Teribus: ...since 1998 the world has become a safer place (even taking into account Iraq and Darfur) we are 40% less likely to experience a war and 60% less likely to encounter genocide.

Well, given the fact that we have a war now sucking all our resources ... and given the fact that the genocide in Darfun continues, I'd hardly take solace in that alleged "fact" (for which you provide no reference).

But I'd note that the State Department's own estimate of terrorism has such increasing substantially (so much so that they fudged the numbers the first time out to keep Dubya's pants from falling off). Any particualr reason you didn't mention the figures for terrorism? Selective vision of a sorts?

I travel a lot, Teribus, as do my fellow workers. One just got back from Jordan, a week prior to the attacks there. Our company has said "that's it", no more travel to Jordan. But I'd not be adverse to Jordan; I'm a bit type-A, and I was over in 1/5 Muslim Tchad a month after 9/11. But there is one place I will not go, tops of the list, and strangely enough, that is the one place the United States has well over 100K troops in to "keep the peace"! Because there is a difference between risk-taking ehaviour and suiicidal stoopidity. Even Afghanistan and Pakistan are comparatively peaceful compared to the carnage in Iraq. But our company won't send people to Pakistam; we have to hire local and dial ion remotely (and while it hasn't come up, I'd expect the same for Afghanistan.

If you really think we're in a safer place now that we were a couple of years ago, I'd suggest that you go visit one of these countries, and we might put an end to our arguments here one way or another. Make sure you wear your Toby Keith T-shirt.

Akenaton: Arne..Game set and match to you, whoever you are!!

Ummm, strangely enough, I go by my given name of "Arne Langsetmo". ;-)

BB:

[Arne]: I really don't gave a d*** whether you think that a "state of war" existed. What matters is what people that actually know about these kinds of things know."

BB: A perfect quote- so why should I believe anyt of your lies, when you do not believe the UN reports?

Once again, who, beside yourself and similar HW apologists, thought that a "state of war" existed?

BB: U-235 , please, or plutonuium. Some of us know how easy it is to make a bomb, once you have the materials. He had the materials, in violation of the cease-fire terms and the UN resolutions.

I suspect that I could build a "Thin-Man" type bomb in a month or so with enough HEU (i.e., more than 95% U-235). Plutonium a bit more difficult. But both U-235 enrichment and plutonium separation require massive industrial efforts. But Saddam had neither the Pu or U-235, not the facilities to manufacture such. The 3% or so "enriched" urianium he did have requires almost as much processing as raw uranium to produce any weapons-grade material.

BTW, this is why control of weapons-grade material is so important, and why it's such a travesty that even Tom Keane complained in his follow-up 9/11 commission report recently that we're dropping the ball on trying to secure this stuff and destroy it. But the Republican Congress has consistently short-changed programs to try and get the massive amounts of WGM under control in teh former Soviet Union.

Teribus: IT WAS NOT TAKEN TO FIND WMD.

Could have fooled a lot of people. Ummm, hmmm, oh yeah, righto, it did fool a lot of people. Not me, though.   ;-)

Teribus: No country in the world, no government, should delegate it's responsibility to act in the best interests of its citizens and national interests to any other body or organisation - certainly not to the UN judging on its past achievements.

"Every man for himself..." Yeah, that works.... 2000+ U.S dead for a lie, Teribus. If it's so noble, why aren't you over there?

BB: Perhaps you can tell me what the anti-war folks think that ANY US government will do if a WMD ( or several) is used against the US? If we even suspect who it was, IMO a LOT more people will die than in a dozen Iraq-style invasions.

Ummm, if you're getting into C/B analysis, you need to add in probabilities:

If P(a)*C(a) is greater than P(b)*C(b), then choose alternative "b", otherwise choose "a". You seem to be assuming equal probablitities of outcomes, something that is far from extablished. And of course you also seem to be engaging in a bit of "fallacy of bifurcation" and carefully choosing the only two options you'd like to discuss, in the hopes that the comparison will be favourable to the option you prefer. In fact, there's generally lots of potential options, each with their own probability ofoutcome and their own cost.

Cheers,