THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Offense isn't defense, and I don't care what you write, Ican, it never will be. Cycloptichorn

Defending ourselves would consist of strengthening our borders (not done), strengthening our shipping (not done), strengthing our emergency response units (not done), strengthing our local and national guards (not done). Attacking a foreign country, killing thousands and thousands of people, potentially starting a civil war there, in order to remove a handful of terrorists from a base which may or may not have existed, is not defense.

It's amazing you can even twist things in your mind enough to see it that way. Cycloptichorn

You want to defeat terrorism? I got an idea: let's attack an innocent muslim country and take over their means of producing oil. That ought to do it.

Muslim terrorists the world over are sure to take notice of that.

13 Sep 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

I swear, that boy just cracks me up . . . indeed, how many times has the United States lauched an offense to pre-empt a tyrant who threatened us? Well, let's see . . . there was, no, no, we started that one . . . well, there was . . . no, that doesn't count . . . uhm, maybe . . . no, that won't work either . . . Damn, i'll have to get back to you on that one.

We lack the means and capability to do the things you cite, to prevent al Qaeda from murdering us.

False! I am not doing anything of the kind. I am trying to communicate the fact that whether or not Saddam possessed ready-to-use WMD and whether or not Blair and/or Bush lied about Saddam possessing ready-to-use WMD are allegations not relevant to my argument that we had a right to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever you choose to assume on those two subjects will have zero effect on the truth of my argument (which I have posted here repeatedly). Try me. Tell me what you would like me to assume about these two subjects. I'll comply.

Self-delusion knows no bounds does it . . . "Pre-empting a tyrant consists of stopping him from hurting you more before he hurts you more." Congratulations on your new promotion to Doyen of Words Mean Whatever I Say They Mean.

War of 1812, hmm, let's see. That would be George III, tyrrant? No, no, he was certifiable by then . . . must have been that bad old tyrrant, George, Prince Regent. Yeah, that's it, it was George, Prince Regent who did . . . exactly what do you contend old George was doing to us?

World War One, huh? Pre-emption two and a half years afte the war began? Kind of a stretch, ain't it? Ah well, at least we can easily identify the tyrrant who set upon us, Wilhelm, right? But wait, wasn't Franz Josef at fault there? But, then, he was dead by 1917. I guess we'll have to toss a coin and choose between ol' Willi and Karl.

World War II, huh? That sucker was a mess. Lessee, first the First Air Fleet attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, and then ol' Adolf declared war on us. Hey, wait a minute . . . i don't think that last one counts.

Jeeze, you are the King of Making It Up as You Go Along . . .

ican, I was talking about pondering, discussing, debating. I heard a comment on Jim Lehrer's show tonight by someone who was lamenting the shouting heads on popular discussion shows, each side of which is "always right." He regretted that doubt is no longer seen, that "doubt used to be the province of the wise."

Whew. I wish I'd said that.

I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a much different perspective at an altitude of 45,000 feet.

McTag wrote:

You want to defeat terrorism? I got an idea: let's attack an innocent muslim country and take over their means of producing oil. That ought to do it.

Muslim terrorists the world over are sure to take notice of that.

Iraq had invaded and annexed Kuwait, among other countries. It had promised in its surrender treaty in that war to furnish clear proof of destroying the WMD it had had (and intentionally used on civilians). If the WMD have been destroyed, as they appear to have been, Iraq could easily have supplied clear proof, but mysteriously never did. We had been trying to get them to abide by their surrender treaty for a dozen years. During the inspections, many incidents like this occurred:

Quote:

13 Sep 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

Source

So, in what way were they innocent? All they had to do was show us a video of the WMD being destroyed and tell us where the remanants were, or any similar clear proof. This is what they had promised to do a dozen years before.

Brandon9000 wrote:

McTag wrote:

You want to defeat terrorism? I got an idea: let's attack an innocent muslim country and take over their means of producing oil. That ought to do it.

Muslim terrorists the world over are sure to take notice of that.

Iraq had invaded and annexed Kuwait, among other countries. It had promised in its surrender treaty in that war to furnish clear proof of destroying the WMD it had had (and intentionally used on civilians). If the WMD have been destroyed, as they appear to have been, Iraq could easily have supplied clear proof, but mysteriously never did. We had been trying to get them to abide by their surrender treaty for a dozen years. During the inspections, many incidents like this occurred:

Quote:

13 Sep 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

Source

So, in what way were they innocent? All they had to do was show us a video of the WMD being destroyed and tell us where the remanants were, or any similar clear proof. This is what they had promised to do a dozen years before.

A UNSCOM inspector was attacked by an Iraqi officer, you say? And then the US attacked Iraq? How is it that these events are linked by you?

Is the US somehow the executive arm of the UN? Of an organisation it has gone so far out of its way to denigrate and revile? I have a little problem with the cause and effect here.

ou seem to think you have a right to attack any country you deem not to be "innocent". Not so in law.

You could start with the Old Testament, a very good place to start. Thou shalt not kill.

It is a basis for many a good legal system.

Tony Blair is sweating this week, because his bluff is being called.
Some of our generals may end up in the International Court to answer for their actions.
Alongside Milosevic and his minions.