of distinguishing between exaggerated emphasis and outright quotation. (apart from shouting)
I didn't "think" so, capitalization of entire phrases and sentences is considered shouting in basic netiquette. If you merely wanted to emphasize, consider using the bold option.

Regurgitated PR spin:
"The Bush administration seems to have made great strides in swaying world opinion" (which blatant PR spin, as I demonstrated in the diplomacy disaster with Germany)
"Saddam is a maniac." (could be in both categories, I've heard PR people and the media parroting the same 'insanity' angle for months now)
"The majority of Americans support military action." (no, the majority of Americans support another 'video game war' in which no Americans and no civilians die; the bare-faced lie of the 'video game war' is another issue that was never addressed)


Catchphrase (I must have heard Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al say this dozens and dozens of times since 9/11)
"ensure nothing like it ever happens again"
"Not to mention using biological agents on his own people." (HIS OWN PEOPLE! While it's a vile act, it wasn't his 'own' people; the Kurds wanted an independent state, and many were organized in a terrorist-communist organization. The PKK, no 25 (out of 34) on the state department's list of terrorist organizations.)
"this issue could test the very legitimacy of the UN" (the isolationist's mantra, parroted by the media as well)

I'd also like to note that your lengthy note above in which you said that I'd made my point about biological weapons of times and that you were wondering what point I was trying to make. My explanation was in response to Undertoad, but it was also my first followup to your posting in which you said:
Thus, I reply to your own question, and you instantly go off on a tangent, saying "no-one is disputing that..." and "what point are you trying to make", both of course capitalized and bolded. It seems you had forgotten about your own questions and allegations.

Regarding the "Why are you deliberately misquoting me" response you have, maybe you shouldn't be so eager to stuff my own words down my throat. I guess getting one-up on me, gleefully using my phrases against me was too much to pass up.

Pity you didn't check my semiotic use first before embarassing yourself.

X.

You don't seem to be aware of the amount of troops stationed in Germany right now. Do some research before posting, please.

Germany, the country that is unifying its armed forces with that of the rest of the EU. Germany, the country that doesn't have control over its own economy anymore, having ceded economic sovereignty (and soon military sovereignty) to the European Union. Germany, the country that is pushing for an ever-stronger European Parliament with more legislative power? Germany, of of the most liberal and pacifist country in the EU, where even the (opposition) right-wing party would be considered too leftist for US politics? Germany, the country with the Green Party in government, which just had its Socialist-Green ruling government coalition re-elected. Yes, Europe will truly have to deal with that danger. It's 1933 all over again.
Strange, without American troops to bomb, the terrorists have comparatively little interest in Germany. Even the democratic opposition party that briefly occupied Iraq's embassy in Berlin in the end left without violence, merely wanting to make a statement. It seems that if you don't actively piss off people, they don't want to kill you. Maybe you want to consider which government you want to elect - one that wants to support 3rd world dictators and selectively kill others, or one that refuses to deal with such nonsese.

Oh dear, the religion angle again. Too much fox news? The infidels are those who mess up their region, and those allied with them. That's why there were planes set to fly into US and UK targets. Everything else is speculation.

How nice, you ignore my point about Algerian terrorists in France in the early-mid 1990s.

The US is late to terrorism, the RAF, IRA etc. were a major problem in Europe in decades past. You still haven't figured that out, even though you pretended to, in another thread. Don't dig up that nonsense again, please.

And it's not ready not, the current administration's bumbling incompetence and obvious PR ploys regarding Iraq show that.

Since you were clearly unwilling to do so (is seeking the truth harder than sitting and watching CNN, which gives you pre-chewed thoughtbites?), I presented you with fairly detailled quotations which proved the US-Iraq biochem weapons link of the 1980s.

I do expect to trust me on this, as I trust you on factual matters that you claim to be true. I then backed up my statement with fact. You added the "20" to make it sound like a silly, exaggerated claim, which I never used. I'm not sure why you think I'd want to lie to you on simple factual issues. Opinion is another thing, claiming that something exists when it does not is childish and doesn't add anything.

How about "Xugumad, I'll take your words at face value since I have no reason to believe you're lying to me. Please provide some sort of evidence as soon as you can." You will note that I did provide evidence. Since you mock the "two-page long screed", it had mostly little to do with your actual phrase, but was the proof to jaguar's claims. (and to my backup for them)

I assume, since you are vaguely implying that I should be somewhat apologetic (please accept my feeble, unverifiable facts, etc), that you refuse to even address any of the proof I presented. It seems to be in line with the method of debate, however: make outlandish claims, deny everything, and when proof is presented, attack the way it's presented and use semantic tangents to avoid losing face.

Since nobody seems willing to attack the actual content of my posts, rather than the presentation, it's time to say goodbye to this thread.

X.

PS:
<a href="http://www.oktoberfest.org/">No</a>, <a href="http://www.oktoberfest-zinzinnati.com/">you</a> <a href="http://www.fremontoktoberfest.org/">very</a> <a href="http://www.tulsaoktoberfest.org/">often</a> <a href="http://www.oktoberfestusa.com/">don't</a>. Most Oktoberfest/Octoberfest links at Google will go to US fests, which almost uniformly spell it 'Oktoberfest'. Since you were mocking Germany in your phrase where you misspelled it (and see Google wanting to change your spelling to the proper one, if you mistype it), you had to use the German spelling. My followup regarding the misspelling of Thanksgiving which illustrated my point in an obvious manner was ignored.

