Evidence!

[MaxiMog]

So the USA has evidence that Iraq is making weapons of mass destruction. Now there\'s two possible uses of the evidence collected: you can either go to war NOW (violation of the resolution), OR you can give the inspectors MORE time now that they what specifically to look for! What do you people think?

Honestly, I\'m a bit dissappointed! If USA had shown the world the evidence earlier, it might have been of good use to the inspectors. Now there\'s only little time left. Have they refused showing it earlier so that war would be unavoidable?

Sadam has to get out of there, everyone will agree. But war isn\'t a necessity! Not only will thousands of innocent people die (don\'t tell me you\'ve forgotten 9/11. The only difference is that it will not be US people), the war is estimated to cost 200 billion dollars, money that better off being spent on something else .

[franki]

\"you can either go to war NOW (violation of the resolution)\"

I doubt that is against the resolution. I think Iraq already has had lots of time to meet the resolutions. IMO Resolution 1441 is enough to attack.

\"OR you can give the inspectors MORE time now that they what specifically to look for! What do you people think? \"

This has been going on for years. Why would the inspectors need more time?

\"If USA had shown the world the evidence earlier, it might have been of good use to the inspectors.\"

I guess the intelligence agencies have been sharing information with the inspectors in the past. How else would they know what to inspect?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[a.k.a.]

Evidence? Are you kidding? Did you actually watch Powell’s presentation, with that thing that kept popping up “Iraq: Failure to Disarm... Denial and Deception”, and that menacing little vial of “anthrax” being waved around. (How cheesy.) And all that talk about sources: defectors, detainees (you know, those guys being tortured in Guantanamo. Very reliable. Right.). Spiffy drawings. Grainy satellite photos (anybody remember how Bush I got the Saudis to think Saddam was amassing troops to attack Arabia with doctored satellite photos?)

It was all media spectacle. Just like Aschroft’s “Orange Alert”. Al-Qaida is supposedly planning an attack on America (“Confirmed by multiple sources”. Right) to coincide with an annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. Talk about stirring up racist paranoia.

This is just like the Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell’s “1984”. Nobody’s trying to present evidence that is going to appeal to anybody’s reason. It’s psych-ops. It’s trying to displace all the frustrations and uncertainties of living in Fortress America onto the latest Satan figure. (Where IS Osama by the way?)

But let’s be realistic. Let’s say you were the unscrupulous leader of a war ravaged country, suffering 11 years of inhuman sanctions. And lets say the most powerful Empire in the history of the world, with a 40 year record of military interventions, was amassing its forces in preparation to invade your country and steal your oil reserves — the only wealth you had left. What would you do? Disarm?

So let’s pretend, amidst all that media spin, the Bush regime did manage to get it’s hands on a few scraps of evidence. Clause 10 of Security Council Resolution 1441 , \"Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes.\"

So if the US really did have evidence, by waiting until the inspectors left to bring it forth, it failed to comply with Resolution 1441. Does that give anybody the right to bomb Washington? (I hope not.)

[Wolfe]

\"defectors, detainees (you know, those guys being tortured in Guantanamo. Very reliable. Right.).\"

do YOU have evidence of this statement? I bet not!!

[Elana]

If given the opportunity...I would help torture those f#ckers in Guantanamo!

[upsidedown]

I agree with Wolfe. You talk like you have better insight into what\'s going on in the world than the CIA, the U.S. government, and the other governments in the world who are over there spying on Iraq.

Powell\'s evidence was \"cheesy?\" So, I\'m guessing that you\'re evidence to back up your opinions and points is more reliable, thorough and less cheesy than Powell\'s? If so then let us hear it and be sure to disclose your sources for your evidence to back up your points.

Keep in mind that the most solid evidence they have is still secret. They didn\'t want to disclose it and jeopardize their sources.

[Elana]

How does one become a terrorist sympathizer? It\'s shocking to me how much compassion some people have for the monsters who are causing our whole world to fall apart.

