BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 06:47 PM

How about being hateable, How about preemptive strikes, and bloodfeuds fought with an obsene advantage... how about an attitude that the entire world exists at our beck and call... How about a remorseless and immoral foriegn policy that keeps the deck stacked in our favor so we Americans can fight amoungst ourselves for an increasingly dimminishing number of lead roles... How about Peace? How about Now? trr

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 06:08 PM

Thanks, Don. That was the point I've been trying to make that some think is a foolish question. Just what exactly is it that must be taken away from Iraq in order to not have a reason to get into a very messed up war? I think its a reasonable question to ask at this point, rather than down the road when there's a war going on and folks are getting blown up because sopmeone forgot to define *exactly* what weapons were the weapons in question...

And ya' know what, with all the expertise and intellegence here, I'm still not sure. How about tear gas and pepper spray. How about mortars and granades. How about machine guns.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 05:03 PM

My goodness Peg,... so clear and compelling... Your account reads like the book "Blindness"... Have you read it? Another Gigantic Negative scenario. I might be easily convinced that this kind of negativity,compelling as it i, classifies as terrorism tho... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 02:01 PM

Possible definition of a weapon of mass destruction:--

A bunch of people are crammed into a telephone booth. Two of these people hate each other. One attacks the other with a hand grenade.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 09:51 AM

The bubonic plague never went away. Every couple of years, some hiker goes up into the So Cal mountains, gets bit by a squirrel, and fails to get immediate care. It made the local news periodically when I lived down there.

We CAN cure bubonic plague if you catch in the first couple of days, but if you failed to pay attention in history class, you don't know what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peg
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 09:40 AM

Several years ago (yes, several) Nightline aired a show which was a documentary-style (but fictionalized) scenario. The basis of the scenario? What would happen if a biological agent were introduced into a major metropolitan area?

The dramatization was chillingly authentic and they kept placing disclaimers at each comercial break.

The city was not mentioned, but it was one with a major transit system (Boston? Baltimore?) A glass jar containing anthrax spores was thrown under the tracks of a subway train at rush hour. The idea was that a great many people would be infected right away by breathing in these spores. These people would spread spores to their workplaces. Those people who were travelling by plane would spread spores in the airport, to workers, flight attendants and other passengers bound for any number of destinations.

Within the city itself, massive catastrophic illness strains the capabilities of hospitals within a matter of days. Antibiotics supplies are exhausted very quickly and rioting breaks out at hopsitals when people cannot obtain them. The local news affiliates have surprisingly little information brought down from the federal level although the city is declared a disaster area. Rumors run rampant in the media about outbreaks in other areas and smaller populations being affected. Still the federal government has not confirmed that this was an intentional terrorist effort.

As more and more people die, shopfronts stay closed and the infrastructure breaks down. Massive hoarding of food and supolies occurs, followed soon after by looting. Martial law takes over, you better believe it. Public utilities go unrepaired. Corpses pile up in the hospital and morge because there are not enough people to dispose of them in the usual manner. Mass graves are dug and bodies are tossed into pits to avoid yet another public health threat from exposure to rotting human corpses.

Roughly 80% of this city's population is dead within ten days. The communicability of this particular form of anthrax insures that similar mortality will affect other urban areas, as it is only a matter of time. Perhaps this goes without saying but there is no vaccine (at least not available to the general public) and the public health workers and doctors are among the first to die...

It is communicability that is a major factor here; spores which can travel through the air and be transmitted from person to person through inhalation...spores which can survive in the air for more than a few hours...and of course, if the bacilli from other highly-communicable diseases were released in this manner (tuberculosis, bubonic plague, smallpox, measles) at the very least a great portion of the population (those at risk with compromised immune systems) would be decimated...

Yes, the bubonic plague is back; it has been discovered among several homeless populations in major cities in the last few years...cases of tuberculosis are also on the rise among these populations (albeit this one generally can be cured if the person was relatively healthy to begin with). Both are highly communicable.

It is only a matter of time.

