quote:
by redvento
I think you would agree that if Saddam and his cohorts were out of the way, his scientists would be more willing to fully disclose the locations of their WMD, and the facilities that are used to create them. With that information destruction of said items would be much easier to accomplish.
Our accusation is that the WMD sites were mobile and that's why they couldn't be found. Meaning, they aren't in one place for long. How is a scientist who developed the technology supposed to know where the army has stored anything temporarily, if it's actively playing a shell game?
And if Saddam has given WMDs to terrorists, how are scientists who developed the technology supposed to know where the terrorists have hidden them?
The only facts scientists can give us are what has been in development, which technologies were fully developed, and where the development had been taking place.
And I do not believe that ALL of them will disclose such information once Saddam is gone.
It is true that some would disclose info of their own free will, and some would after hours/days/months of "rendering" (ie torture) by intelligence agencies, but some will say nothing at all because they hate america and are tough buggers to break (or are good at playing naive).
What I really love is how you still haven't admitted that these scientists will continue to have the knowledge and will be free to give it to US hating nations and groups once they are "free", and perhaps more likely to do so after their family members have been killed during an invasion, or out of economic necessity during the resultant financial collapse.
quote:
by redvento
I seriosly doubt that N. Korea waited until 2001 to re-activate their nuclear program as you claim. I would be highly suspect of any claims that stated N. Korea fully intended to adhere to the 94 agreement brokered by Carter but only after Bush included them in the "axis of evil" did they restart, and then within a year have at least one nuke.
I didn't claim the N Koreans were inactive before 2001. ALL nations (even the US) have secret operations which work on projects forbidden by treaty or law.
The problem is that Bush stirred up a bunch of anger when he branded N Korea an "axis of evil", and then said the US has an international right to attack ANY other country which might equal the military might of the US, especially those who we don't like and have branded "axis of evil." Go figure someone getting upset by THAT.
After this stupid declaration, the N Koreans shifted their covert (small) weapons programs, into overt large scale programs. That's when international monitors and their cameras were pulled from nuclear sites (which Carter and Clinton managed to get put in place) and nuclear reactors were reopened and supplies flowed back to them.
If you cannot admit that under Carter and Clinton--- though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination--- things were at least moving in the right direction (threats were minimized), and that things are rapidly moving in the worst possible direction under Bush (threats have become maximized), then you are simply a liar.
Whether you are lying to me or yourself, I am not able to determine at this time.
quote:
by redvento
Now while I appreciate the determination of Chicago do you really think that a small group of Saddam sponsered terrorists armed with a dirty bomb, or some biological agent, or chemical agent, couldnt get into the city and detonate it? I live in NYC and up until 9/11 felt more threat from the homeless than terrorists but that day showed us all that none of us are safe from terrorism. And while we are hunting down the terrorists themselves wouldn't it be wise to take care of those that support them as well?
Terrorists can get into Chicago and detonate a bomb of any kind. They can also poison water supplies, derail trains, and fly planes into buildings. Many people can die at the hands of some crazy jackass (or group of jackasses) at any time. The threat is there every minute of the day, every day of the year.
Nothing is going to change this fact, not even the invasion of every country hostile to the US. We, as a nation, need to stop swinging blindly like we're in mortal terror of the real world. And this has to start with people like you red... so get a backbone, strap on a nutsack and start dealing realistically with the issues were facing.
Once out of panic mode, the first important thing to realize is that such threats don't just come from overseas. Last year, they caught some crazy American hording poisonous chemicals in a Chicago subway. Doesn't anyone remember that it was an american who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building? How about the Unabomber? As it stands intelligence sources still believe the Anthrax letters were from someone in the US (rightwing, not islamic). The beltway sniper seems to have been homegrown as well (US ARMY nonetheless).
Should we invade the US?
It was a US based Isreali militant group that planned to bomb mosques and murder a US congressman a year and a half ago.
Should we invade Isreal too?
The second important thing to realize, once you have a backbone, is that greater terrorist threats are posed by countries other than Iraq. Why are we not going after the greater threats first? And why are we not finishing the job on the first country (and organization) to attack us?
I agree we should "take care of" countries which support terrorist organizations. But that doesn't mean we have to invade... which can lead to a worsening of the situation. That is the third, and perhaps most important thing to realize.
At this point in time, Iraq is best confined and not invaded. High level intelligence and military sources have said as much. I'd be for an invasion if it was warranted and would improve the situation. It is not and would not.
Want to go after people that harbor terrorists? Sounds fine to me. Why don't we start with the Bush dynasty. Bush senior and Cheney (together or individually) helped establish Saddam Hussein, Noriega (for whom we had to invade a country to eliminate later), and Al-Queda (via the Taliban).
The Bushes are close personal friends of the BinLadens. On 9-11, while everyone else could not fly (planes were grounded), the BinLadens were allowed to fly around the country at will to pick up members of their family and leave the country. This allowed them to escape without interrogation by law enforcement officers (who are pretty pissed about this).
While many foreign nationals have been "detained" and their bank accounts frozen, the BinLadens escaped detainment and still have not had any of their accounts frozen. Neither have the Bushes who are in tight financial deals with the BinLadens. This has been allowed despite the well known fact that members of the BinLaden family continue to support Osama financially!!!!!!
Truly regime change starts at home. Let's get that m***f***r and his entire family (who have helped prop up terrorist dictatorships around the world, which later turn on us) out of office permanently. Let's freeze their bank accounts as well as the BinLadens and ACTUALLY TRACK DOWN THE MONEY going to save that fundamentalist freak.
As a New Yorker I think you'd be with me on this one.
quote:
by redvento
And if Saddam is so insignificant why does Opec want him out? He brings further turmoil to the region. I assume you feel we had no business in the Balkans, or Nigeria as well? Since they were committing atrocities against their own people as well and were in no position to take over the world.
Opec has NOT supported an invasion of Iraq, all have stated that this would bring about worse turmoil in the region than letting him stay in power.
Uhhhhhhhhhh.... I think your slip is showing.
Don't you realize the implications of your own statement? So what if oil producers in that region want Saddam out of power (as do all oil people). What does that have to do with WMDs???
The issue then, as you have just shown, is oil and what oil people are willing to do for money.
The only difference between oil producers in that region (opec) and those in this region (bush and co) is that those in this region don't have to suffer the consequences of a war.
With that "buffer zone" in mind, the oil producers (or grifters) in this region have no problem carrying out a military removal of Saddam, while those who have to live in the warzone are not so hot about the idea.
This is why Bush's claims of "protecting the region and the whole world" are obvious BS. No one in the region, much less the world, are asking for protection because they don't need any. It's only the profits of oil barons (who live out of harm's way) that are screaming for help.
Next time Bush says something about protecting the "whole world", read his lips carefully. You'll see he isn't saying "whole" he's really saying "oil." He's simply mispronouncing the word, just like he says nukeyular instead of nuclear.
If you must know... you are absolutely correct that I thought we had no place in the Balkans (and by this I mean the Kosovo part of the Balkans-issue, and not the Bosnia part which involved an invasion). What nations do within their borders, especially to fight terrorist organizations--- which is EXACTLY what Milosevic was doing in Kosovo--- is their own business. I may not like it (like I don't like Milosevic and what he did) but that is an internal issue to them.
Africa is a thorny problem all over the place. Forget naming specific countries. I mean if you thought we were right to be in the Balkans, then what about Rhowanda (which was a million times worse)? What a mess. I throw my hands in the air and admit I have no real conclusions on issues in Africa.
But this is all sidetracking. Answer the problems I listed with invading Iraq. If you can't come up with anything then stop squawking like a chicken-hawk.
holmes
{Completed quote boxes by adding the "slash quote" at ends, and deleted the lines of "+'s" - to narrow page width - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-04-2003]
™ Version 4.2