[franki]

We are talking about a country, Iraq, not about a group of terrorists like Al-Qaeda. I have to agree with AKA that the connections between Saddam and the terrorist groups as shown by Powell are not really convincing.

On the other hand, that doesn\'t mean the threat by Iraq is less dangerous. I think that even without those terrorist connections there is enough reason to consider an attack on Iraq.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

<<And all that talk about sources: defectors, detainees (you know, those guys being tortured in Guantanamo. Very reliable. Right.).>>

I am talking about A.K.A\'s comment. That is a group of terrorists, is it not?

[franki]

IMhO, to call the war against Iraq a part of the \"War against Terrorism\" is mainly a way of marketing the war to the American public.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

You can call it \"skipping in the park\" for all I care. We need to disarm the freak before he kills us. Nobody needs to \"sell\" me anything. I have been following Mid East politics for years. 9/11 was no surprise to me. It doesn\'t mean I want to live through it again.

[franki]

\" <<And all that talk about sources: defectors, detainees (you know, those guys being tortured in Guantanamo. Very reliable. Right.).>>

I am talking about A.K.A\'s comment. That is a group of terrorists, is it not? \"

Yes, that is a group of terrorists. But we are talking about the connections of terrorists to the country of Iraq.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

<<Yes, that is a group of terrorists. But we are talking about the connections of terrorists to the country of Iraq.>>

Oh...OK...Well Saddam pays something like $20.000 to each family of a suicide bomber. Is that a connection to terrorism?

[franki]

Yes that is. I hope he hasn\'t supplied any terrorists with biological or chemical weapons.

It is not clear though if Saddam had much to do with 9/11. It could very well be that he was involved in there too, but afaik there is no information on that.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

Just for the record...I have voted Democrat my entire life, so I am not some war monger jumping on the conservative band wagon. I am just way too aware of how dangerous these people are to sit back and think this disease will cure itself.

[upsidedown]

In the end, any connections to Al Queda are unnecessary for stopping Saddam. The main reaasons are that Ssaddam is a tyrant who is hurting his own people, and building weapons of mass destruction in violation of the terms he agreed to in order so save his own hide back in the first war. His refulsal to disarm and his efforts to hide it are the main reasons behind the pressure on him.

[MaxiMog]

Must read!

This is dated januari 7th, and the \'evidence\' provided since a few days does little to neutralize what\'s written here.

There are alternatives to war in Iraq

By SEAN GONSALVES
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

How do you explain the president\'s threat to invade Iraq, in keeping with the \"preventive\" war prescription laid out in the September 2002 National Security Strategy Directive, while he talks about diplomacy in dealing with North Korea?

That United States policy-makers are preparing for war against an Iraqi military that analysts say we can easily crush while going the diplomatic route with North Korea -- a country we can\'t beat up on as easily -- is evidence of an ugly principle at work: might makes right.

The contrast between the course of action being followed in the Near East versus the Machiavellian power moves being made in the Middle East reveals the bankruptcy of the war-is-our-only-option idea and affirms what the popular clergyman and author Max Lucado points out: \"Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional.\"

How to deal with North Korea? A good starting point would be a re-evaluation of questionable policy decisions made over the past few decades, as East Asian specialist Chalmers Johnson suggested last week.

Johnson argues that U.S. policy-makers have enflamed tensions in the region through our rebuff of South Korean President Kim Dae-jung\'s peace initiative, President Bush\'s \"axis of evil\" remark in his 2002 State of the Union speech and the National Security Strategy supporting \"preventive\" war.

Why is South Korea complaining more about U.S. policy than about its kin to the north? Johnson says it\'s largely because South Korea is \"a genuine democracy, created in 1987 when Koreans revolted against 25 years of American-supported military dictators. The United States still has more than 100 military bases in South Korea. . . . How would we feel if it were reversed?

\"Another source of resentment is the South Korean economic meltdown a few years ago, which was essentially caused by the IMF, largely controlled by the U.S. government. South Korea has recovered brilliantly but it still resents American interference and arrogance.\"

What about Iraq? Let\'s be clear. This isn\'t about when we should go to war. We\'ve been at war with Iraq since 1991. The economic blockade, coupled with regular bombings in the no-fly zones, is war.