Some of us read Stephen King's novel The Stand a few years ago and dismissed it as scary but implausible science fiction. I fear it is no longer just a story.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Peter T.
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 09:06 AM

Nuclear is easy to deliver once you have the beast. A container ship cruising into New York Harbour would easily manage, and as things stand now, there is about a 2% chance of detection (the rate of inspection).

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 08:54 AM

Thanks for the clarification PeterT. I guess I'm a little less certain what "mass" means. I'd also say that, as much a problem as delivery of gas or bio is, nuclear is even bigger -- is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 12:10 AM

Propaganda fills the air
As puppets dance intrigue
With movie goers critic's flair
And take another swig

Bring it on! the bored and lonely
In unison do shout
When fears become our one and only
To fondle all about

Rise up! Raise up your cornered mouths
And smile into these faces
For lifting spirits beaten south
rewards with finer graces

Bush and Gore (and sometimes more)
Will have another go
There's so much more for us in store
Stand up! We are the show!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 11:34 PM

Bobert: will you please take an aspirin or something? DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 11:30 PM

Iraq is more like an outdoor cat that has already caught and killed two or three human babies.

I am with you on preventing war, Bobert, but not by resorting to equally hyperbolic rhetoric in the opposite direction. That ain't right either,

Iraq can defend itself perfectly well with convenitonal wapons if it needs to. I don't think that is part of the issue here.

We're talking about a land mass roughly the size of Idaho and Nebraska joined, maybe 432000 square klicks. Only 12% of that is arable land. Their average purchasing power is estimated at $2500 per annum, about a twentieth (roughly) of the US household. 90$% of thier gross national product is from the sale of oil, a capability they acqwuired from British Petroleum and US Oil. This underscores the fact that aside from oil, their biggest value to the world isprobably the archaeological digs.

Anyway -- Given the area and scope of their economy, it seems unlikely they have any need whatsoever to mobilize nuclear, chemical or bio weapons to defend themselves. They are currently on a reasonable footing with Iran, SYria and other neighbors except tiny Kuwait. Israel is pretty sore at them but will not strike absent provication.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM

Nicole: Bare with me here. I'm not trying to belittle the dangers of WMD, I'm just trying to get someone who wants to go to war to rid Iraq of them to define just what is on their list. This way we won't end up going to war because some kid didn't get ris of his BB gun. I mean, the folks who have been beating the drums are gonna change the rules if there is not some definitions of WMD's. I'm not splitting hairs here. This is a point that folks on the anti-war side have not pinned the folks down on the other side and if there is gonna be a war then is purdy darned imnportant just how wide a brush stroke the hawks are using in their definition.

Think about what I'm saying in context to those folks Hell bent on war and the excuses they will be using over the coming months to justify their thirst for blood.

This is not a fluke question but a real one that needs to be discussed. I mean, if we go into Iraq and destroy every thing with a barrel then it's like taking one's outdoor cat to the vet to have it's claws removed.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:47 PM

Bobert, WMD may not scare you, but they scare the hell out of me. If *I* were going to spread smallpox or antrax, it wouldn't be nearly so hap-hazard.

You could also build a nuke and it not expolode on impact -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them very, very seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:24 PM

Okay, Amos, let me see if I have this right. Now if I stick enough anthrax in, say an enveolpe, and it's enough to kill, oh, a thousand people. No better yet, I rent an AG Plane and let out enough anthrax to killk a thousand people and well, after it mixes with the air and other dust and ends up only killing, say, 10 or 15 folks, well, thats a WMD? Right?

Now I go out and rent a Ryder truck and fill it with cow maure and kerosene and blow up a building killing, oh, 200 people, well, and that's not a WMD. Right. Or what if I take a conventional bomb. like every country in the universe has at least one of and drop it on the Super Bowl. Is that a WMD? Hmmmmmmmm? Now I wouldn't do any of that stuff because I'm a peacefull kind a feller, but someone might....

I'm still a little fuzzy on this thing. Smallpox, though I may not have the abilitiy to infect many folks with an AG Plane is a WMD but aVolkswagen filled with gasoline cans and lit on fire in the Holland Tunnel ain't. Right?

