raid517

Well I think you can always judge a man's political integrity, when he derived most of his philosophical ideas from comiic books.

We are all very impressed I'm sure...

Q

radTube

Yeah, trade policies are probably one of the main reasons for France to act as it does. They're also probably the main reason for USA to be so interested in changing the Iraqi regime all of a sudden. Just try and convince me that oil isn't important on the US agenda conserning Iraq.

Are you actually implying that Hussein's government is the sole reason for inequality of sexes in various Islamic cultures? Or do you believe that when Saddam's dead, the people of Iraq will suddenly abandon their 'evil ways'? I find the outrageous treatment of women out there repulsive and inhuman, but a war will hardly effect it in any way. Unless of course you're going to kill every single Iraqi male...

__________________
[color=orange]
[/color]

Dmac43

"@ Dmac43 Well it’s nice to know you think this base should be inspected and if found operational destroyed"

My original quote: "My opinion on "any" nuclear base is that they are indeed dangerous...
That said, If the base is run by a sane government, and well protected it is less dangerous...
Chernobyl is a perfect example of a nuclear plant gone wrong...


Now should inspectors be alowed to inspect nuclear bases, YES absolutely...
Should inspectors expect that what they will be viewing is the real deal (not looking at an empty hangar where things used to be before Saddam's magic caravan moved them) again YES""

It's interesting that you seem to INVENT your own version of what people post...
Where did I say that if a base is found operational it should be destroyed?

"I guess the point I'm making is that you asked 'what about salt elite images', as though such images were somehow hard to obtai"
I REALLY ASKED THAT???? WHERE? WHEN?
And you accuse our government of inventing evidence.....

Oce again the bleeding heart liberals refuse to understand that ANY intelligence agency on the planet is not going to show the general public all of their evedence...
Why you ask won't they? Simply because much of the evidence has been obtained through Top Secret channels andoperatives based in Saddam's own cities, and possibly his own government...


So what seem to be saying, and I may be confused here, is that You think thet you should have access to every bit of information that anyone gathers so that you might make an informed decision....

My response to that is: It's a damn good thing you don't live in Iraq and have those kinds of independent thoughts or Ideas....


Oh and in the future I'd appreciate it if you are going to attempt to quote me that you might actually not make it up as you go along.... The quotation and copy/paste keys are on your keyboard for a reason

Dmac43

"Yeah, trade policies are probably one of the main reasons for France to act as it does. They're also probably the main reason for USA to be so interested in changing the Iraqi regime all of a sudden. Just try and convince me that oil isn't important on the US agenda conserning Iraq".

Hmm... There is a difference between is and probably is... just ask Bill Clinton... he can give you a detailed definition of what "IS" is.

I really don't have to convince you of anything... Thats the interesting thing here... To my knowledge, and again I could be mistaken, neither you, nor I nor anyone else here for that matter is a member of any of the governments involved in deciding the fate of this issue. Therefore it would be a waste of my time to try and impress anything upon anyone who already has made up his or her mind on these matters.
You and I and everyone else here are reading and seeing the exact same information albeit with a different spin in each media outlet, and everone seems to read the information differently and that is a great thing...Unless of course you actually live in Iraq, where if you have a differing opinion you are beaten, jailed, or killed....

"Are you actually implying that Hussein's government is the sole reason for inequality of sexes in various Islamic cultures?"

UMM NO I'm not implying that at all... What I am stating is that under Saddam's happy regime, women are continually beaten, raped, and in the most recent case, have kerosene poured on them and set afire for trying to sell the kerosene to provide food for her family....

"Or do you believe that when Saddam's dead, the people of Iraq will suddenly abandon their 'evil ways'? I find the outrageous treatment of women out there repulsive and inhuman, but a war will hardly effect it in any way. Unless of course you're going to kill every single Iraqi male..."


You seem to be stating that "All of the people of Iraq are evil....

Is this really the case? or have you misworded your question ?

