BS: Why I support disarming Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:52 AM

Now Old Guy, don't expect logic from Ole' Boppert. No point in starting that now! He's still digging out from the snow and his senses are probably frostbitten! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:58 AM

Bobert:

"attacking a country that ahs done everything that the world has asked of it in the last few months"?

Where should we beam you up from? A cave in Afghanistan or a palace in Iraq?

I am not seeing a lot of coherence or logic in your posts. Hit your reset button.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:52 PM

Well, Leprechaun I'm interrupting the thread here, and just found the bong bust thread. I'm not near busting a vein, just goofin' around with your nonsense and quick assumptions.

   As I say, screw you and your assumption that if I disagree with your nancy-reagan noodle-head notions I must buy drugs. Screw you and your reference to my doper friends which you seem to know better than I do that I have. I'm not so sure, but it seems pretty likely.

   I don't know everything that's right and wrong but I do know a line of bullshit when I see it. How often do you hold people accountable for the actions of other people who received their money, unless that money was paid for those actions? You don't even have the nerve to say it, you insinuate it, I think you know better yourself. It's bullshit. It's just as logical to say You do more to support those things by propping up the illegal industry. Illegality is marketing to teens. Good luck with your lost cause. If you can't keep illegal drugs out of prisons, I don't have the master plan, I 'm sure you do.

    And good luck doing the better part of your job, you're a better man than me, I'm sure, despite that you're full of bs.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:56 PM

Didn't ya hear, Lep. Ol' Jed was tryin' to shoot some Revenuer fir getting to close to the still and hit this hillside and danged if he didn't hit a soft spot in the Earth and just below that spot was a few million barrels of tea.. Texas tea, that is... and well Jeb pascked up the famille and with all that dough left town...

No one 'round these parts has seen hide nor hair of them Clampetts and I ain't got not Christmas card from Ellie May in, oh... about 30 years. Ya' probably guessed by now that me and Ellie May ahd this little thing going before her daddy missed the Revenue man and got rich. Yep, me and her were 'sposed to go to the prom together but all she wanted to do was go down to Black Pond and skinny dip so that's what we did... Well, so we got down to B;ack Pond and the moon was shining real bright and so Ellie May told me to turn my back while she got outta that "Flour sack" formal that her Granny made fir her and so I did and then I heard this spashing sound and she said to come on in so's I turned around and she was standing right there before me, in that bright moon shine with nothing on but her necklace and then....

Nevermind...

Ahhhhh, did I mention that Bush never went skinny dippin' with Ellie May? If he had then maybe he wouldn't be so Hell-bent on attacking a country that ahs done everything that the world has asked of it in the last few months. Inspections, U-2 palnes, destroying missles that wouldn't have hit anything but Iraq anyway. Hmmmmm? I'm waiting for Bush to demand that Saddam can fly with nothing but a pair of tennis rackets for wings...

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

Bobert - You da man! I'm sure I'd enjoy that!

How's the Clampett family doin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:10 PM

Good work, Fred!

Ol' Lepper is comin' 'round just like we drew it up on paper...Opps! Weren't 'sposed to say nothin' about the corn-spiracy. Ignore this! Burn it inthe fire place! Bury the ashes in the back yard!

Awww, jus' funnin'.

Yo, lep:

This ain't funnin'. Okay, maybe it it is. But here in the center of the universe, you know... ahhhh, Wes "By God" Ginny we got an annual "Liar's Contest" and well, the "Lepp" Brothers take turns winnin' the dnaged thing. Paul, bless his heart, passed two years ago but the younger Lepp is still taking home the blue ribbon.

Jus thought you'd like to know that...

Maybe you could come down and give him a run for the the money, ahhh, ribbon...

Awww, jus funnin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:58 PM

Gee whiz Fred, How about you wipe those flecks of foam from your mouth and see about getting some legal prescription medication? Your gonna burst a vein there any minute. It's really sweet that you've appointed yourself the arbiter of what's wrong and what's moral, and are so gently steering the rest of us on the path of righteousness.

I'll applaud your attempts to change things, and I fear you may succeed. The fact is, you're facing very little opposition these days, some of which is me. Perhaps you have a master plan for some comprehensive social engineering, the clarity of which will convince all us stupid people that you are indeed, the one.