Hmmmmmmmm? Think this is gonna take a few evenings with the Wes Ginny slide rule.... Danged...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 08:44 PM

Bobert:

WMD as the term is usually used means weapons which are deployed against large numbers of people at once, the sort that can take out whole chunks of population. They are usually divided into nuclear weapons (atomic, hydrogen, EMP), biological weapons (plague, anthrax, cholera, etc.variously delivered) and chemical weapons (clouds of sarin destroying the lungs of an etnire town in minutes, leaving infants and mothers writhing in the streets).

These terms are perfect fuel for fiery, intemperate rhetoric exactly because they are so hard to think about with any equanimity. They have no precision, even on aa tactical scale, and are the very embodiment of human inhumanity. I am certain that while the very thought of them is hard to confront and frightening as hell, it is nothing compared to the actual event.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 08:08 PM

I am happy to have them discussed. My great worry is good old fashioned nuclear war -- everyone forgets that there are still thousands of nuclear weapons out there, the Chinese are building them, the Indians and Pakistanis, the Israelis. I consider biological warfare to be -- as things stand at the moment -- a lowlevel threat because of the difficulties of delivery and the uncertainties involved; and chemical weapons, while horrible (ask the Kurds or anyone who was gassed in World War I -- the Canadians had the dubious privilege of being the first ever, at Ypres -- or come to think of it, one might ask the elder Bush, who turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's last little experiment), are not remotely a vast "global" threat. Nuclear wars are capable of killing millions of people. Unless someone develops a runaway plague or virus that is certain to kill everyone -- which is a vague possibility at the moment, though not of course to be ruled out -- we are dealing with quantitatively different threats.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: kendall
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 07:34 PM

Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to read HIS mind! Doug, Savage was on am radio the other day and he was pouring out the worst kind of venom against democrats. He sounded like a raving lunatic, making up things about what would have happened if Gore had "stolen" the election. The man must be daft!

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 06:43 PM

I'm going to go along with John Hardly on this one, Bill. Perhaps one could read into what Bush said as criticizm of the "Democratically controlled Senate," as you obviously did Bill, but that is not what he said. He has Republican detractors in the U. S. Senate too, you know.

I think there would be no confusion if one were to stick with what he said, rather than trying to serve as an interpreter.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 06:38 PM

Bill is very much correct. The inferences in Bush's remarks were very easy to read, John, and the fact that they were made before a room full of supporters cements the deal. Oh sure, now that he's been caught, you're gonna come to his defense. But I wouldn't expect less.

And I've asked here before for someone to define WMD. This term gets thrown around as if everyone thinks that everyone else knows what they are, but when I ask, no one, especially those who want to go to war over them, ahhhh, actually know what they are. (How about a big hmmmmmm, here, Bobert.) Okay, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

And how about Kennedy's speech today, folks? Now I'm not a Repubocrat but I'm real glad to see a little resistence by anyone willing to be branded a demon or unpatriotic that's willing to ask the tough questions. That's what democracy used to be all about. Heck, the Repubs fired away at Clinton for 8 years on just about any issue they wanted but now that Bush is in the White House (by dubious means) you all are sueeling like stuck pigs if the other side just tries to exercise its duty to democracy by asking questions. Hmmmmmmmm? Looks to me like a big ol' case of hypocracy. And I don't like Dems much more than Repubs. Just an observation.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:51 PM

So Bill Kennedy

You hate every republican mudcat poster? .....I know that's not what you said...
...but I can read the "code".

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:47 PM

huh?

PeterT -- do you mean that WMD shouldn't be discussed, aren't a threat, or should be dealt with evenly in an international way such that it shouldn't matter to us who does or doesn't have 'em?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:34 PM

Speaking of digressions, I think that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is a useful term for demagoguery -- the biggest problem with it is that it lumps together chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We can see some of the dangers in this in, for example, the Israeli threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons against Saddam Hussein. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:28 PM

Kendall: who is Michael Savage, and what did he do to piss you off?