Once again we go back to WWII:

Adolph Hitler (you may have heard of him), had his german people (NAZIS) exterminate all non arian raced people from his country (Jews, blacks etc,,,), and every country that he seized... This bacame known as
"The Holocaust" (you can look it up, it really did happen)...
Now men and women from the armies of Britain, Russia, and yep even the USA fought and died to get rid of Hitler and his regime (NAZIS). Once old Adolph had killed himself, and the war criminals had been rounded up... (not all of em, some fled to other countries where they still reside) the death and mutilation of the Jews and people like them came to an end...

So it would seem that history shows us that erradicating a country of a twisted leader, and his sworn followers can, and in the case of Germany did stop such atrocities from ever occuring again, therefore a war may be necessary to do the same in Iraq where the dictator is quite possibly more twisted than Hitler was...

But hey this is just history...

raid517

Mmm sounds very like you are saying that satellite images are hard to come by. I didn't use the quote box as I wasn't quoting you. You ought to learn the difference between a paraphrase and a quote.

I don't know what point you are making about a sane government owning nuclear bases. From what I can tell any government that owns nuclear weapons is possibly insane. I think this may be particularly true for the Bush government. Case and point. N. Korea starts rattling its sword over not getting enough world attention. Obviously she is angling for more international aid and political concessions from her cousin in the South. What does bush do? Reflect calmly, quietly build up his forces in the region? No he sends a whole fleet of nuclear bombers their way and announces it on CNN. Hopefully though he's not serious and is just reminding them of the consequences of getting too brash. Since the leader of N. Korea is probably a certified mad man though, doing this quite so publicly might not be such a good idea. Sending nuclear bombers is like waving a big sign in front of their noses saying "Hey look out we're going to bomb the living crap out of you."

Maybe I wouldn't be so worried by that even, if Bush hadn't said he reserved the right to launch a nuclear first strike against unfriendly countries. Now that to me sounds very nuts and very scary.

So are you saying that if any Iraqi nuclear bases were ever found they should not be destroyed? I don't quite understand that. In any case that is the policy, as any Iraqi nuclear bases found since 1991 have been blown up by UN inspectors.

Well Americans might not be forth coming in their help for the UN. Fortunately the UN has direct access to people inside Iraq and (not without a fair bit of pressure) has spoken to more Iraqi scientists and officials than the USA has in the last 10 years. (Beyond the few well paid informants that the USA managed to buy off through the years, or who were supplied by the Iraqi opposition).

Mmm, you know I don't know how long you've been following the debates here... But pretty much everything you have said has been said at least 3 times now. And three. or more times over it has gotten the same answers. Like I said what's the point. You say people who are concerned about the consequences of war are 'bleeding heart liberals', while this isn't wholly accurate, it is a dam site better than wanting to see some real 'bleeding hearts', or kill people when other alternatives might exist. Now before you get on your high horse and start banning on about me being a tree hugging peace lover, I suggest you read through some of my later posts in the other threads here and see what my views on this might be. Suffice to say that I am not wholly anti-war. Well whatever I'm sure you will want to prattle on endlessly about what I said, or you said, or what you said you didn't say, or what someone else said. The bottom line is you will never change my views - and I doubt I will change yours. War is an awful thing and even though I sometimes think war might be necessary, I think those who look forward to it or promote it with a bloody glee are utterly reprehensible. War may sometimes be necessary, but it should not be enacted until every other viable option has been explored. As I have said in other threads, I believe the Canadian plan provides this scope.

Q

Dmac43

"Mmm sounds very like you are saying that satellite images are hard to come by. I didn't use the quote box as I wasn't quoting you. You ought to learn the difference between a paraphrase and a quote."

Thank you Mr. Wizzard... You obviously like to make things up as you go along... you do however create some intersting fiction...

Again you misunderstand the statement, though I'm starting to think that you are a spin Dr spinning statements to fit your position...

