peace rally in San Diego this weekend

[skreamer 1]

I've changed my mind - good reason to bomb Iraq.

[Muenkel 0]

Ah, the alleged smoking gun is Winnie Mandella! Who knew?

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,118]

>Meanwhile, we are capturing terror cells all over the world, the first
> conviction in Germany just yesterday. More to come...

Yes, we've had some successes (the Yemen assassinations, the Buffalo terror cell.) We've also had some failures - the cessna flown into the office building, the anthrax attack on the US government, US citizens killed throughout the Middle East.

Similarly, we've had some successes in the inspection process, as Hans Blix detailed to the UN. We also have some very significant problem, as he and others have described. It makes sense to pass a new resolution to deal with the new situation, just as the US deliberates new measures to deal with terrorism as the situation changes.

>To say there is "intelligence" that Chem/Bio materials exists is an
> understatement of monumental proportions...Good God!

Well, if it is detailed and comprehensive information, then I would ask why the US is deliberately withholding information that could prevent terrorist attacks and/or allow the inspectors to successfully do their jobs. If it's sorta sketchy, that's fine, but admit that.

>So I ask this: If someone you know, without a shadow of a doubt, to
> be untrustworthy says, "Trust me, I have nothing to hide." -- You
> give the benefit of the doubt, once, twice, three, times plus...only to
>be slapped in the face.

>How many times do you turn the cheek? Personally, I often only
> need to be burned once.

If my response was to no longer believe him? I'd give him two chances. If my only possible response was to pull out a gun and blow him away? I'd give him a lot more than that; I would want to be 99.99% sure that he was lying, and was intending to try to kill me, before I killed him.

>How can you trust an environment that is known to not be
>trustworthy?

Same way we "trust" North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, the former USSR - which is to say, we take everything they say with a large grain of salt. Most of international relations is based on treaties with extensive means to verify compliance. In that way we are no more trustworthy than the people we claim are liars (like the old USSR.)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Yes, we've had some successes (the Yemen assassinations, the Buffalo terror cell.) We've also had some failures - the cessna flown into the office building, the anthrax attack on the US government, US citizens killed throughout the Middle East.

That antrax attack on the US Government as you call it killed more civilians than it did Government officials (like who?).

Of those some successes, you forgot, Paris, Indonesia, Philipines and now Florida (newest indictments in Tampa), Afghanistan, certainly more and we just don't know about (remember, "Secret, even in success.")

Quote

Similarly, we've had some successes in the inspection process, as Hans Blix detailed to the UN.

The inspection process is failing. They are being forced to detect when they should be inspecting.

Quote

We also have some very significant problem, as he and others have described. It makes sense to pass a new resolution to deal with the new situation, just as the US deliberates new measures to deal with terrorism as the situation changes.

Resolution 1441 Paragraph 5 "Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice..."

Paragraph 4: "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach..."

Quote

Well, if it is detailed and comprehensive information, then I would ask why the US is deliberately withholding information

Need to know is need to know. I'd bet real money that UMOVIC is not using all the intelligence already being provided to them by the US and other countries. I'd rather us protect our sources than scream "freedom of information".

>So I ask this: If someone you know, without a shadow of a doubt, to
> be untrustworthy says, "Trust me, I have nothing to hide." -- You
> give the benefit of the doubt, once, twice, three, times plus...only to
>be slapped in the face.

>How many times do you turn the cheek? Personally, I often only
> need to be burned once.

Quote

If my response was to no longer believe him? I'd give him two chances. If my only possible response was to pull out a gun and blow him away? I'd give him a lot more than that; I would want to be 99.99% sure that he was lying, and was intending to try to kill me, before I killed him.

So, in essence, you want to give him two more chances and however many months, after the 18 chances and 12 years already taken by Iraq. Doesn't sound like a solution. It sounds like procrastination.

Quote

>How can you trust an environment that is known to not be
>trustworthy?

Same way we "trust" North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, the former USSR - which is to say, we take everything they say with a large grain of salt. Most of international relations is based on treaties with extensive means to verify compliance. In that way we are no more trustworthy than the people we claim are liars (like the old USSR.)

I can't speak to Clinton's decision to cow-tow to DPRK, but the "Agreed Framework" did account for onsite UN monitoring of the reactors there. We caught them red-handed in violation, how are we wrong there?

