Who Supports the War(s)
 

The CS Monitor reports thst the young are more likely to support an Iraqi conflict, than us old farts. Why? You'd think kids who grew up in the Clinton years would have a bit more cynicism. Or maybe thats it we have a generation trained to real politics, goal oriented screw the means. I remember UT making an off-hand comment about the kids who were raised strapped in child seats being hauled around by paranoid soccer moms and how they'd react to college. Well they're here and they've switched allegiance from mom to the nanny state. They'll be rendered no more safe by their new parent than they were parked in front of that airbag.

Now that the elections over-with Bush can compromise on Iraq having acheived his majority. I wonder if these voters will feel used or vindicated?

I have a friend in the Army, and he's seeing the complete opposite there. It is the old-timers who just want to go fight a war, and the young that think there's no justification for it.

Aside from that, I think it is because the young aren't burdened by Vietnam. All my generation has seen is victories - I barely remember Panama, but I remember it being a victory. The Gulf War went astoundingly well, as did Afghanistan. The only situations that were less than victories were Somalia and Kosovo.

So we see the military as basically infallible. We can't remember a lot of bodybags - but when we do, I think the attitude of the youth will shift to a more pacifist attitude if the war goes badly. Remember, the only really nationally unifying even in my lifetime was 9/11. We have nothing else to go on.

It should also be noted that, although I'm 23, I'm pretty emphatically opposed to a unilateral war, and less opposed to a UN backed one.

I'm talking about of my ass, here, but I wonder if part of that is because of the very complete training.

Unlike in the NFL, there is no room for the perfectly-trained army to expect a rout and play down to the level of the opponent. The military has to go in not expecting, but at least planning for the worst-case scenario. I would expect the rank and file to be anxious that maybe the harm's way they are going to see is going to be a shitload of harm.

The rest of us can look at the Vegas line and see we're giving 50 points, and relax a little.

I'm not seeing a clear age-based grouping within the small groups of people I'm familiar with. Instead, it seems that all the people who were strongly in support of retaliation after 9/11 are strongly in support of the Iraq war (which needs a better name).

I would hazard a guess that, moreso than age, upbringing and environment play a large part in one's political outlook: people raised in a very liberal and laid-back household will most likely grow up to be laid back and liberal. The political alignment of most people will probably change over time, yes, but what doesn't?

--Sk

I don't know about age-related differences on this issue. I'd be surprised if it's that cut and dried.

I personally am quite conflicted. On the one hand, I certainly don't disagree with the concept of going over and rooting Saddam out. On the other hand, I think after we do we're going to have a lot of trouble on our hands that a lot of politicians are downplaying. And I think Bush has really done a horrible job with our image in the international community which, like it or not, is important.

I also think we'd have many fewer problems with mideastern countries in general if we would have acted following the oil crises of the 70s to wean ourselves from needing so much oil.

You're right man!
Operation Poppy's Payback? Operation Just Cuz? Operation Armageddon?

:beer:

ROFL.... funniest thing I've read all week.

Thanks k, my work here is done. :)

Griff, that article is very interesting indeed.

My generation and the one after that (1981 and beyond) have always seemed to be the anti-war gang...maybe even more so than the 60s. We just listen to angry music, do drugs, and post to places on the net like the Cellar. :) The times, they are a-changing, indeed.

From the article: "'He's really capable of anything,' says Mr. Gardner, who worries about Iraq's potential use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. 'The only thing you can do is go to war - it's unavoidable.'"

Look buddy, you're just saying that shit b/c as long as you're in college, you probably won't be affected by any type of draft. ;)

who supports the war?
 

besides the majority of Americans and the UN? No one.

Re: who supports the war?
 

The UN resolution was carefully worded so that the US could not unilaterally attack Iraq. But then why would we attack a nation that does not threaten us? It makes one wonder the direct relationship between those who purchase Listerene and those who advocate a unilateral (iilegal) attack on Iraq.

Another in a long line of quality folks against Operation Just Cuz.

sorry guys, your going to have to present better factual arguments other than the "we hate Bush and think Klinton should be the leader of the universe" BS.


If a trillion people think that 2 + 2 = 6...does that make it so? I dont think so.

You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry.

Re: Re: who supports the war?
 

Iraq may not threaten us at this moment. I'll give you that. They may in the near future if they develop the weapons they are hoping to. If they arent developing WOMD they shouldnt have a problem with NON-US inspectors to verify this. Once they have them, we're all screwed any way you look at it.

Why is it that Iraq's illegal act of not allowing inspectors ANYWHERE they want to go not play in your argument that the <I>attack</I> is illegal? If we we didnt have these assurances in the cease-fire agreement from 1991, I would be much more likely to agree with your anti Iraq war sentiments.

I do realize that to a large degree politics is religion to many people. That's fine. It seems to me though that the people opposed to Bush are simply bitter leftist democrats that are trying to kill his approval with the American people. That to is fine but dont think we cant see through you. And yes , I know, not everyone here is from the US. I have never met a right wing foreigner though so please, step forward if you are out there, I'd really like to meet you.