Critics of the peace movement ask what\'s the alternative to war in Iraq? It must be a rhetorical question because I can think of six off the top of my head.

* Allow the weapons inspectors to do their job, which includes sharing intelligence with Hans Blix, pointing out where the smoking guns are being hidden by Saddam, if, in fact there are any.

* Keep the weapons sanctions in place but immediately lift the economic embargo -- an 11-year-old failed policy that has only further entrenched Saddam while killing a half-million Iraqi children under the age of 5 in a country that prior to the Gulf War was a nation whose biggest pediatric problem was childhood obesity.

* Pledge to rebuild the civilian infrastructure U.S. bombs destroyed in Iraq during the 1991 war, which is what has been fueling Iraq\'s incredible infant morality rate. Damaged and destroyed water-treatment facilities, plus the use of depleted uranium weapons, has led to a humanitarian crisis in which little children are dying of preventable water-borne diseases and related birth defects.

* Have the Bush administration sign on to the International Criminal Court and pursue an indictment of Saddam for crimes against humanity, which would gain the support of the international community for a multi-national coalition force to apprehend Saddam, if necessary.

* Investigate potential punitive action against the U.S. corporations that sold and profited from the sale of nuclear, chemical and biological materials as well as missile technology to Iraq during the period when Saddam was committing the atrocities that made him infamous and is the historical \"proof\" upon which the Bush administration justifies its \"preventive\" war doctrine.

* Fully and fairly implement U.N. Resolution 661, which calls not only for the disarmament of Iraq\'s weapons of mass destruction but stipulates that the Middle East be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That means, of course, insisting that Israel rid itself of its nukes.

* Apply international pressure on the Israeli government to dismantle all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, establish a viable Palestinian state and deploy an international peace-keeping force to separate the two sides.

* And finally, keep in mind the thoughts of two esteemed statesmen. The late Yitzhak Rabin said, \"Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies.\" Nelson Mandela adds: \"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.\"

[Wolfe]

terrorist or not, saddam is another hitler , now if hitler had had a atom bomb think he would have used it??..damn right he would have, just as saddam will. did hitler kill innocent ppl?/..damn right he did,,so does saddam. so terriost or not, it\'s time the oppressed ppl of his country where freed from his tyranny no matter what else may or may not actually be going on that one thing alone says it\'s time to stop him and free those ppl.

[MaxiMog]

<<<terrorist or not, saddam is another hitler , now if hitler had had a atom bomb think he would have used it??..damn right he would have, just as saddam will. did hitler kill innocent ppl?/..damn right he did,,so does saddam. so terriost or not, it\'s time the oppressed ppl of his country where freed from his tyranny>>>

Couldn\'t agree more! But killing tens of thousands of those innocent people in an attempt to make them become free isn\'t the right way to do so! That\'s why IMO we must avoid war at all costs! Avoiding war isn\'t necessarily equivalent to letting Sadam do whatever he wants.

[franki]

So what is your solution for stopping Saddam? Obviously, talking to him doesn\'t work.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

they been \'talking\' to him 10 yrs, sometimes ya have to bite the bullet and just get it done..that time has come. which country you live in?..germany or france?.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

AKA, I\'m so glad to see you again.

[a.k.a.]

Well... I certainly am sorry for having disrupted this little consensus on the merits of genocide. (Not.) And I don\'t plan to spend much time on this \"debate\". Anybody with access to this board obviously has access to the same information I do (an internet connection and a google search engine). Of course this takes a BIT more work than parroting the opinions of the corporate media, but I don\'t think that\'s the issue (you all managed to find the best place to buy pheromones just fine). I think what\'s lacking is a passion for truth, the courage to question authority, compassion for the people of Iraq, or some combination thereof.

