Oh, F_k!
….SIGH…

Then don’t comment on it.

“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury
you.” [Khrushchev later explained this remark as an idiomatic
expression to mean “We will outlive you” (i.e. communism will triumph).
On another occasion, 8/24/1963, addressing a group of Westerners in
Split, Yugoslavia, he referred to his controversial statement:
“Of course we will not bury you with a shovel.
Your own working class will bury you.”]

• Nikita Khrushchev, Soviet Premier. Remark(11/18/1956),
  to Western diplomats, Kremlin, Moscow.
  Quoted in Times (London, 1119/1956)

Yeah, you picked a winner there! - Xi

@F_alk:

@TG:

Jealously and animosity run rampant – deal with it. But ask yourself this, and truthfully, would the average spewer of hate not jump at the opportunity to live an American life – would countries of hate resist for one moment to trade their holdings for the wealth of the States?

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”. So, for those you “actively” hate the US, i can’t tell wether they would do that. But you are right, many people from the “dislike” or “silent hate” fraction would do that.
By what you say, you all claim it all comes down to materialistic jealousy. I doubt that, i think there is more behind that (but if i start that, i wouldn’t survive the flaming by your patriotic-to-the-level-of-nationalistic fellows. :) )

Ask yourself this, is the access to Iraq unrestricted? Is it possible that Saddam has/already has moved his NBC facilities to sites that UN peacekeepers cannot access? Is it likely that Saddam will continue producing weapons of mass destruction, using the UN as a clever guise to hide his true agendas? How much good did weapon inspectors due to a rapidly mobilizing Germany pre-WWII?

AFAIHH, the game over what is unrestricted access is on. But the UN inspectors are trained in finding hidden, forgotten, left-over traces. I don’t think that Saddam can hide everything forever. And, more important, it keeps down the scale of his production capabilities. So, i think he will try, and the UN will do its best to hinder him. That’s a fair deal to me, whoever is better, wins.
For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there, Hitler ignored the treaties openly after a first secret start of development and cooperation with other “rogue states” like the USSR in that time. In the “rapidly mobilizing” phase, everyone even from the outside could see what happened in germany.

The only crisis that exists with the Iraque is that nutcase on the presidents seat on a superpower wants him dead.

So except for Saddam preaching the destruction of the US, Iraq is perfectly fine? Sure… :roll:

As fine as the US preaching the destruction of Saddam, as fine as Reagan’s joke about bombing the Kremlin. As fine as GWB judging the UN by “what they do and not what they debate”.
Talking is the first step usually, you are right in that, but talk doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Saddam has to keep his face, he can’t allow to give to easily, just as GWB nearly has to fight this war, because he already said he would do it regardless what the Iraq does.

We will see how the UN-inspectors do, and wether one of the two nutcases is smart enough.

Whebn our grandchildren are grown up, then someone else will rule in the Iraque.

I would rather have the new generation of Americans grow in a Iraq that doesn’t harbor terrorist, that hasn’t invaded neighboring countries, that doesn’t gass their own people.

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq.
And let me tell you that: Germany now is a friend, partner and ally of the US. The generation of our grandfathers did all of the above.
In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.
So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

You would have bombed the USSR as soon as you could as well, wouldn’t you? They possessed nuclear weapons as well, they “threatened” the US as well.

If they were in any ways harboring and aiding terrorist that slammed airplanes into our buildings - I would not hesistate to do so.

Fortunately, in that time there were enough regimes outside in the fringes of the blocks were the superpowers could fight each other without fighting each other openly.
And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.
That by the way is one of the first lessons to learn from game theory (coming back to “life is a game”): Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.
You want to pay back more, imagine your opponent reacts the same way.
Escalation is never smart, especially not if weapons of mass destruction are in the weapons arsenal of one of the sides.

Unfortunately, they (Chrustchev) were the sensible part in the Cuba crisis, and withdrew to de-escalate. You will call it victory, but being the victor doesn’t mean you are sensible.