Finally, I think that most of the public in the US does not want to stampede over Iraq and kill thousands of servicemen, women and children. What we fear is that Iraq will build some really nasty weopons and , as we have recently seen, use them against us. We believe Saddam can't be trusted and we need to use force becuase the wimps at the UN wont. Why even HAVE the UN if they cant enforce their OWN resolutions?

Now? When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority? Surely, you're not going to say that the current Democratic-controlled Senate and Clinton are really left-wingers, are you?

Operation just cuz (we dont want a crazy dictator to support terrorism with bio-weapons and nuclear bombs)


I do agree you are witty Griff, WRONG, but witty.

Yes, it does. "2" and "6" are both arbitrary symbols. I could redefine them so that "2" means the same thing as, say, "4" does to you, and then redefine "6" to your meaning of "8". It'd just lead to pointless confusion, as nobody but me would understand, and thusly be inherrently pointless.

However, if a trillion people agree with me, what's to say your definition of these symbols is more or less valid than mine? Language relies on mass agreement as to its meaning; when any two people agree on the meaning of an arbitrary symbol, that definition becomes valid.

Why is everbody blind to all but the extremes? Sure, it makes for easier arguing, but so does flagrant lying. Just because I'm not with you doesn't mean I'm against you; there are shades of gray in politics, just like there are in life.

--Sk

Is tom Dascle left wing.YES!

Is Klinton (both Hitlary AND Bill) left wing YES!

Thanks slang...you just gave me one of the best laughs I've had today. :)

I read your sarcasm loud and clear. If you dont think Klinton isnt left wing maybe I should ask what your definition for left wing is.

He he. You're laughing, I just got called a leftist! Anyway welcome aboard Slang we've been interviewing for an unapologetic right winger here, looks like yer it.

Thank you. As you can well imagine , I am not always well recieved. I <I>AM</I> however way to the right of Rush Limbaugh.

My apologies Skunk. I get carried away. Do I think of EVERYONE that are aginst the war a political enemy, no. Most, but not all.


Personally I am not in agreement with all Bush's policies or far that matter the Republicans either. I do however see the national democratic party as the enemy and so are an increasing number of Americans.

Actually, there was very little sarcasm there.

And you didn't quite ask, but I'll explain anyway.

The best way I can describe a left-winger in the US is like this: To me, it's one that doesn't think big government is so bad, thinks everyone in this country deserves a Canada-style insurance system, doesn't think raising taxes is necessarily such a big deal (depending on the circumstances), thinks that affirmative action rocks and should be extended to gays, and abhors the death penalty. This obviously doesn't cover everything, but should give you my general idea of the concept.

Had you said "Bill Clinton is a left-winger" between 1992-1994, I might have agreed with you on that labeling. (Now his wife I will agree with you on...she seems pretty left-wing.)

When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, Clinton did this dance to the right, where, IMO he became a rather strong centrist. I believe it is the very thing that saved him from becoming a one-term chump. The Democratic party moved that way as well.

By the nature of the Democratic party and the ideals it apparently espouses, I would say that those in the party are left-leaning. You may have a few true left-wingers out there (Wellstone RIP; Nancy Pelosi looks to be one as well, though I know little about her). However, as a whole, when I look at the results of the elections we had last week, I see an incredibly centrist group of congressmen and women, who may lean to one side more than the other...but all in all, I don't see much difference among them.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

ADMIT IT! YOU DID VOTE FOR RENDELL!!! ;)

Klinton? Well there is a biting political statement if I ever heard one. Wish i could make head or tail of it.

Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the United Nations.
The UN is by definition a powerless body, it relies on the will of member states to enforce any resolution passed, how such a resolution may be enforced depends under which part of the UN charter the resolution sits. On of Isreal's arguments with its own noncompliance is that its resolutions are under a different part to the ones on Iraq.

Full assembly UN resolutions are more often proxy political statements than motions that are designed to be enforced, the serious business goes on in the Security Council.
I assume by 'wimpy' you are referring to the sanctions, well the reality is that many countries want to do business with Iraq, including allies of America, why? Because nation states don't give a flying fuck about ethics. Now if you're definition of a strong enforced resolution is bombing trucks full of British cigarettes I really am going to have to start wondering about your rather naive view of politics.

I'm yet to see why Iraq would want to bomb the US with chem/bio weapons, i keep silly this rather jingoistic argument and yet even the CIA are saying the risk is bloody miniscule. Saddam is not, contrary to popular opinion some kind of raving loony, he is an intelligent, if despicable political survivor who wants to keep surviving, bombing the US is not a wise way of doing this. As for using them as a cover for an invasion, the same applies, in the short term it might work but it will be his demise. I'm also yet to see any evidence of nuclear development even. So mon ami show me evidence that a: Saddam is crazy b: That Saddam supports terrorism. Or do they fit into the catagory of right wing arcane knowledge?