But I'll probably still be insulting your doper friends every chance I get.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:51 PM

On second thought, Leprechaun, it doesn't sound like I respect that you have a difficult job, but I do, anyway. But I never quit buying any drugs out of respect for the drug law. I don't respect it--good lord how could I? How can anyone.   Long long ago pot got too expensive for a weed I should be free to pull up from choking my tomatoes, I liked it okay but not enough to hassle with. Like any other overpriced garbage I don't need--I shave with hand-soap. I have no idea what a tweaker is. My drug culture is antique.

But it misses the entire point whether some or all of what money goes to this or that. The nonsensical unprincipled laws enable the illegal drug industry. And the money you spend on anything might pay a child-abuser, or killer, or hobbiest bomber, for all you know. Your Nancy Reagan line of insinuation pisses me off. It's really dumb.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:31 PM

Leprechaun--I lost track of this thread for a while. You don't need to be telling me anything about the drugs you think I buy, you cog in a in a fantasy perpetual-motion machine. I haven't bought an illicit substance of any sort in more than 20 years, not since I was seventeen, and you can take your assumptions about that and do something or other with them. I suppose I probably know people who do, and they are people you don't get to insult with your moral bullshit withouy my speaking up. You're wrong, that's all. And it hits a nerve with me when it is a giggling joke that our elected officials have done this and that, but other people are in jail for those things or less. It's wrong, it empowers criminals on the one hand, and stupid prejudices, racism, and every other sort of bias and bigotry in the enforcement of law on the other. It's quite out of hand.

I respect that you have a very difficult job, but think your reasoning is short-sighted, maybe based on having to deal with things as they are. But it's a losing battle. It should change, and it will, I'm quite sure. But having been stupid so long, people are slow and resistant to suddenly being smarter, because they have to confront what a stupid waste of time, effort, and human potential it's all been.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oilman
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:09 AM

So we can go in a suck every last drop of our oil from under their sand.

Kill em all, let God sort em out.

Greedy Oilman

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:20 PM

DougR, we will be inviolation of a number of UN resolutions and laws if we attack Iraq without UN consensus, and if Iraq hasn't attacked us first. Either we support the rule of law, or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:15 PM

Carol C: "We" are not in violation of 17 (or is it 18)U.N. Resolutions. Iraq is. To compare the U. S. to Iraq is, I believe, a waste of typing energy.

Bobert: If I am a knucklehead, it is solely to rile you! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:23 PM

Can anybody here explain what the Carter Doctrine is? This set our foreign policy for the Middle East a long time ago.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:45 AM

Bobert -

Yer welkum.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 04:02 PM

(Sorry to hear about the snow, Bobert. Try getting yourself down to one of the Shepherdstown contra dances. That'll warm you up right quick ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:54 PM

Ya mean "Do as I say and not as I do?", CarolC. Ain't that what hypocisy is?

Well, ya gotta admit that having the biggest s6tcik does have that built in advantage. May not make the world any safer, but as we a beginning to see, when you threaten to *whack* folks, you can always depend on a few folks to back you up for doing so.

(Snowin' agin' back up here in the ol' hood, CarolC... Danged, I hate this stuff...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:43 PM

I'm going to rephrase part of my last post. I think it might make things a little clearer.

If we don't abide by the laws (or resolutions) to which we hold Saddam Hussien, we cannot use those same laws (or resolutions) to make our case against him. (And if we try to do that, the only law we are holding ourselves to is "might makes right".)

That is my point in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:31 PM

Okay, Dougie:

Why are you such a knucklehead? There, I asked you yet another question.

leprechaun:

Thanks fir the spellin' lession.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:02 PM

What Forum Lurker said.

It's not confusing, DougR. We must abide by the same laws to which we hold Saddam Hussien, or we don't have a case against him according to those laws.

If the only law we recognize is "might makes right", then God help us all. (That was, after all, the only law recognized by Hitler.)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:10 PM

The thing is, DougR, that international law is also American law. If he launches an attack without provocation, without a clear casus belli, and without declaring war, he's committed a number of crimes, and fairly serious ones at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

Yes, Carol, your date is right.

However, how you can read your own post differently from they way I interpreted it is beyond me.

You are saying that if Bush orders the attack of Iraq, he will be breaking international law. I say if he believes Iraq is a danger to the U. S., he can! What's so confusing about that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM

However, your message of 25 Feb at 10:56 applies to the second paragraph. You said Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U. N.'s approval. Not so. Read that portion of my post again.