Let’s see, and the moral of the story: we should let Russia build missile silos in Cuba pointed directly at the United States. Right… :roll:

Well, i have lived all my life in a border-country. Even allies had nuclear weapons aimed at us to stop the red army on our territory. Not 100 km from whereever i lived i would have been deep in the former GDR with SS20s around. I have no idea where the US had their rockets and cruise missiles stationed….
Well, the war didn’t come. I am alive and well, my country is alive and well.
Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you? Did you ever spend a thought about your borderline allies?
You claim to be the “heros” and cry and whine over a lost war, which in retro-respect you call police action, just to keep your “war balance” a bit cleaner? You call for a “war on terrorism” and don’t follow the rules for POW with your captives?
You should be thankful that the Soviets were more sensible than the US-americans in the Cuba-Crisis. Had they gone on as stubborn as you, then we wouldn’t be here to discuss. Saving the world is something were i am thankful to anyone, regardless what else he might have done.
(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

Cowards because they didn’t want missiles in their backyard?
I guess USSR were cowards too, they didn’t like U.S. missiles in Turkey.

Maybe your country had enemy missiles so close because, your country didn’t have the power to do anything about it.

You have some serious American envy.

Saddam might not be a threat to the world, but is certainly a threat to the U.S.
After 9/11 the USA isn’t taking any chances and I dont blame them.
If " the World" dosen’t like the way American conducts itself, why not do something about it.

I am not saying that the entire world loves us just like i would not say that i love the whole world F_alk. My point is that I am sure than there are alot of people who are just indiferent to what we do.

F_alk:

that’s too stupid ot even comment.

Stupid yes. As stupid as saying that Americans only care about Americans, slightly more stupid. IMHO of course :)

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”.

Already way ahead in terms of what? :-?

By what you say, you all claim it all comes down to materialistic jealousy.

There is so much more that materialistic jealousy -prestige, power, ect. A lot of it is simple thumbing of the nose rebellion without cause. I see a lot of those.

I don’t think that Saddam can hide everything forever. And, more important, it keeps down the scale of his production capabilities. So, i think he will try, and the UN will do its best to hinder him. That’s a fair deal to me, whoever is better, wins.

You didn’t answer me. Do UN weapon inspectors have unrestricted access to anywhere in Iraq or what? Also, what will be the size of such a UN peacekeeping effort?

For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there,

You seriously believe this? “Germany Disarmed and Rearming, 1925-1935” by Berenice Carroll and tell me other wise. Go ahead.
This tells us something. Will the UN rigorously check to make sure Saddam has NBC weapons or become lax after a while?

As fine as the US preaching the destruction of Saddam, as fine as Reagan’s joke about bombing the Kremlin. As fine as GWB judging the UN by “what they do and not what they debate”.
Talking is the first step usually, you are right in that, but talk doesn’t necessarily lead to action. Saddam has to keep his face, he can’t allow to give to easily, just as GWB nearly has to fight this war, because he already said he would do it regardless what the Iraq does.

Perhaps you did not understand my question: is Iraq a perfectly stable country except for George Bush’s tough talks? Has Saddam been directly and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands (maybe even millions)? Has Saddam used chemcial weapons before on his own people? Has Saddam purposely ejected UN Inspectors from Iraq and endured UN sanctions on his own people? Has Saddam violated the Cease-Fire agreement after the Gulf War?

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq

Why not? If Iraq does become a place different from today, I could see it happen.

In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.

No, it proves what Saddam has done in the past and what he’s capable of doing again. And to amend past mistakes.

Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.

The so called game theory is flawed. So should I have Americans hijack one a plane and crash it into one of their buildings?

And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.

And what would’ve happened? Let them get away with it? Guess what, yesterday Pearl Harbor was bombed. I say we sit buy and watch it happen over and over without doing anything about it. :roll: Now who is worse off? So our so called “terrorist” didn’t belong in Europe, didn’t belong in South Korea, didn’t belong in Vietnam?

