No WMD!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Well, using your imagination is allowed since I can't go IC

[BlackCat]

Your boredom seems to have diminshed, but watch out - when I solve the IC problem I might even challenge the Ted

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Your boredom seems to have diminshed, but watch out - when I solve the IC problem I might even challenge the Ted

And i will be on the sidelines beer in hand

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Maybe you have a point - the policy are really putting something that could be called terror upon those who supports the current non democratic regimes in ME, especially if the common people in these countries by great majority doesn't want to be bothered with difficult terms such as voting, free speech etc.

You know perfectly well this is not what I am referring to. We have seen time and time again what happens when another countries affairs are dabbled in and manipulated to another's ends...it just results in a whole lot of misery for the subjected country...but this has never been a war, if we are realistic, about installing a democracy. How long is this eggshell 'democracy' in Iraq going to last?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


You know perfectly well this is not what I am referring to. We have seen time and time again what happens when another countries affairs are dabbled in and manipulated to another's ends...it just results in a whole lot of misery for the subjected country...but this has never been a war, if we are realistic, about installing a democracy. How long is this eggshell 'democracy' in Iraq going to last?

The country that pops up in my mind is germany, and I may be wrong, but today it is democracy despite the fact it was a nazistic regime priror to WWII. Why should Iraq be much more different ? Don't you think that it's worth a try to establish democracy in Iraq ?

You clearly also forget another thing. The mission is no longer to establish sattelite regimes as it was in the days of the cold war.

Another bitter heritage we have from the cold war is the claim that interior treatment of the people doesn't concern others witch has been, and still are, a shield that allows atroities beyond belief.

The Iraq war may hopefully be a step away from this.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
So what there no evidenxce of wmd in iraq, dont you folks know that this guy was freaking evil..

Perhaps so, but that was not the point.

Saddam had been in power for decades. Why wasn't he removed from power earlier if the so called "humanitarian reasons" were the only - or primary - factors in this war? Clearly those weren't, and not even the warmongers mentioned it before the whole thing started. Only after they failed to locate any BCN weapons that the Bushies changed the spin.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Iraqis.

The Iraqis seem to be the ones resisting this...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BlackCat
You clearly also forget another thing. The mission is no longer to establish sattelite regimes as it was in the days of the cold war.

How are you so sure?

[Sandman]

He's an Arab dictator who sponsored terrorism and built up stockpiles of chemical weapons.

All hail our glorious ally in the War on Terror, Colonel Gadaffi.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Yeah but now Saddam is gone, isn't that worth anything these days?

I suppose it's worth something to at least one group of persons.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Iraqis.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Iraqis seem to be the ones resisting this...

The Iraqis want us to reinstall Saddam?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How are you so sure?

Well, if that was their intention, I would guess that they would have thrown in some election fraud that would have made their choice the winner instead of one that they are not that happy about.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by atomant
Hear is a thought.

the Bush government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government said they didn't.

The North Korean government says they have nukes. The American government does not think this likely.

So who are you going to believe?

The obvious answer is the Iraqi government.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

oh, and out of all your groups, why doesnt it include the UN weapons inspectors, guys who actually were there on the ground? the only unpartisan source out of all of those. but no, you are just a bunch of hacks who swallow everything spoon fed to you. well, it seems like you choked on this one eh.

Well perhaps as it was a partial list of those who thought that Iraq had WMD and their position (U.N. inspectors) was agnostic. Or maybe I just write things at random.

The U.N. weapons inspectors were the only "unpartisan" source amongst those I listed? And what reason would French, Russian or German intelligence have for saying that Iraq had WMDs when their governments were opposed to the war other than that is actually what they thought? In which case what does partisanship have to do with what they believed to be true? You sir are ranting.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
Oh and this "realist" vs. "anti-realist" thing is a load of hooey invented by people with nothing better to do.

As a philosophy professor I bow to your superior familiarity with hooey.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Perhaps so, but that was not the point.

Saddam had been in power for decades. Why wasn't he removed from power earlier if the so called "humanitarian reasons" were the only - or primary - factors in this war? Clearly those weren't, and not even the warmongers mentioned it before the whole thing started. Only after they failed to locate any BCN weapons that the Bushies changed the spin.

Clearly, 9/11 affected the calculus.