We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[Agathon]

btw, isn't this Kay fellow one of the heroes of your case, Aggie?

No.

The hero of my case is me. I bothered thinking about what nuclear weapons are for - deterrence - primarily against Israel and Iran.

I bothered wondering why Saddam would spend billions and risk invasion all for the purpose of giving a nuclear warhead to the Al Qaeda nutters, whose stated purpose is to remove people like him and his regime from existence.

I bothered reading up about chemical and biological weapons and discovered that they don't really work - at least not in the way that terrorists would find useful. In any case it would be cheaper and easier for terrorists to make their own chemical or bioweapons - it isn't hard. The AUM cult managed it.

Anyone who thought Saddam was a threat was overlooking the obvious. He's not stupid or crazy - his main aim in the last decade had been to overturn the sanctions and prevent internal revolts and plots. He certainly had no plans to invade anywhere again after what happened to Kuwait.

Why don't you right wingers think critically about what you read? Most journalists are morons who live off of briefings and give credence to the often absurd lies peddled by our overlords.

If they had done their ****ing job, Blair would have been laughed out of office. A few did, and were pilloried for it. Turns out that they were right, as was Blix (who comes out of this with his reputation intact).

Just what were you right about? I'd like to know. In addition I and others said that the occupation would turn pear shaped, and unfortunately we were right..... again..

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Your fantasy world, that is

There are general rules of international conduct, burden of proof, and moral responsibilty which have been understood for centuries and those have been violated.

Some people group those things together into something called COMMON SENSE

Pfffft!

Where were those 'rules of international conduct' when the Red Army roled into Hungary or Czechoslovakia?

When China overran Tibet?

When the Yanks and Soviets turned Vietnam into what nearly became an unihabitable hell on Earth?

Christ, the UN can't even stop powerless countries from tearing each other and their people up. The relevance of the UN is... not very much.

Who is living in what fantasy world?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Pfffft!

Where were those 'rules of international conduct' when the Red Army roled into Hungary or Czechoslovakia?

When China overran Tibet?

When the Yanks and Soviets turned Vietnam into what nearly became an unihabitable hell on Earth?

Christ, the UN can't even stop powerless countries from tearing each other and their people up. The relevance of the UN is... not very much.

Who is living in what fantasy world?

You just made the case for why those rules are in place.

Now all of those events are remembered, permanently, with a bad taste

Your outdated Machiavellian crap is getting old

[Agathon]

No, anyone who thought that sanctions would go on forever, and that Saddam would be a good boy from then on is a... 'fat head'(?!)

Why would he invade anyone or do anything bad after what happened last time?

Do you think he is a complete idiot? He was basically in a box for the rest of his life. And he knew it.

What is this fantasy of yours? What would Saddam do if the sanctions ended (and they wouldn't with respect to nuclear material)?

If Saddam had nuclear weapons why would he give them to terrorists, and why would he be any different from every other nuclear power? He could never use them without fear of annihilation - just like everyone else who has them.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
[
Just what were you right about?

Nothing

I hope the next time we have to commit to a situation like this that the debate and justification is more than a "just in case something bad MIGHT happen," argument.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We know more about him than any other, because of the attention he gained due to his unfortunate end. Do you suppose that he was alone, and it was on he and he alone that Blair agreed to go along with Bush?

What does the Hutton Report tell you?

Why did Mr George W Bush need the OSP? Why did all these former intelligence people and officials come out into the public and assert GWB was acting on a fixed agenda of invading Iraq?

Why are you ignoring all this evidence to the contrary?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

btw, isn't this Kay fellow one of the heroes of your case, Aggie?

No.

The hero of my case is me. I bothered thinking about what nuclear weapons are for - deterrence - primarily against Israel and Iran.

I bothered wondering why Saddam would spend billions and risk invasion all for the purpose of giving a nuclear warhead to the Al Qaeda nutters, whose stated purpose is to remove people like him and his regime from existence.

I bothered reading up about chemical and biological weapons and discovered that they don't really work - at least not in the way that terrorists would find useful. In any case it would be cheaper and easier for terrorists to make their own chemical or bioweapons - it isn't hard. The AUM cult managed it.

Anyone who thought Saddam was a threat was overlooking the obvious. He's not stupid or crazy - his main aim in the last decade had been to overturn the sanctions and prevent internal revolts and plots. He certainly had no plans to invade anywhere again after what happened to Kuwait.

Why don't you right wingers think critically about what you read? Most journalists are morons who live off of briefings and give credence to the often absurd lies peddled by our overlords.

If they had done their ****ing job, Blair would have been laughed out of office. A few did, and were pilloried for it. Turns out that they were right, as was Blix (who comes out of this with his reputation intact).

Just what were you right about? I'd like to know. In addition I and others said that the occupation would turn pear shaped, and unfortunately we were right..... again..

First, I'm not right wing, Aggie. I would make a lot of Democrats look like fascists. However, I can see how from your perch I must seem like a later day Brown Shirt.