My statement was that there are sattalites up in the sky that are constantly monitoring the entire Iraqi territory, No you will never see some of the images.... This was in response to your statement that the US had no planes flying over Iraq...

"I don't know what point you are making about a sane government owning nuclear bases. From what I can tell any government that owns nuclear weapons is possibly insane. I think this may be particularly true for the Bush government"

After Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, no sane government would ever push the button on a Nuclear weopon, that seems a pretty simple assumption...

As for mud slinging about bush and the US govenment, I'd expect better from someone of your obviously superior intelect and education...

"Case and point. N. Korea starts rattling its sword over not getting enough world attention. Obviously she is angling for more international aid and political concessions from her cousin in the South. What does bush do? Reflect calmly, quietly build up his forces in the region? No he sends a whole fleet of nuclear bombers their way and announces it on CNN. Hopefully though he's not serious and is just reminding them of the consequences of getting too brash. Since the leader of N. Korea is probably a certified mad man though, doing this quite so publicly might not be such a good idea. Sending nuclear bombers is like waving a big sign in front of their noses saying "Hey look out we're going to bomb the living crap out of you.""

Do you play Poker? I'd really like to play against you sometime... it'd be fun playing somebody who doesn't understand bluffing... or calling a bluff...


"Maybe I wouldn't be so worried by that even, if Bush hadn't said he reserved the right to launch a nuclear first strike against unfriendly countries. Now that to me sounds very nuts and very scary."

Umm when did he make his reservation??? and who did he reserve this with ??? and while we're on the subject you haven't noticed the irony in your statements... you call the bush administartion "insane", but would an insane governmaent make reservations? or would an insane government just push the button??? See (Poker ie Bluffing)

"So are you saying that if any Iraqi nuclear bases were ever found they should not be destroyed? I don't quite understand that. In any case that is the policy, as any Iraqi nuclear bases found since 1991 have been blown up by UN inspectors."

Lets reflect on all of my posts in this thread, I don't remember EVER bringing up the fact that anything should or should not be destroyed... Man you are inventive though...


"Well Americans might not be forth coming in their help for the UN"
Ok well the UN might not be forthcoming in it's help of the US...

"Mmm, you know I don't know how long you've been following the debates here... But pretty much everything you have said has been said at least 3 times now. And three. or more times over it has gotten the same answers"

Hmm.... And everything that you've said hasn't ? You are pretty full of yourself there chief...

This whole discussion / Debate is useles as I stated in my previous post (SEE TIC TAC TOE)

There is no winner, there is no loser, never will be...



"The bottom line is you will never change my views - and I doubt I will change yours. War is an awful thing and even though I sometimes think war might be necessary, I think those who look forward to it or promote it with a bloody glee are utterly reprehensible. War may sometimes be necessary, but it should not be enacted until every other viable option has been explored."

Finally a point on which we agree... and I have to believe after twelve years of thumbing his nose at the world, Saddam is forcing the war (ie calling the bluff) and the world (US, GB, SPAIN etc...) aint bluffing...

raid517

Well give me $58 and I can pretty much look at any part of the world you want me to. That's how much it costs to book time on a Russian spy satellite these days. Nowadays even people like me and you can have access to the same kind of intelligence resources as any modern intelligence agency.

Are you absolutely sure about that? There is plenty of evidence that would suggest otherwise. http://www.rense.com/general35/strike.htm gives a brief breakdown on the subject of this administrations attitude to nuclear weapons.

Erm... Haven't you heard of the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review? There is no bluff either in some of the things this government is saying about its willingness to use nuclear weapons first. Don't believe me? Well rather than pick a web page and have you accuse me of choosing a biased web page, I did a Google search for you... Now you can read all about it and educate yourself a little - and choose your own sources too:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...trike%22&meta=

"So are you saying that if any Iraqi nuclear bases were ever found they should not be destroyed? I don't quite understand that. In any case that is the policy, as any Iraqi nuclear bases found since 1991 have been blown up by UN inspectors."