The US relationship with Pakistan dates back decades and the US and USSR were on an even playing field, allowing verification from satellite and on-site inspections. Go out to the desert in Arizona and you'll see 3 B-52s destroyed every week as a part of START.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

>How many UN resolutions must be passed before action is call for?

One more. Pass a resolution that says "do X, Y and Z by this date or you will be invaded." Make it clear both to Iraq and the rest of the members of the UN what will happen if he doesn't comply.

Interesting: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=840&ncid=737&e=2&u=/nm/20030220/wl_canada_nm/canada_iraq_canada_col

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 3,118]

>The inspection process is failing.

I know you make an effort to be well-informed on this, but I am going to have to go on Hans Blix's opinion on how inspections are going over yours. He is closer to the reality of the inspections.

>So, in essence, you want to give him two more chances and however
> many months, after the 18 chances and 12 years already taken by
> Iraq. Doesn't sound like a solution. It sounds like procrastination.

No, personally I want to give him one more chance with no ambiguity. You may call it procrastination, I call it potentially saving the lives of hundreds of thousands - and that's worth it, even if someone calls you a procrastinator. I'd rather be called names than have a part in killing of that magnitude.

>I can't speak to Clinton's decision to cow-tow to DPRK, but
> the "Agreed Framework" did account for onsite UN monitoring of the
> reactors there. We caught them red-handed in violation, how are we
> wrong there?

We are not wrong in claiming they violated the agreement; but apparently we 'trust' them enough to leave them be and attempt diplomatic solutions to problems that are far, far more dangerous to us than Iraq is. You claim that any trust at all of Iraq, on any matter of disarmament, is foolish - why is trusting that N Korea will not sell their _working_nuclear_weapons_ to anti-american terrorists any less foolish?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

We know they have 30,000 chemical warheads, we've found 18 or 19...where are the other 29,981? We found some missiles that exceed UN mandates, where are the rest of them? Come on, one or two is never enough.

Could they be floating around on cargo ships at sea?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379893

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The inspection process is failing.

I know you make an effort to be well-informed on this, but I am going to have to go on Hans Blix's opinion on how inspections are going over yours. He is closer to the reality of the inspections.

Spokesman for Hans Blix, Ewen Buchanan, "Clearly Iraq needs to do more by way of cooperating, particularly on unresolved disarmament issues, which are clearly issues of substance." Article here.

Quote

>So, in essence, you want to give him two more chances and however
> many months, after the 18 chances and 12 years already taken by
> Iraq. Doesn't sound like a solution. It sounds like procrastination.

No, personally I want to give him one more chance with no ambiguity. You may call it procrastination, I call it potentially saving the lives of hundreds of thousands - and that's worth it, even if someone calls you a procrastinator. I'd rather be called names than have a part in killing of that magnitude.

I hope you didn't think I was calling you a "name". I was describing the process as procrastination. The US policy on Iraq is regime change. That means Saddam, his family and advisors - out of power. The UN inspection process essentially a separate issue, protracts the execution of making that policy a reality.

Quote

(RE: DPRK) We are not wrong in claiming they violated the agreement; but apparently we 'trust' them enough to leave them be and attempt diplomatic solutions to problems that are far, far more dangerous to us than Iraq is. You claim that any trust at all of Iraq, on any matter of disarmament, is foolish - why is trusting that N Korea will not sell their _working_nuclear_weapons_ to anti-american terrorists any less foolish?

1. We are not engaged diplomatically with them one-on-one.
2. There is no ambiguity between the US, Japan, PRC, and ROK in terms of outcome in this instance: DPRK will not be allowed to pursue its nuclear weapons program.
3. We have an estimation that they have one or two nukes. Nukes that haven't been tested, and a long range missile that hasn't been tested. A delivery platform that hasn't been tested. Three critical components before the warhead is even built, which would need to be tested too!

I am not a nuclear weaponeer, but I do know that it is far more complex than chemical and biological weapons, which have far many more options of simpler, and more clever (i.e. dangerous) delivery systems. The world knows that Iraq will use them at the drop of a hat, in the face of no deterrent.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>Spokesman for Hans Blix . . .

Hans Blix himself:

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. . . .