Wolfe,
They say a picture\'s worth a thousand words, so check this out:

http://www.worldpress.org/africa/0402eastafrican.htm (\"http://www.worldpress.org/africa/0402eastafrican.htm\")

As the article says, sensory deprivation is a form of torture. But if you doubt my word on this, you might be swayed by the opinions of Terry Waite (a former hostage in Beirut) who has some experience in this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/waite1.html (\"http://www.counterpunch.org/waite1.html\")

For gorier allegations check out this article by the VP of the National Lawyer\'s Guild:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew94.php (\"http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew94.php\")

I don\'t know where you get your opinions and why my comments sound as if the came from Mars. But if you think I\'m the only one with concerns over the treatment of detainees check out Amnesty International\'s opinion: http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/AMR510532002 (\"http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/AMR510532002\")

And, please, in the future, don\'t expect me to do your homework for you.

Elena,
At least you\'re honest about where your ethics stand, but among civilized people information obtained under duress is considered unreliable. (Because people have a tendency to say whatever the interrogator wants to hear. Duh.) If appealing to this principle makes me a \"terrorist sympathizer\" in your eyes, you\'ve already closed your mind to any further debate on this issue.

upsidedown,
I don\'t doubt the CIA and U.S. government have more information on Iraq\'s weapons capacity than I do. I doubt that they are telling us the truth about what they know because a) they have a long record of telling lies to justify military interventions, b) the energy syndicate that financed the Bush administration has had its eyes on Iraqi oil reserves since before George W. was selected, and c) manipulating public opinion is one of the longstanding traditions of all governments throughout history. Questioning government propaganda is called \"critical thinking\" and it\'s what we would expect from the people of other nations if their government was trying to justify an invasion of our shores.

I wouldn\'t call Powell\'s evidence \"cheesy\". (I would call it \"flaky\".) What I call \"cheesy\" is the blatant use of carnival sideshow tricks to sway opinion. Like waving around those anthrax spores. The Iraqi chemical weapons program was geared toward producing the cheep liquid form. The stuff Powell was waving around, and the stuff that showed up in DC, is the higher grade powder form produced in US labs. In grifter terminology, this is called the old \"bait and switch\". I\'m sorry you fell for it, but please don\'t act like I\'M the one trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

You want me to provide evidence that backs up my points. I wonder if you understand what my points ARE. Because it\'s more a question of logic than inside information. But I\'ll try to do my best:

Firstly, I mentioned that Powell\'s presentation was geared toward providing evocative pretexts rather than a solid assessment of Iraq\'s threat to the world. Evidence of this is the presentation itself. Did you watch it? If so, what did YOU make of that slogan that kept flashing on the screen? Didn\'t that strike you as odd? Manipulative maybe? What about that picture of a building with trucks around it? Powell SAID this was proof of chemical weapons being transported. But did you see any chemical weapons? Could ANYBODY POSSIBLY see chemical weapons in those photos?
Powell said, in a menacing tone, \"We know that Saddam Hussein has what is called quote, \'a higher committee for monitoring the inspections teams,\' unquote. Think about that.\"
What is that about? Is it an international crime to monitor foreigner\'s on your soil?
Then he showed a bunch of computer generated pictures (not photographs mind you) and boldly stated that Iraq has mobile chemical weapons plants. This is an alegation that the US has already made and Hans Blix has already discounted. How do a bunch of computer generated pictures change any of that?
Do you see what I\'m getting at? It\'s not that I have any inside information that you don\'t. It\'s that Powell didn\'t show anybody anything that carried any weight on its own. You had to take his word on it. And you had to be oblivious to all the carney tricks he used in making his case.
No. Wait. There were those three intercepted transmissions. Two of them were open to interpretation and the third clearly stated (if we trust the arabic translators) \"remove the term \'nerve agents\' from wireless transmissions\". Curiously, the other two transmissions had a date stamp on them. This one didn\'t. Could it be that this one was intercepted prior to 1996? Maybe. Maybe not. I\'m suspicious. You\'re trusting.
So maybe it simply comes down to that. I hope you noticed that I didn\'t claim Iraq had no chemical weapons. (Obviously, I don\'t have that kind of information.) I merely stated that Powell didn\'t really prove anything.