The parameters for this debate as set my Bush and his echo, Blair is that, without any evidence to support their claims, Iraq has WMDs. (Not WOMDs, learn how to form an acronym)While I'd be surprised if he doesn't the result of this is that if they do find WMDs in Iraq, he's evil and should be taken out, and if they don't then he's hiding them and is evil and should be taken out. It's simple political ploy I'm sure will be put into use as soon as the inspections start.


Left wing? In the US maybe.

Maybe in the US. But you're missing griff's point. The spectrum of people that do not support a war on Iraq extends into your own military and intel organisations, what does that say? People in the know, with an intimate understanding of war and world politics think a war with Iraq is a foolish idea. Look I'm saying 50/50 a war with Iraq comes off, and all the hawks can jump up and down and watch bombs hitting buildings live on CNN and crow about being in the majority all they want as far as I care, its still a stupid move.

hehehehehe

I would sooner have smoked a dog turd as voted for Rendell and I dont smoke, have a dog, or think highly of handling dog waste.

<I>Klinton? Well there is a biting political statement if I ever heard one. Wish i could make head or tail of it.</I>

-- Klinton is a communist sympathiizer. He's smooth and polished but in the end he thinks that government makes people great, they dont strive and develop themselves to achieve their goals, its the government that makes EVERYTHING good. We don't dont believe that here, and we're glad the guy's gone.

<I>Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the United Nations. </I>

-- Point taken, I am NOT farmiliar with the detailed workings of the UN, I just know they are ineffictive. Is there a legitimate issue with Iraq developing new weapons? If not, then why all the UN attention? If they are, why are they playing this game of cat and mouse about the sanctions?

<I>I'm yet to see why Iraq would want to bomb the US with chem/bio weapons....</I>

--There is compelling evidence surfacing now that members of the Iraqi army were invloved with the OKC bombing. Bill Klinton, wanting to supress his right leaning political enemies, blamed the bombing on the Mi. militia and a handful of right wing extremists. Was McVieh the bomber, in my opinion, yes. Was he acting alone, in my opinion, no. The result was the drastic reduction in the membership of a group (MM) that was primarily organised for disaster recovery, not overthrowing the gov't.

<I>While I'd be surprised if he doesn't the result of this is that if they do find WMDs in Iraq, he's evil and should be taken out, and if they don't then he's hiding them and is evil and should be taken out.</I>

--I'll learn how to form an acronym if you learn where to place a comma-- from your quote above-" ....if he doesn't (a comma goes here smartguy) the result of this......"

--So it looks like we agree, he's evil and should be taken out. Excellent.

<I>The spectrum of people that do not support a war on Iraq extends into your own military and intel organisations, what does that say? People in the know, with an intimate understanding of war and world politics think a war with Iraq is a foolish idea.</I>

--Thats a legit point, yes. The only thing that makes me wonder is that there were anti-war people howling about what a massive kick in the butt we were going to take in the 1991 war. The exact same arguments are being made now. I think they are fearful of showing force and they are concerned about possible US losses. I share those fears too. The fear of having some wmd (how did I do this time?) effect the US is greater after seeing the 9/11 attacks though.

Why do you see the Democratic Party as "the enemy"...or as I might call it, "the man?"

--Yes, I understand how crazy that sounds. The democratic party (I left the "d" small on pupose) promotes the idea that they are something they are not, mainly that they represent the "little guy". This may have been true 40 years ago, but today they are not. The head of the DNC, Terry McAuliff, turned $100k into 18 million by "legal" insider trading. The company and it's employees lost everything shortly after "Terry got his" by cashing out. He's not the only reason for the company going bankrupt, but being the chairman of the party that supposedly represents the "little guy" wasnt a good move. Or maybe it was, he exposed himself as just as bad as those he attacks.

The democrats are also working to disarm the American population. The second ammendment means what it says, we ARE legally allowed to own, CARRY and USE firearms in defense of ourselves and the state. The tide on this issue is changing here with an active education program that explains the lies of anti-gunners. I honestly wouldn't expect a non-us citizen to agree with me here, many are fearful of guns when they are used in violent crimes. So am I, that's why I carry one, I dont want to be vulnerable. It's true that the defensive use of firearms is RARELY needed in this small town, but when I travel to unfriendly cities, I am secure knowing I have one ready. The democrats are finally learning that little ol' Slang isnt the ONLY one that will fight for the constitutional right to own, carry and use guns. Gore lost becuase of his anti-gun position and just last week KKT lost in Md. by a small margin to a gun-friendly opponent. Lets just hope the dems just drop the issue for the loser that it is.

The biggest complaint I have with the dems is that they just dont believe in the individual. I dont want their socialized heathcare, corrupted unions, stupid emotion based gun laws, and higher taxes on everything under the sun. The dems promote making people weak by attempting to position the government to do things that individuals need to be doing for themselves. I dont need someone to wipe my rear, thank you very much. I also dont need a TAX to have the government WIPE my rear. Each year there is bigger and bigger government, under the dems AND the reps. That makes me uncomfortable. At the very least the reps have the faith that I am smart and capable enough to wipe my own rear. Lets get the dems OUT of office FIRST, then we can oust the reps in favor of libertarians!