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Center (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations. "

"Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002."

"We note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."

Certainly not full compliance, but there's no doubt that there has been progress. Is it enough? That's the issue.

---------------------------

No, I didn't think you were calling me a name, but if I were representing the US I would rather be called a procrastinator than have to kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, if both were avenues to disarmament. But that's just me.

>DPRK will not be allowed to pursue its nuclear weapons program.

N Korea IS pursuing its nuclear weapons program; they HAVE nuclear weapons by our best intelligence. Shall we wait until they have a dozen, so we can bargain them down to 6? Perhaps 3? Would you accept that outcome with Iraq?

>We have an estimation that they have one or two nukes. Nukes that
>haven't been tested, and a long range missile that hasn't been tested.

Quite true, but their two stage missile has been tested, and they have been cooperating very closely with Pakistan, who does have nuclear weapons. There's been an active trade between the two countries in missile and nuclear technology.

>I am not a nuclear weaponeer, but I do know that it is far more
> complex than chemical and biological weapons . . .

Yep; but with the proper help, a basic nuclear weapon (uranium gun-type) isn't hard at all; it's the fissiles that are hard, and they have those. If they don't have a working weapon yet it's pure luck on our part.

> The world knows that Iraq will use them at the drop of a hat, in the
> face of no deterrent.

I agree, but currently there is nowhere in the world that has more deterrent force aimed at it. It is certainly a danger; it is not even in the top 5 compared to real risks throughout the rest of the world.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Certainly not full compliance, but there's no doubt that there has been progress. Is it enough? That's the issue.

Report: UN Joins US, Britain in Saying Iraq Isn't Cooperating Fully.

Based on that report, I would say no. Even you said that the inspections are likely to fail. Yet it's worth waiting for that 5% chance at saving innocent lives. I don't dispute the motive there. But I do believe that 5% is disproportionate to the risk increase of waiting even longer.

Waiting longer

Quote

>DPRK will not be allowed to pursue its nuclear weapons program.

N Korea IS pursuing its nuclear weapons program; they HAVE nuclear weapons by our best intelligence. Shall we wait until they have a dozen, so we can bargain them down to 6? Perhaps 3? Would you accept that outcome with Iraq?

I meant to phrase my initial response differently: DPRK will not be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons, its program, any of it. The US is not alone on that by any stretch. Japan has already indicated that it is able and willing to a pre-emptive strike if it assessed a direct threat. China does not want DPRK to have nukes because it would further isolate them from the western economies. ROK is stuck in the middle, and despite some of the issues of the US presence there lately, I commend ROK's composure.

Quote

Yep; but with the proper help, a basic nuclear weapon (uranium gun-type) isn't hard at all; it's the fissiles that are hard, and they have those. If they don't have a working weapon yet it's pure luck on our part.

While a Uranium gun weapon wouldn't need to be tested (just like we didn't), there's still a delivery platform problem, as it wouldn't survive re-entry on an untested missile.

Aside from that. The different approach with Korea, from what I can tell is because of the commonality of DPRKs rhetoric now versus 10 years ago. If the assessment were different, there would be a lot more than 38,000 service men and women at the DMZ. I think the main reason why we aren't amassing forces there is because of China. Regardless of how much we might tell them, they simply won't accept another advance towards their border (just like 1950-53) whether we cross it or not. It would end up like us fighting the French during WWII in Africa, exept this time we'd be facing an army so large that we'd run out of bullets trying to stave off the human waves.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>I meant to phrase my initial response differently: DPRK will not be
>allowed to keep its nuclear weapons, its program, any of it.

If that's the desired result, we'd better start _now_ before they have a dozen nukes. Nuclear weapons, even in ships, bombers or drones rather than ICBM's, are very powerful bargaining chips; North Korea would be foolish to think that they can deal with the US on a purely diplomatic level. After all, we just announced a policy of preemptive invasion. They need a lever, and now they have it. They'd be fools to give that up.

>I think the main reason why we aren't amassing forces there is
> because of China. Regardless of how much we might tell them, they
> simply won't accept another advance towards their border (just like
> 1950-53) whether we cross it or not.

I agree; it will limit our (and our allies) attempts to force North Korea to abandon their nuclear development program.