Secondly, I mentioned that the US was preparing an invasion and it wasn\'t really in Saddam\'s interest to disarm? Do I really need to offer evidence of that? Just tune in to any station or open any newspaper and you will see that war is immanent.

Thirdly, I mentioned that IF the US had information it had a duty to disclose it to the UN inspectors. I already mentioned the clause pertaining to this issue. What more evidence do you want?

FTR,
Good to see you too. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Wolfe]

LMAO, what a silly thing.(the pic) what did you expect??? club med?,,jezz

their PRISONERS of WAR, what they supposed to be doing ??.playing golf??

[Wolfe]

and btw, what bleeding hearts think means damn little to me. go back to tree hugging.

[Elana]

Well, you changed my mind. Now I can sleep well at night. /ubbthreads/images/icons/crazy.gif All I had to do was read that stuff you posted and now I realize that we are safe from Saddam and all of radical Islam. Phew! We really don\'t need to do anything after all.

Seriously AKA....what do you suggest we do?

[Elana]

MaxiMog- I read your alternatives to war in Iraq.

Just look at the first one...

* Allow the weapons inspectors to do their job, which includes sharing intelligence with Hans Blix, pointing out where the smoking guns are being hidden by Saddam, if, in fact there are any.

How do you suggest we make Saddam and his freak show let the inspectors do their job? Should we just ask them politely? Why didn\'t we think of that sooner? /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

[a.k.a.]

Elena,
OK. I said I wasn’t going to waste a lot of time on this thread. But your question made me realize I left a few important things unsaid.

I DO think the threat posed by Saddam is VASTLY overrated. (I would think this is a simple deduction. His forces were easily crushed at the peak of his power. So how could he possibly be MORE of a threat after more than a decade of crippling sanctions.) But I’m not about to say America is safe from harm. Far from it. Attacks could come from anywhere at any time. Islamicism is just the tip of the iceberg and 9/11 doesn\'t begin to foretell the horrors that could befall us. And invading Iraq is going to give even more people cause to do us harm.

The fallacy is in thinking that Big Brother (or anybody else) can protect us from any of this. Yes, al-Qaeda is out to get us and no doubt Saddam Hussein would like to cause a bit of damage — if he could. But that doesn’t begin to encompass the full scope of resentment and desperation that US foreign policy has been cultivating since WWII. And then there’s the breakdown of our own society: murder in the schoolyards, snipers in DC, gangs, mass murderers, White Supremicsts... and let’s not forget Oklahoma City.

Realism begins with the realization that nobody’s safe anymore. This is the world that Power built and it’s not going to change by holding hands and singing songs. But neither is it going to change by waging genocide on a helpless people. I would think that 9/11 was living proof that National Security is just a big con that the government is playing on the American people (in pursuit of its own agenda of world domination). But I guess Americans want to cling to some sense of security — no matter how illusory. (Although I believe statistics on anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, suicide, etc. reveal that we all basically understand — at some level — that the game is up.)

I DO believe that — given a concerted, and perhaps heroic effort — we could POSSIBLY undo the damages and provide a reasonable measure of security for people born two or three generations from now. This would require acceptance of the basic principle that no ONE can be reasonably assured of security unless ALL (including Arabs) are assured of security. This means acceptance of International Courts, Rule of Law, a ban on chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, an end to the arms trade, a global carbon emissions treaty... (In other words, just the sort of things the current administration is opposed to.)

But I can’t GUARANTEE that there is a way out of our current predicament. The measures I’m suggesting have to be taken on their own right. Because they are rational and just and humane.

The only CERTAINTY is that the current path (of war, unilateralism, and domination) leads to inevitable Doom for all parties involved. Just look at the history of Israel and see where its policies have gotten it. Bush & Co. want to play the same game on a world scale, with much higher stakes. This is madness, plain and simple.

[Gerund]

If I thought you were right, I\'d agree with you. However, your posts are but beautiful examples of pseudo-intellectualism.

Your composition is better than most; you can spell, punctuate, and use topic sentences. The reasonableness of your tone and smoothness of your transitions make for almost pleasant reading, if it wasn\'t for the content. Someone taught you well, and/or you learned how to express yourself in writing.

The shame is that you haven\'t acquired critical thinking skills. You don\'t understand that clear expression, in and of itself, does not cause content to somehow become magically valid or worthwhile. You are seduced by your own verbiage.

You speak very fondly of what is plain and simple, and are enamored of certainties and fallacies, etc. -- and you give into the belief that the employment of such noble terms and concepts must result in credible content. In doing so, you give in to wishful thinking.

Experience has shown me that a point-by-point critique will not be productive, so I will make one observation of what I consider to be your overriding weakness: you are either unwilling or unable to keep the big picture in mind, or take into account multiple facets of an issue or the history behind it. Apparently, you can focus on only one concept or concern at a time. When you address that one idea, you proceed is if everything else is unrelated and irrelevant.

Your analyses are simple and naive.

[Watcher]

Mr Bush WILL GO IN 100% IN THE END, I SAY GET IT OVER AND DONE WITH PLEASE SO THE WORLD CAN FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. Other than a series of events that are destroying world equity markets. Go invade china for all i care.

[seadove]

>>>I SAY GET IT OVER AND DONE WITH PLEASE SO THE WORLD CAN FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE.>>>

Yeah, I second that.And by \"something else\" I sure hope you mean other terrorists lurking about in the Middle East and elsewhere.Terrorists must be stopped, NOT by just talking about how terrible they are for mankind but by gross actions, similar to the one awaiting Saddam within a short period (I hope).

[franki]

AKA, I don\'t understand why you use the word \"genocide\". Is the US-Army going to kill a whole population ??

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

Gerund, that is a nice way of talking people down. /ubbthreads/images/icons/mad.gif

I don\'t share AKA\'s point of view, but I have a lot of sympathy for him and not for you because of the way you criticise people. That post is similar to the message you posted in the thread about medicine prescription: tasteless and rather misplaced.

\"However, your posts are but beautiful examples of pseudo-intellectualism. \"

Pseudo-intellectualism? Maybe that rather applies to your posts.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Lucky]

Gerund,
What big picture did aka miss?

<you are either unwilling or unable to keep the big picture in mind>

[Wolfe]

i wanna make something very clear here about me personally. This link you gave for a picture is as meaningless as tits on a boar hog. all one can CLEARLY see is prisonars kneeling, as to whats written in the artical thats dribble as far as i\'m concerned as those men could just as easily be kneeling in prayer and you sure couldn\'t tell it just from the photo. Anyone can write any thing they wanna to represent or misrepresent with words, so simple stated, if i can\'t see it clearly for myself, i have a very difficult time believing it. It\'s simple to twist facts to suit ones purposes and make it out to be something it isn\'t. I\'ve seen goverments/politians/reporters and even plain every day joes twist the truth to suit themselves to many times to believe the \'surface\' of anything from anyone...and if anyone believes what they see on the surface, they\'re just another sheep in the flock being lead around.

[a.k.a.]

Wolfe,

You are an interesting case indeed. Please do me a favor. Free associate on these and tell me if \"prayer\" comes up. (I\'m sure I would be praying. And I\'m an atheist.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2428147.stm (\"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2428147.stm\")

Let me explain how this is done. First you go to Google. Then you enter the words \"Guantanamo+photographs\".(Yes. There\'s more.) And, for your information, the US Government refuses to consider them \"Prisoners of War\". (This would require that their conditions be governed under the Geneva convention.)
For your own good, when you have a moment, reflect on your own opinions and ask yourself. \"Do I put as much research into understanding the world as I do in finding the best pheromones, the coolest MP3\'s, the hottest porn, etc.?\"

gerund,
I\'m sorry. Did you say something? Or was that just a gust of hot air blowing past my face?

