Good news for peace

[diverdriver 7]

CNN is reporting that the Bush Administration is thinking about giving the inspectors more time to appease Russia and others on the security council. Now, that is a bit of good news.

[Shark 0]

Quote

CNN is reporting that the Bush Administration is thinking about giving the inspectors more time to appease Russia and others on the security council. Now, that is a bit of good news.

Absolutely.

[quade 4]

Bill --

I guess you didn't see the piece that ran on NBC Nightly last night about how two very specific palaces are thought to contain underground weapons factories. So far, Iraq has NOT allowed the UN inspectors anywhere near those two site.

What was interesting to me, was that for the first time we got to see Cuban Missle Crisis style satellite photos showing how the palaces were constructed. Specifically you'd want to look at images of Abu Ghurayb Palace at and then before September 2, 2002. In a September 2, 2002 photo you'll see a palace surrounded by some man-made lakes, but construction photos from the palace from just a few years earlier shows extensive construction in the areas where the lakes will eventually be. It certainly appears as if a -massive- underground construction project took place and then was later covered over by the man-made lakes. It's probable that the entire facility was designed to be covered over by the lake in an attempt to hide it and that it is one of the chemical plants the U.S. has been talking about for quite some time.

To -ME-, it looks like a -very- convincing argument that something is definately up at those locales. Ya might wanna tune in to tonight's report as well.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Shark 0]

Paul,

You make a good point, but the world wants to "see" proof and evidence. Especially when there was not enough evidence to convict OJ.

[billvon 3,120]

>I guess you didn't see the piece that ran on NBC Nightly last night
> about how two very specific palaces are thought to contain
> underground weapons factories. So far, Iraq has NOT allowed the UN
> inspectors anywhere near those two site.

Nope, I don't watch much TV. It will be interesting to see what Blix says about them on Monday; I'd tend to take his word over the media's. Perhaps that's why Hussein is getting a 'B' in compliance and not an 'A'.

>What was interesting to me, was that for the first time we got to see
> Cuban Missle Crisis style satellite photos showing how the palaces
> were constructed.

I've seen those; they're available from a public satellite photo website.

[billvon 3,120]

>You know it looks like Bush is trying to make this come down like the
>Cuban Missile Crisis.

Perhaps; that would be an interesting strategy. Although to make the simile more valid, at the end, Hussein would remain in power, as an impotent and isolated dictator. I think this is OK; I agree with Powell that the #1 issue is to make sure he has no WMD's, the regime change is completely secondary.

Of course this situation doesn't really have the gravity of the cuban crisis; we have a lot less to lose this time.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Of course this situation doesn't really have the gravity of the cuban crisis; we have a lot less to lose this time.

True. Except maybe any respect in the world community.

[quade 4]

Quote

Of course this situation doesn't really have the gravity of the cuban crisis; we have a lot less to lose this time.

That we are being publicly told.

Isn't it entirely possible that the U.S. government actually knows something that they're not telling us yet?

My -guess- is that if the U.S. had not shown the U-2 photos during the Cuban Missle Crisis, a LOT of folks wouldn't have believed that Cuba was that close to having a first strike capability.

OK, I'll admit, it's time to poop or get off the pot here and that the U.S. should probably show something convincing pretty damn soon, but let's hold off on the "nothing to lose" speculation until this thing is over.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zinger 0]

***What they need to do is produce the specific evidence that Iraq has WMD in the UN. Just llike they did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bush keeps claiming it. I really have no doubt that they have them. They used them on their own people and the Iranians so lets not kid ourselves. But let's see the evidence. Why they aren't producing their "intelligence" is really beyond me. They've got to know that their credibility will only go down without it. What are they protecting about that information? How it was obtained? Do we still have operatives there feeding info and if it's revealed then the Iraqi's will know how we got it? Makes you wonder.

[billvon 3,120]

>Isn't it entirely possible that the U.S. government actually knows
> something that they're not telling us yet?

Sure; it's also entirely possible that they know for sure that he had no WMD's, and that we have enough agents over there that we would know within minutes if he tried to make any. (Presumably our intelligence community would be up to such a challenge.) And that he is pressing for war purely for greed, revenge and popularity in the upcoming election. I doubt that, too.

In any case, we have to go on what he says. We're primarily a democracy, and therefore have to know what's going on in order to govern ourselves effectively. An approach along the lines of "Oh, I figure taxes _have_ to go up, I'm sure there are all sorts of secret programs that benefit me somehow" isn't all that effective in a democracy.

And if our president is determined to not allow US citizens to make such decisions, to choose leaders based on correct information? We have much bigger problems than Iraq.

>My -guess- is that if the U.S. had not shown the U-2 photos during
> the Cuban Missle Crisis . . .

In the middle of McCarthyism, all it took was the _suggestion_ of communist leanings to get you blacklisted. 'Communist' was the equivalent of 'terrorist' today, except back then, they really _could_ destroy the US. It didn't take much to justify any anti-communism activity; indeed, it seemed for a while there that that's all our government did. I doubt a lack of pictures would have stayed Kennedy's hand, or even significantly influenced public opinion.

>but let's hold off on the "nothing to lose" speculation until this thing
> is over.

Not sure what you mean. He could have, any time in the past 10 years, flown a 747 into the Sears Tower. He could have made some VX and released it into the NYC subways. He could have made a dirty bomb (he _has_ nuclear waste; he has a few ruined reactors.) He didn't do any of those things, and now is in the worst position ever to do so, with constant surveillance, inspectors in-country, and a climate that leaves no doubt what we would do if Iraq so much as drops a bomb near the Kuwaiti border. We seem to have a lot less to lose than when an evil communist, bent on world domination, had the ability to nuke at least all our allies in Europe (and, eventually, us.)

[quade 4]

Quote

Sure; it's also entirely possible that they know for sure that he had no WMD's, . . .

I disagree.

It's impossible to know if somebody -doesn't- have something. It's only possible to know if somebody -does- have something.

This is why UFO conspiracies continue. It's impossible for the U.S. government to prove that aliens didn't land in Roswell and that they aren't being held in a top secret underground bunker. The conspiracy theorists will only be convinced if they actually see something.

Change the words and you have a very similar situation in Iraq with the weapons inspectors.

On the flip side, you have the U.S. that has (presumably) high resolution spy photographs of something very fishy happening at palaces that we're not being allowed into.

Again, there is a UFO analogy with spaceships at Area 51. The difference being, that the U.S. doesn't have blurry photos of distance spaceships and we should be able to get into Iraq a whole lot easier that a UFO nut getting into Area 51.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>It's impossible to know if somebody -doesn't- have something.

Not true even in the most literal sense. I know there are no elephants in my car; I know there are no nuclear weapons in my house. I could even prove there are no elephants in your car, given a thirty second search.

Generally not true in the wider sense either. It's possible to search a university lab and make sure there are no nuclear weapons there. It's possible to even search a whole building, if you have the time and patience. Searching a whole country is many orders of magnitude harder, but you can get to any desired level of certainty by spending more time and money doing it.

Your UFO analogy is a good one, though. If a UFO nut is convinced there are UFO's in area 51, he will believe it despite the facts. If you present him with the facts, he will claim there's a conspiracy to delude him. If you get all the people who ever worked near that area to testify, he will just believe the whole world is against him, and they're all making up an elaborate story to hide the truth. To _him_ there is no possible way to prove that UFO's don't exist; indeed, the more proof that they don't exist he sees, the more he believes they do. I very much hope our president does not have the same mindset.

[ERICCONNELLY 0]

Quote

at the end, Hussein would remain in power, as an impotent and isolated dictator

One difference - Castro only had cigars that we want, not oil.

E

[quade 4]

Quote

I know there are no elephants in my car; I know there are no nuclear weapons in my house.

Perhaps you only know that there were no elephants the last time you looked.

Unless you are there right now with perhaps some secure cameras in every room feeding back to some monitoring station that you're watching, I maintain my point that you do NOT know that there are no elephants there right now.

You can have a lot of faith that your neighbor's kids didn't sneek one in and you can be pretty sure that your room mate didn't either, but ultimately, you can not tell me with 100 percent certainty that there are no elephants anywhere in your house.

This is also why you can't disprove the existance of God. (And I can't believe I'm bringing -that- up!)

FURTHER! To believe and fully trust in what you've seen in the past is to lose horribly at Three Card Monte.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lowpullin1 0]

bush doesn't care if they find anything. he just wants to kick his ass. i think he has a hardon for him or something.

"It's hard to fly with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys."
My Website

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I could even prove there are no elephants in your car, given a thirty second search.

I lean toward your viewpoint, Bill. I think we need proof before we attack, but I'm pretty sure we'll find it eventually. I just want to make sure we have it before we take any action.

To your analogy, could you prove I didn't have an elephant hidden somewhere in Pennsylvania, when you couldn't be everywhere in the state at once and I didn't tell you where it might be, you had to guess?

[Shark 0]

Quote

I lean toward your viewpoint, Bill. I think we need proof before we attack, but I'm pretty sure we'll find it eventually. I just want to make sure we have it before we take any action.

Everybody has good arguments whatever way you lean. The government says they have proof. Should we have the same evidence? Or should we use the OJ analogy again? Whatever. What's another 5 years of waiting? Hell, they probably have their WMD hidden in Syria anyway.