Nicole: I think Bush moving around the country like he is is the smart thing to do. That makes him a moving target. Anyway, his quest is in the best interest of the country. He's trying to get more Republicans elected. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:25 PM

McGrath: my apologies. I was referring to my friend Kendall in my statement regarding the man of few words, and it evidently is in another thread.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 05:25 PM

I have a quick question for you all. Why isn't Bush going after Saudi Arabia? After all, Osama wasn't from there and funded by them?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: kendall
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 04:18 PM

If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 03:48 PM

the reference by Bush to the Senate is understood by anyone who follows politics as a coded reference to the 'Democratically controlled Senate', hence to the Democrats. What do you think Bush is flying all over the country for raising money to regain control of the Senate? Of course he was talking about the Democrats, as a way of encouraging voters to vote Republican and give him back the Senate majority. I hope there is a big surprise this fall and he loses the house as well, but so many Democrats are saying there not even going to vote because the Democrats in the house and senate aren't doing anything to oppose Bush and his policies. Sad

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 03:33 PM

McGrath: for a man of few words, you sure know a lot of them. I'm going back and read your post more carefully later. THEN I might have something to say.

Bobert: I don't have to hug Mick (not that I wouldn't). He knows I respect, and like him. We just view political things from opposite directions. I know as a dedicated Democrat he feels as keenly about his political positions as I do mine.

Mick: I would not have objected to Senator Daschle's remarks had he quoted President Bush correctly. Bush NEVER said the Democrats were less patriotic than Republicans. Yet even today he is being quoted in the main stream press as having said it. Even responsible Democrats are STILL quoting him as having said it. Quoting a lie, over and over does not make it true.

I listend to the Diane Rhemes show on PNR this morning. At the close of her first hour she announced that her program's guests (and her) would discuss the president's statement that Democrats were not patriotic on her Monday show. See what I mean? One could conclude that the Democrats are not interested in setting the record straight. Were I cynic, I might even think so. :>)

As to following my party's line, it is conceivable that I might feel that you are doing the same. Perhaps both of us believe as we do, without concern about what our parties preach.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Sep 02 - 01:17 AM

Saddam is quite good at protecting his own skin, and launching an attack on America would remove him of that skin in abour 12 hours, as well he knows. I just don't think he's that stupid. I can think of a whole bunch of adjectives to describe Saddam, but "suicidal" is not one of them.

If he were cozy with a bunch of fundamentalists, who by and large are a lot more suicidal than the rest of us, I'd be concerned. Truth is, Saddam doesn't want the fundamentalists getting their hands on his stash of weapons, of MD or just conventional ones, because they're far more likely to turn them against him than the US.

Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment --

Hypothetically speaking, if we kicked out Saddam, do you REALLY think all those biological weapons and such he is supposed to have would ALL get destroyed? Hell no. Any one of the opposition groups, and probably several of them, would try and get their paws on them and stash them away.

Opposition groups which have shown themselves to be a lot less interested in protecting their own rear's than Saddam is.

Opposition groups which not only disagree with the basics of American democracy (that we are theoretically defending), but agree a lot with folks that are very unfriendly to us.

So 5 years from now, we not only don't have the relatively stable and self-interested Saddam, instead we have in power a set of warlords whoare a lot less stable. Who also have WMD.

Who also have ties to groups that are likely to want to use them against us.

Can you think of a scenario more likely to make the US LESS safe?

{hypothetical scenario off}

So now Rumsfeld is trotting the al Qaeda card. Ummm... you know, it's awfully convenient to "find" evidence now when your attack plans aren't going so well. Watch the bouncing birdie -- he's very careful not to lie when he says this.

From Reuters: ""We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities," Rumsfeld told reporters."

Very convenient. So convenient, in fact, that I can't bring myself to believe a word of it. Didn't I just say two days ago that if the administration was hell-bent on war they'd be willing to lie about an Iraq connection to 9/11? (And two days ago I gave them the benefit of the doubt about their motives because they hadn't. Damn optimism.)

Meanwhile, Bush was at yet another Republican fundraiser. Flitting around the country going to high priced dinners is not exactly convincing me than we're in imminent danger of attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 10:33 PM

wow.

turns out Daschle did step in it -- took the wrong quote to try to stand up for the Dems. Bush's quote (I heard it today) didn't say a thing about Democrats. (it spoke about the Senate in general)

Doug -- I understand the weapons of mass destruction point -- but I still contend that unless we are struck first we will not unite in a military action. That doesn't mean that a military action is the wrong choice -- it may be a wise choice to save the lives of American people.

