Clear Link Between Al-Qaeda and Iraq found!

[A Black Falcon]

*sigh* DJ can never stay serious... even in a serious discussion...

They have amounted to nothing. For twelve years, he's hidden his weapons and kicked out inspectors at will. What has been accomplished in the last twelve years? Nothing. These inspections are just what he wants. It gives him all the time he needs to really get his hands on some working weapons, and what can the UN do then?

You honestly think inspections have done nothing at all? I very, very much doubt that... if we didn't have inspections Sadaam would be able to fully operate any stuff he has. With them he can't... plus they have found some things. No, while they haven't worked as they should because of Sadaam's uncooperative behavior, they have hardly done "nothing".

Seriously, that sounds weaker every time you say it. The UN is doing nothing of consequence, except giving Saddam more time. Of course, a certain UN member is suspected of giving Iraq a little more than time... and that certain member is very much opposed to us going in there... I wonder why? France's oil contracts with Saddam don't seem to bother you either, although the thought that we might commandeer their oil fields has you scared to death for some reason.

Its still true, though... and its not just the French. Its also the Germans, Russians, and Chineese...

Yes, I do. Not only am I right, but it is also proof of the UN's uselessness: Without the United States, there is no hope of a world organization. We ARE the UN's power. They are nothing without us. Europe proved with the League that they are flatly incompetant in handling world affairs, as has been very obvious as of late.

They didn't prove they were incompetent. They proved that they didn't have the power to back up their resolutions... the UN is vastly, vastly more successful. It sctually accomplishes things... pretty much unlike the League of Nations.

It may have delayed the immediate war, but what it did is exactly what made the war so much worse than it could have been: They gave Hitler YEARS LONGER to prepare and build his forces, develop new weapons and mass-produce them. Hitler wasn't ready for a fullscale war himself in the early-30's, but he was able to manipulate the spineless French and the similarly spineless Neville Chamberlain into giving him the time to fully become the military juggernaut that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe was. In the mid-30's there was no way Hitler could sustain a Blitz against France. But by 1940 he had enough power to smash them in six weeks. THAT, my friend, is the crime of appeasement. The British were able to hold out against the Germans because they were an island, and had to be smashed almost exclusively from the air, and that was too hard to do, but even more because Hitler was preoccupied with Russia. Appeasement was a total disaster for Europe. Had France and England begun mobilizing as soon as they saw the threat Hitler posed, they would have definitely had an easier time containing him. That policy delayed the war about five years but allowed it to become so much worse than it should have been. And I've never seen anyone until now say it was a good thing. I know you disagree with practically everything I say but this is insane. And appeasement of Saddam Hussein will give HIM the time to acquire what everyone knows he wants but some refuse to admit he has. And if in four years or so he gets a nuke, as some sources say he might, what then? Was the policy a success because it didn't happen in 2003?

Thats's absurd... I know I've heard plenty of times that appeasement was a complete failure and that it didn't help at all in the end, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that if the war had started a year or two earlier (I very, very much doubt that HItler was ready to fight in in 1934 (that would be 5 years earlier than it started), only one year after getting elected... getting ready for war took years. I doubt that the war was delayed by very much...) that there would have been any difference of any significance in the war... do you have anything that remotely defends that position?

What would you want? Western Europe to declare war on Hitler or something? Unlike Hitler, real democracies need a reason to fight... especially when, like in France, Britian, and the US in the 1930s, the people were VERY strongly against any wars after WW1... you just aren't making sense. While Hitler had no problem fabricating the start of the war (with that fake Polish raid on a German radio station) against Poland, democracies aren't supposed to do that... (That fact was lost to the US Government when it created the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to start the Vietnam War, but that's another issue...) No, there is no way that in the real world any sane nation would have started a war at that point against anyone... and NO ONE had a clue what Hitler was doing until it was too late... I just don't get how you can defend that position at all... it doesn't even begin to make sense when you look at the historical situation...

Oh, and one more thing. For well over 5 years now, and probably closer to 10, Sadaam has been 2 or 3 years away from getting nukes...

If you want some REAL nuclear weapons programs, look at Iran and North Korea... Sadaam doesn't have any nukes and almost certainly has no real nuclear weapons program...

But my whole point is that we shouldn't NEED inspectors. Iraq should be fully compliant without making us going in there and searching under every rock. They were beaten in a war and one of the terms of their defeat was to destroy all of these weapons and deliver proof of it. They refuse to do that. We should not even bother inspecting at all, as it is Saddam's duty to offer proof to the UN, NOT the UN's duty to find the proof. THEY were defeated in the war. Not us. The hell with extra inspectors and inspections. If they want to thumb their nose at us, let them pay the price for it.

Well, in a perfect world, Iraq would comply and give up everything... but as you know, the world isn't perfect. A bunch of governments hate us, and Iraq is one of the top ones on the list...but that doesn't even begin to justify a war. While Sadaam is clearly doing anything he can to not cooperate while not doing so much that he'd get attacked and removed from power, war still is not justified... we should not be going around attacking countries that dislike us with no real reasons that make sense... but its exactly what we're doing.

Oh, and tougher inspections can work, if given the chance...

Oh yes they did, do not fool yourself into thinking that. The Japanese were hard at work at their own atomic program, as was just about every nation involved in the second World War. They understood perfectly what was coming, and they defied us anyway. Not to mention, the initial test explosion in New Mexico was filmed and proliferated to America's enemies, to show them that we had this huge new weapon and exactly what it was capable of.

