Speaking my brains...

[headrock6]

Jose,are we gonna go through this again??

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
My point was... when have terrorists used weapons of mass destruction? they manage to cause monumental, horrific damage with nothing more than a 75p craft knife....... yes, they could have released VX into the twin towers or the pentagon, they could have killed a lot of people........ but it would have been a dam sight easier to deal with than two jumbo jets packed with fuel and passengers.).

They never have..Buts thats only cuz they cant get thier hands on them,yet..They would have used VX,Sarin,Ricin,Anthrax,or any other chemical or biological weapon if they were accesible to them..9/11 with planes caused a little over 3000 deaths..A successful chemical attack could kill up to 30,000+..Big difference..

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
My point was..... "you can remove all of the weapons of mass destruction, but the terrorists greatest weapon is fanaticism........half a dozen fanatics willing to die and armed from a DIY shop can commit an atrocy equal to a couple of million dollars worth of chemical/biological weapons.
Before we start panicking about chemical and biological weapons, worry about the nutter three doors down who'll drive a petrol tanker into a school bus. There ya' go, try and take that one out of context.

While thier greatest weapon is fanaticism,there greatest goal is to inflict as many deaths as possible..A half of dozen fanatics could cause damage,but your seriously dillusional if you think they could cause more damage than 6 fanatics armed with a few gallons of VX...9/11 would look pretty compared to what a chemical attack would look like...And driving as petrol tanker into a school bus??How bout driving a tanker filled with VX into the heart of Times Square and spraying it into the streets..You tell me which one sounds like a better idea to a terrorist??I dont think youll find anyone who would choose the first..

You keep dismissing chemical weapons as if thier not relevant to terrorists aspirations..They would like nothing more that to have them and unleash the hell that they bring on innocent people around the world..Dont you think Al Qaeda could have just strapped a few bombs on themselves and walked into a McDonalds if thats what they wanted to do??Thats effective but not really in line with their ultimate goal..Huge operations resulting in thousands of deaths is what they want..And they will plan for years and years to accomplish those goals as weve seen with 9/11...

 

[Mark/Static]

Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
Actually I made that point....... but it was taken out of context from a larger statement. My point was... when have terrorists used weapons of mass destruction? they manage to cause monumental, horrific damage with nothing more than a 75p craft knife....... yes, they could have released VX into the twin towers or the pentagon, they could have killed a lot of people........ but it would have been a dam sight easier to deal with than two jumbo jets packed with fuel and passengers. I never blamed box cutters (my post was just cut to make it look that way).
My point was..... "you can remove all of the weapons of mass destruction, but the terrorists greatest weapon is fanaticism........half a dozen fanatics willing to die and armed from a DIY shop can commit an atrocy equal to a couple of million dollars worth of chemical/biological weapons.
Before we start panicking about chemical and biological weapons, worry about the nutter three doors down who'll drive a petrol tanker into a school bus. There ya' go, try and take that one out of context.

I see your point.
Don't fixate on WMD when it's their fanaticism that is the most dangerous weapon they can possess.
Is that about right?
The only thing I would say is that; the reason they are called terrorists, is because they want to cause terror, and a chemical or biological attack would accomplish that like no other. Because of that, the lure of WMD for a terrorist is irresistible.

 

[Justin Owen]

Jose I understand your point...however the war against those who "would be" terrorists is not and can not be fought on only one front. It must be fought on several.

Terrorist organizations would cream over WMD...we know this. They want them, so we try to keep them from having them. If they had them, their goals would be far easier realized. But keeping them from WMD only solves part of the problem because as you pointed out, fanaticism is the root of the problem.

That's where we have to go after those who would use WMD before they ever get the chance to use them...or anything else, for that matter...such as jet planes and box cutters. Diplomatic dealings with people who refuse to act diplomatically is ineffective, has been, and always will be.

The danger with folks like Saddam is that SHOULD HE/THEY aquire WMD, he becomes a horrific player in the game with a much more powerful poker hand. We know he wants 'em, we know his history, and what must be done for safety's sake is abundantly clear.

There are weapons of mass destruction all over the globe and the majority of them are not considered worrysome by the rest of the world. I don't go to sleep at night fearing that the Brits will nuke Washington or that the newly elected president of some South American country will invade Texas for the cows.

The fear, for me, comes in the thought of someone like Saddam getting them. Fanaticism with opportunity...that's the danger.

Lotsa love to all,
~J~

 

[Justin Owen]

>>>> And 1 thing more. I agree in some point with you in the fact that I don't care for the reasons. People are gonna die. That's enough for me to disagree.<<<<

If this was the sole basis for our actions or lack thereof, the world would be ruled under a Nazi flag...or worse...because the bad guys don't play by that rule. There are times to fight...times to say "no more." This is one of them. The possibilities birthed by permitting this man to remain in power are too horrific to consider logically. Inaction is allowance, and if he stays in power and lives long enough to see to it, you can bet the death toll by his action (and our inaction) would be...well, we'd regret ever turning a blind eye to him.

~J~

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by duffistuta
I was staying out too, 'til Jay mentioned the elite republican guard, and then - in homage to Uncle Bill - I had to chime in...

"Remember how it started, they kept talking about 'the Elite Republican Guard' in these hushed tones like these guys were the bogeymen or something. Yeah, we're doing well now, but we have yet to face-THE ELITE REPUBLICAN GUARD. Like these guys were twelve feet tall, desert warriors. KRRASH. NEVER LOST A BATTLE! KRRASH. WE **** BULLETS!