Now this really is getting ridiculous. I'm supposed to memorize the idiosyncracies of every poster's typographical habits in order to infer what they mean by their posts? So if I had used single quotes instead of double quotes, everything would be peachy? I transposed them because most people don't place your particular connotation on single versus double quotes, and therefore I saw 'em as interchangeable.

Go check every single one of my posts on the Cellar. I use indented bold blockquotes when I want to quote someone's words and then remark on them, not double quotes. I use double quotes for paraphrasing. But if you would have done your homework and studied my posting semantics, you would have known that and we wouldn't have had this discussion. Boy, you must feel embarassed right now for making such a silly mistake.

Hmm, maybe you missed those two events of the 20th century called WORLD WAR I and WORLD WAR II, after which the rest of the world decided Germany couldn't be trusted with military power - and many Germans agreed. In fact, that's one of the reasons why Germany is so liberal - they are cognizant of their country's history and don't want to do it again.

Is that even a response? France and the rest of Europe have been dealing with modern terrorism for more than 2 decades. If anyone's late to the terrorist war, if that's what you're even talking about here, it's us. Again.

Speak for your part of the US. I've only seen it spelled with a k.
That would be like celebrating Sinko de Myo or some such crap. It's cultural unawareness to do so (though obviously not as blatant as my example).

Actually, the only link I've seen offered between al-Qaeda and Iraq is the PKK, who offered refuge to al-Qaeda members fleeing from Afghanistan. So the link is an opposition group to the government? Then why aren't we offering aid like we are to Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia...

Terrorist != hater of infidel. Read The Monkeywrench Gang. I doubt any of them, or the people that followed the example of the book's characters actually cared about the religion of those in government. Terrorism takes different forms, and there is currently over 160 definitions of a 'terrorist.'

<i>You don't seem to be aware of the amount of troops stationed in Germany right now. Do some research before posting, please. </i>

I had thought it was 50,000. It's actually 70,000.

<i>It seems that if you don't actively piss off people, they don't want to kill you.</i>

Unfortunately just *existing* pisses a lot of people off.

<i>Since nobody seems willing to attack the actual content of my posts, rather than the presentation,</i>

I'll tell you what, I haven't had anyone attack me so directly and personally in a long time. Your memory of personal details and willingness to attack on that basis is simply remarkable.

But in the post where you said I must be a Fox News viewer, and then later in the same post, saying I watch too much CNN... I don't know, that was a bit over the top.

Riiiiight. A lot of people? Refer to my earlier post about anti-Americanism.

Before the advent of Fox news, cnn came to be a generic term, much like xerox or coke. So, in those terms, what he said was not contradictory.

Its basicly to say - i havn't address all the points i wanted to so don't think your points are going to go unchallanged. I usually check cellar in the morning befor ei go out and then when i come back, often i jsut don't ahve neough time in the morning, and don't anyone suggest getting up early, thats blasphemy.

Do you accept your cooountry going to war, or even suggesting going to war on teh basis 'oh yes, we have proof, we just can't show you, so beleive us and shut up'?



Yea....study....mmmm..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa. ahem. Ok then....
Ill admit i misquoted one of the first links, claim it was for 'study' all you want, ill just sit here and laugh your pathetic attempts to ignroe the truth, even Tobiasly admit is for crying out loud, theres no point trying to argue with it. I mean in the same breath i'm expecting you to tell me the stuff america sells Taiwan is for 'research purposes' or the US pile of nukes are for 'testing only'. Lets 'study' some VX nerve gas, thats real ambigious eh. Realpolitik. Please.

You know pakistan is pretty kooky and they have nukes. China sells stuff all the time and they have nukes. Russia is full of decaying nukes. The lsit of countires that have chem and or bio weapons is jsut too long, why is there no regime change there?

Kangaroo Court
 

Jaguar, I hereby rule that you use the "I'm too busy" rationale way too much, thereby making yourself look like a crackhead.

The Kangaroo Court of Platanus Occidentalis recommends the following procedure be performed: You should create a notepad file, in which you type the subject of the thread you want to address, the person whose post you want to address, and a few lines about what you want to say in response. The Court believes that you will not only be able to construct better posts, but that they will be almost free of spelling and grammatical errors.

We are adjourned. :)

I accept that if Bush convinces most of the people in the U.N., and most of the Democrats in congress, that there is justifiable reason to use military force to overthrow Saddam, then there probably is justifiable reason.

Why? Because Saddam is a maniac. As much as Xugamad would like to believe he has refuted that notion, one of the dictionary definitions of <I>maniac</I> is "A person who acts in a wildly irresponsible way". Based on the evidence I've seen of Saddam's actions over the past ten years, I'd say that describes him.. wildly irresponsible.

So, I already accept that he's a maniac. I don't need an irrefutable smoking gun; I just need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the maniac may have the means to kill lots of Americans.

He can bully the UN far too easily sadly, doesn't prove much, merely political power. There is a good reason allies on this are few and far between. I mean has anyone looked at the blair dossier? Dossier being a nice word for rehashed version for what we know - how with a flashy new upperclass title. If that is the best they can do i think they're going to have trouble convincing anyone.

syc - ill give it a shot

That definition is stupid. Don't you think it's a little too general?

Maniac, indeed. If that's the definition of maniac, then i've been one for years.

I'm not in favor of you having nukes, either.

So, do you agree or disagree that the definition is overly broad?

juju, that's the definition. That's what the word means. If you fit the definition, then you are one - by definition. None of this "the definition is overly broad" - it can't be, because <b>that's the definition</b>.

I disagree. The dictionary is wrong!

Oh shit...you having another hypoglycemic attack, juju?