You said above that you don't think it's worth taking a chance on saving a few hundred thousand people if it involves giving Iraq more time - Iraq, which is the most heavily monitored country in the world right now, a country with no overt allies, no access to the ocean, no nuclear weapons and no current nuclear development program. I think that if there is a country out there that needs _immediate_ attention, it's the one with nuclear weapons, a weapons development program, prototype ICBM's - and the one we can't confront directly.

One of the countries described above is an immediate threat. One's not. We should target our efforts accordingly.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

While a Uranium gun weapon wouldn't need to be tested (just like we didn't), there's still a delivery platform problem, as it wouldn't survive re-entry on an untested missile.

I think you meant "cannot be absolutely guaranteed to survive re-entry..." just because something's untested doesn't mean it won't work ("Little Boy" and the Lunar Lander proved that).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shark 0]

Quote

Quote

While a Uranium gun weapon wouldn't need to be tested (just like we didn't), there's still a delivery platform problem, as it wouldn't survive re-entry on an untested missile.

I think you meant "cannot be absolutely guaranteed to survive re-entry..." just because something's untested doesn't mean it won't work ("Little Boy" and the Lunar Lander proved that).

Using your similar logic, just because there is no "visible" link to Iraq and Al Quaeda doesn't mean there's no collusion in further terrorist acts against the United States.

[billvon 3,118]

>Using your similar logic, just because there is no "visible" link to Iraq
> and Al Quaeda doesn't mean there's no collusion in further terrorist
> acts against the United States.

You just proved _his_ point actually. There's no proof now of the Iraq-Al Quaeda connection; there may well be in the future. N Korea has an ICBM but it's not tested now; it may well work in the future.

In any case, there's far more evidence for a link between Al Quaeda and Pat Robertson than between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, at least right now.

[Shark 0]

Quote

>Using your similar logic, just because there is no "visible" link to Iraq
> and Al Quaeda doesn't mean there's no collusion in further terrorist
> acts against the United States.

You just proved _his_ point actually. There's no proof now of the Iraq-Al Quaeda connection; there may well be in the future. N Korea has an ICBM but it's not tested now; it may well work in the future.

I wasn't disputing it. By the same token, I thought he backed up my theory.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

While a Uranium gun weapon wouldn't need to be tested (just like we didn't), there's still a delivery platform problem, as it wouldn't survive re-entry on an untested missile.

I think you meant "cannot be absolutely guaranteed to survive re-entry..." just because something's untested doesn't mean it won't work ("Little Boy" and the Lunar Lander proved that).

Using your similar logic, just because there is no "visible" link to Iraq and Al Quaeda doesn't mean there's no collusion in further terrorist acts against the United States.

Right on. There's no "visible" link between Al Queada and Mars, either, so we'd better watch out for terrorist attacks inspired by Martians. Let's bomb Mars. Pass the duct tape!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>I wasn't disputing it. By the same token, I thought he backed up my theory.

Oh! In that case, like the late great Emily Litella used to say, never mind.

[billvon 3,118]

>Right on. There's no "visible" link between Al Queada and Mars,
> either, so we'd better watch out for terrorist attacks inspired by
> Martians. Let's bomb Mars. Pass the duct tape!

Come on, John. That's absurd. We really need to be taking action against the moon not some innocent planet like Mars.

[Shark 0]

Quote

>I wasn't disputing it. By the same token, I thought he backed up my theory.

Oh! In that case, like the late great Emily Litella used to say, never mind.

Exactly!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>Right on. There's no "visible" link between Al Queada and Mars,
> either, so we'd better watch out for terrorist attacks inspired by
> Martians. Let's bomb Mars. Pass the duct tape!

Come on, John. That's absurd. We really need to be taking action against the moon not some innocent planet like Mars.

Nope. The Moon is actually more of a real threat as that link indicates, so we'll postpone attacking the Moon until after we've dealt with Mars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Ok John correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we deal with those little martian bastards back in 1953?

I mean, I know some of the kids today won't believe it, but HERE is the documentary footage all about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Ok John correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we deal with those little martian bastards back in 1953?

I mean, I know some of the kids today won't believe it, but HERE is the documentary footage all about it.

They have WMDs, a history of invading their neighbors, they pay no attention to the UN - ATTACK MARS NOW!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.