Lastly, I dont expect that everyone, or even the majority will agree with me on most issues. Thats fine, if I want to preach to the choir I'll go to a pro-gun site. I AM genuinely interested in HOW some of the ideas are formulated that are listed here in the cellar. They are just as nutty to me as you think MINE are. Also, I hope to convey content here. I am not a writer and if you want to nitpick my posts for grammer and spelling, you can just kiss my ass.

Thank you all in advance for some engaging conversations.

Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right…..excuse me while i break out my tinfoil hat.

Give us a source for your compelling evidence, I’d love to see it. Well actually browsing newsmax is something I’d rather avoid but I need a good laugh so drop us a link to a vaguely reputable news source could you?

Sorry, I got it wrong, its not that you'd don't have rudimentary understanding of how the UN works, it's that you don't have a rudimentary understanding of diplomatic relations, pardon me.

So judging from your dems rant, i'm guessing your ultimate government would be heavily armed anarchy?

I'll put that down to sarcasm. Its either that, obtuse arrogance or monumental stupidity.

This isn't about US losses, I don't give a flying fuck if a albatross mashes the engine of a fighter at 40,000 feet, its about the ethics of waging war on a sovereign nation without provocation. People tend to die at war too, on all sides, which are not a good thing either. Acronyms are usually in caps. Either way i strongly doubt anything of value will come out of this discussion.

<I>Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right…..excuse me while i break out my tinfoil hat.</I>

Here, maybe this will help.

sympathizer - To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.

Now I KNOW you are the EXPERT on ALL US and WORLD "diplomatic relations" as well as American politics, but you knew that Klinton provided the N. Koreans' with nuclear power technology, right?

Here, I'm SURE you saw this, but take another look at some exerpts from "telegraph.co.uk"<B> (notice this is NOT newsmax)</B>

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../08/wkor08.xml)

<I>The project was agreed eight years ago as part of a deal in which Pyongyang promised to renounce its ambitions to build weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea also pledged to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to examine its existing nuclear plants<B> but has never done so.</B>

The Stalinist republic is believed to have<B> stockpiled enough plutonium to build two nuclear bombs</B> but key components for the reactor will be delivered only if the North makes good its outstanding promises. </I>

Now I KNOW you're real smart....tell me, who was the US president 8 years ago that supplied the plutonium to the N. Koreans that is NOW a very real threat. Klinton, very good, you are correct.

OK, here's the tie in. Klinton made this deal as well as making deals with US nuclear technology with China (China is another communist country smart guy) SO......HE'S A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER AT BEST AND A TRAITOR AT WORST!

Go put your tinfoil hat on smartguy, and keep smoking whatever it is you keep toking on. Phone in occasionally so you dont spin out of orbit. We appreciate you comments <B>even if they are silly.</B>

The silly comment would be this one.

<I><B>Clinton is a communist sympathizer? Right</B></I>



<I>People tend to die at war too</I>

Look around. People tend to die from terrorism too. And you arent immune, no matter how smart and refined you <B>think</B> you are. Terrorist will kill you just the same as me.

<I>I'll put that down to sarcasm.</I>

WOW, you ARE quick.


<I>Either way i strongly doubt anything of value will come out of this discussion. </I>


Why, becuase I wont allow you to BS this forum unchallenged?


Thanks for making your comments, I am very impressed with your in depth knowlege of diplomatic relations, you CAN SPELL . Bravo!

It's probably just me, but I can't seem to follow long threads that use italics (which indicate emphasis to me) as an indication of quotes.

It is probably easier for slang to type [i] than [quote] and it's certainly easier for me not to read or think about all that ... so we both win.

[quote]Originally posted by Nic Name
It's probably just me, but I can't seem to follow long threads that use italics (which indicate emphasis to me) as an indication of quotes.

It is probably easier for slang to type [i] than

Quote:

and it's certainly easier for me not to read or think about all that ... so we both win.

Sorry about the tag error. This format is a bit tough for me to work with, I'll use the "quote" from now on.

OK, and I'll read your mindless drivel. ;)

Slang, I am sure you will note, as we all have, that ole Jaguar is exceedingly weak on punctuation, and could use some remedial review on the mechanics of the written English sentence. He should slow down and take care, but never does. I'd've made him repeat eighth-grade English, had it been up to me.

He's unacceptably soft on genocide and weak on civil rights, too, but that's an entirely separate issue. Comes of his being either downright anti-gun, or insufficiently pro-gun. The one is despicable, the other weak.

I'm inhaling nice positive energy..................and exhaling tense and negative energy....aaahh..



And putting the vodoo doll of Jaguar down on the table (next to my defensive handun, nut not too close).