I didn't post anything on 25 Feb at 10:56, so I'm going to assume you meant 26 Feb at 10:56. Here's the part I think you are referring to:

People who wave that resolution around as justification for Bush to prosecute the war need to understand that if he does so without the go ahead from the UN (which he does not have right now), he will be doing it in violation of international laws that the US is bound to by the fact of having agreed to them and having signed them.

You take too many liberties with other people's words, DougR. Nowhere in that paragraph is there any language saying "Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U.N.'s approval"

What it does say is that he would be violating international laws (and US laws for that matter) that the US agreed to and signed. (Which would, of course, make him an international criminal, just like Saddam Hussien). Whether or not you can see the difference between those two statements, there is, nevertheless, a very big one.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:34 AM

Carol C: you are half right. The first part of my post evidently related to someone else and for that I apologize. However, your message of 25 Feb at 10:56 applies to the second paragraph. You said Bush would not be justified invading Iraq without the U. N.'s approval. Not so. Read that portion of my post again.

Bobert: ask me a question.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 11:55 PM

Bobert, when you say "wack," it's confusing. From the context, you seem to mean "to kill, to put out contract on, to terminate with extreme prejudice." However, that should be spelled "Whack." "Wack" means crazy, outside the norm, undesireable, which I'm sure you would be happy to apply to our Commander-in-Chief in other contexts. There's also "Smack," which might fit in your particular reference, meaning to hit, plow into, deliver a blow.

So for quick reference, please cut and paste the following:

Whack - to kill (Gangster jargon)

Wack - crazy (Youth jargon)

Smack - strike (Old jargon)

Please get your acks together.

Kevin

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 03:59 PM

That's my pal, Dougie, Carol. I ask him questions all the time and he either ignores them or gives me the "no, the ocean is not deep" reply.

But he's my buddy, even if he is a knucklehead...

Like I've said, the UN resolution is nothing more than a little *homework* assignment that Powell threw down in front of Bush to slow him down back when Cheney and Rumsfeld had Bush's ear in those secret meeetings. And, well, Bush never did like homework assignments but Powell made Bush promise to just try it. After a major pouting session, Bush tried it, decided it wasn't fir him and is now back to wanting to *wack* some folks.

Heck with the resolution. Bush never met a resolution, agreement or treaty not worthy of the shredding machine. The Constitution included...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:37 PM

DougR, I don't think you read either of my last two posts at all.

I do believe that it has been the policy of the U. S. to bring about regime change since the Clinton administration. It did not originate with the Bush administration.

The president of the U. S. is obligated to protect its citizens if he/she feels there is a clear and imminent danger, and is justified in doing so with or without allies or permission from the U.N.

I have no idea how you came up with this reply in response to my last two posts, because it has nothing at all to do with anything I said in either of them (or any of my other posts for that matter). Is this some kind of circular argument in which I say something like "today is a sunny day", and you reply with something like, "no, the ocean is not deep"?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM

But he is not justified if the danger is neither clear nor imminent, or if it violates international law, which does in fact take precedence over federal law.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

Carol C: I think you are incorrect (Surprise!)

I do believe that it has been the policy of the U. S. to bring about regime change since the Clinton administration. It did not originate with the Bush administration.

The president of the U. S. is obligated to protect its citizens if he/she feels there is a clear and imminent danger, and is justified in doing so with or without allies or permission from the U.N.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

Forum Lurker,

I think it could be a case of "Judge not a man by what he says, judge him by what he does".

The President and members of his administration have talked extremely toughly at times and I think it has always been with a purpose. Initially to get the UN to face up to it's responsibilities, and to get things moving. The sort of rhetoric coming out is also aimed at unsettling Saddam Hussein and the senior members of his government.

Every time the Inspectors have gone to the UN, Iraq must have held its breath waiting for the US to act. Hence every time some sort of concession was made by the Iraqi's to prove that the process of inspections was getting results. That is a delaying tactic that will only work for so long.

And that I believe is the same reason from the US & UK's side for the apparent constant change of emphasis - I say apparent because that is what it is. With the exception of "Regime change", all the others (nuclear, chemical/biological and human rights) are all mentioned through reference to earlier UNSC Resolutions in 1441. They are all real and alarming concerns and they must be resolved. By seeming to change emphasis it keeps the regime in Iraq wondering as to what they are going to have to concentrate and focus on for the next meeting. Therefore the US & UK get more mileage out of their tactics than Saddam will get out of his.

