Clear Link Between Al-Qaeda and Iraq found!

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
*sigh* DJ can never stay serious... even in a serious discussion...



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".

No, they haven't done anything except give Saddam more time to do what he's doing. Inspectors will NEVER be able to find anything because he's going to keep moving things around. Or he may kick inspectors out again, and why not? It's not like the UN would do anything about it. He's screwed with the UN a number of times and he knows they lack the balls to punish him for it. These inspections are a useless farce.

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

The Germans are suspected of selling them weaponry, definitely the reason they don't want us in there... imagine what might happen if we discovered proof of that?

But of course, THAT'S just fine, right? It's probably America's fault anyway.

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's not accomplishing anything now. And it has rarely accomplished anything of consequence lately. Who brought down the Soviet Union? Not the UN. We did. By ourselves. Who ended the threat of Libya? Not the UN. We did alone. The UN is, in spirit if not in letter, supporting terrorists. They support the Palestinians, and they're doing their best to protect Uncle Saddam. They are of no use and the sooner the UN is dead, the better things will be. Or perhaps, the sooner the UN is in greater control by those who actually live by the ideals of the UN. Let's not also forget that there are quite a number of European nations defying Germany and France and offering support to us. They're not all stupid.

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?

Don't be such a simpleton. It has nothing to do with war. It has everything to do with Britain and France showing their weakness to Hitler. They gave him whatever he wanted, and did NOTHING to curb his ambitions. They wouldn't even mobilize, to offer any real defense for themselves. Hitler had them so scared that they gave him whatever he wanted. They allowed him to take over some of his neighbors without having to fire a shot. They helped Germany become the power they eventually were. Fortunately, the British wised up and elected Winston Churchill, who like Bush recognized the threat posed to his nation. Chuchill was right, and Bush is as well. Churchill ended the appeasement and built the RAF up because he knew what Hitler would do. He was right. Had he listened to the pacifists and continued to appease, England would most certainly have fallen. Just like France did.

And just re-read what you wrote: Hitler would have been far less ready for war had it started a few years earlier. Therefore he would have been much less of a threat. You admit this yet say it has no consequence? What are you on? Does common sense evade you completely?

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...

They HAD a damned good reason to fight Hitler! He was expanding! He was openly defying the Treaty of Versailles by building a military force! That was strictly prohibited to Germany... and yet they did nothing about it for YEARS. And they paid the price for it. They should have gone after him when he began forming the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, because by the terms of the treaty that was expressly forbidden. They ignored him, let him do it, and because they failed to enforce the law, Hitler was able to lay waste to Europe and kill millions of people.

Are we drawing any parallels to Iraq yet? They're painfully obvious.

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...

And the only ones who will be surprised if it happened would be you pacifists. And it's your type who want to give him these years to do it. One might almost say you're encouraging him by not wanting to stop him.

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...

Yes, of course. And if we had tried to stop them before they got those nukes, you liberals would have decried America for doing what it's trying to do now.

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.

Saddam is breaking the terms of defeat imposed on him. He is breaking them constantly. THAT is more than justification for war. He should be totally candid with his weapons. You seem to think it's okay that he isn't. You seem to think that we should waste our time looking. We shouldn't. Waste Saddam now, put the country under very close examination, and then we'll know for sure that the weapons are destroyed or confiscated.

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

Keep dreaming, champ. France thought that appeasement would work too. Not that they had any problem with having Germany ruling them.

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.

You should really cure your ignorance. To help you to that end I implore you to do a little research on a French scientist at the turn of the 20th century named Marie Curie. She and her husband did much research with radioactive materials and the effect of radiation on living beings. She, in fact, died because she did not know to properly shield herself from the material she worked with. Do you honestly think the scientists in Chicago's Metallurgical Laboratory had no clue whatsoever what the radioactive fallout would do to people? They took tons of precautions, including lead shielding and coolants, because they knew damn well what would happen if they were exposed directly to uranium radiation. Now, it goes without saying that since Japan had it's own nuclear program going at the time, they were also extremely aware of what a functional atomic bomb would do to it's target. I find it funny that this common knowledge is so totally foreign to you. Regardless of whether it was right or not (and even I have doubts to that effect), it did what it was intended: it smashed Japan's will to fight. I tend to agree that it saved more lives in the long run, though I also think that the second bomb was unnecessary. The atomic attacks on Japan were also used to prove to America's other nemesis, the Soviet Union, what this thing could do. The Soviets, of course, knew, and they had their own A-bomb four years later.

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.

They had to appoint him because Gore, despite having lost the election fair and square, kept contesting the matter. It was because of Gore that the matter went that far. I recall quite clearly that on election night Bush had been declared the winner by a single electoral vote. All that the Supreme Court did was verify that after Gore contested. He was very much so elected by the laws of the US constitution. Gore tried to cheat his way into the office by using all sorts of fancy tricks. Fortunately it didn't work. Sore loser.

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...

We are doing peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Terrorist hunting is something done on occasion, when they have information to go on, but what do you think those troops do there when they're not hunting terrorists, sitting on their asses and playing gin rummy?

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...)

Why? What difference should their opinion matter to us? They have no power to do anything about what we do. We have a right to protect our interests, and we also have the duty to enforce the UN mandates, even if the UN themselves don't care.

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.

Oh sure, they're absolutely correct. They've been doing a bang-up job for the last twelve years, too. The UN has done such a great job that Iraq is acquiring WMD without problem.

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.

If you insist. Way to dispute me with that solid proof you so rarely offer.

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.

I certainly support it for KNOWN terrorists. No need for bleeding heart lawyers to get them off the hook now. Besides, when you're a foreign enemy, you don't get the protection of the US constitution. Now, for domestic terror suspects, there should be due process if they have only suspicions. But if they find solid proof, then they are enemies of the state and do not deserve a trial jury. If, for instance, they raid a house and find Ricin, then it's fairly obvious what's going on. You're making like they'll be picking random people off the street every day, on hearsay, and you know that's bullshit. Scare tactic, indeed.