Explain this, anti war people

[VinceZeb]

This is going to be in the current issue of Time, so you people that want to whine about sources have it right in front of you on Tuesday or whever you get it:

As one former senior Administration official puts it: "The eureka moment [in deciding to remove Saddam] was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists’] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned. So we must act pre-emptively to ensure that those that have the capability aren’t allowed to proliferate it." One advisor to the president, report Elliott and Carney, went as far as to say that Bush thinks Saddam is insane. "If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman. Depending on the sanity of Saddam is not an option."

I would like to see with one of you deal with this situation. And then explain how we should deal with this. I am all eyes.

[Protoclown]

I would go so far as to say that Bush is insane.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

"If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman."

So we'll eliminate that middle-man.



THE PEOPLE WANT THEIR BOMBS.

[VinceZeb]

Now, if anyone with a hint of maturity would like to respond on how we should deal with the situation, please do so.

[ranxer]

the eureka moment was when they THOUGHT they had enough
dirt on hussein to be able to use it as an excuse to destabalize the region, effect corporate will on mideast oil, AND create massive new revenues for the suppliers of the war machine $$ . among other reasons.. this is perfect for the fascists for it maintains a spin hole for a continuous 'war on terror'

i have to say they are doing a tremendous amount of omition and spin to maintain the facade..

'we are going to iraq feed starving people', haha, yea those people that are starving from OUR SANCTIONS?!

http://ericblumrich.com/antiwar2.html

[James]

I'd say... Vinnie is a waste of breath and he is a sheeple! :Vince

[theapportioner]

"The eureka moment [in deciding to remove Saddam] was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists’] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned.

The meaning is obvious. Only an intellectual child would not be able to figure it out -- the fight against Islamist militancy has been co-opted by the neoconservative (perhaps we should call it neoimperialist?) agenda and a desire by some to settle the 'unfinished business' that is Iraq. An excuse.

[Protoclown]

I'd love to know what you're asking us to "deal with" exactly. As near as I can tell, that quote you posted is nothing but conjecture anyway. You know, seeing as how we still have not one shred of evidence whatsoever that Saddam even HAS any weapons of mass destruction.

[VinceZeb]

ranxer, those people are not starving from our sanctions. Our sancations protect the kurds from extermination.

Saddam has a food for oil agreement. Now, reports are saying that his sons run the black market on the food that is brought in. And please, explain how he gets all those weapons and his nice bunkers and presidental palaces. He uses his primary resource, OIL, to pay for those palaces instead of using the food to feed his people.

You can get the reports on this information from a simple Lexus/Nexus search.

[VinceZeb]

You have recieved and have the information that Bush has. You know that if terrorists get a hold of WMD, they will not hesitate to use them. You know Saddam has been perusing them for years now. You know exactly that is being said in this article, just like Bush does. How do we go about solving this problem. How do we handle this.

[Protoclown]

I think you should "deal with" the fact that you've given us nothing to "deal with".

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Protoclown

You know, seeing as how we still have not one shred of evidence whatsoever that Saddam even HAS any weapons of mass destruction.

He DOES have a lot more than he's reported to the U.N., though. :/ Doesn't bode very well toward his credibility at this point. At the same time, I agree with you that the U.S. intelligence agencies have way overexaggerated the WMD case ... well, I believe it at this point anyway.

[VinceZeb]

You have the information the president has, which he gives to the people. Which Powell gave to the U.N. You know from your intelligence that Saddam has been in business trying to sell off WMD. You know he is developing nukes. You know he will use them or sell them to whoever buys. What, as acting Commander in Chief, do you do about the situation? Since everyone is contempt with aruging with what Bush is doing wrong, why doesnt everyone tell us what they would do that is so much more efficent and better.

[Bennett]

Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Osama Bin Laden? With Baghdad in flames, don't you think that Saddam would be able to slip away from us like Bin Laden did? Don't you think this situation, where we have absolutely no idea where he could be and what he has taken with him is potentially much more dangerous than peacefully searching for weapons and keeping him in check? We all know that an animal is much more dangerous when cornered...
but oh yeah, this isn't about the weapons, it's about liberating the Iraqis...

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Bennett

Don't you think this situation, where we have absolutely no idea where he could be and what he has taken with him is potentially much more dangerous than peacefully searching for weapons and keeping him in check? ..

My opinion is that they're probably more worried about fighting the war per SOP and based on the hard evidence/intelligence that they DO have rather than on anything speculative that he MIGHT have. That's just me thinkin', though. Additionally, he's just a man. Know what I mean? If they shut all he has (militarily) down, who really cares if he limps off to parts unknown with his tail between his legs? Granted, it would be nice and gratifying to catch him, but what would be the major difference if they didn't? :/

[Bennett]

What I'm saying is that if he eludes the U.S. even for a short time, I personally think that there is a greater risk of him sharing whatever weapons or technology that he has with terrorist groups. The fact of it is, the Iraqi gov't wouldn't, likely couldn't launch an attack on the U.S. Terrorism doesn't work well from such a high level. The danger with Saddam is that he might provide terrorists with weapons or technology. If he escapes and we can't find him, it makes him much more dangerous (I believe), especially if he manages to smuggle dangerous weapons.

If he has the capabilities, weapons of mass destruction are much more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists is we have no idea where Saddam is. Of course, he could be blown to bits by now.

The terrorist of 9/11 were just men armed with box cutters, and they did more damage to the U.S. than the Iraqi military has ever managed to do.