So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

There has already been proof of this, and I would end it. And your alternative would be? Let them openly arm and train terrorist for future operations?

Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you?

And I sure ICBM’s didn’t matter much, did they? Sure… :roll: I would never give the Soviets a chance of pre-emptive strike. As Ghoul said, missles pointed at Russan and they wanting them gone – they must be cowards too! :roll:

You claim to be the “heros” and cry and whine over a lost war, which in retro-respect you call police action, just to keep your “war balance” a bit cleaner?

At least our actions were condoned by the UN. Did the Russians and Saddam every bother to do that?

(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

I am sure you would’ve said the same thing 10 years ago.

Because you know he’s going to put his weapons next to well known schools and residential areas

Hmmm… sounds awfully close to what Saddam is planning on doing now with his policy for the return of UN bomb inspectors.

I propose we send in the weapons inspectors, and see what happens.

Tell me, what happened the last time we did this?

However, right now, we have no UN resolution. We have no reason. Saddam is no where near a Nuclear weapon. He’s not getting any new Bio/Chem weapons, and is going to be struggling to hold on to what he has with the inspectors.

This is what we call the waiting process. I have answered the post about nuclear availability many times. Khidir Hamza, a former member of Iraq’s weapons-building program, and other former bomb makers told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Saddam is actively developing weapons of mass destruction and will have accumulated enough enriched uranium and gas centrifuge to have three nuclear bombs before 2005. Saddam makes his own BC’s. Based on documents by UN inspectors, Saddam still has 6,000 chemical bombs,12 to 24 mobile weapons platforms, and unmanned drones to deliver BC’s. What inspector are there?

Y,
If you ain’t gonna respond to my post re: your post . . .

HUSH!

:P

“Audentis fortuna iuvat.” (‘Fortune assists the bold’
or ‘Fortune favors the bold.’ - Virgil

You go, Virgie! - Xi

@Xi:

@Yanny:

To compare this to WWII is pathetic.

Not comparison . . an example of choices. Another example . . .
Yanny = Neville Chamberlain…or Russia (in a RR game) waiting til R2
to make any noncombat movement.
@Yanny:

…thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will die when we attack Iraq…I charge Americans to break the chain of history. I charge America to be the first Superpower to do good in the world.
Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia.

Millions of citizens of many countries will die if we
don’t do something. America will do something different. Bush will not
respond with nukes. Most likely he will repond or better yet, once
proof is laid out, initiate, with surgical incision of strike units. The
neighboring countries will be asked to help Iraqis to restructure their
government. The USA is not capable of doing that as we have a different
mindset(yes, this is an admission of American weakness, but we see it.)
If Saddam is permitted to build, use, and/or distribute biological,
neurological, and/or weapons of mass destruction millions of
citizens of many technologically advanced non-Islamic countries
will die. This will leave little help for the Third(or Second, depending on
your view of divisions) World countries.
America has done more to rebuild and help the world than any other
country. Most people quote the Charity statistics, but that is a drop in
the bucket. The US saved Europes’ sas in WWI and WWII. That’s why
Americans love to play these games(it makes them feel better about
their incosequential existence.) The US bailed out G.B., France, and
the U.S.S.R.(and dropped the debt). The US rebuilt Japan and Germany
so that WWIII would not resemble WWII. We founded the Red Cross
which helps all over the world and Caused the Muslim countries to found
the RED Crescent. We have defended pockets of democracy
(West Berlin, Taiwan, South Korea) which have helped strain and change
China, North Korea, the U.S.S.R.and Soviet satellites.
@Yanny:

Saddam Hussein is a bad person. But you shouldn’t punish the Iraq people for that! We all know Bagdag will be leveled to the ground if we go to war.
Saddam Hussein is not a dangerous person. He’s not crazy like Hitler, He isn’t going to commit virtual suicide by attack us or Israel.
Why are we attacking him?.

Sadie and his sons are sickos. Saddam has lackies poor gasoline down
the throats of suspected traitors, watches them suffer a couple of hours,
and then has one lacky light a match, play with it, and then torch the
suspect. Saddam would watch films of himself torturing suspected
traitors before having sex with his mistress(her testimony). His oldest
son learned to take hours to disembowel human prisoners by practicing
on sheep. I forget his second son’s perversions as I was distracted.
You think the worst of what will happen. That is your imagination
and indoctrination. Watch the Middle East join against Saddam
as they have experienced his dreams of grandeur. But, they will not lead.
They and the rest of the world need a point man. Someone and some
country taking the most risk. That is the Pesident Bush and USA. We
have the most to lose as we are the greatest power, target, and obstacle
that any warped country, religious figures, or anyone has to overcome.
Yes, we must be cautious to not overstep our limits, but that is why GWB
goes to Congress and the UN.
@Yanny:

We’re attacking him for Oil and votes…

Look at history. When EVIL Bush41 went into Iraq in 1991 the price
of oil dropped to $10 a barrel. The price of gas dropped to below $0.80
per gallon. This did not help the businesses that are accused of profits.
Remember, Chaney was part of the Bush41 admin. and didn’t run
Halibertin(sp.?) until later! It helped vacationers for a short time, but
that didn’t win EVIL Bush41 re-election,now, did it?
@Yanny:

…there will be long term consequences, death, and a happy Republican party.

Yes, the Republicans will be ALMOST as happy as when they took food
out of the mouths of starving elementary school students and
made senior citizens eat dog food by cutting programs.
I wouldn’t even accuse Clinton of murder for the aspirin factory or
Yugoslavia, which is where it looks like you might be headed with
EVIL Bush43 on your mind.

Another moderate reads verbatum from the LIBERAL Democrat
playbook. - Xi

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.” - Francis M. Voltaire

Here it is, Y.
Not any more, T_6. - Xi

So your entire post was a quote? Right…

What about the Kurds Yanny? Should they suffer because of Saddam?

@Mr:

Cowards because they didn’t want missiles in their backyard?
I guess USSR were cowards too, they didn’t like U.S. missiles in Turkey.

Maybe your country had enemy missiles so close because, your country didn’t have the power to do anything about it.

You have some serious American envy.

Saddam might not be a threat to the world, but is certainly a threat to the U.S.
After 9/11 the USA isn’t taking any chances and I dont blame them.
If " the World" dosen’t like the way American conducts itself, why not do something about it.

You are right, my country was not strong (and smart) enough to prevent the US from placing nuclear weapons on our territory.

But: I am not envious.
The problem is much more that “the world” can’t do anything (better: a lot) against the USAs will.
The USA frequently blackmailed the UN, blackmails/buys bilateral treaties (like in the case of the International Criminal Court), gives a shit on the rules they want others to follow (steel tariffs vs. free trade), defends “freedom” by cutting down individual rights.
And the world can’t / doesn’t do much more than watch, and let their discomfort grow.

And let’s have a look at the threat Saddam poses towards the US:
All he could do is provide training and equipment for single persons/ small gangs to infiltrate the US and do damage there. He is not capable of standing an open war against the US. He is capable of bringing more destruction to the areas closer to the Iraq (mainly Israel) though.

How does the USA react to this threat: Having noticed that someone could actually harm the US (a thought most unpleasant, but once you get used to it, you start to act and behave differently, more sensible, as you think of what your actions might provoke!) for the first time after Pearl Harbor, the USA reacted in shock (understandibly, the truth can be unpleasant), and a combination of force and denial (like: This must never happen again, therefore we kill everyone who we think could do that).

The geographical isolation that the USA long had lead to a sense of invulnerability on ground soil. This in our times of means of transportation and communication of course is a false dream of security. To maintain that dream, the USA is using drasric measures, instead of opening their eyes: Instead of trying to adapt to changing times, the USA seems like they want the time to stop at an earlier point.