This written warfare has kept me up past my bedtime, I'll be back. Take care all.

slang you may want to check the details of that reactor. I'm well aware of it, i did a report on sinoamerican relations earlier this year that included a large subpaper on N.Korea. In fact you're in luck, I'm just about to start going over this stuff for the exam next week so I've got all my docs out and look at this, a detailed doc here. . The rest i have are on paper. You might notice one of the key components of the reactors offered was its low plutonium yield. So in reality its a choice between them building highly unsafe, high plutonium yield reactors, or new, safe, low yield ones. Take your pick. The article is lacking in detail but it sums it all up well enough. Personally I have plans to visit Korea and Japan next year, I'd rather they weren’t covered with fallout form one of the old soviet ones in DPRK going bang. I think Clinton understood this too. Also – that plutonium came from their own reactors, soviet era.

I'm yet to see any evidence linking Saddam to recent islamic terrorism.

Ohh urbane moralising again, i thought he'd be too busy looking for sandnigger terrorists to cap. The irony is urbane, I've got an above A average in english, at the top school in the state and had work published. So in short, bite me.

Oh also slang, my knowledge of American politics is by my own admission, patchy. Still waiting for that compelling evidence too, actually now i think abotu it, i'm waiting for *any* evidence of anything.

I feel depressed becase i am so thoughly vindicated.

Well hey, to each his own.

You still haven't answered the question I originally posed. You only spoke of Daschle and Clinton.

You originally stated: "You left wingers may have had fun patting yourselves on the back bashing the Iraqi war/ Republicans/ Bush but you are in the minority now. Sorry."

To which I asked: "When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority?"

OMG LOLOL GET FUKING REAL LUZAR! LOL U R SILLAY!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...004766310.html

And if that's not enough, you can find more with Google. I'm not going to do your homework for you; this has been common knowledge for a very long time.

Please explain to me, then, how "WMDs" is a valid acronym - i.e., Weapons of Mass Destructions.

You can't form a distinction between a pluralized word in an acronym, so it is correct.

Good work dave, you did such a good job paraphrasing my sentence you mangled it beyond recognition.

Common knowledge? Sure. Apply to this? Sure doesn't.
This isn't about Isreali-Palastinian conflict. The support of terrorist groups in Israel in a populist political move and frankly, is incomparable to providing equip, money or safe hiding to people like Al Queda. Oh wait, don't tell me, they're all the same, right?

It's not correct, because if it were, you would have used "a WMD", making it singular. Your lack of "a" means you are clearly talking about plural, so the acronym is clearly "Weapons of Mass Destructions".

I took the snippet because I didn't feel like quoting the whole thing. I made it perfectly obvious that I was cutting (by putting the [ ... ] in). If it were ever unclear to anyone, they could go re-read your post. So that's really a non-issue.

As for linking to "recent islamic terrorism"... it really doesn't get much more clear-cut than his giving reward money to families of <b>Islamic</b> Jihad terrorists. What does Hamas stand for? "Islamic Resistance Movement"... so we have the Islamic part covered.

From dictionary.com, we have

Sounds just about right for both groups. So we've got "terrorism" covered.

As far as recent... within the last few months is pretty recent to me.

So you'll excuse me if I don't exactly understand what the fuck your pseudo-point is. Don't be an ass. You fucked up on that one, 'cause he <b>does</b> fund Islamic terrorism. Rescind your bogus statement and let's get on to the more serious issues.

Ok, let's refine that then. When has Saddam supported terrorism against the United States? Palestinian terrrorism, which is in response to Israeli Occupation (even according to official US and UN documentation) is one thing, al Qaeda is completely different. Hizbollah (a Lebanese terrorist group and a recognized political party in Lebanon) has not attacked the US since 1982. I don't believe Hamas ever has. al Qaeda, on the other hand, have been linked to a number of attacks. Hussein has supported Palestinian terrorists, but no provable link has been made between him and al Qaeda, besides various claims of shadowy meetings made by the current administration that the CIA refused to back up.

In other words, not all terrorism groups are the same. Left-wing groups of the 60s, for example, are nothing compared to some of the recent religious terrorist groups. In addition, Hamas does not encompass all of the Palestinian terrorist groups. Many of them are secular. And my last point to dave - there are over 160 definitions of terrorism, (a real quick Google came up with this, which is kind of crappy, but shows the tip of the iceberg of this problem) and scholars can not decide on an all-encompassing one. So keep that in mind when you go to dictionary.com for its definition.

I really want to rip into slang here...I haven't had the time to be online for a few days, and this would be a lot of fun. I can be the un-apologetic left winger to his right winger, although I don't believe I am as far left as he is right (esp. if he is more right-wing than Rush; and with my general disdain for Chomsky).

So I'll just make a few comments.