[mburbank]

Okay, IF I accepeted any of your points, which I don't, the same "If he gets them he might give them" argument applies to:
Iran
N. Korea
Pakistan (Has them, already gave important info to N.Korea, their secret service is full of islamists with close connections to Al Quaeda and Taliban)
Saudi Arabia(wants them, funds various terror groups)
India (has them, ready to use them on Pakistan, might give them to Hindu Seperatists to defer blame)
Egypt (Probably has them,)
France(has them, VERY angry about 'Freedom Fries')
About a dozen small ex-soviet states currently desperatley in need of cash and unable to pay their soldiers or nuclkear scientists.
etc.
etc.
etc.

In fact, since the future is unknown, even after you "Deal" with all of the above, an "If he gets them he might give them" scenario (and in his adress to the nation, W. used the figure "Within five years" that could apply to about half the world.

If you are suggesting an all out play for world domination, put your cards on the table. My principle problem with the administration is that they refuse to even look at where our current actions lead. My God, they can't even get Turkey, our ally, to commit to staying out of Northern Iraq! We can barely secure Kahbul!

Seriously, play out for me your foreign policy for the five years following the overthrow of Iraq, just in basic ball park terms. I know in the wizard of Oz after Dorothy Kills the Witch the guards all love her, but this isn't Oz.

[VinceZeb]

You avoided the question and are making people equal that are not, Max. Iraqi has been proven to want to destroy us, and are developing ways possible. A former UN weapons inspector was on a lot of radio shows today, on local ones here in St. L and on national shows and he said the truth: They want to kill us. Saddam will sell weapons to kill us in a moment. He IS developing weapons. Islamic fundalmentlistic jihadist want to destroy Western civilization and white people. This is a weapons inspector, sir. You avoid the questions at hand. We know Iraq wants to destroy us, we can prevent it. how do we do it?

[mburbank]

That was cute, the way you finally spoke respectfully. It totally makes me forget what an air headed pussy I am, how you pity my children and your speculations regarding my wifes sexuality. I'll play though.

Ritter is a weapons inspector. Blix is a weapons inspector. Who is this weapons inspector? He IS developing weapons? This may well turn out to be true, but so fr their is zero proof. Sadam will sell weapons... IF he has any we have certainly provided a motivation he lacked to sell them, which even we don't claim he's done to date. If you are going to assume for sure he would, then you have to ascribe the same possability to many of the states on my list, most of whom like us less daily because of our current pre-emption policy.

I'm not at all ignoring your question. I'm asking you to follow through on it. Should Bush personally determine since that's his criteria that any of thee other countries (and Iran certainly has all the qulaities you ascribed to Iraq, North Korea has many of them, Pakistan has some of them and as of this morning we are saying so does Russia), is this to be our policy? If at the executive level a determintion is made that these countries wish us Ill and might work with terrorists within five years, will we then invade?

When has Iraq been proven to want to destroy us?

Add to this the following. On Osama Bin Laden's wish list right after wanting to smash into the twin towers was the goal of dragging the US into a middle eastern war. Even in his most recent speech, Osama called saddam an 'infidel' which is kind of strong language to a fundamentalist. Osama is still at large, and we've gone to war with the most secular non -Israeli government in the Gulf. Who's the big winner here?

[VinceZeb]

I never said anything about your wife's sexuality. Sorry, liar, you are trying to make things appear out of thin air. But it's about time you learned to act civil.

There is a difference between not liking us and wanting to destroy us. Iran hasnt talked about killing us, even though Iran will reform itself. N. Korea is starting to talk shit, but it seems that Japan will start the war with them first. N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that.

[sspadowsky]

You've obviously got a firm grasp on world affairs, Vince, and you seem ready to "go inthere and take care of business," as so many pro-war people are wont to say. Your country needs a gung-ho man like you. Get your thinner, healthier body into the nearest recruiting office you can find. I'm originally from St. Louis too, so I can even give you directions.
________
LovelyWendie99

[VinceZeb]

Thanks for contributing nothing to the argument as per usual. Why dont you try to argue the points and answer the question of what you would do in Bush's situation from his eureka moment with Saddam and quit talking shit?

Yes, I am thinner and healthier than I have ever been, are you jealous or something? Sorry some of us are able to overcome obstacles and make it in a free society without wanting the govt to help out.

[Protoclown]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that.

AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS WHAT WAR IS ALL ABOUT!!!!

[sspadowsky]

No need. Any time I bring up points, you simply ignore them. Besides, I think Max is doing a nice job of covering all the bases.

You spout the same comic-book rhetoric ("evil," "madman," etc.) that I hear our idiot president blathering every time he comes on the TV.

There is a difference between not liking us and wanting to destroy us. Iran hasnt talked about killing us, even though Iran will reform itself. N. Korea is starting to talk shit, but it seems that Japan will start the war with them first. N. Korea tries to develop weapons to sell to terrorists or try to murder Americans, then we go at them and put a lot of Korean soilders in Hell. Simple as that.

Anyone who simplifies world affairs to this extent is a fucking moron, and I will treat them as such.
________
BOX VAPORIZER

[VinceZeb]

Yes, it is. Your point? War is about killing creatures and breaking things. That is one of those extreme oversimplifications I just seem to make. We don't look at the sights during war. We don't do zen meditation during a war. We have weapons and soilders that are created and trained to kill enemy combatants and blow up their equipment and buildings.

In your opinion, what is war about? In the simplest terms of what war is, what is war and battle about? How is a war supposed to be done, properly, in your opinion?