Second, I am very pleased that you have deluded yourself that a Saddam with billions to play with could not have purchased materials and or weapons. KH used to go on at length about how he couldn't refine the stuff. Big deal! He bordered countries that are corrupt and have the ****ing stuff hanging about as unwanted waste!

Lastly, the guy is sociopathic. Only a moron tries to reason out what a sosiopath is going to do. The man possessed not a single jot of compassion, or understanding. He, and his ego were all that mattered. Anyone who would trust that man with billions after no personal consequences for being a 'bad boy' has got to be in the running for a Darwin of the Century award. Congratulations, you've won big!

[Agathon]

Your outdated Machiavellian crap is getting old

You're right Ted.

They always resort to a power trip in the end. I guess it makes them feel manly and important to align themselves with the overlords and their arsenals of destruction.

Some of that penis cream that spammers advertise would be a cheaper and more peaceful solution to this problem.

NYE WAKE THE **** UP!!! The 20th century gives us ample reason why this attitude is a bad idea - any rational person would oppose it to the limits of his will.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The UNSC is not under article 7?

The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven.

link

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Christ, the UN can't even stop powerless countries from tearing each other and their people up. The relevance of the UN is... not very much.

The power of the UN is only as much as the member countries give it.

At any rate, don't you righties strongly object to the UN having a standing military force of its own?

[Agathon]

KH used to go on at length about how he couldn't refine the stuff.

He was right. It takes enough power to supply a small city to power the process and people would notice.

Lastly, the guy is sociopathic. Only a moron tries to reason out what a sosiopath is going to do. The man possessed not a single jot of compassion, or understanding. He, and his ego were all that mattered.

Like all sociopaths, he cared about himself and staying alive. Don't confuse sociopathy (which it isn't clear that he was) with psychosis (which he definitely wasn't).

Saddam's past conduct has been brutal, but always rational. He only invaded Kuwait because he thought he had a US OK for it. He absolutely **** himself once he realized he didn't.

He once had a dream of being the big man in the Arab world. That dream died in Kuwait, and he, like everyone else, knew it was dead forever.

You accuse Saddam of being crazy with no evidence. He is a brute, but that doesn't make him a lunatic, especially where self-preservation is concerned. As I said, his conduct has been entirely rational - brutal, but rational. You show me where it wasn't.

This is what your argument boils down to: "Saddam is another Hitler".

No. Hitler was really good at being an aggressive tyrant. Saddam is a perennial loser. Still, they both had moustaches, and that is probably enough for the righties, given their standard of proof.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
link

How does this validate Israel's fragrant violations of UNSC resolutions?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon

Still, they both had moustaches,

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What does the Hutton Report tell you?

Why did Mr George W Bush need the OSP? Why did all these former intelligence people and officials and assert GWB was acting on a fixed agenda of invading Iraq?

Why are you ignoring all this evidence to the contrary?

I'm not. I fully accept that WMDs were a pretext. I accept that the case was overblown. I do not accept that Bush and Blair made the whole thing up.

I think the Yanks ****ed up in the invasion by not having enough troops to rapidly secure the country. I think that **** up was compounded as the occupation went on and the lack of troops amplified the insurgency.

I think the 'Bush touch' on diplomacy during the first term was a disaster.

I think they really ****ed up with their handeling of irregular prisoners at AbuG and at Gitmo.

In short, I think they ****ed up a lot of stuff, but I feel no need to paint everything ever done as a **** up. Some here do.

It could have been done right. Saddam could have been toppled and the country secured for a hand over to a legitimate civil authority. The Yanks could have avoided dragging themselves through the mud with their handeling of the prisoners. Bush, and others, could have been less 'in your face' to opponents of their plans. However, leaving Saddam in power is the least desirable of all of these 'could have beens'.

Good riddence to bad rubbish.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

KH used to go on at length about how he couldn't refine the stuff.

He was right. It takes enough power to supply a small city to power the process and people would notice.

Lastly, the guy is sociopathic. Only a moron tries to reason out what a sosiopath is going to do. The man possessed not a single jot of compassion, or understanding. He, and his ego were all that mattered.

Like all sociopaths, he cared about himself and staying alive. Don't confuse sociopathy (which it isn't clear that he was) with psychosis (which he definitely wasn't).

Saddam's past conduct has been brutal, but always rational. He only invaded Kuwait because he thought he had a US OK for it. He absolutely **** himself once he realized he didn't.

He once had a dream of being the big man in the Arab world. That dream died in Kuwait, and he, like everyone else, knew it was dead forever.

You accuse Saddam of being crazy with no evidence. He is a brute, but that doesn't make him a lunatic, especially where self-preservation is concerned. As I said, his conduct has been entirely rational - brutal, but rational. You show me where it wasn't.

This is what your argument boils down to: "Saddam is another Hitler".

No. Hitler was really good at being an aggressive tyrant. Saddam is a perennial loser. Still, they both had moustaches, and that is probably enough for the righties, given their standard of proof.

And as Kay said, he could have bought the stuff already refined.

Hitler? Who said Hitler? Mao, or Pol Pot, or a Cuban with his own bomb would have been bad enough.