That is just false. NO ONE, not even the US nuclear scientists, had a clue that the radiation would do what it did... NO ONE. Not until after Hiroshima. Did we know it was massively powerful? Sure... but we didn't know the full extent of that power. And yes, we did warn Japan we had a superweapon... but at that point in the war, just a warning clearly had no chance of getting them to surrender. I honestly don't know if it was right or not... on one hand they killed a huge number of people, but on the other hand who knows what the extent of the casualties would have been if there had been an invasion? The nuke did lead to radiation... true. And that probably makes it far worse... but if they didn't know how much radiation would do, I can see how they justified using them. It probably wasn't right, though.

Oh, I might have forgotten, but did Bush's rise to power follow a bloody revolution, a military coup or assassination of the previous president? Non? Oh, that's right, he was elected by due process. Silly liberal. Don't be sad just because your ideology puts out some of the most worthless presidents in American history

Well, no, he got to power by the laws of the country. But he sure wasn't democratically elected either... the conservative-controlled Supreme Court appointed him. Denying that is stupid.

Easily: If the UN is a police force, about 90% of the cops come from America. We are the UN's enforcer because almost every other UN member has no military power whatsoever. And if the administration of the Police Force is trying to keep the police from enforcing the law, it is for the good of everyone if the police force defies the administration and enforces the law anyway. If the administration refuses to do it's job, then it has no use and does not need to be acknowledged. Getting out of the metaphors, there is little reason we should concern ourselves with international opinion either. There is no reason at all we should make sure everyone approves of us in order to protect our own interests. If the rest of the world is okay with Saddam getting his weapons, then the hell with them. We're not okay with it, because we have more at stake then they do. And we're perfectly capable of fixing that problem without anyone's help. It's just stupid to put ourselves at risk just to mainain the charade that other nations actually deserve to have a say in our affairs.

True, a lot of the UN's police force is American... but not 90%. It might that high if we wanted it to be, but we don't because Bush hates peacekeeping. Remember one of his campaign promises was to get us out of peacekeeping everywhere we were doing that... clearly 9/11 changed that a little, but he's still doing a good job at avoiding peacekeeping jobs we VERY clearly should be doing, like Afganistan... all our troops there are doing is hunting terrorists, not peacekeeping with a larger force like they should be...

Also, I just don't see how it is a good idea to do it ourselves... all it does is anger the international community (I know Bush the cowboy (and a lot of Europe sees him that way, for very obvious and correct reasons...) doesn't care, but most people do, or at least should...)

And the UN isn't refusing to do its job. Its trying to do its job... and the majority of the organization thinks that more diplomacy and inspections are the way to go now, not war... and they are absolutely correct.

What a crock. The whole thing is being overblown by the same pacifist liberal crowd who wants to eliminate freedoms themselves, the second amendment being the most famous but certainly not the only one. The only way those extremes would ever even be considered is if there were massive terrorist attacks constantly happening within the United States, and anyone with half a brain knows that. But, a liberal is a master at scare tactics, if nothing else, and has the misinformed scared to death that we're two steps away from being a police state.

Trying to deny the fact that Ashcroft is trying to get rid of the rest of our civil liberties and freedoms (and already's done a pretty good number on a lot of them) doesn't make it any less a fact... it just proves you ignorant of the facts.

Unless you don't mind fewer civil liberties and closed trials against any so-called terrorists? Because that's exactly what they want... and it isn't a scare tactic. Its the truth.

Regarding the hole nukes thing , I dont like the idea of living in a world were everybody pointing WMD at everyone else.All it takes is one man to make an error and launch nukes and all hell will break lose.Somtimes even things such as weather balloons can be mistaken for nukes if lets russia panicked and launched a few nukes to counter what they thought was an attack the implications would be desasterous.we've had close calls before.

That isn't realistic. We've had nukes for over 50 years now and no one has shot any by accident... and in this world now I think that the likelihood of it happening is extremely, extremely low.

The nuclear arsenal wont be destoryed all at once but if The U.S can make deals with other armed nations and in a treaty promising to dismantle a set percentage of nukes per year.
It can help reduce the threat of nuclear assaults.

We are currently doing that with Russia...

As for world war 2 though it is true you did warn them , but it proves the U.S is capable of targeting civilians if under tight pressure.America should take responsiblity stop researching and creatng new weapons of mass destruction, The U.S created An thrax look how much of a problem it is now.it killed more americans then anything else.Stop making viruses built to wipeout populations. Stop adding more stress to the world.

During WW2, everyone targeted civilians in mass numbers. The Germans with their death camps, as well as bombing raids and army occupation deaths... the Japanese with their extremely brutal reign over east and southeast Asia that killed millions of Chineese civilians, among others... and the Americans and British with our mass bombing raids that killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians in the enemy countries. Everyone did that... but no one used chemial or biological weapons, even though I'm sure most everyone had some.

As for Anthrax, it wasn't made by the US... we did make some, but mostly for rescearch. Its Russia that made and kept a huge chemical/biological weapons stockpile... the US had/has some, but not anywhere near as many...

The solution is remove Suddams army without the army he has no power.bassically the U.S could convince The iragi Prime ministry or some other posible candidate to revolt and gain control of the Iragi army to then lead a inssurection agiast Suddam.As seen done to mislovic.
Dont get civilain to revolt if your not gonna back them up
undoubtingly that will fail.Alot more can be done to aid anti suddam iragi rebels.

The army may be low in morale, but they're not THAT low... that won't work.

Oh, and the anti-Sadaam rebels are weak, heavily divided groups, unlike the Afgan Northern Alliance.

If the U.S invades Irag it will only seem like the middle age cruisades giving osama bin ladin more supporters.

Probably true... though I still think that until there is solid proof that Bin Laden has anything to do with Sadaam's regime that there is no connection, as it sure seems from any measurement that I can see.