A respectable and effective protest to the war

[Griff]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Scott Ritter has now been completely discredited by his inability to offer any defense whatsoever of charges that he was arrested after he used a chat room to solicit the intimate company of a 16 year old girl.

Since he was never charged and the records were sealed we'll have to take Sean Hannity's word on this one? The timing of these events were pretty damn "fortunate" for Bush 2.

[Griff]

Speaking to the trust issue, Ellsberg's book came out in October.

Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg

[Undertoad]

I don't take Hannity's word for anything. I watched Ritter commit media suicide on Aaron Brown/Newsnight. It was pathetic and sad. He had every opportunity to give an explanation. He whiffed badly and he knew exactly what he was doing.

There was an agreement to seal the records. The arrest happened well before Ritter's current interests in upsetting the apple cart. The leak of the arrest is what is convenient, not the actual arrest. Ritter's response was that it shouldn't have been leaked. He refused to explain anything further than that.

Mr. Brown patiently explained that Ritter had no legal reason to stay quiet about the events and that if he didn't give an explanation he would become a non-entity. Mr. Ritter stuck to his approach, and that was that. His credibility is near zero.

[Undertoad]

tw sed
In fact some friends still are pissed that I called then after 11 PM on 1 Aug 1990 (woke them up) to tell them 'my' war had started.

So what is different here?

This really bothered me overnight.

I'll ask the same question of you. What's different here? Hussein resigned the first war with an agreement to disarm. Then he didn't. The UNSC voted 15-0 that he still has to disarm. Blix came back and said he's not disarming. Ritter said in 1998 that he wasn't disarming. What is different here? This is simply part 2 of the same war you wanted so badly before.

Clinton bombed Iraq too - after inspectors left the first time - was that OK? How about the no-fly zones - surely those are an obvious remnant of the first war. Can Iraqis fire anti-aircraft missiles at planes in the no-fly zone? If they do, aren't they disrespecting the agreements of the FIRST war cease-fire?

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I'll ask the same question of you. What's different here? Hussein resigned the first war with an agreement to disarm. Then he didn't. The UNSC voted 15-0 that he still has to disarm. Blix came back and said he's not disarming. Ritter said in 1998 that he wasn't disarming. What is different here? This is simply part 2 of the same war you wanted so badly before.

If applying absolutes to Iraq, then why so quiet about nine atomic bombs in South Africa? Why so quiet about biological weapons of mass destruction missing and unaccounted for in S Africa. We should be attacking Israel for an outright an intentional attack on the USS Libety. We should be seeking UN sanctions on Israel for possessing nuclear weapons. The UN should be invading Israel for way too many violations of UN resolutions and outright violations of human rights. We should be attacking both Pakistan and India for their outright proliferation of nuclear weapons and selling associated war material. Why not attack Castro for violations of human rights. Why are we not involved in wars of Ivory Coast, Liberia, Siera Leon, Sri Lanka, Congo? Why do we not threaten Mugabee - clearly more abusive to his people than Saddam? Why did we not immediately invade East Timor or solve the race riots in the Marshall Islands?

Why do they not so concern you? If absolutes don't apply to these events, then why demand absolutes on Iraq? Accusations against Iraq have equal or less credibility than all those above violations. What make Iraq different? Saddam.

Adults don't immediately solve everything with violence. America once was a tolerant nation that let most crisis fester - diplomatic solutions were used - and most ended up solving themselves. Military force was only used after everyone screwed up and then we were required. As a result, everyone welcomed Americans. However under the hate promoter George Jr, every crisis - even over a spy plane - means war. Damn UT. Once you were a tolerant man. I now see veins hanging from your teeth. And its not just you. This man promotes hate an fear. 6 Arabs enter NY from Canada. Rumored attacks on the Golden Gate Bridge. All were faked, but issued at politically convenient times. Don't you see yourself being played?

What did Hans Blix say? He will solve the problem but he needs time. George Jr intentionlly misrepresented Blix's report to the UN as you have done now. Did you read it? Hans Blix personally accuses George Jr of misrepresenting his report. Hans Blix says they don't have FULL cooperation. They are getting cooperation, but not FULL cooperation meaning only more diplomatic pressure and negotiation must be applied. What did Hans Blix demand? He needs more time. Not war. Not a military solution. He needs time. But George Jr really does not care about those WMD. Is that not yet so obvious?

US governement will not even give Blix full information to do his job. Of course not. Unfortunately a successful Hans Blix will only get in the way of George Jr's 'war at any cost' plan. After all the rumored WMD are only George Jr's excuse. Even a rumored sexual pervert can see through that. Why can't you?

George Jr wants Saddam's head. WMD and Al Qaeda are but excuses, real or invented, to accomplish what George Jr really wants. A personal vendetta.

George Jr's staff should go down into history as the people who drank champaigne rather than do their job: define Saddam's surrender. Again, WMD are only an excuse. Hans Blix could solve the whole problem if given time. But WMD are only an excuse. If Saddam lives again, George Jr's people go down into history as the people who protected Saddam, again.

Stop applying a double standard to UN resolutions. If you want absolutes, then first demand an attack on Israel for their repeated and direct violations of UN resolutions. This is a George Jr personal vendetta. George Jr has even kept enough information from the inspectors so they cannot be as successful - using a stupid national security excuse.

War requires a smoking gun. No smoking gun exists. All we have is reason for heated negotiation and continued inspection that should continue for one more year or longer. But that would directly violate George Jr's real objectives.

Why are we not attacking North Korea? No one in North Korea will put George Jr and his staff into history as losers like Saddam. North Korea has a serious WMD. But WMD are only an excuse. d UT's absolutes don't provide the smoking gun so necessary to justify war in Iraq. They justify war elsewhere. Its called a double standard because the WMD are really irrelevant.

[Undertoad]

Originally posted by tw
Why do they not so concern you? If absolutes don't apply to these events, then why demand absolutes on Iraq? Accusations against Iraq have equal or less credibility than all those above violations. What make Iraq different? Saddam.

Precisely. Saddam.

What did Hans Blix say? He will solve the problem but he needs time.

But don't you see? Powell's report completely invalidated the entire inspections process. 24 hours before inspectors were to be on site, sites were cleared out.

The inspections process was compromised to begin with. Giving it more time is insane. "Doubling" and "tripling" a compromised process is a bad joke.

Which is where we bring slang back in. International relations is the best place for a conspiracy theorist to live, because half of the conspiracies are actually true - a far better hit rate than the domestic. Powell is the most credible man in the US. His report was termed absolutely credible by ex-intel guy Ralph Peters today. Nobody but the Iraqis are saying it's fake. So here's the money question: Who tipped off the Iraqis to the inspection sites?

Doesn't it bother you that it's quite possible that the security of the US has been compromised by forces inside the UN? Oh right, you're the guy who isn't even moved by attempted assassination of a former president - it's completely allowed, if tw doesn't like 'em!

US governement will not even give Blix full information to do his job. Of course not.

Of COURSE not, because they knew when he asked for assistance that the inspections process was compromised, and to give specific information to the inspectors involves burning valuable intelligence sources. (Where "burning" may be, quite literally - Saddam leaves the torture work to his sons and apparently they are very creative. Where do you think the guy is who made that wireless phone call we intercepted?)

Stop applying a double standard to UN resolutions. If you want absolutes, then first demand an attack on Israel for their repeated and direct violations of UN resolutions.

You really want the end of the UN, don't you? I thought I was alone in that thinking, but what you're asking for would in fact be the final nail in the coffin of the UN.

And you keep talking in terms of "absolutes". The "smoking gun" absolute is the one you're hung up on. Get over it. Saddam has killed people, is killing a TON of people right now, and is planning to kill more.

The intelligence information that we have been privy to is a fraction of what's actually out there. Having to trust the government is one of the strangest feelings I've ever had. I don't like it one bit. If they fucked it up, I will be livid. On the other hand, while we can't see what we can't see, but the stuff we have seen is plenty bad.

Get over it man. I'm no Bush guy. This is bigger than Bush.

[slang]

Originally posted by Undertoad
You really want the end of the UN, don't you? I thought I was alone in that thinking, but what you're asking for would in fact be the final nail in the coffin of the UN.

Sign me up up as a nail driver for that job. The UN is ineffective at actually dealing with situations such as this current Iraq mess. It's a good debating forum, but that's really all IMO. It's a "feel good but do nothing" waste of time.


Then again, what the fuck do I know.

[Saddam Hussein]

I would like to thank TW and the Hollywood loonies for supporting me in my time of need. It's not easy to defend me and my manipulation of the UN, the slaughter of anyone that even *appears* to disagree with me, and my generally hostile disposition.

Rest assured that when I pass off my nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to Al-Qaeda, you will die a somewhat dignified death. If *I* were to come to your neighborhood, I'd kill you the Saddam way, by running a power drill into your genitals, pouring gasoline down your throat, and setting you afire in front of your family. Please understand I cannot make housecalls at this time, I apologize for any inconveinence this may cause.

Your efforts in spinning the debate into something that makes me appear less threatening is greatly appreciated and should prove helpful in the future.

Death to America!!
SoDam Insane

[jaguar]

Err UT before you fly off the handle about a UN conspiricy to assassinate US presidents consider two well known facts:

a: The UN building in Iraq is bugged to all hell.
b: They have not recieved funds and equipment to remove them.

Might these have more to do with the ineffectiveness of inspections than some out-of-your-arse theory about the UN being full or Iraqi spies?

that is all.

[Undertoad]

Oh so the UN prepared for inspections in a location so widely known to be bugged that even Jag knew it?

Yes I do I feel safer now, thank you.

The new conspiracy theory is who made that decision.

Hey, I did say only half the theories will pan out. But I find this sort of thing to be quite interesting, because like a lot of domestic politics, it's the parts that you can't see that really drive a lot of the events.

So when France comes out so dead-set against the war and says it's because they don't like war, whilst at the same time they send the fleet down to Africa to "change regimes" for the nth time in their former colonies, you just have to wonder.

[slang]

Originally posted by jaguar
a: The UN building in Iraq is bugged to all hell.
b: They have not recieved funds and equipment to remove them.

Ok Jag. This makes sense. Why hasn't this situation been rectified? How much would it cost to secure the UN building from bugs? One million, 5 million, 10 million?

It seems to me, that even if the cost was 10 million or more it would be a good idea to have them removed. In your opinion as a intelligence administrator for the UN, how would this change the current crisis? Would the Iraqis find another method to collect info on the location of the inspections that is just as effective? Why wouldn't the US gov't pay for having this done, if they could actually catch the Iraqis with the "smoking gun", it would make their case. [sarcasm] Then we could invade Iraq and take all their oil,[/sarcasm] with the world knowing full well they were making the WOMDs.

I'll call W and talk with him about this. He hasn't returned my calls since I was so critical of the Poindexter thing, but I'll program the number into speed dial and keep calling.

And another thing. What the feck is an arse? Do they have a specific colour? Are they made from alee-uminum? Is an arse generally blu-hy in the centre?

(slang thinks to self: For the folks that *invented* the English language, they sure do use it funny)

[wolf]

Originally posted by slang
(slang thinks to self: For the folks that *invented* the English language, they sure do use it funny)

not to nitpick (but I will anyway)

Jag's an Aussie, which means that the Brits think he screws up their language just as much as we do.

The upside, however, is that our ancestors were escaping religious discrimination. His were transported as criminals.

[elSicomoro]

Not necessarily on his end...Jag is half-Swiss.

[Kofi Annan]

Originally posted by sycamore
Our (U.N.) founders were not pacifists. They knew there would be times when force must be met by force."--Kofi Annan

That's right, our founders were not, we *evolved* into pacifists with my help.

[elSicomoro]

Actually, Kofster, you seem to take a harder line than your predecessor. After all, the US was a big reason why Boutros-Ghali did not get a 2nd 5-year term.