-The DLC, which was the political movement inside the Democratic party (note the capital; if you're going to refer to a popular name, at least try to use some respect - but more on that later) that placed the current leadership in power, is decidedly centrist. Daschle backed tax cuts for the wealthy, and, eventually, the war on Iraq. As a denizen of the American Left, I can say it was furious about the first and split on the second (but leaning against it).

- If you keep referring to Bill Clinton as "Klinton," I'll find a similar name for Bush in any responses to your posts. It is improper and really makes you look like an idiot.

-The UN's sole purpose is to provide a forum for nations to air their grievances, and, with that in mind, I'd say it's done pretty well. Take a look at their charter. Read some resolutions, some speeches, some statements - and then form an opinion on its validity. But don't disavow it without any knowledge of it. Again, that makes you look like an idiot.

- So do blanket statements. American politics are not right, center right and left. There is a huge middle ground, and it would do you well to not ignore it.

- Gun control != anti-gun.

- China is, by most accounts, no longer Communist. See the recent discussion about the continuing change in leadership that was spawned by last week's directional meetings. I don't feel like looking it up, but try news.google.com. So to say that Clinton was a Communist sympathizer because he supported their introduction into the WTO isn't logically sound (I've never seen anything about sharing nuclear technology with China, so I'm relying on a different argument. If you have proof, please enlighten me.). It should be noted that we've extended MFN status to China for as long as I can remember. While I couldn't find an exact date, I know that there was debate about suspending it after the Tianneman Square massacre.

- What compelling evidence is there that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? That would be very interesting to see.

- The people opposing the current war in Iraq in the military are generally not doing so because it can't be done, but because the long operation that would be required (by most estimates, we'd have to pretty much run the country for 5-10 years a la post-WWII Japan) would divert resources from the war on terrorism - which is an entirely different thing. I have a friend in the Army whose unit will probably be called to war, and most of them (the people who will be dying) think there isn't enough reason.

- I agree with you that the Democrats have gone off-center, and don't support the poor and working class as much as they used to. However, I'd rather support a party who gives half of an interest to them than a party that outright disdains them.

- Welcome. Even though spelling and grammar bother me, unless they confuse the message, I think it's a dirty argumentive trick. So you won't hear any of that from me (unless, of course, you've screwed up so badly that I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore).

I could have sworn i posted....
I looked back, i screwed up the acronym, didn't notice and was argueing against myself on that one...
On the other hand, i think hermit22 just saved me some time. You're comparing apples and oranges. Or what is in the eyes of the majority of the world legitimate reisitance to an occupation verses an organisation intent on the destrution of the entire western world. On a side note the stinking ball of slime that killed a mother and two toddlers a couple of days ago at that kibbutz should recieve a rear admiral. Along with the Isreali soldier who shot a two year old yesterday.

jag & hermit -

Am I to infer what he meant? All I have to go on are his words, and his words very clearly implied that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and "recent islamic terrorism". I very clearly pointed out that there was. I don't care that it's not al Qaeda - he didn't <b>say</b> that.

Regardless, the "War on Terror" isn't about just al Qaeda anyway. It's one of the big fish, but not the only one. So it really doesn't matter whether or not Saddam is linked to al Qaeda, 'cause just focusing there is a pretty fucking narrow view on the whole thing.

I'll agree that there isn't a whole lot of anything linking him to al Qaeda (but again, I'm not ruling out the possibility either - I am not sold on a war against Iraq, but I could be, if appropriate evidence were presented). But the United States government has more of a purpose than simply "eliminate al Qaeda and its associates". The main purpose is (and should be) "protect the citizens of the United States of America". There are all sorts of threats out there, and the government needs to neutralize them. If Saddam is tied to al Qaeda, hey, great - another reason to go nail him. But it need not be the only reason.

The problem with "terrorism" is that it can be applied to absolutely any rebellion movement anywhere in the world. Do we want to get involved in every single one of those? The Israel/Palestine situation is a mess, but we are not attacking Palestinian terrorists. They generally pose no threat to the US - and they are the only group that Saddam is linked to. In fact, most of the Middle East is linked to the Palestinians - who, while they engage in terrorist activities, are incredibly close to being a recognised entity. (They have observer status in the UN.)

So while Saddam supports their terrorist activities, to use that as the reasoning for going after him is kind of hypocritical. We're not going after the Palestinians are we? Besides that, a lot of people in America and Europe support the Palestinian cause, if not their methods. Not too many support al Qaeda's cause.

Again, WHO THE FUCK CARES? I don't give a shit. That's not my point. I'm not saying it's justification. It's not, even though it's shitty.

My point is very simply that Saddamn <b>can</b> be tied to Islamic terrorism, so jag's notion that he can't be is silly. I'm not saying we need to do anything about it - just saying that the link can be made.

As for the Palestinians... don't lump all of them in with terrorists. They're hardly all bad. I just think your wording is very poor... "Palestinians - who, while they engage in terrorist activities"... only extremist Palestinians do that.

Ok, I'll agree with that. And I apologise, I did make an error in lumping all Palestinians together.

