THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

occam's razor revisited
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Mr Stillwater
I couln't agree with you more about Saudi ARabia and Pakistan. I never said those were the administrations reasons for supporting the conflict, I sited them as my own.
Hobitbob, if I said it was dark where I live right now, you'd no doubt counter that with light pollution that isn't true. You've argued against 20 statements in as many minutes without agreeing with a single thing I've said. Was it fun? I have no desire to debate with someone who argues for the sake of argument. I'll happily respond to any counterpoint you wish, but not a grocery list picking apart every sentence. I'll also refrain from responding to your personal attacks. Ask yourself what your behavior is indicative of.

The latest portion of this thread does not seem to take the form of debate with reason.
I think the following line by OCCOM BILL must be taken seriously.

I'm not argueing for the sake of argument. If you make a statement I agree with, I will acknowledge it. So far you haven't. As for "personal attacks" I have not made any. Keep trying.

If Howard the Duck had been president and decised to invade Iraq I would have opposed it.

17 ignored resolutions, over a decade of diplomacy and you consider war was the first resort? Please.

The PNAC group had plans for the war before the Bush campaign even began. After 11th september 2001 Rumsfeld and Cheney were quoted asking for evidence to be doctored to justify selling a war with Iraq to the US public. Troop buildup on the IRaqi border began in late 2002. First Bush said that if inspectors were not allowed in , he would invade. When inspectors were allowed in the new phrase'o'the week was "regeime change." Reports in recent months suggest that, in constrast to public statements, the administration refused requests from Hussein to avoid the war by allowing him to leave power. The war was sold to the public as a preventive measure against WMDs whose exact location was known to the US. These WMDs have been conspicuous by their absence. In addition, connections between Hussein and al-Quada were averred, where none, in actuality, existed. War with Iraq was part of the "Bush Plan" from before the 2000 election. There is too much evidence of this for it to be denied.

Countering statements
Bob has way more patience than I do. I admire his tenacity and patience. Me, I just ignore silly, ignorant stements whoesale.
Some people are just not worth my time to respond to.

It would be real nice if people that post on this board would do some reading of real books on topics before they post nonesense.

Pre-emptive illegal invasions are not solutions to problems. They are the cause of more problems, injury, mental dispair and death.

Imperialsim. Do some research on this concept as it relates to America, PLEASE.

You're probably right. [In the category of, "everything you never wanted to know about ...:]

The death penalty has been abolished de jure or de facto by 113 countries, whereas it's still in use in only 84 countries - but among those 84 are some of the big ones - China, India, the US.

(Of the 113 former countries, 78 abolished it altogether, 20 have not carried out any executions for at least 7 years and 15 abolished it for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes).

Steve was probably confused because the US is the only western democracy that continues to use the death penalty. (Well, in Latvia, Bosnia and Albania it's theoretically allowed for war crimes). It's basically the US, the Middle East, black Africa, South and Central Asia and China.

The US compensates for its loneliness in the West by vigour though: China, Congo, the US and Iran are the most prolific executioners in the world. In 2002, 81 percent of all known executions took place in China, the US or Iran. The US is also one of six countries in the world - alongside Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - which executes people who were under 18 years-old when they committed their crimes.

Here's a cool, practically up-to-date map:



Green No death penalty
Yellow No death penalty except for exceptional circumstances.
Orange Death penalty not used in recent years.
Red Death penalty exists for common crimes.

Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Thats because Hobbitbob faces a class of Freshman Western Civ students each term. If that doesn't teach one patience, nothing will. In my first one (Fall of 1999) I had to explain to some poor deluded young lady that Xena and Hercules were works of fiction. She is now finishing a degree in classics!

King Hussein offered Saddam exile and he publicly refused. There are also reports detailing his attempt to purchase missiles with an illegal range. Al samoud II missiles were designed with an engine diameter that exceeded legal limits (forget about the range). It is true that WMD's have not been found. That does not mean that he was complying with UN regulations. Having illegally kicked out the UN inspectors in the first place, he effectively removed his only way of proving his innocence for himself.

LOL
Nuff said.

The inspectors went back in in December of 2002. George Bush demanded their withdrawal, lest they become inadvertant casualties of the incipient war. The inspectors were busily destroying missiles, etc... All of this information is freely available.

bob, the missiles they were destroying were designed and built with an engine diameter that exeeded the legal limits. This is freely available as well. Is this not a violation?

explain please. or do you perhaps mean the US asked the UN inspectors to leave Iraq so that we could bomb Iraq?

no dyslexia; I'm referring to when they were thrown out in the mid 90's

a little more specific if you don't mind

Is this not evidence of non compliance?

Let me get this straight. The inspectors were kicked out in the mid 90's by Saddam, so "we" kicked out the inspectors in 2001, so we can plan the aggressive preemptive strike on Iraq. What am I missing here?

I don't agree with Bill's position. I was opposed to the war long before it began, and the evidence is in these fora. I agree with many statements which HB has made.

Nevertheless, i believe Bill is getting short shrift here, and being treated with an undeserved disrespect.



A coincidence of temporal juxtaposition does authorize a statement from authority that the Bush campaign had plans for the war before Bush was elected. Even less so, then, is one correct in offering that inference, which is what is to be inferred here. I believe that one is justified in reasoning that given the devotion to the PNAC agenda of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woflowitz and many others, that one can conclude that they desired a pretext for this war, even from before Bush's election. Bill may choose to disagree with as much forensic and intellectual integrity as anyone who agrees. He is neither stupid nor naive to be sceptical of such a contention.



This constitutes hearsay evidence. It would not surprise me in the least, given my opinion of these gentlemen. However, one chooses to believe contention of those alleging this to be the case--this cannot be irrefutably shown to be fact. Bill is neither stupid nor naive to either reserve judgement on such an accusation, or to refuse to believe it, absent concrete proof.



I'll deal with this again, but will take this passage to note that Bill has already said that his support of a war to remove Hussein was not predicated upon any devotion to the President or the Republican party.



As you can see, Bill does not believe this, and has offered different testimony.



Although i don't recall anyone claiming to know the exact location of WMD's, i won't quibble with this; that is because my response to this with regard to Bill's position is that he has not adduced this as a justification for a war which he says he believes is justified.



This seems to me to have been one of the most eggregious of red herrings in the run up to the war. I suspect that there was no other source than Chalabi, and i suspect that when fanatical supporters like Tantor kept touting the ubiquitous, but otherwise unidentified "Iraqi defector" before the war, they were in fact referring to that gentleman's statments. Once again, however, take note that such a contention played no part in what Bill said was the basis for his support of the removal of Hussein.



I've already dealt with this, but i will observe that is a great body of hearsay evidence and hostile speculation that this was the case, as opposed to any flat statement that there is "evidence" (neutrally posited as evidence--but there is no admission here as to the partisan character of the "evidence" for such a statement). I believe this to have been the case, but i also know that it cannot be proven. Finally, i will again remind everyone that Bush and his agenda have formed no part of the reasons Bill has adduced for supporting the war.

Bill stated his reasons for supporting the war; HB has riposted with a series of statements for which there is not undeniable evidence in many cases, and most which is not pertinent to the reasons Bill gave for his support. He has been inferrentially characterized as stupid, or naive, or ill-informed. It is my belief that this arises soley from his having stated an unpopular opinion. As a disclaimer, i am not presenting myself as eternally virtuous, or even very nice, in debate. I have read many of Bill's posts, and often disagree with him. I also consider him sincere and good-natured, as well as acute in his analysis of those subjects to which he has given his consideration. Disagreeing with him does not authorize snide remarks about how he spells his screen name (when the critic cannot even spell that word the same way twice within a few words), or remarks casting doubt on his intelligence, his relative sophistication in judging public events, or his service record or a lack thereof. For whatever else my faults, i have never considered that three years of active service in the Army, for which i voluteered, has ever qualified me as having a more valid opinion on questions of war and peace than anyone else. We all live on this planet, and have a justifiable and proximate interest in such questions, and as much right to our opinions on such topics without regard to whether or not we ever took the King's shilling.

I think Bill's treatment in this thread recently was the result of nothing better than a petty meanness directed at a dissenter.