No I asked you a question, did you think such bases should be destroyed. That's not putting words in your mouth, that's just asking a question. But it looks like you missed the point anyway; the point was a lot of people have been persuaded for the case for war by photos like this. But the average Joe isn't always all that sure of what he's looking at. So how can he be convinced of the case for war, unless it’s through the hearsay of someone else? In a court of law, hearsay is not admissible. Real and quantifiable evidence must be supplied in order to prove a case. As you have demonstrated however, it is not at all clear to most people what that evidence should entail.


Well I wonder what on Earth you mean. Do you mean the 12 years that passed before anyone did anything? Lol I really am repeating myself here, for the umpteenth time now. The policy of dual containment practiced against Iraq and Iran was a US led and US inspired policy. Again look up the phrase "policy of dual containment" on Google, before you come on forums like this and start blaming everyone else for your mistakes. In every other respect the UN has done everything that was asked of it since the inspection process started again. Saddam might have been a pain in the ass, but the inspectors are pleased with overall progress. So much so many believe it is possible to completely disarm Saddam within one moth through entirely peaceful means. Even if that were not possible (and this is also why it might pay you to read a little more of the views of the people you set out to oppose) it would at least show the world - and in particular the Muslim world (which is my biggest concern) that it would finally and conclusively have been proved impossible that Saddam would ever disarm peacefully.

I don't know if I'm full of myself or not. But that is just fact. It might pay you to read some of the posts made here before you just go repeating the same old things over and over and getting people to answer the same old questions aging. This is standard practice on every forum. If you have a question or something to say, it often pays to read before posting.

Well I don't care about Saddam; I care about legality, legitimacy, morality and Global unity among allies. So far US foreign policy has not been particularly effective at fostering any of these.

As for taking cheap shots at the Bush administration. Dude he isn't my God, he isn't even my President, if I feel like saying "Bush should go boil his head" then I reserve the right to say whatever I want. It doesn’t mean I'm anti-American, it means I dislike and deeply mistrust Bush. I don't think there's anything you will ever do to change that. More worrying than me disliking him though, half the Arab and Muslim world considers him Satan incarnate. In the old days it used to be just "America" but now they really have got something to focus on. So you won't change my views. Is there something you want to do about that? How about everyone else who dislikes him too?

But yes this is all very tic tac toe... Ultimately I don't think it will get us anywhere. I do wish people could come up with other topics other than this stoopid war. I think other than a few people here, not that many people care that much about it. Well at least that is they care much less about the motivations behind it.


Anyway... whatever...

Q

radTube

That's why I put the word 'probably' in both of those sentences. I can't supply proof to back either one of those assumptions, so I thought I'd make it clear that that's what they were. Still I think that those assumptions have a high chance of being true.

Then exactly why do you keep posting here? Surely not to tell us about your own set views? I have no reason to stand behind any of the countries directly concerned, so I would think my views are most certainly not as 'set' as those of many others here.

No I haven't. You have misunderstood the question. Notice the quotation marks around 'evil ways'? They are there for a reason. That was one of my poor attempts at sarcasm...

Why do you keep bringing up Hitler? Just let him rest in hell... I'm sure Saddam's a crazy sonofabiatch, just like Adolf was, but is this really relevant? Hussein and his government are small potatoes compared to some of the other dictatorial regimes around the world, and while I'm sure Iraq and the rest of the world would be better off without him, there are quite a few governments that should by any moral standards be put to (painful) death first.

But this is clearly neither about morality nor about getting rid of threats to world peace. The less than universally agreed upon attack on Iraq is more likely to cause even more disquiet amongst certain nations and religions of the world, but the US government and it's most eager supporters are obviously prepared to accept this in view of the (mostly economical) benefits this war would bring them.

(Damn, that sounded almost cynical . Maybe it's time I stopped reading 'political debate'. I prefer staying optimistic about life. I don't like to waste my time worrying about things that might never happen...)

__________________
[color=orange]
[/color]