I see your point though, and I concede it. But I must ask: would it be justification for you if he was tied to al-Qaeda?

All depends who you want to call a terrorist really. Secondly Palestinian terrorism (and yes, it is terrorism) is about the state, it is *Palestinian terrorism* first, and its members happen to be Islamic. Whereas Al Queda is Islamic terrorism.

Ill concede my point was at best, inarticulate, on the other hand, yours is moot. Touché.

So if he has no links to Al Queda, and the CIA thinks he is in their own words "low" risk. Why exactly should Iraq be invaded? I mean considering how successful Afghanistan is an all. (can anyone say America's Chechnya?)

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

Hermit's last point, whether that would be justification is an interesting one. If it could be proven, and it was serious, the answer for me i think would be yes.

You won't be laughing long, Jaguar ...

http://www.jaynadavis.com/

Well from her bio i get the impression shes a bitter old hack with an axe to grind. Furthermore the whole thing implies government coverup, which makes no sense at all considering their desperation for anything linking Iraq to well...anything they can use as a flashpoint to excuse an invasion. I see lots of circumstancial evidence, no proof, no documents, no evidence at all. Looks like someone has a big theory and is playing a loose, fast game of connect the dots.

Kinda depends on the level of ties, I think. For example, if he was largely behind the "Holy Tuesday" operation, or provided funding for it knowing what the mission was... then I think that evidence should be made widely available and I imagine that pretty much the entire world would support an effort to topple him and probably put him on trial. And if that was the case, and the evidence was clearly presented and irrefutable... then yeah, I think I'd support action similar to what I described above.

If the linkage is weak - something like "Saddamn telephoned bin Laden afterward and said 'fight the power, brother'"... well, I wouldn't consider that an "actionable" offense.

As I've said before, I'm still not sold on the War on Iraq. If weapons inspectors go in there and find boatloads of nukes/bio-bombs and Saddamn refuses to relinquish them... well, then we probably need to do something about that.

I think that's a pretty rational approach, and I think I mostly agree with it. But I don't feel like googling right now.. what was Holy Tuesday again?

If that was found, then the world would certainly support operations to remove those weapons. That is a given. The problem remains that the world, who has spies in Iraq, says no such proof exists. The world says no country can unilaterally invade Iraq - regardless of even how the Arab world hates Saddam. Furthermore this nearly unanimous worldwide opinion is correct.

Therein is George Jr's problem. Therein lies the value of Colin Powell whose views coincide closer with mine. A 15-0 vote in the Security Council is an affirmation of Colin Powell's opinions vs George Jr's extremist advisors. Even Syria, Mexico, and Germany voted for it (the latter two being close American allies that totally and publically disagree with George Jr's right wing extremist advisors).

UN resolution passed because it was carefully worded to demand the US/Britian first get Security Council permission. Under Dave's scenario, the Security Council would have no problem authorizing use of force against Iraq - as would I. But until there is indeed a threat - a threat that Saddam's neighbor's see and appreciate - then there will be and should be no justification for military action.

That is the point. Every nation providing intelligence to the US and every nation that would be targets of Saddam's WMD don't view Saddam as a threat. Even the CIA comes to the same conclusion. Those conditions must be reversed to justify use of military force - a concept that George Jr's right wing advisors cannot be bothered to acknowledge. It is that right wing extremist mindset that make this US administration so dangerous and makes Colin Powell so essential to American security.

It was this same mindset that almost got us into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. It is these same right wing extremists who also want revenge on Saddam for making them so foolish. Saddam is only still there because those same right wing extremists screwed up while in the George Sr administration.

these are called references
 

09/13/2002 The Daily Standard

<B>Why Can't the CIA Keep Up with the New Yorker?</B>
http://<a href="http://www.theweekly...8rrstd.asp</a>

by Stephen F. Hayes

IN WHAT SHOULD go down as one of the most under-discussed revelations of the war on terrorism, an unnamed "senior counterterrorism official" told the Washington Post Tuesday that the CIA is aware of credible reports documenting Saddam-al Qaeda coordination in northern Iraq, but hasn't checked them out.

Someone remind me why George Tenet still has a job.

In March, the New Yorker ran an exhaustive--16,000 words--account by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing the plight of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. It was an extraordinary piece of journalism--the kind that journalism awards are created to recognize. I distributed the article to dozens of friends and colleagues.<B> It turned Iraq doves into hawks, and skeptics about a war there into believers. </B>

Goldberg sprinkled his prose with caveats--about the possible motivations of the Kurds, about the differing agendas of Saddam and Islamic radicals. That skepticism made his account more credible. But what ultimately made the report convincing was the detail. Goldberg named the prisoners, he explained their relationships, he recreated their battles, and he described their travels.<B> In short, his work is verifiable.</B>



3/25/2002 The New Yorker

<B>THE GREAT TERROR (This is very long)</B>

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

by JEFFREY GOLDBERG

The possibility that Saddam could supply weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terror groups is a powerful argument among advocates of "regime change," as the removal of Saddam is known in Washington. These critics of Saddam argue that his chemical and biological capabilities, his record of support for terrorist organizations, and the cruelty of<B> his regime make him a threat that reaches far beyond the citizens of Iraq.</B>

"He's the home address for anyone wanting to make or use chemical or biological weapons," Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi dissident, said. Makiya is the author of "Republic of Fear," a study of Saddam's regime. "He's going to be the person to worry about. He's got the labs and the know-how. He's hellbent on trying to find a way into the fight, without announcing it."