Problem is, I think the country is divided along irrational political lines -- not ideological ones. So, even if Bush decides on military action, and even if it saves lives (a point he'd never be able to prove -- as he couldn't possibly prove the what if) -- we will not unite unless we are attacked. Funny li'l catch 22, huh?

I wouldn't support this "pre-emptive" use of the military if it were the previous adminstration -- and I won't under this either. It's not about the leadership -- it's that we are too corrupt as a nation to be policing the world. To most here, we are corrupt because some have more than others, or because we are materialist to the point of corrupt. To me it was enough that we were so materially corrupt that we allowed a whole calculated force of liars come before us day after day during the last administration -- we knew they were lying to us but becasue we were materially comfortable, we rationalized the lies. And nobody paid the price for those lies -- the same group still shows up on our news programs and their credibility is never in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 10:20 PM

Doug: Hey, Big Guy. Go give Mick a big ol' Doug-hug...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:58 PM

Well...........I picked the wrong time to be out of town for a couple of days. Let me clear some things up.

Doug, I understand why you took offense. I was not telling you to go away. I never would, as you are a great voice for your point of view. It was not intended to offend you, but it was a forceful expression of the fact that I am sick to death of conservatives acting as if they own the patriotism issue. As a Democrat of some standing, I was offended by the President's remarks. I think (like Daschle) of Dan Inouye, and of former Senator Kerry, and of others. While this man was busy keeping the skies over Texas safe, some of us were in harm's way. This bunch is dangerous. They use demagoguery to get their way and paint those of us with dissenting views as not caring about the security of the US. I repeat......at the top of my lungs............EMPASSIONED DEBATE AND FORCING THE JUSTIFICATION OF THEIR AGENDA, ALONG WITH DISSENT, IS THE EPITOME OF PATRIOTISM..........it is what I fought to defend. When I said "lay off" I was referring to the fact that I find it terribly distressing when a man whom I respect, that being you, is doing nothing more than mouthing the line. I stand by that in the context that I meant it.

Most importantly, I apologize for the context in which it was taken. I would never want you to not be a part of the debate here. You have always been a gentle and decent member of this community. I would rather I not be here than you not be here. Please accept my apology for offending you. That was not what I meant to do. I absolutely meant to challenge you, but not offend you. I am sorry.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:29 PM

As per usual, GUEST is stickin' with his only story line: Islamic fundementalists, who hate Saddam and vice versa. But that doesn't matter too much because GUEST is marginalizing his or her own self by beating the same worn out drum.

And Dougie is coming 'round nicely, I'd say. A few more months and we'll have him marchin' on the front lines for peace.

And Thomas, bless his heart, is still trying to rhyme his way thru the labrinth.

But, Nicole? Now that's a different story. I'm glad I appointed her Secretary of Peace because she's up to the task of hangin' with the big dogs when it comes to the real deal, you know, ahhh... the facts.

Speaking of which, anyone else feelin' like since Daschle stepped out on the limb, Junior's chain saw just got real dull...

Or is it my imagination?

Yeah, I listend to an hour of C-SPAN tonoght on the way home from work and it seemed like the Democrats (yeah, I know, who would have thunk it?...)were laying some wood to Powell and asking some real tough questions, many of which Powell didn't quite have answers for. Especially, the one about waht the US plans on doing in Iraq after they boot Saddam.... Hmmmmmmmmm? Make room for one more star on the flag, boys... Jus funnin'. Kinda...

What is the plan?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:06 PM

Perhaps it could be said

"We are either with the world, or against it".

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:52 PM

John Hardly: "I agree with Peter T., at least to the extent that the other side must strike first."

I would agree, except for one thing. Weapons of mass destruction.

In the "old" days weapons that would cause the large number of deaths in a population were not as readily available as they are today.