Yeah, well, after two months of continuous carpet bombings and not one reaction at all from them, they became simply, 'the Republican Guard.' Not nearly as elite as we may have led you to believe.

And after another month of bombing, they went from 'the Elite Republican Guard' to 'the Republican Guard' to 'the Republicans made this **** up about there being guards out there'.

RIP

And heres the final result Duff

 

[crom-dubh]

Do you think that this war would have happened if 9/11 had never happened? Probably not.

which then makes arguments about Saddam being a tyrant to his own people a moot point.

I know a lot of peoples problem is that most of the world has been dealing with terror groups for a very long time. It is a new concept to the US to have to deal with it on their own soil. But until that terrible day happened, the US were quite happy to let everyone get on with their terrorist problems. But now it has happened to the US then everyone has to back them in whatever they feel are nessecary steps to ensure it doesnt happen again.

What will public reaction be in the States when the body count of US troops gets too high? I think a lot of people think this war will be a push over, but remember its a different thing fighting conscripts who dont really care about the outcome than fighting Republican Guard who are in for some rough times if Saddam is ousted. Prosecuted for war crimes? Reprisals from the iraqi population? Like Buddha said before the battle for Baghdad is gonna be real messy. It certainly wont be the best of times to find out that Saddam does indeed posess chemical or biological weapons.

Even after the war, what then? With Iraq destabalized, Iran will flourish. They have already promised that Isreal is numero uno on their list if and when they get their hands on nuclear weapons.

I think its a case of "too much too late" here. Whatever happens in Iraq, it will not do anything to stop fundamentalist terror groups. If anything it will give them more reason to see the US and now Britain as THE enemy.

 

[Mark/Static]

hmm...

Originally posted by Solonor
OK ,so If I understand right we shouldn't give a **** anymore about the U.N. cuz it has made so many stupid mistakes. Let's all trust the U.S. ,right?

If you want to trust the UN with your nations security, that's up to you. We tried, they failed. We are not asking for anyone to take a leap of faith here, least of all Greece. ****, France just declared that they have our back if Saddam uses chemical weapons against our troops, talk about a leap. Then again we always knew where their faith lied.

Originally posted by Solonor
The U.S. is not after cheap oil. The U.S. is after their oil. Economists from the U.S. stated (maybe a bit dramatically) that a quick war is dollars last chance to compete agst the Euro.

How's that? Guess you never heard of a money-market?

Originally posted by Solonor
I agree in some point with you in the fact that I don't care for the reasons. People are gonna die. That's enough for me to disagree.

People ARE dying in Iraq at the hands of Saddam right now, and for the past 30 years. If we don't take him out they will continue to die. That is an absolute certainty. Can we agree on that?
When we go in we will eventually end that. Some civilians will unfortunately get killed in the invasion, I'm sure Saddam will see to that one way or another. A few will die during the occupation for various reasons; scores being settled amongst the Iraqis, ethnic groups having at one another, maybe a few terrorist bombs to help stir up some ****. All of this combined will pale in comparison to the reign of Saddam and his sons.
If you disagree because people WILL die, how do you agree with keeping Saddam in power when people HAVE, ARE, and WILL continue to die?

 

[Gyroscope]

Jose,are we gonna go through this again??

Originally posted by headrock6
They never have..Buts thats only cuz they cant get thier hands on them,yet..They would have used VX,Sarin,Ricin,Anthrax,or any other chemical or biological weapon if they were accesible to them..9/11 with planes caused a little over 3000 deaths..A successful chemical attack could kill up to 30,000+..Big difference..

Terrorists have used WMD before.

In Tokyo, on March 20, 1995, terrorists released sarin, an organophosphate (OP) nerve gas at several points in the Tokyo subway system, killing 11 and injuring more than 5,500 people.

Sorry to quibble, but I thought it might bear on the discussion to take note of this fact (reported in ENN, Lancet, many others).

This war probably would not have happened if the WTC had not been attacked and destroyed. America is the ultimate narcoleptic giant. We wouldn't have involved ourselves in WWII either, without being attacked. Sometimes, it seems we cannot conceive of the brutality that happens daily around the world until it intrudes on us directly. We are perennially naive, in part due to the thorough safety and ease of life here. That is a failure that appears consistent in our history. But when our country is roused, we consistently respond in vigorous fashion.

Long or short, we will certainly triumph in Iraq. The real challenge lies in another consistent weakness we've shown. In follow through, will we leave Iraq to grow into another future enemy, or help develope a nation that serves it's citizen's best interests and contributes to the world community? This is what America does poorly, and where we are likeliest to falter. There is a slim chance to improve the lot of 24 million Iraqis.

Perhaps I am "picking my reasons". I prefer to describe my thinking as identifying the prime difficulty.

 

[duffistuta]

>>>But it mainly has to do with the worlds security and the freedom of opressed people...And thats a good enough reason for me...

6, that is not the case, that is a coincedence. It is politically expedient, it may - depending on how post-war reconstruction goes, whether the Palestinian question is dealt with and a myriad of other factors - well lead to both those ends, let's hope so, but this war is politically expedient for the US and Britain and has NOTHING to do with freeing opressed people. Nothing.

And that's what does my head in about the west; for ****'s sake call a spade a spade; don't disguise political expediency as morality.

 

[duffistuta]

And just to throw a spanner into Bush's works

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils . . . best at being evil . . . we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.

"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool."

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs.

Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable."

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up...Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics."

Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick."

"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of "The Axis of Countries Whose Names End in 'Guay'," and accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.