On the surface, a marriage of Saddam's secular Baath Party regime with the fundamentalist Al Qaeda seems unlikely. His relationship with secular Palestinian groups is well known; both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, two prominent Palestinian terrorists, are currently believed to be in Baghdad.<B> But about ten years ago Saddam underwent something of a battlefield conversion to a fundamentalist brand of Islam.</B>

<B>The Kurdish intelligence officials I spoke to were careful not to oversell their case; they said that they have no proof that Ansar al-Islam was ever involved in international terrorism or that Saddam's agents were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But they do have proof, they said, that Ansar al-Islam is shielding Al Qaeda members, and that it is doing so with the approval of Saddam's agents.</B>

The Kurdish intelligence officials told me that they have Al Qaeda members in custody, and they introduced me to another prisoner, a young Iraqi Arab named Haqi Ismail, whom they described as a middle- to high-ranking member of Al Qaeda. He was, they said, captured by the peshmerga as he tried to get into Kurdistan three weeks after the start of the American attack on Afghanistan.<B> Ismail, they said, comes from a Mosul family with deep connections to the Mukhabarat; his uncle is the top Mukhabarat official in the south of Iraq. They said they believe that Haqi Ismail is a liaison between Saddam's intelligence service and Al Qaeda.</B>

I havent checked JEFFREY GOLDBERG's credencials, but the report seems well researched and well written. As we see from these 2 articles, there is some type of problem with the US intell agencies. It may be omnious or not, I have more to say about that later (with references).


<B> I have many more replies to the questions/comments earlier. I dont have time to respond right now but will soon, thanks for your patience</B>

I'm sorry Jag, I really didn't mean to use the words "smoking gun". Can you show me where I posted them , I need to change them. Thanks.

You gave the impression you had one.
That's a lovely article about an article about the Kurds, how terrible, another oppressed group. Terrible. Bit like the Palestinians really, course the US supports their oppression. Or some of the horrible regimes in South America the US supports/ed, or the ones in Africa or....

Stephen F Hayes I get the feeling, got his qualifications in a Christmas cracker.

Neither of the articles mentions any link between OKC and Iraq.

My guess is there is more to this than meets the eye. The most likely scenario in my mind is that the Kurds are talking shit and the CIA know it, it wouldn't shock me and it wouldn’t be the first time. The second most likely scenario is that what the CIA are well aware, and are doing something about it but because they are the worlds premier Intel force its not making the papers, always a sign of good operation. Of course you can never rule out sheer incompetence. On the other hand considering how desperately Bush is looking for anything to make that link to justify a war I doubt this has been overlooked.

Your lack of patience with me regarding the OKC connection is disapponting considering you "get feelings" about someone's qualifications without a specific reason given, muchless any supporting references.

I am not a researcher, and not a writer. I do have a point to make as do you. Hang tight, we can debate this after I complete the background and post the results. There are many others I owe a response to.

While i don't acutally seen any connection between thsoe two things and i'm yet to see you actually refute anything by anyone.........

I think that covers it. I've seen better essays written by year 9s, its something you'd expect to see posted on here or any other forum, not a news article or an opinion piece. A quick wander though the site appears to reveal the be most B grade rubbish i've seen published.

Just curious jag, have the kurds been suicide bombing, targetting innocent Iraqis in Baghdad?

and your point is....?
They don't have the US and Biritsh airforces keeping them safe either.

When I said that I was speaking specifically to the US Senate, although I'm sure I wasnt clear.

Tom Daschle has been the Senate Majority leader since Jefford's defection. More than a few people that pay attention, see that as the same technicality that put W in the White House. It was a power grab, and we're pissed.

While we dont think that all Democrats in the Senate are neccessarily totally left wing, having the Democrats in the majority gives them the control of the issues that come up for vote. I would say having Daschle in control has killed the chances of anything even remotely right from coming up for vote.

One thing we are concerned with is the Supreme Court. We want Justices that are in favor of the second ammendment, that believe in states rights, believe that there are enough special legal privileges for minorities. The religious right also wants very desparately to overturn Roe v. Wade. I personally dont have an opinion on abortion. Since they hold a strong influence on Republicans I tend to overlook the issue entirely. I DO understand how powerful the pro abortion movement is and respect their concern over having pro-life Justices on the bench.

When this last election changed the majority in the Senate, we were very happy. We now feel that some of our legislation will at least come up for a vote. That's all I am asking for, a vote.