Political Motivation

[Spartan198]

Agree with most of your opinions, but this I must disagree with. Michael Moore is the most obvious case in point. I'm not sure who hates Michael Moore more, the 'right' he lambasts or the 'left' he's supposed to be representing. We have Bill O'Reilly and John Ashcroft on one end and Michael Moore on the other.

IMO.

Michael Moore... I shudder at the mere mention of his name.

[Beirut]

Michael Moore... I shudder at the mere mention of his name.

Love him or hate him, he defends the one essential quality of the American way of life.

[Watchman]

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be. The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff. You wanna talk about treason,add the US Media to the list of offenders.

"What the media reports of the world disagrees with what I want to believe, so obviously the media is wrong and/or lying."

Hålla mig handen.

[Tribesman]

don't really care what it's modelled on

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be.

Xiahou has a new disciple

The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff.

woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .

And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?

Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.

Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

[Pannonian]

It's certainly interesting to read a diehard neocon at a time when even the original diehard neocons had already abandoned their original stories as untenable.

[Spartan198]

That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.

He'd been organizing mass murderings of innocent people years before even the first Gulf War. There's proof he did it during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait,as well. Maybe it hadn't been officially recognized,but he was still a war criminal nonetheless.

Do you support Bush's impeachment?

I read over that entire article (I'll look into the main articles a little later on,because there's a lot to read),and I agree with everything but the following:
2003 Invasion & Justification for Invasion -If we hadn't have gone in in 2003,we'd have eventually done it anyway. Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me. Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program. And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?
UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.

The Constitutionality for Invasion is presently irrelevant because it's been dismissed by the Federal court,with said dismissal upheld in appeal. We'll see what happens with further appeals.

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them. But I am against torture,to make that crystal clear,nor am I disputing torture and abuse cases because these horrific acts have occurred. Though I don't believe Guantanamo Bay should be closed,simply because these individuals are far too dangerous to keep on US soil.

So with a concensus of 5 agreements,3 disagreements,and 1 undecided (in addition to the 1 currently irrelevant) -- Yes,I do believe there is grounds for impeachment of President Bush.

[Spartan198]

Love him or hate him, he defends the one essential quality of the American way of life.

I have to reluctantly agree with you on that.

[Watchman]

Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program.

With what resources - material aid from the Martians ?

And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?

Of the whole list only the two latter don't rank as conventional weapons, genius. Plus last I heard there was zero evidence of Saddam having had stores of chemical weapons that hadn't gone well past their "shelf life"...

UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.

Funny thing is, IIRC it tried to get it anyway...

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them.

An extremely dubious and tendentious interpretation AFAIK only recognised by the Bush adminstration and its apologists...

[Quirinus]

Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me..

I don't know.... if a random security guy wanted to do an anal probe to you to check for dangerous objects in your rectum, would you acquecise just because you don't have dangerous objects in your rectum? Seems a flawed argument to me.

[Spartan198]

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?

woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .

You can take your bunnies,skin them,and eat them!
Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians? Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?

Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself (I left the heading in so its easy to find in the article itself:

Veracity of the memo
Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[46] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times

And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

It has become controversial for its content, which shows Bush floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke the then-leader Saddam Hussein to shoot it down, providing a pretext for America and Britain's subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out said invasion regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm.

Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

[Lemur]

Never mind. I was going to respond to the conflation of chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs, but I see others have addressed it, only to be dismissed by Spartan for reasons that passeth understanding. Carry on.

[Watchman]

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?

Reading Comprehension 101 time... what part of "the party that it is modelled on" did you miss ? The Baath was (or rather is - there's another branch in Syria IIRC) one of the so-called "Arab Socialist" parties that sprung up in the Mideast like mushrooms after rain post WW2, if memory serves.

Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians?

The tingling of my Common Sense suggests you don't quite understand the whole IED issue. They're traps, pure and simple. One goes off, it can take out a whole damn tank if there's enough explosives. The survivors aren't alive "thanks to the [casualties'] sacrifice", but simply by sheer luck and/or the blast not having been powerful enough to kill the whole lot.

But above all the issue with the IEDs is that they're dirt cheap, easy to make and, hence, ubiquitous, whereas effective countermeasures are conversely complicated, expensive, difficult to employ in the field, and always playing catch-up with the ever more creative bomb-makers.

The point is, it matters very little to the insurgents even if 80% of their nasty little toys get found and safely disposed of; the rest still net quite enough results to keep the balance very much positive.

Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Because such shiny bits doesn't matter a **** compared to all the dead people and continuing violence, nevermind now all the funny PTSD issues with returning vets, Vietnam style ?

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

You fail history class. Go read.

[Pannonian]

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

I especially liked the one that noted the need to have a centrifugal device to concentrate the material to render it weapons grade, and suggested putting the uranium into a bucket, attaching the bucket to a rope, then swinging the bucket around in the garden really, really, fast.

[Tribesman]

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?

I see your trouble with thinking extends to trouble with reading too

Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice?

Oh so you want the news to consist of lots of "soldier didn't die today" stories and ignore the ones that die .
Its funny isn't it , you throw aout a statistic about how many IEDs are safely dealt with , yet complain that the media doesn't cover it , but you can find that story repeated throughout the media .

Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Blimey you really walk into them don't ya ..can you enlighten me about how the media ran and ran with the brave selfless poster boy story and how he gave up a fortune to die bravely fighting the evil terrorists...until it emerged that it was crap , he was shot by his mates and the authorities knew it all the time they were pushing the hero nonsense to the media .

Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself

trouble reading again eh ...

This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it,

..hmmm no official source has questioned it , so that leaves the conspiracy nuts who still question it , the conspiracy nuts who think everything they read that is negative about the Iraqi fiasco is invented by the media.

And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

Woohoo well done you showed Blair to be a prick just like Bush , now all you have to do is find someone that doesn't think Blair is a prick and then you can argue with them

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

Too funny

[Spartan198]

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

Valid point,but after 9/11 here in the US (I should really change my location as I'm not fooling anyone,am I?),even downloading the instructions can constitute a threat. Granted,that doesn't necessarily apply to Iraq,but Saddam did have an active nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. So there's no doubt that he had the capability to make nuclear weapons.

Also, please note that WMDs need delivery systems. A two-ton nuclear warhead isn't much good to you if all you've got is a Datsun pickup truck. As far as delivering biological weapons goes, check out the long litany of failures from the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist cult. Boy oh boy did they try to get bio-weapons up and running. It's harder than most people think.

You do make good points. But even without a sky-borne delivery system,all that's needed to transport a warhead as such is a triple-axel truck with a covering. With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations. Believe me,my father is racist and I grew up hating that about him. That's the honest truth.),it'd be easy for a small group of soldiers to truck it into a major Kuwaiti city and set it off. Look how easy the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen (I think) was.

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

[Tribesman]

With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations.

This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .

[Watchman]

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

[Spartan198]

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat. Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.





I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here.

[Vladimir]

Oooh, Google is nice.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

[Watchman]

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.

The interwar period AFAIK, unless you count irritants like tear gas (saw some use in 'Nam AFAIK) and "collateral damage" effects from, say Agent Orange.

You know why armies don't normally bother even trying that gunk against each other ? Because since WW1 every single properly equipped and trained one made sure its soldiers knew the basic countermeasures and had at least rudimentary protective equipement, which by itself already pretty much negates the purely military usefulness of biochemical weapons. Quite simply, the results are not worth the trouble and effort that goes into deploying the stuff in combat.

Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

Did you know, the spiral into the nightmarish gas warfare of WW1 actualy escalated from the use of tear gas against bunkers...?

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.

Terrorist movements also have a lot easier time finding people to carry out such kamikaze attacks with than regular armies... Not to mention that it's *way* easier to put together enough conventional explosives "on scene" than drive them, nevermind now a damn nuke, over the bloody border - especially one as tense as that between Iraq and Kuwait.

The point of the exercise would also be very questionable anyway.

I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here.

Given that your original topic was all about politics in general and those around the Iraq war in particular, I don't see where you get away trying to play martyr.
Don't tell me you're surprised the discussion soon veered this way, especially as IIRC you've been one of the main instigators of that.

[Furious Mental]

Yes, as far as modern battlefield use goes chemical weapons are not much more than a temporary area denial weapon, like a mine field that the wind will blow away after a couple of days.

On which topic, land mines are a much nastier and more indiscriminate weapon. But the weapons on which the most attention should be focused are small arms, because they are the easiest to obtain and use and hence make the biggest contribution to conflicts, and are most extensively used to spread terror and cause dislocation (which is by far the biggest killer). Look at the biggest humanitarian disasters in Africa- Darfur, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, etc. Not caused by whizz bang jet fighters, or nuclear submarines, poison gas or any of the other stuff that tends to make headlines as far as arms proliferation goes.

[Watchman]

Yeah, there's a reason the human-rights types tend to regard "small arms" as WMDs - and easily the most factually lethal ones around too.

Then again, something like 85% of the killing in the Rwandan genocide was done with weapons which were essentially Medieval - spiky clubs and machetes.

[HoreTore]

No offense,but please don't tell me you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the Rockafellar Corporation or something runs the US,that the US govenment flew planes into the WTC,and that the moon landings were fake. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything,I'm just not interested in conspiracies.
Other than that,feel free to elaborate.
I knew what I was getting into when I started this thread.

Conspiracy theories? What?

Bush got elected with 62,040,610 votes. With a population of 303,824,646, that means Bush got elected by just 20,4% of the population...

[Kralizec]

I take it you're in favour of extending suffrage to toddlers, HoreTore?

[Tribesman]

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times

Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas?

Is it ?
Yeah I suppose it is if all parties have signed and ratified the treaty and all the opt out clauses many states added don't apply then yes it would be illegal , if not they revert to the earlier treaty where it is not illegal .

[Adrian II]

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times

[HoreTore]

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times

Haha, the funniest bit is that they're using WMD's(in the form of chemical weapons) in the current Iraq war... And here I was, thinking that they invaded to remove those weapons, not use them...

@Fenring: well, even if you exclude the underage people, you'd still be hard pressed to get the number above 25%....

[Kralizec]

Chemical weapons aren't necessarily WMD's.

@Fenring: well, even if you exclude the underage people, you'd still be hard pressed to get the number above 25%....

0.607 (turnout) X 0.507 (votes) = 0.307749 of people elligable to vote.

What was your point, anyway

[HoreTore]

What was your point, anyway

That GWB wasn't elected by the majority of the population.

[Kralizec]

So? That's not exactly unique.

We can't tell the political preference of those who stayed at home. A lot of them either don't favour one candidate above the other (i.e. they think both are crap), or simply don't care about politics in general. Unless the turnout is especially low (say, below 60%) I wouldn't take it to mean anything.

Besides, Jens Stoltenberg isn't elected at all