The USA has, whatever it does, a big impact on the world. Unfortunately, it looks like they are not aware of how big that impact is. I do and don’t blame them for that, as it is hard to see yourself with outside eyes, but they also don’t listen to the “outside eyes” tell them about themselves.

So, i hope that the US comes to its senses, and notices that in our globalized time you need globalized thinking, especially if you are a land as powerful and influential as the USA.

@TG:

i don’t know that, as the “average spewer of hate” is already way ahead of the average “silent hater”.

Already way ahead in terms of what? :-?

in the “amount” of hate/dislike/discomfort already accumulated.

There is so much more that materialistic jealousy -prestige, power, ect. A lot of it is simple thumbing of the nose rebellion without cause. I see a lot of those.

but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.
I am not too sure of that. Saudia Arabia is a rich land, and one of the most islamic fundamentalist country around.

You didn’t answer me. Do UN weapon inspectors have unrestricted access to anywhere in Iraq or what? Also, what will be the size of such a UN peacekeeping effort?

From what i now, the UN and Iraq are having talks about the terms, but in the first letter the talk was of unrestricted access.
It will not be a peace-keeping effort, as there was no war, and there are no two sides to be held away from each other.

For pre-WWII Germany: there were no inspectors there,

You seriously believe this? “Germany Disarmed and Rearming, 1925-1935” by Berenice Carroll and tell me other wise. Go ahead.
This tells us something. Will the UN rigorously check to make sure Saddam has NBC weapons or become lax after a while?

Yes, i do believe that. I know there were secret programs in the Reichswehr and the construction of a “state inside the state”, but i haven’t found any evidence (in the net just now or before) that there were inspectors in post WWI germany searching for secret weapon facilities.

And i don’t think that the UN will become lax. Counterquestion:
Even if, would the “lazyness” of our side be enough reason to start a war?
That would change my view of you quite a bit….

Perhaps you did not understand my question: is Iraq a perfectly stable country except for George Bush’s tough talks? Has Saddam been directly and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands (maybe even millions)? Has Saddam used chemcial weapons before on his own people? Has Saddam purposely ejected UN Inspectors from Iraq and endured UN sanctions on his own people? Has Saddam violated the Cease-Fire agreement after the Gulf War?

perfectly stable: no; stable enough: yes
for the others: yes
Counterquestion: did the US and Britain frequently bomb the Iraq without any legal background but in self-proclaimed self-defense?
The violation of the cease fire and the bombings are skirmishes. You could say these are enough reason to let it escalate into a full war. The other points above are not. The ejection of the UN inspectors would have called for an immediate reaction, and as it looks the Iraq is taking back that step, so that reason fails as well.

I bet you don’t want to see Americans grow up in Iraq

Why not? If Iraq does become a place different from today, I could see it happen.

You mentioned that growing up in context with a not-changed Iraq……

In that time, we needed a war to overcome that. Does that mean you will need one now?
The wars to fight of the invasions have been done. The gassing is long ago, fighting solely for that reason now would be hypocritical.

No, it proves what Saddam has done in the past and what he’s capable of doing again. And to amend past mistakes.

You deny him the right to learn (even though i don’t think he did learn the right things)? The only proof the above gives is what he has done in the past. Nothing more, nothing less. It tells us to have an open eye on him, to not let it happen again, but it doesn’t tell us that he still is capable of doing it (both mentally or equipment-wise).

Never pay back more than what was done to you. Never pay back less than what was done to you.

The so called game theory is flawed. So should I have Americans hijack one a plane and crash it into one of their buildings?

No, it says “react equivalently” not “react exactly the same way”. If it is flawd, then i wonder why it is so successful.

And even if they did the above: you wouldn’t have done that. That would have been the END OF THE WORLD. Nothing more, nothing less. What you would have done is “send in some terrorists of your own”.

And what would’ve happened? Let them get away with it? Guess what, yesterday Pearl Harbor was bombed. I say we sit buy and watch it happen over and over without doing anything about it. :roll: Now who is worse off? So our so called “terrorist” didn’t belong in Europe, didn’t belong in South Korea, didn’t belong in Vietnam?

Did i say “do nothing”?
quote me on that!

The bombing of pearl harbor did have a different quality: it was conducted by the official military forces of a different country. That is not terrorists.

And please explain that last sentence, i don’t understand what you want to say with that.

So, that leaves open only the harboring of terrorists. Why do you think a war is a must to (1) proof and (2) end that?

There has already been proof of this, and I would end it. And your alternative would be? Let them openly arm and train terrorist for future operations?

to quote you:
You did not answer my question ;)

For your question: No, and please find where i made any proposal like that (openly arm and train terrorists).
The alternative would be sending in UN inspectors, they did a good job before, otherwise the Iraq wouldn’t have sent them out!

Are you USies such cowards that you couldn’t stand the thought of someone having weapons close to you?

And I sure ICBM’s didn’t matter much, did they? Sure… :roll: I would never give the Soviets a chance of pre-emptive strike. As Ghoul said, missles pointed at Russan and they wanting them gone – they must be cowards too! :roll:

exactly…. the ICBM were already poised at you, and still you went mad during the Cuba Crisis… it was just a few more missiles, with a shorter reaction time (the only weak point in my arguing :), and i have to bring it myself).
Why do you assume that the Soviets planned a pre-emptive strike? Chrustchev was following a “co-existence” doktrin. Were you afraid because you would have done it and think that your opponent would have done the same?

At least our actions were condoned by the UN. Did the Russians and Saddam every bother to do that?

The russians: yes. The iraq: No
The US in Granada or Panama: No
Israel: consistenly no

(And i don’t think that Saddam is a threat to the world!)

I am sure you would’ve said the same thing 10 years ago.

Well, 10 years ago: yes
during the Quwait war: no, i was fearing that either Iraq or Israel would go nuts and attack the other.
Both didn’t.
One of the reasons why i think that Saddam is “stable enough”, but if you start a war with the only reason to kick hom off, he will no doubt use the full potential he has. That will be different! Read Sun Tzu on that topic: if your enemy has no option but to fight to his death, then you will not “win” (in the way he defines “winning”).

Y, @Y:

Let me list all the places we’ve gone into to “help”

I couldn’t agree more, but in most cases we had to do something. Each case should be dealt with sepatately. How bout we solve this in the “Change the Ploitical System” string? I propose keeping past admin. available as advisors…40-50 years of experience and wisdom might help or muddle.
You don’t believe the Ukrainian president re: 200 missing missles? Which can be turned into a lot more nukes since each one has 7-10 warheads.
Hollywood? No, that’s a liberal tool(see Clinton admin. history). You don’t believe Saddam’s Bombmaker(the person and book)? He says Saddam had 400 missle sites 5years ago. He estimates that Saddam will be capable of nuke delivery within 6 months. Oh, Scott Ritter has been paid by Saddam Hussein to pooh-pooh this information. THAT IS PROPAGANDA. Too many sources verify these facts… defectors, family members of victims, reporters, inspectors(Scott Ritter before Saddam’s $). Then there’s Saddam’s own family who defected, returned, and IS DEAD NOW.
@Y:

Bad comparison

Your opinion. Hitler (Saddam) played games for 6 (11) years. WE’LL SEE.
We must all recognize that a war on terrorism will be like no other war.
Because of tech. advances, freedom and democracy(an impossible utopia for the world to attain.Whoa, I cannot believe I just typed that!) may have to take a back seat for a while. A better opportunity for a socialist/communist world government to evolve. If that’s what it takes…
@Y:

the true democracies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran setting up this new government.

NO, I said help, not control. They don’t have the moral mindset to handle democracy. Not for about 200-400 years, maybe.
@Y:

get a nuke in response in doing it… he isn’t suicidal.

Already handled in the previous post. No US nuke response.
@Y:

merica rebuilt countries it is responsible for destroying & made profit

Ew-who-who-who-who! Name me a major power that won a war, stayed a major power, and didn’t make a profit doing it. Whoop de do.
@Y:

Prove it! Saddam has no way of delivering his weapons.

