Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

So, for example, a Japanese weapons inspector is "in the best case dubious"?

Well, you are right, I have overlooked such an option. But no Europeans/Muslims, please.

owi,

steissd has a bone to pick with Muslims. He calls them all terrorists and is generally very prejudiced toward them. Just an FYI to let you know that for him impartiality means a bias toward America's position.

steissd,

You are one of my favorite debaters on these forums (because of your unfailing civility, even though our opinions differ) but impartial and trustworthy does not mean picking inspectors from one side of the fence. And your comments about Russians and Europeans is simply a lie. Russians do not look at toilet bowls and see ICBMs and the Europeans are not as blind as you make them out to be.

It's very ironic that one so ethnocentric and biased makes such wild generalizations about the impartiality of entire nations and continents.

Russians? I meant Israelis...
By the way, what is wrong in my open and sincere pro-Americanism?

Aha, my bad. Still applies. Israelis are numerous and can't all be as biased as you claim. In the framework of inspections indivisual prejudice is not very relevant. Each inspector's wishes will be subliminated and they will work together to do a good job.

If there are Muslims in the mix they are unlikely to harm the quality of the inspections.

Now an all Muslim group might, and even more certain is that the inspectiosn would look bad. So is the case with an all US and UK inspectors group.

Reliable and impartial would imply a mix, preferably of neutral nations (the US and UK are decidedly not neutral in this case) not a group that consists entirely of those who seek to validate a war and who would suffer tremendously if there were no weapons found.

I never said anything is wrong with opena and sincere pro-Americanism. I also never said there was anything wrong with your distain for Muslims (though that's an easy case to make).

What I did say is that it's far from impartial. You have, on several occasions, called all Muslims terrorists. This is an assertion based on a bias and it is an assertion that is far from the truth. Such biases make for false allegations.

Edit: I do take issue with your notion that western nations must act to ensure that the third world remain predictable and subjugated. I find such thinking distasteful.

Craven
I am sure at least reasonably sure if you were an Israeli citizen and lived under constant threat of being blown up by a Muslim suicide bomber, your attitudes towards Muslims would not be much different from steissd's. Consider 9/11 comes around in Israel every few weeks or less. As is said"walk a mile in my shoes"

Well, maybe there is a minor moral problem with predictable and subjugated Third World, but such a situation is very convenient and saves much mess and bloodshed in future.

OK, Europeans and Muslims are the enemies and aren't "trustworth", now I understand you?!?

If they find no W.M.D.s in Baghdad and cannot plant anything convincing, they can always blame the new S.A.R.S. virus on Saddam's biological weapons.

What happens if no WMD are found? And Saddam Hussein remains like Osama binLaden? And we are not exactly looked upon as "liberators" of Iraq? What then do we claim as victory, and what happens?

I would expect the endeavor will result neither in abject failure nor unqualified success. It is not an end in itself, it is among the processes involved.

I am reasonably sure that you are wrong. I recognize that the situation in the mideast helps perpetuate generalized hatred. This cycle is one reason that the conflict endures. I do not have to walk a mile in stiessd's shoes to note that relegating swaths of the world's population to a terrorist designation is illogical and counterproductive besides being patently false. I do not have to be there to take note of the damage that attitudes such as those on both sides cause.

I agree with Craven in this, au, and my reasons for doing so are that not all Israelis feel that way even though they are in the same predicament vis-à-vis the Muslims as is Steissd.

I feel more than just a bit put upon by American conservatives -- and I think American conservatism reeks of some very dangerous elements which I consider to be destructive of American ideals. But I don't stretch that attitude to the point where I say that ALL conservatives are loathsome.

All that being said, I do recognize that a substantial portion of Israeli citizens do feel as Steissd does -- and I recognize that a substantial portion of the Arab/Palestinian/Muslim population feels the reverse side of that coin. That is one of the reasons I suspect there will never be a reasonable peace in that area.

I used to think the majority held a vestly different position, but over the last two years I have seen a shift.

A majority supported "transfer" (ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians.

I recognize the sane and wish they return to power.

Frank you agree with Craven and also agree that most Israeli's feel the way Steissd does.
Actually I do not know what your agreement with Craven means. I only made a supposition of how he would feel were he an Israeli citizen. Do you agree he would not feel that way? So do I since he just told us so.

In my opinion, I don't think people are paying much attention to what the Palastinians are going through.

COMMENT:

This may seem like quibbling -- but it isn't.

You were insinuating that Craven would feel as Steissd would if he (Craven) were an Israeli subjected to what Israelis are subjected to.

I pointed out that not all Israelis feel as Steissd does -- EVEN THOUGH they are subjected to that stuff.

So if Craven were an Israeli, he might be one of lthe open minded ones.

He said he didn't think (even if he were an Israeli) that all Muslims are terrorists. And I take him at his word.

I don't think I would, either.

And I think the position "All Muslims are terrorists" is absurd.

Frank
What if I were to say that supporting terrorism is akin to being a terrorist. And by and large most Arabs support terrorism. As evidenced by the dancing in the streets on the occasion of terrorist acts.



Please note I said reasonably sure I did not insinuate. Craven said no and I accept that I was mistaken. I was of course basing it on my own opinions.

Au

I think nothing useful is served by getting into all that stuff.

But the thoughts that come immediately to mind are:

What you might call "terrorism" -- another might call "methods of last resort."

Dropping an atomic bomb in the middle of a city filled with civilians -- many of whom were just children and babies -- could qualify as "terrorism" -- but it can also be rationalized as "necessary, all things considered."

Many of the so-called "terroristic activities" of Muslims, disgusting and repelant as they may be to you or me -- really represent a "this is all that is left for us to do" by many.

I have debated many Israelis -- and Jews who support Israel -- over the years -- and I cannot tell you how many times the Israeli or Jew supporting Israel said: "We will do anything and everything to allow Israel to continue in existence."

When I've questioned them about the scope of "everything and anything" -- most merely reiterated "anything and everything."

People who are desparate do very violent things.

Craven has stated he WOULD NOT be a terrorist. It was not a qualified statement. I am saying I WOULD NOT be a terrorist. I am not qualifying that.

Instead of trying to re-phrase the statement, maybe it would be better to simply take our word for it -- and drop the subject.

IN MY OPINION -- nothing would cause me to say that ALL MUSLIMS are terrorist -- which, after all, is the position being defended.

Streissd was wrong on that -- no matter the provocation.