I mentioned the regime change thing, because the current President is fortunate enough to have people in his administration who have dealt with Saddam Hussein and his senior ministers in the past, under fairly similar circumstances - that experience is invaluable in the game being played at the moment. I think they know that purely with inspectors there (and it does not matter how many you have), concentrating on a fairly narrow band, Saddam will continue to give them the run around. What the US & UK want is to see full compliance with the letter and the intent - they know that that will not happen as long as Saddam is in power - hence the call for Regime change. It's another string to the bow when it comes to unsettling the opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 10:56 AM

Now how many of you poor paranoid buggers are out there looking under your car with a flashlight?

Every day, leprechaun, every day... ;-)

Teribus, you missed the key part of my post. I said "under the terms of the UN resolution". And I was right. If Bush "prosecutes a war" against Iraq with only the authority given him by the US Congress, it he would not be doing it "under the terms of the UN resolution". So my post was correct, and troll's post was a nonsequitur.

People who wave that resolution around as justification for Bush to prosecute the war need to understand that if he does so without the go ahead from the UN (which he does not have right now), he will be doing it in violation of international laws that the US is bound to by the fact of having agreed to them and having signed them.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 09:01 AM

Yet, Teribus, yet. Bush has threatened to act without UN approval many times. It's clear that he's not going to accept the UN's decision if it doesn't involve bombing Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 05:29 AM

It may appear so Carol - but you can't fault the man's planning:

If you take the point about Iraq not honouring the terms of the cease-fire agreement - then hypothetically the UN could declare the cease-fire over at any moment and hostilities could resume - you are perfectly correct in saying that it would have to be the UN that did that - not one of the "Desert Storm" coalition partners.

If the UN did go down that line - the President would then have to go to Congress for the authority that would enable the US to rejoin that coalition and intervene.

What George W. Bush has done is to short-cut that process so that should the UN opt for military intervention the US would be at immediate readiness. Good planning.

It falls in line with what the US has done right from the start in this matter (Iraq) - irrespective of rhetoric, not once have they acted "unilaterally", they have always operated throughout in accordance with UN protocol.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:06 AM

Why sure Bobert, I could tell one of your posts with my eyes closed. Or my glasses off...I dunno, something like that.

I believe George W and his advisers knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before he ever mentioned regime change. I believe they could show us the proof if they wanted to, they're just not ready yet. Their concerns may not just stem from human intelligence sources. I think we have technology our leaders aren't ready to expose yet. And I don't blame them.

I kinda liked old Jimmy Carter, but he let the Iranians tweak his nose for long old while. I thought it was irresponsible of him to try to boost his macho ratings by announcing the existence of our Stealth Bombers. At the time, I'd rather not have known, so as to keep our enemies from knowing for while longer.

I have more primitive technology available to me, which I rarely get to use, that I'd rather my investigative targets didn't know about. If I can keep from it, I'm not going to let them know how I nailed them until I absolutely have to. So if I got a GPS tracker on somebody's car, I may delay using or exposing that evidence to the suspect, if there's any way I can avoid it.

Now how many of you poor paranoid buggers are out there looking under your car with a flashlight?

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:28 PM

Troll:

What Fortum Lurker has said and I said. Bush telegraphed his intentions a long time ago. Then Cond Rice and Colin Powell discovered that the Cheney/Dumsfeld folks were having secret meeting with Bush and then Powell confronted Bush about war "protocol" and after a 3 hour hissy fit, Bush came out of his play room and told Powell that he would be a better boy and do what ever Powell thought he needed to do to have his war. Thus, all this crap at the UN. And it is crap! This has no more to do with "disarming Saddam" than Bush has sending in an application to join the Menza Society.

You can pretend this never happened but it did! Regime change! Regime change! Regime chnage! Remember those days?

So, my friend, you expect Saddam to drop the stick? Hmmmmmm? Do you rreally think the man is a stupid as he is bad?

Now, being a peaceful kind of Christain guy, I wouldn't have ever done any of the stupid things that Saddam has done. Never! But I also pretty much know what Bush has on his mind. So, if you want the stick. Come get it!

That's the craziness of this entire situation.

We think mean people are also stupid? Hmmmmmm?

Bobert

p.s. Yo, troll, you know what my voice sounds like here on Mudcat? Think click, click, click.... Jus' funnin, but really, that's about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

This is a non sequitur, troll. The first thing has nothing to do with the second thing...

the UN could compell him (Saddam) to do so (comply). That Resolution has never been rescinded to the best of my knowledge.

The first thing says that the UN could compell him to do so.

The Congress of the United States voted to give George Bush the authority to prosecute the war if saddam failed to comply with the terms of the UN Resolution.

The second thing says that the US Congress voted to give Bush the authority to prosecute the war if Saddam failed to comply.

Since it was the UN that issued the resolution you refer to, only the UN has the authority, under the terms of the resolution, to prosecute the war if Saddam fails to comply. The US Congress has no authority to give Bush the authority, under the terms of the resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:08 PM

We have not done so, but we have stated our willingness to do so. Recall that, before any evidence came to light that Saddam was not complying with Resolution 1441, Bush had already commited himself to a policy of regime change, and that Bush has stated that nuclear or chemical weapons might be used in a pre-emptive attack, even without Saddam using such weapons first. It's like the cop getting an arrest warrant before searching your house for the evidence he needs for said warrant. Even if he finds the evidence, he's not acting impartially.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:04 PM

Saddam is in a corner and he will lash out like a cornered rat. His military is probably not wanting to be annihilated so they are wanting to defect or have a coup.

None of this would have happened, no inspections or revelation of any missiles and other proscribed weapons, would have occurred if it were not for the US, headed by George Bush, acting like a "bully" or a strong leader with a sense of conviction had not push the UN to do it's job and parked 200,000 troops with the most modern weapons available on his doorstep.
These protestors did not have to lift a finger. If we would all stand together all the people in all nations and say "we want Saddam Hussein out of power", this guy would be history. It would set a good example for the likes of UBL and NK.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:38 PM

Lurker, so far we have, and continue to, abide by the UNSC Resolution. We (the US) have not, to date, moved unilaterally against Saddam. While you may feel that Bush is a bit too keen in upholding the provisions of that Resolution, the Resolution is the document from which authority to prosecute the war is being derived. You may recall that the Resloution which stopped the Gulf War provided only a cease-fire while the UN inspectors went in to oversee the dismantling of Saddams war machine. If he didn't comply, by the terms of that Resolution, the UN could compell him to do so. That Resolution has never been rescinded to the best of my knowledge.
The Congress of the United States voted to give George Bush the authority to prosecute the war if saddam failed to comply with the terms of the UN Resolution. Saddam has been given too many "last chances" to comply.
The US, to our shame, created Saddam Hussein. It's time to take him out of the game permanently and it's our responsibility.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 09:32 PM

A Man of Words (Anon)

A man of words and not deeds,
Is like a garden full of weeds;
And when the weeds begin to grow;
It's like a garden full of snow;
And when the snow begins to fall,
It's like a bird upon the wall;
And when the bird away does fly,
It's like an eagle in the sky:
And when the sky begins to roar,
It's like a lion at the door;
And when the door begins to crack,
It's like a stick across your back;
And when your back begins to smart,
It's like a penknife in your heart;
And when your heart begins to bleed,
You're dead, and dead, and dead indeed

Saddam has led the UN along for 12 years. More words and more time will not help anyone. It is time to send these people a clear message by actions not words.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:53 PM

Except that the policeman has already sentenced the man with a shotgun to life without parole for owning the shotgun after he was told not to. While it's true that having the missiles will speed up the timetable, I don't think that anything will stop Bush from having his war.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:10 PM

As usual Bobert, you are so in love with the sound of your own voice (metaphorically speaking) that you have overlooked one simple but important point, viz. it was not Bush who told Saddam to disarm. It was the Security Council of the United Nations and I believe the vote was unanimous.
Secundus, the proscribed missiles will not fall in Iraq if they are fired from the border of that country, always assuming that they aim them in the right direction. Tertius,if you are standing in your front yard holding a shotgun -which the police have told you you may not have because of past bad behavior- and a policeman comes by and tells you to put the shotgun down and step away from it, and you refuse, what do you think will happen.
I think that you'll take the celestial dirt nap.
This is a bit more realistic scenario that the "stick story". Basically, Saddam is between a rock and a hard place. He can destroy the missiles and lose their use if the UN forces attack, or he can hang on to them and guarantee that attack. If he gives them up, he loses "face" and if he doesn't, he could lose face literally.
So whats your take?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:53 PM

Oldguy. Ceausescu had the most grotesquely lavish palace of all and was a truly disgusting tyrant, even measured against Saddam. Didn't stop him getting to shake hands with the UK's dear-beloved monarch. Idi Amin wasn't great in my opinion, yet when he carried out his ethnic cleansing of Ungandan Asians (OK, with hindsight, they turned out to be the lucky ones) the UK could hardly have been more accommodating.

But yes, I have to agree with you entirely on your other point. Anything that might stem the worldwide trade in arms would surely be for the good. As someone said in one of these threads, the US for one (and I would guess maybe the UK too) has been ramping up its spend in the military. In the US this has coincided with cutting back on overseas aid. Whether or not such trend can be justified in the present climate, surely no-one can be sanguine that world affairs have come to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:38 PM

Wow, so Saddam has missles that will travel 110 miles rather that 94 miles, or what evr the max is. Hmmmmmm? Well, even though when fired they will still fall in his own country, this is a darned good reason to go and bomb the crap out of thousands of women and kids! No, I ain't convinced that quite constitutes that smoking gun that Condi Rice, when the selling began, made the statement to the effect that Saddam had to be stopped or we would be looking up at a mushroom cloud over us.... A slight exageration.

Now, lets look at a couple situations.

I've asked my pal, DougR, a couple times to answer me this one, or anyone else fir that matter but, if you're neighbor came over in your fornt yard and huffed and puffed about killing you and you went out with a stick in your hand and well... bare with me here.... the guy yells at you to drop your stick, would you drop it? I wouldn't! Hey, it might only be a stick but the guy has allready made no bones about killng you so why drop the stick.

Oh, sure, someone will say that Bush says that Saddam must disarm. This is the same man who has said a while back that the US was going to bring about a regime change in Iraq. That was before Powell settled him down and made him see that there was this *wacking* protocol and then Bush, after a prolonged hissy-fit, went to the UN.

But like if I'm Saddam, my level of trust with Bush is zip! Might of fact, millions of people around the world feel the same way about Bush. Myself included. So Saddam would be stupid turning over whatever sticks he has knowing that he's goinna get whacked anyway.

And this ain't about weather or not Saddam is an evil man but very much about wheather or not he is a stupid man.

And, just for grins, how does one go about proving that they don't have something? Hmmmmm?

Like I could accuse Old Guy of having WMD hidden some where and like how would the Old Guy prove he didn't.

And so let's say that Old Guy fesses up to havin' 'em, then he's going to have to get *wacked* fir havin' 'em in the first place. Bad Old Guy!

Just a few simple questions.

Anyone have any simple answers that don't read like "assembly instructions" for some danged product that the guy who sold it to you said could be assembled in just "1 hour" and now your on your third day and it still don't look like the one in the store....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:13 PM

The miney from oil sales CANNOT be used to purchase weapons, as was thouroughly proved on a previous thread (though I can't remember who did so.) The UN makes the purchases.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

Fionn:

Are you including the 100+ al-Samoud 2 missiles that violate UN resolutions?
Are including the R400 bomb "found" today by the Iraqis?

The only thing I see that is "pathetic" is the conditions that the people live under. Money from oil sales that is supposed to spent on the people is diverted to buy weapons. Some of them violate UN resolutions so Saddam buys them clandestinely, at greater expense, and smuggles them in.
For example Saddam paid 10 times the going price for the fabled aluminum tubes. If these were not for a proscribed purpose, why were they smuggled in?

Then there are the palaces, 50 at last count, that are built at huge expense.

I do not like the fact that companies in many countries including Russia, France, Germany, the UK and even The US supplied these weapons to Iraq. I think the UN should be involved in preventing that too.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:48 PM

(sending e-mail address in a PM)

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:16 PM

Thanks Steve. I'd appreciate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: leprechaun
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 06:03 PM

Gee whiz Fred, seems I hit a nerve there. I didn't mean to say the dope you're buying necessarily funds terrorists. Sure most of the pot dealers are independant contractors, and only funding their snowboarding, their fancy cars and their European vacations. But some of the eco-terrorists' funds come from the sale of marijuana and especially psilocybin. I've met a few pot smokers who would be glad to know that. (I was gonna burn down the Ranger Station, but then I got high)

If you're buying BC bud, you're definitely supporting the Hells Angels in Canada.

And the Middle Eastern terorists are getting a piece of the tweaker's recreational dollar. I never met a tweaker who would care one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 05:57 PM

Sorry Carol - it is me - Steve - I could forward the e-mails to you if you'd like. I'm cookieless at work and forgot to put my name in -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 03:22 PM

Can you supply some documentation (links) to support your assertions, GUEST?