I don’t have to…Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and a few other countries would disagree. Who says it’s gonna be missles? Moscova can worry, too, since they are only 500 miles(the next step in missle ranges) from Iraq. Shipping containers in our harbors (before inspections occur) would make a nice glow(a current scenario discussed by world experts on tv.)
@Y:

When we rebuild Germany, we let half the country go to the USSR and turn into a shithole which we’re seeing the fallbacks of today.

Blame the USA for not starting WWIII before WWII is over? That’s ludicrous! I would like to insult you here. However, I feel that all these avowed conservatives arguing with you, a self-perceived moderate, would only make you a liberal. Therefore, I will restrain myself.
@Y:

I support this. But we’re not going after Iraq for democracy. Oil and votes. And we did a lot of good in China and North Korea didn’t we.

Thank you. Democracy…see above. Oil and votes…see previous post (it didn’t work for Bush41, so why would Bush43 tryit, if that was the plan? Yes, Evil Empires, no matter how big (China) nor how small (N. Korea), must go through growing pains. This includes the USA! Oh, Clinton helped a little here. He signed documentation allowing the Loral Corp. (owned by a big Dem. contributor [and “friend of” Bill (Clinton’s words)]) to sell and set up tech. which allowed China to pinpoint target 200 American cities with nukes. Clinton also gave N. Korea nuclear reactor tech. which they can use in their nuclear weapons development program. But, the N Koreans did promise not to do that.
@Y:

there will be long term consequences, death, and a happy Republican party.

Another moderate reads verbatum from the LIBERAL Democrat playbook. Yes, the Republicans will be ALMOST as happy as when they took food out of the mouths of starving elementary school students and made senior citizens eat dog food by cutting programs. I’ll be NICE this time.
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, I feel funny! Is this what it feels to be a moderate
conservative? Ew-who-who-who! Excuse me,v I gotta hurl. - Xi

"Don’t walk in front of me, I may not follow; don’t walk behind me,
I may not lead; walk beside me, and just be my friend. - Albert Camus

Hmm. I might try that. Naah! - Xi

Haha, I couldn’t agree more XI. :D

You are right, my country was not strong (and smart) enough to prevent the US from placing nuclear weapons on our territory.

Yeah, forget about deterrence from the iron boot of Stalinism.

The problem is much more that “the world” can’t do anything (better: a lot) against the USAs will.

I’m sure if “50%” of the world banded together against the US, they could do more than something. US is only one country. Then why haven’t they?

defends “freedom” by cutting down individual rights

The same as how liberals try to take away individual rights. You cannot have the absolute amount of both security and freedom. Guess what, most Americans would choose more security in these times.

And the world can’t / doesn’t do much more than watch, and let their discomfort grow.

A world of 6 billion vs. 275 million. They could do a much more than watch; act much more then they whine.

And let’s have a look at the threat Saddam poses towards the US:
All he could do is provide training and equipment for single persons/ small gangs to infiltrate the US and do damage there. He is not capable of standing an open war against the US. He is capable of bringing more destruction to the areas closer to the Iraq (mainly Israel) though.

You seem to belittle the amount of damage “single persons/ small gangs” can do to the United States. We live in a where one man can be responsible for the deaths of millions. As the events of 9/11 proved, it doesn’t takem many to inflict serve desturction.

combination of force and denial (like: This must never happen again, therefore we kill everyone who we think could do that).

Force and denial? So we should just forget everything that happened and go about completely the same as normal?

To maintain that dream, the USA is using drasric measures, instead of opening their eyes: Instead of trying to adapt to changing times, the USA seems like they want the time to stop at an earlier point.

Yeah, this coming from the “Ecological Axis of Evil.”
but still you said that many of those “hate spewers” would love to have the US’ wealth and standard of living.

I am not too sure of that. Saudia Arabia is a rich land, and one of the most islamic fundamentalist country around.