[a.k.a.]

franki,
You’re right. According to Webster’s “genocide” = “the DELIBERATE and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group”

What I mean to say is “the INCIDENTAL and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group”. (I don’t think destroying the Iraqis is the MOTIVE. But I do believe it will be the CONSEQUENCE.) This is according to a report published by Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The report addresses the human costs of conventional, as well as nuclear war. And it seems to me even a conventional war would spell the end of a very ancient culture.

Here’s a link to a single page summation with further links to the actual report:

http://www.medact.org (\"http://www.medact.org\")

[a.k.a.]

OK. That’s all the politics anybody will read from me. Thanks for letting me get it all out of my system. My conscience is clear, and now I’m ready to get back to discussing the pleasures and uses of pheromones.

:)

[Wolfe]

ya dont get it, i\'d have to care what happened to scum like that first.

[Watcher]

Assansinate mr hussien and replace him with another leader, even if the american high command has to install itself as the leadership of IRAQ - Japan post 1945 style.
Heck in 10 years after turkey is admitted to NATO why not include IRAQ in NATO - as an american territory.
perhaps the 51st state of america then the world can have as much cheap oil as it wants and the US can put nuke missles in a defensive sense right into the middle of bagdad (of course they would belong to the USA in defense of a possible attack from bin laden in afganistan.)

[Wolfe]

i dont believe that we have that right, to free a oppressed ppl that need help is one thing, to take over thier country entirely is another, if that was our policy we\'d own 1/2 the world already. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif think about it, we whipped france, england, germany,japan,mexico and because canada belonged to england when we whipped them that would be ours too, as would most all of western europe( here because if we hadnt helped out, hitler would have made it all germany). and you think our taxes are high now, heh
but on a serious note, it\'s a mess to say the least, no one likes war, but then no one likes to be dictated too either(and in a way if we just sit back and let ppl like osama and hussian do what they do(and there are some others damn close to those too) then we are doing just that. letting them run our lifes- lifes BTW, that given time, would be lived in total fear as to when they would strike next, and where.
now to clear up another matter, on torture, i have no probs with that..hell, i\'m a indian and it was a specility of my ppl to do /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Trust me, it\'s a damn good thing ppl are protected by law as there have been a few in life i\'d loved to have staked out over a ant hill and chatted with them for a day.(well, till the ants filled thier mouths anyways)
now on the brighter side, i\'ve mellowed with age /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Gerund]

Jeez, Franki -- I watched him go on for three posts before I said anything. I did talk down to him, but he had it coming. And if you think my post to him was condescending, consider these verbatim excerpts from those three posts of his:

*****************

\"Well... I certainly am sorry for having disrupted this little consensus on the merits of genocide. (Not.)\"

\"And, please, in the future, don\'t expect me to do your homework for you.\"

\"Elena,
At least you\'re honest about where your ethics stand, but among civilized people information obtained under duress is considered unreliable.\"

\"Anybody with access to this board obviously has access to the same information I do ...Of course this takes a BIT more work than parroting the opinions of the corporate media...\"

\"You want me to provide evidence that backs up my points. I wonder if you understand what my points ARE.\"

*************************

Holy cow! Do you still have sympathy for him because of the way I criticized him? I doubt if I could match him for pure arrogance, and I didn\'t resort to sarcasm.

[Wolfe]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[a.k.a.]

Gerund,
All true. But proving I\'m an [bad word] doesn\'t prove I\'m wrong.

[franki]

You make me laugh Gerund. /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Gerund]

Stay tuned~

[Elana]

<<Gerund,
All true. But proving I\'m an [bad word] doesn\'t prove I\'m wrong.>>

So you proved that you are an [bad word], and I\'m still not sure what your point was. Maybe you could start selling raffle tickets here and with the money you raise you can put together fruit baskets for the prisoners at Guantanamo. That would keep your conscience clear, wouldn\'t it? Free free to question my ethics. As strange as this may sound, I am a bit more concerned with the victims of 9/11 than the monsters that caused that nightmare.

[Wolfe]

~Kiss~ /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif