Dispatches From DC?

Jim
Shall I remind you that put Al Qaeda aside are your words. However, that is irrelevant what is relevant is your constant and fallacious attempts to tie Al Qeada and Iraq together. There is not a shred of evidence of that being true. Do you understand?
Terrorism is not the stated reason for going after Sadism his possession of WMD's is. That is the reason why the inspectors are there. To date they have not found the smoking gun.



Supports terrorism against who. As far as anyone knows not the US. therefore that is certainly not a reason for a preemptive attack. In fact that has never been mentioned as a reason except by Bush and Blair {the bobbsie twins}. What I am telling you and I am sure you wont agree, since your mind is apparently made up. is that terrorism has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq.




Yes, that is why the UN inspectors are in Iraq. However, to date aside from some empty shell casings the have not found the proverbial "smoking gun." That is why they are there, to find the smoking gun. Does Saddam have them I could surmise along with Bush and the UN that he has but does anyone truly know? Of course not.

I will put it to you as clearly as I can and hope you can understand. Iraq was made an offer by the UN. Allow the inspectors unfettered access or we will sanction an attack. They therefore acquiesced and allowed the inspectors in. That satisfied at least to this point the UN and the nations of the world. Bush and Blair however are not and are apparently determined to attack.
Now I have no interest in hearing a ten year ago invasion of Kuwait or how Saddam treats his people those are irrelevant to this situation. As far as backing. we only get that from those we can buy or coerce
France, Russia, China, Germany and almost any country of import that you can name is not with us when it comes to attacking Iraq.
And not only do governments not agree there is a groundswell of people all over the world who are against us.
Enough said. Why do I say your arguments are circular because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again and answer everything with a question.

Here's another viewpoint from an article from today's USA Today. I will attempt to summarize: Egyptians are the most hospitable of people, and continue to welcome Americans on a personal level. But anger and frustration at US policies towards Iraq and the Palestinians are leading to some unusual outbursts. Egyptians are mixing Israel and America as one, and there is no way to tell them any different.

If Bush is interested in minimizing terrorism in the future, he needs to address the mid-east problems immediately, before they boil over into actions of hatred towards Americans. Anger at US policies can change quickly, but it must be done with sincerity and mid-east involvement - not in isolation as this administration is likely to do.

c.i.

I was reading an article just today, which I now can't seem to locate, about Jordanian youths who, although they wear Levis, listen to American rock music, and watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer (of all things), have come to ADMIRE Saddam Hussein because of what they perceive as his tenacity and fortitude in standing up to the US! While they eagerly consume American cultural and material exports, they have become alienated to our political values by our inept foreign policy and one-sided (as they see it) support of Israel. Chilling.

blacksmithn, I'm afraid you have stated our currently exported "Democracy" in a nutshell. It will take many years to clean the mess this administration has done in foreign policy, even if Bush quite today!

BillW, We all know GWBush is not going to resign. We must make sure he is replaced in 2004. c.i.

Can't I have my dreams.

c.i. - you just ruined my sleep!

Have a hot toddy my good man, and you'll sleep like a babe..... c.i.

AU, still not reading closely, huh?
AU, it would be helpful if you made an attempt to read and to respond.

you say, again:

what is relevant is your constant and fallacious attempts to tie Al Qeada and Iraq together. There is not a shred of evidence of that being true.

you say this despite my comment to you, about this very point, in my last post:

Also, in no place did i state that iraq participated in the 9/11 terror attack, this is the first time it is raised, so where did that come from? stop trying to use red herrings please. I stated and do so again, that iraq is a terrorist state that supports terrorism, i didn't mention 9-11 at all, please try to read more closely.

again, i ask you - where did i link al queada together? please show me!

lets see if you can handle this one question , you don't seem to focus when i write too much - or perhaps you do not want to or cannot answer my questions

Jim says


The byword of this forum is civility. Which means to discuss subjects in a civil manner? It is apparent from this thread that you seem to be unable to do so. This is just an observation but IMO your attitude would be better suited for the abuzz.
Over and out.

AU, why not clear up your misleading statements?
AU,

there is nothing more uncivil than continuing to paint someone with misleading statements and characterizations. I guess you cant admit that to yourself or to others!

When someone can't defend their statements and misstatements, they name call - don't be too concerned, all of these characteristics are prevalent among liberals, so your peers wont notice.

Ah, the reek of partisan invective, what would morning coffee be without it . . .

From blacksmithn's article:

Straw Dog; Neither DPRK nor Pakistan have employed WMD, Iraq has and continues to threaten to do so.



How then does one explain the $15,000 checks given by Baghdad to the families of deceased Palestinian Suicide bombers? That is awfully inconvenient to the argument postulated.



Valid in that The Perception exists. However, Israeli responses to Palestinian Suicide attacks are not aimed indiscriminately at civilians. Justified (and I think not) or not, The Israelis are not engaging in "Terrorism", however terrible may be their measures. If The Israelis wished, they have the military capability to eliminate "The Palestinian Problem", and The Palestinians, in a matter of days at most. They show no inclination to do so. It is The Palestinians, not The Israelis, who break every cease-fire, who dismiss every Peace Proposal, who blow up department stores, city busses, and shopping malls.



I believe there is great reason to believe so. And somehow, I don't see a 12+ year escalation of tensions a "Rush to War"


There is delicious irony in the The Left's "Support" for a Totalitarian Right Wing Dictatorship ... they've generally spent the last half century attacking "The Government" for condoning and supporting such. I feel much of their current condemnation stems from the fact it is a Republican Administration prosecuting the matter. Current practice and prior history do not support "The Left"s case very well.



timber

<sigh>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35360-2003Jan23.html

What part of "Prohibited" is hard to understand?




timber

timber- You seem to confuse "support for a Totalitarian Right Wing Dictatorship" with a lack of support for sending young Americans to die in a foreign land for specious reasons. One does not equate to the other.

As to who poses the greater threat for WMD use, it's no secret Pakistan was poised to use nukes against Indian troop concentrations in this latest crisis over Kashmir. Saddam on the other hand, has at least been quiescent on that score since the Gulf War, possibly because he has none or possibly due to the effective implementation of the policy of containment. Whether Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein is the greater maniac is to some extent a judgement call, but Kim apparently HAS actual nukes while Saddam even in a worst case scenario won't have them for some time. While it's true that Saddam gassed rebellious Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988, resulting in some 5-8 thousand deaths, Kim reduced his entire populace to starvation, resulting in approximately 2 million deaths.

It is not untoward to wonder at the apparent discrepancy between the administration's bellicose reaction to Iraq, their rather reticent reaction to North Korea and their outright embrace of erstwhile ally Pakistan. That Iraq sits on a vast pool of oil and North Korea and Pakistan do not, is one quite obvious explanation for this, particularly in view of the current administration's close ties to the petroleum industry and pre-9/11 indications that an Iraqi "regime change" was desirable.

blacksmith, I agree with your assessment. c.i.

Have you considered the possibility that it is considerably easier to prevent these toys from being acquired than to take them away from someone who already has them?

Also, I consider that North Korea might take a thoughtful look at its hole card if Iraq is quickly and thouroughly defeated.

"there is nothing more uncivil than continuing to paint someone with misleading statements and characterizations"
"all of these characteristics are prevalent among liberals, so your peers wont notice."


doh