If Iraq has WMDs, and we are all aware that Saddam did not hesitate, in the past, to use them as he did with his own people and the Iranians, then we would have to be prepared to lose thousands of lives, possibly, before we could respond. I hate the idea of our attacking first. But it is a very close call, in my opinion. These times, they are not only a-changing, they have already changed beyond anything we might have imagined even ten years ago. If the president determines through intelligence sources that Saddam has the bomb, or the means to even deliver Anthrax, Smallpox, or any other dread disease that might kill thousands of Americans or ANY of our allies, then I think we may have to go after him first.

Ideally, the weapons inspectors will be allowed back in under very stringent rules that Saddam cannot tamper with, and the answer to the question of whether or not Iraq has WMD might be answered. If they can be located and destroyed, the question of our invading Iraq is a moot point.

Don thanks for the kind words.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:37 PM

During all of this debate, has anyone actually considered that it is this Iraqi leader and regime that is the target and not the people of Iraq? Bush has been trying to get (that miserable failure) the UN to enforce weapons inspections; and it is Saddam and his regime that prevents it. It is the radical Islamic fanatics that are the danger to world peace. Any decent nation would not condone such activity. The problem we have is that regardless of international laws and standards, the only effective means to achieve peace has been NATO. Debate on friends, I enjoy reading it and certainly enjoy stirring your pot on the odd occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 05:18 PM

Can I just point out one more time that: IRAQ IS NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIM COUNTRY!

Iraq is governed by a secular government. Most of the "opposition" forces in Iraq ARE Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam can't stand the fundamentalists and they can't stand him.

You may want Saddam to take a long walk off a short plank, but you can't pin that one on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 03:59 PM

I was simply pointing out that there is a considerable moral advantage to absorbing a first strike against you: the moral advantage is that, over time, your ability to defend yourself in democracies wins out, not necessarily by superior armament, but by solidarity. This is cold comfort, for example, to the Poles in World War II, or --as I said in another thread -- if one is attacked by a new generation of weapons. It raises new questions. Nevertheless, Lincoln went out of his way not to be the first to fire during the Civil War: he saw the moral advantage, in spite of the difficult position he knew it would put the people already in harm's way.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:58 PM

It takes a real man to apologize, so, forget it Tom. Anyone ever heard that right wing raving lunatic, Michael Savage? I'd love a few minutes with that asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:32 PM

Gosh, GUEST. It sounds like you have Saddam as the only bad guy on your demon list. Hmmmmmm? no one else on the list. It is implisic to think that if Bush Senior had just gotten a regime change that the world would be one big ol' Walton's family. I would suggest that the US's foriegn policy of using folks when we need them or their resources and then dumping them had a lot to do with situations in which the counties of the world find themselves. Not to mention Bush, Junior's turning his back on the Isreali/Palestinian conflict early in his term. And one needs to also look at the poverty that a lot of folks around the world, including the US, in times when the inhabitants of the planet are becoming more tribalized and know just how much the US consumes. Yes, we have become an exclusionary nation and have given folks, who are extremeists, lots of fuel ihn their recruiting efforts of young folks. No, we are hardly involved with our own poor, let alone the impoverished of other nations.

So, yes, until we develop inclusionary foriegn and econmic policies towards the rest of the world, we will continue to have more Saddam's and Bin Ladens, both of whom used to be our buddies before we closed the doors on them.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:04 PM

Bobert, while you negotiate and discuss peacefully, the radicals merely re-group and attack again with greater violence. I did not attach any culpability to a nation or race, I stated clearly and concisely, radical Islamics are the root cause of this clear and present danger. You can discuss and negotiate peacefully with any rational nation and race that posses a government that recognizes human rights; but when some of those people intend to attack without regard for the sanctity of human life, or obeying any recognized rules of engagement and levels of force, military action must be swift and decisive. Had the former Bush done his job properly the people of Iraq (some I have met and admire greatly) would be free of a dictatorial and inhumane leader/regime. The ideals and philosophy of the indoctrinated radicals cannot be changed purely by inaction. The USA has tried education and co-operation in international diplomacy, but still has to face a resolute enemy who will have to be stopped by direct military action. The world progresses in time and technology but with little wisdom. Tolerance, international co-operation, and education, will in time win over hearts and minds; but dont forget that we are condemned to repeat this history because we failed to do this with full international support under a previous administration.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:34 PM

GUEST: I am always suspect of folks who think that every problem has at its core a single cause.

With that said, your generalizations about people and their motives, I hold a different opinion. The world is not all black and white, good and evil. I don't think it is fair to say that the "aim of the Palestinians is to erase Isreal" because there is an implication that *all* Palestinians want to erase Isreal and this is not true. Most Palestinians are moderate in their beliefs and interpret jahad as man's "struggle" to to be good people in the eyes of Allah, just as their counterparts in the Christain world work on becoming good people thru confession, forgiveness and the Bible's instructions to "sin no more".

I partially agree with you that fundamentalists on both sides of the divide would like to have all conflict blamed on religious differences. But this dog don't hunt either. There are economic differences. There a foriegn policy differences. There are cultural difference. Educational differences and lots of other differences that can't be blamed on religion.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:14 PM

Guest - I never instructed you how to think or behave, just expressed my view, and said your arguments do not convince me. When we kill more people should I stand and watch? Does our evil actions outweigh thiers? because our god is the true god? no thank you, I do not agree.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:55 PM

Dear Guest Bill Kennedy, It is a war against radical Islamics, and I stand by what I posted. Debate it if you will, but do not instruct me on how to think or behave. When they kill more people, will you stand and watch? or agree to take action and prevent murder? I can assure you that action will be required; but it will never be condoned or desired by a civilized people of any religion or race.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM

I agree with PeterT at least to the extent that t'other side must strike first. If not we will never unite over our own defense (and even then, if we don't do it quickly there will be those who will regroup, and then point out that retaliation is unnecessary in that Hussein has now expended his arsenal and is therfore no longer a threat :^) ).

The wierd irony I found in the reporting of the Daschle story was....
...the new was saying that, wheras the Democrats were ready to take up and support Bush on homeland security.....now they aren't.Now I may be dense.......but that means....

The Democrats were going to support Bush because they were finally convinced that our best security interests were in doing so. Now that Bush offended them........our security will again take a back seat to their desire for political vengence.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:17 PM

"I do think the forum would be less interesting, however, if only one point of view was presented."

Exactly so, Doug! I would not presume to speak for Big Mick (nor for that matter does he necessarily speak for me), but perhaps in the heat of the moment he did not chose his words as carefully as he might have.

I feel that the purpose of debate is to hear and consider other viewpoints and to stimulate thought. Please don't "lay off." In the words of the not-so-immortal MacBeth, "Lay ON. . . !

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:10 PM

Guest - this is not a war against Islam or practitioners of Islam, and none of your examples could be used to justify such a thing if it were at all justifiable, which it is not

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:53 AM

"The war on terror is not a war on terror at all. Terror isn't an enemy, it's a feeling. Your terror is what the enemy wants you to feel. Describing our efforts in terms of an emotional abstraction not only obscures the face of our adversary, but the nature of our mission. The enemy in this is the radical Islamist who argues that all non-believers in their faith must be killed." Religious wars have been with us for a very long time, and they certainly are more complex than the wars of nations or dynasties. I do not see that we as a nation are properly instructed in the nature of this one. The aim of the Palestinians is to erase Israel, as they have often said in both Arabic and English. That aspect of the current conflict is clear enough, but once a bunch of crazy Saudis blows up major office buildings on the other side of the world from their specific interests, killing thousands of people who did not even know that they were at risk, it becomes our principle and immediate problem to locate and identify the physical enemy. Those people we can kill. Their notion - that we are "kaffirs" and thus worthy of death under all circumstances - is, of course, a psychological problem rather than a military one.

Those people on the other side seem to do a great deal of praying. Let us pray that their god will show them the error of their ways so that, pending that time, we can get them out in the open where they may serve as proper targets.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:43 AM

Tweed! I wish!! Somehow Texas produced Doggett!!!

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:08 AM

The Connection.

Perhaps Bush 'ignored' the known plots, and never dreaming that such a fantasticly demonic plot would ensue, and was maybe willing to 'let' something happen in order to clean up the world and take over... I have no proof... Zero... none. If the terrorists got a hold of such information... I'm simply playing 'devil's advocate here... september eleventh was the worst thing that has ever happened on American soil in the last 135 years...