A rich land in terms of what? Maybe to the wealthy oil princes there, but not to the average Saudi. Most of Saudia Arabia is made up of barren deserts. More than half the country’s people live in Riyadh or Jidda. It also seems strange how Saudi Arabia is also the biggest outlet for US goods in the Mideast.

From what i now, the UN and Iraq are having talks about the terms, but in the first letter the talk was of unrestricted access.

Read on. Saddam no longer wants to allow unrestricted access. He is going against his word the same way he did in 1991 (“unfettered access” - sure :roll:). What does he have to hide. His Prime Minister even said, “Iraq posses no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.” If this is true, then why the coverup?

Yes, i do believe that. I know there were secret programs in the Reichswehr and the construction of a “state inside the state”, but i haven’t found any evidence (in the net just now or before) that there were inspectors in post WWI germany searching for secret weapon facilities.

All I can say, is read that document. I think it is available for download on the internet.

Even if, would the “lazyness” of our side be enough reason to start a war?

If these UN inspectors do get lax, then I think it is more a reason for the US to take action. The US government should not wait around and let UN do nothing (or conduct only meager efforts)

Counterquestion: did the US and Britain frequently bomb the Iraq without any legal background but in self-proclaimed self-defense?

Without any legal background? Does Iraq have the right to fire on US planes over the 36th and 33rd Parallel? Those US pilots “frequently bombing Iraq” were authorized to attack these weapons sites if fired upon by them, and also to protect Iraq’s ethnic minorities.

You mentioned that growing up in context with a not-changed Iraq……

No, go back and reread my other post before that. It is a future where Iraq has changed for the better.

It tells us to have an open eye on him, to not let it happen again, but it doesn’t tell us that he still is capable of doing it (both mentally or equipment-wise).

No, I even stated before how close Saddam is to developing nuclear weapons and his stockpiles of BC’s. Do you really believe the Prime Minister’s respond, that “Iraq is without any weapons of mass destruction?” Saddam has learned from the mistakes, he now knows how to play the UN as fools.

No, it says “react equivalently” not “react exactly the same way”

React equivalently as in conduct terrorist attacks of our own? So instead of using a plane, we now use a bus?

Did i say “do nothing”?
quote me on that!

Oh then, what should’ve have done? Slap some offical reprimands and sit back?

And please explain that last sentence, i don’t understand what you want to say with that.

You say, “What you would have done is send in some terrorists of your own.'” Except according to your game theory, it’s perfectly right.

to quote you:
You did not answer my question

DS already, gave the evidence supporting the fact that Iraq indeed harbors, trains, and finances terrorist. Therefore, that part of the question is already answered.

For your question: No, and please find where i made any proposal like that (openly arm and train terrorists).

I posed that as a question ->?<-, not as an answer, though it might be what you’re implying.

The alternative would be sending in UN inspectors, they did a good job before, otherwise the Iraq wouldn’t have sent them out!

Even if that were true (which I highly doubt), in this case does that mean, the moment the UN inspectors do a good job of locating such plants, Saddam will send them out again?

exactly…. the ICBM were already poised at you, and still you went mad during the Cuba Crisis… it was just a few more missiles, with a shorter reaction time (the only weak point in my arguing , and i have to bring it myself).
Why do you assume that the Soviets planned a pre-emptive strike? Chrustchev was following a “co-existence” doktrin. Were you afraid because you would have done it and think that your opponent would have done the same?

You call the US cowards, though they were the only ones who stood up to the Soviet Union. I would except MAD from the Soviets, but if they had the capability of pre-emptive first strike, then that is something is get “mad” about. The Soviets may not have planned a pre-emptive strike (remains to be disputed), though the ability to do so with missiles point at the South of the United States is terrible enough.

The russians: yes.

Ha, so the Stalinist actions in Hungary, Berlin Blockade, Afghanistan, ect. were perfectly fine?

Scott Ritter? Hahahah :lol: