New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

'Fooled by Iraq'

But Mr Blix is well-used to feeling the heat over Iraq.

As director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997, he was in charge of overseeing inspections of the country's nuclear programme.

During that time, the Iraqis managed to hide an advanced nuclear weapons development programme from the IAEA. It was only discovered after the Gulf War in 1991.

Now that is comforting. I wonder if it was on his resume to Annan?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[bodypilot90 0]

it was a joke oh well

[rhino 0]

Quote

Yep, those constant references to the past are what other people call history. I think we can learn from it.

History became ancient history on 9/11.. We can no longer look back. We have to look into the future and make decisions based on the threats of today not 10-20-30 years ago..

History before 9/11 is virtually irrelevant at this point..

Rhino

[Michele 1]

Quote

Yep, those constant references to the past are what other people call history. I think we can learn from it.

Agreed. But other things need to be brought to the fore, as well, such as Chirac's and Hussein's long relationship; France selling a lot of military aircraft (as well as Russia) to Iraq; Germany's harboring of the 9/11 suspects (not that my saying that means "Let's go get revenge on Iraq"). The export market France has with Iraq; and the 10% (+/-) of the French population which is Islamic. The oil France is importing. The connection between Saddam and Palestine, his funding the suicide bombers; our attempts to buy back the Stinger missles from the Mujahadin...and on and on. Instead, while we learn from your posts, there is a whole rest of a world out there, with complicity, duplicity, and malintent...and you do not ever discuss that. There is no parity, no balance, in your argument...and that is what I am referring to, not the history of the United States. The continual "we've done just as bad" without ever balancing it with "hey, while we funded the Mujahadin, the Russians were taking over a country, kinda like Saddam did in '91...but we couldn't take them on directly because they were a serious nuclear power, so we did what we could to assist them at that time...and when the tide turned, and we realized how dangerous this was, we tried to buy the missles back...but got beat out by some Saudi dude...".

Your intimation that american action is the only action which you care about speaks to isolationism, and yet you profess otherwise. I would like to see some "otherwise"...that's all. Parity. Balance...

Quote

We will not become better unless we look at those mistakes of the past in the harsh light of reality, not through flag-colored glasses.

Patriotism is not bad. Wherever you got that idea, you got a bum deal. Patriotism does not stop you from thinking, does not stop you from discussion, does not stop you from researching and developing your own mind; patriotism (or flag colored glasses...) is nothing more than a deep and abiding love for your country. Some might argue that this love manifests in service to your country; some might argue that this love manifests in hypercriticism. Some might even argue that this love comes from working, doing your thing, and creating the american dream. Whatever the position, it does not negate others' positions...and doesn't render them thoughtless, inadequate, or insignificant. And if someone doesn't believe as another, there is NO call for labeling them "sheeple".

And we cannot ever be better without seeing the truth of things - all things, all over the world. We cannot understand what is going on with France, for example, until we look a little deeper than surface level at their import/export data. But Bill, if I were to demonstrate to you that there is an Iraqi connection at worst as tenuous as Pat Robertson's funding, you would not change your tune. You would find something wrong with it, something inaccurate. You'd pick it apart and have little respect for the idea, let alone me, for bringing it into the conversation. You would malign me, as you did in your above post. You would insist that you assumed it was me, (when I've never said something like that) because you have a deep seated preconception - and misconception - that I felt that way...and you would not check out the fact of the matter, as you didn't when you posted what you did.

Quote

One possible response is "we should probably be careful about doing that in the future." Another possible one is "If the US did it, it must have been the right thing!" I prefer the first interpretation; the second interpretation leads us to make the same mistakes over and over.

How do you know which position is mine? Have you asked? Or have you done more assuming? To lay that one at my feet, without any proof, as you did in this post, tells me that you have no room for any information I, or anyone else, will present to you, irrespective of how well researched, how well supported, or even how simply interesting. Your mind is made up, and no amount of evidence anyone can supply here at DZ.com would be adequate to you. And so, because I see this as your position, see you as inflexible and uninterested in finding the answer, it is useless to even offer you anything which you may not have known, may not have considered. No-one can know everything, Bill, and I certainly don't make that claim. But your apparent unwillingness to see the whole picture, rather than just a narrow view, creates an unwillingness to even bring anything to you to consider.

Quote

But if I do answer, it may contain some history to back up my reply. Ignore that if you like, but that's what you will get in an open forum. Sometimes you get answers you don't like.

Include history, by all means. But balance your history, too. Widen your views, instead of just looking at the american aspect. Look to the whole situation, look into why someone is saying what they are, what is the story behind the story in a worldwide sense. Your narrow focus, Bill, limits your ability to create intelligent and considered replies.

As to getting answers I don't like, um, well, yes, that's expected. What I do expect, frankly, is intellectual honesty, and checking of facts. As your post ascribing a position to me which does not belong, you didn't do that...you made an emotional post (granted, in an emotional thread...as did I make an emotional post...) and didn't bother to check it out as you were so sure of yourself and your assumption. And you were wrong...(and you still owe me 5 jumps...

Quote

Well, as I've said before, it's easy to see who posted what, and ignore the posts you know to be just rhetorical and inflammatory. I do that.

Bill, well, no, you didn't. If you had, you would not have attributed something to me which I never said. It is easy; takes maybe 30 seconds to do...and yet, you didn't bother to look something up before throwing that unfounded and spurious allegation up.

Quote

And like I said before, sorry I attributed someone else's quote to you.

When can I claim my 5 jump tickets?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[VectorBoy 0]

Yep, those constant references to the past are what other people call history. I think we can learn from it.

Well Bill I'll refresh you on a little history. Back in 91 the whole journalist world had us all up in a fervor over going to war against the 3rd largest army in the world, armed with the latest in chinese and soviet hardware, chemical & bio weapons. Having been out of the service just a few years I laughed out loud at what a cake walk it was going to be for our guys. Troops surrendering right and left is what we saw.

Now lets fast forward to now your concern should not be how bad this event is going to be for our guys it should be if our remote piloted aircraft are set up to be surrendered to. Will they need some kind of load speaker system? Anybody that was there then and bombed then still remembers and is probably starting to shake something fierce. They are probably just now getting back their hearing and starting to pronounce the vowel sounds correctly. It has already happened to some british troops in the north.
We have seen footage of Hussien arming his citizens. Well those citizens should be able to take out some of the Iraqi military for us.
Oh don't get me wrong there will be some very disciplined fellows available for our guys to "double tap" you know so that it gets on the "History" Channel and everything.
Don't worry so much you are too young to worry about all this. Go jump dude. Glen

[rhino 0]

attached

Storm is brewing....

[flyingferret 0]

WOW...well said Michele. I don't think there is anything more to add to this thread. I am spent. Nice words. You should try programming, your logic works pretty well.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 3,009]

>History before 9/11 is virtually irrelevant at this point..

Wow! I'm really suprised to hear you say that. We signed a few documents around 1776 and 1787 that some friends of yours just might die to uphold; I think they would find you calling them "irrelevant" to be a little suprising as well.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I generally stay out of this stuff, but I'd just like to pipe in here and say that Bill's posts have never struck me as anti-American.

yeah I agree. There are a lot of people on here who color billvon as a "hopeless liberal" etc. etc. or anti-american. Maybe its just thepeople who are on here, but billvon is CONSIDERABLY less anti-war than some people. For example, at least billvon has laid down what he said would be clear-cut & acceptable terms for an invasion of Iraq, whereas France (and others) have effectively stated that NO breach of the original resolution would result in ANY sort of military action. (I mean, unless Iraq did something like invade another country again) The French & others have a different idea about what the term "serious consequences" means. At least billvon is willing to entertain the idea that "serious consequences" might possibly include military action. The French & others will never entertain such ideas.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

OK I had to reply to Vectorboy, because he seems to feel that the issue is whether or not we can win the war. I don't think anyone has any question who's going to win the actual war with Iraq. It's what comes after that is the main issue. Will it ultimately make us safer or put us in more danger? Will "democratic elections" just put a west-hating, islamic fundamentalist regime in power, that is worse than Saddam Hussein, because it doesn't worry about survival? The initial combat is not the issue, and will probably be over very quickly (less than 3 weeks, I'd say). It's what comes after that matters.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,009]

>Instead, while we learn from your posts, there is a whole rest of a world
> out there, with complicity, duplicity, and malintent...

Of course there is. Look at Hussein himself - the last ten years (I know, Rhino, we should ignore that, but still) have been a long stretch of him trying to get away with whatever he can, however he can - and many countries (including the US) using his regime for their own purposes.

>The continual "we've done just as bad" without ever balancing it with "hey
>, while we funded the Mujahadin, the Russians were taking over a country,
> kinda like Saddam did in '91...

If there were someone here claiming that the US was pure evil and the USSR was all goodness and light, I might just respond the way you mention. But I haven't seen that sort of post yet. As this forum generally sparks debate, and most of my posts turn into defenses against the hawks here, I rely on them to portray their side of the argument while I portray mine. This is not to denigrate their side; but any debate needs two sides, and I take one. Usually it's the peace side (or the get-UN-approval side.)

>I would like to see some "otherwise"...that's all. Parity. Balance...

And you don't see that from Gawain's replies to me? I think he does a great job of presenting a rational argument for the other side.

>patriotism (or flag colored glasses...)

Patriotism is love for your country; seeing things through flag colored glasses means you change your perceptions based on your desire for the US to be right. Imagine you have a mother whose child has a drug problem. She can love him but still see the reality that he has a problem. Coloring her view of reality because she loves him, and believeing his lies, helps no one.

>Whatever the position, it does not negate others' positions...and
>doesn't render them thoughtless, inadequate, or insignificant. And if
>someone doesn't believe as another, there is NO call for labeling them
> "sheeple".

Of course. That's a given.

>But Bill, if I were to demonstrate to you that there is an Iraqi
>connection at worst as tenuous as Pat Robertson's funding, you
>would not change your tune. You would find something wrong with it,
> something inaccurate.

If I could, I would. I tend not to believe things that are inaccurate, and many things about what we've been hearing _are_ inaccurate. If I couldn't, then I would accept it as another data point. It might not change my mind, but then, I don't take your refusal to change your mind as an insult.

>You'd pick it apart and have little respect for
> the idea, let alone me, for bringing it into the conversation.

It's important to separate respect for ideas and respect for people. That suprises me a bit, since you seem to be able to separate personal attacks from attacks on someone's ideas when seen in other places in this forum.

>How do you know which position is mine? Have you asked? Or have
> you done more assuming?

I have neither asked nor assumed; you may well not believe in either of those two positions. Of course, if you just read my posts as fodder for another attack, then assume that I meant the one that you like the least.

Or post what you believe and we could discuss that. Your choice really.

>And so, because I see this as your position, see you as inflexible and
> uninterested in finding the answer, it is useless to even offer you
>anything which you may not have known, may not have considered.

Then why do you continually try? If you type as slowly as I do your replies to me probably took you a while; why not argue with someone you feel isn't an inflexible uncaring type?

> But your apparent unwillingness to see the whole picture, rather than
> just a narrow view, creates an unwillingness to even bring anything to
> you to consider.

It's too bad you feel that way. I have no desire to try to change your mind about that; it seems quite made up. So like I said, feel free to ignore my . . . what was it? . . . inflexible, uninterested-in-facts posts.

>When can I claim my 5 jump tickets?

Hmm. Last time I checked, when you bet someone, they have to say "you're on!" or the equivalent. If not, then I bet you double or nothing that I can hop on one foot longer than you can!

[billvon 3,009]

>Anybody that was there then and bombed then still remembers and
> is probably starting to shake something fierce.

If you have any friends who fought the Tawakalnah, Madinah and Nebuchadnezzar divisions during the first few days of the ground campaign, ask them if they found those divisions of Republican Guards cowardly -and then ask them if they would want to fight them on their home turf in an urban setting. I have no doubt we will win, but the victory this time will not be chasing divisions of fleeing soldiers back into Iraq, it will come while fighting the last Republican Guard units for their homes. I think it will not be quite as clean as it was in 1991.

> Oh don't get me wrong there will be some very disciplined fellows
> available for our guys to "double tap" you know so that it gets on the
> "History" Channel and everything.

You make light of it, but some of them will surely "double tap" US troops - and I don't take that quite as lightly.

[VectorBoy 0]

>If you have any friends who fought the >Tawakalnah, Madinah and Nebuchadnezzar >divisions during the first few days of the ground >campaign, ask them if they found those divisions >of Republican Guards cowardly -and then ask them >if they would want to fight them on their home turf >in an urban setting.

Yes most of these divisions were engaged by coalition forces made up of the saudis and ousted kuwatis and assisted by our guys. I think the divisions you mention will see a faster tempo in their demise this time. The desert is their home turf and its our business to conduct business in the bad boys turf. Yes I know urban is the toughest scenario.

> I have no doubt we will win, but the victory this >time will not be chasing divisions of fleeing soldiers >back into Iraq, it will come while fighting the last >Republican Guard units for their homes. I think it >will not be quite as clean as it was in 1991.

No it won't unless there are mass surrenderings and revolts from within, probability factor: couldn't tell you.
But thats what made WW2 victories like italy different from campaigns in Iowo jima, Okinawa and burma. We had to force Japan to the table, we hit them hard and then again. The world will forever flame us for doing that but close in combat wasn't an option. We don't have to resort to WMD today to do as an effective job. The question is, is it going to be like the former or the latter?


>You make light of it, but some of them will >surely "double tap" US troops - and I don't take >that quite as lightly

If we don't take a stand civilians in the free world will take double taps something like WTC or worse. Troops are proffesionals, they signed up, give our lives to defend freedom, proudly! Was that on the back of your airline ticket out of Boston? I don't think that was on the minds of any of those passengers that day. Except the last flight that stood up and did WHAT IT TAKES and all took "double taps" so that an exponentially greater number of people would not suffer in some other soft target! See were this is going Bill? Glen

[nigel99 507]

Reviewing an entire nations "history" on the events of a single day - events that could conceivably be carried out by a handfull of crackpots stikes me as extremely dangerous.

I sure as hell hope that this is a minority viewpoint over there.

I live in the UK as my country re-wrote history after independance (Zimbabwe) and look where it got them (literally I was in school and history started at 1980!).

It seems the USA is going to experience a rise in terrorism over the forseable future (war or no war) and I do not think that any sane person would wish that on anyone - so don't misinterpret this - I am stating this as my viewpoint. You only have to go to London and see how a city with no public trashcans on the street and CCTV everywhere is impacted by terrorism - even years into an alledged "cease fire" - terrorists only give up when they get their own way - not when they are crushed.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Scratch 0]

Quote

History before 9/11 is virtually irrelevant at this point..

See Attachment Complements of the Dizzy dot commers at Bletherchat

[karma 3]

Scratch you're sooooooooo .

See the new smile thingy rocks.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Wow! I'm really suprised to hear you say that. We signed a few documents around 1776 and 1787 that some friends of yours just might die to uphold; I think they would find you calling them "irrelevant" to be a little suprising as well.

lol

Wrong context. I'll break it down later..

[rhino 0]

bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Quote

See Attachment Complements of the Dizzy dot commers at Bletherchat

[rhino 0]

Quote

Reviewing an entire nations "history" on the events of a single day - events that could conceivably be carried out by a handfull of crackpots stikes me as extremely dangerous.

o.k. now I will break it down..

You cannot base your national security policy on "History" as Bill put is 10-20-30 years ago. Today is a different day and age. Different threats and weapons are involved.

Our national security doctrine has changes as of Sept 11. The cold war is over and a much more dangerous threat exists. That threat is something that must be forecasted and planned for worst case scenario.

Rhino

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

There are a lot of people on here who color billvon as a "hopeless liberal" etc. etc. or anti-american.

I disagree. I think he does that very well without anyone else trying.

I think 12 years of failed diplomacy and 17 failed UN resolutions pretty much constitutes failure of the diplomatic process.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[skreamer 1]

Quote

Your narrow focus, Bill, limits your ability to create intelligent and considered replies.

LMFAO

Do you truly believe Bill has 'narrow focus'? Unbelievable. I've fallen out with him once or twice in the past but have never got this impression. There are quite a few self-important types on this forum who would bounce if they ever had to jump from their egos to their IQs. I reckon the opposite is true of Billvon.

Will

[jfields 0]

Quote

I think 12 years of failed diplomacy

I don't think it is remotely accurate to say we've had 12 years of failed diplomacy. The bizarre escalation of US attention on Iraq does not reflect the culmination of over a decade of diplomatic work. It is closer to a snap decision of the current administration based on a tenuous link to terrorist activities.

Where was the fever pitch of diplomatic effort before 9/11? Where were the high-publicity campaigns to goad the UN into moving faster? Where were the cries from the American people about the evil of Saddam Hussein? Nowhere!

I'm not blaming Bush specifically (for once ), because he wasn't in office the whole time. The United States as a whole expressed very little interest in the post-Gulf War era, until now. If Iraq was the horrible threat it is being portrayed as now, why didn't we do anything? It is easy to point a finger at unenforced resolutions, or the fact that Hussein hasn't instantly submitted to our every whim, and say that we need to invade, but it is hardly the due process that going to war should follow.

Diplomacy takes time. Rather than pointing backwards at the last 12 years and saying, "Look! It didn't work!" when we weren't actively trying, perhaps we can take the current heightened awareness and convert it into some productive diplomacy that yields the results we want without going to war. Why should we throw away American (and British, etc.) lives in a possibly avoidable war? I'm not saying that diplomacy is guaranteed to work, because it isn't, but it has not even been given an honest practical try.

[seedy 0]

Quote

Rather than pointing backwards at the last 12 years and saying, "Look! It didn't work!"

Make up your minds, guys. Do we look at history, or don't we?Bill says yes, Rhino says no, you just said no.........I need an aspirin

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[jfields 0]

Quote

you just said no

No I didn't. I say yes.

But I understand where you're coming from. I think some of the people in here are immune to headaches, because their heads are far too dense to be affected.

(Not a personal attack on anyone. Just a general one. )

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Patriotism is love for your country; seeing things through flag colored glasses means you change your perceptions based on your desire for the US to be right. Imagine you have a mother whose child has a drug problem. She can love him but still see the reality that he has a problem. Coloring her view of reality because she loves him, and believeing his lies, helps no one.

Perfect analogy, Bill. I'm sick and tired of people calling me anti-American because I think we have other options. I will defend the rights and liberties of this nation with my life any time it is necessary. Again, I will defend the rights and liberties of this nation, not the whim of a public servant gone wrong.

And for those of you that think Bill or in fact, anyone else on here, is portraying themselves as hardcore left wing liberals...man, I'd like to introduce you to some people. You don't even know what left wing is.