jimbarry

How about: HeyThatGirlKindaLooksLikePenelopeCruz Too literal? Too long?

Not all of his wmd had this shelf life. Is there evidence anywhere that says that all of the wmd we all knew he had at one point was all completely inert in 2003. I'll concede that's another for the "might not have had them" column. Except he was smart enough to find a way to verify his wmd destruction secretly. In a way that convinces the UN to leave him alone and still convinces his enemies he might still have them. Maybe he wasn't that smart. Or probably he still had them. Then what you might be saying we did was setup a catch-22 for him that would inevitably lead to regime change. Arguable. Sort of like the consipiracy crowd who believe that the US secretly told April Glaspie to give SH the green light to invade Kuwait, setting him up in a double-cross for us to build a fearful arab coalition and destroy his military. C'mon, did SH really think the saudi's would just stand back and not call for help when his army rolled in kuwait?

While I'm on your side of this Ron, I just wanted to see if I could build a case that removed the words of american politicians from the mix. I've seen these threads--adding these quotes convinces no one on either side and always leads into a dead-end. I wanted to spell out the case which refocuses on the main issue: SH had wmd at some point, he didn't prove he got rid of them, therefore he deserved an invasion because he knew 12 years before that it was the last option on the table if he didn't allow verification. So many people say (and I'm tired of hearing) "Bush said there were wmd. There weren't. He lied to us, and 1000 americans are dead because of it." Bah-loney. Doesn't matter what Bush said. SH violated legal UN resolutions which included military invasion as last-resort consequences of non-compliance. That's really what this all boils down to. Everything else, while important, is secondary.

So if I'm reading you right, you're agreeing with me that SH defied the UN in order to remain strong and in power at home. (that was one of my points above too) Then this points to him still having the wmd in 2003. I mean, why should SH get rid of all the weapons he had, but create an illusion to the world that he still had them by faking defiance of the UN resolutions to disarm. Both your case and mine are in the end unprovable and mostly circumstantial, but since your *only* points seems to be he defied the UN to remain strong at home, and that he never believed anyone would invade, I can't yet conclude you've poked any holes in my case above. And that's what Bush had in 2003. Couldn't prove they were there, and couldn't prove they weren't there. But of the evidence there was, and the actions of SH which telegraphed the truth underneath, the case of "has wmd/doesn't have wmd" seems to be 1000 to 1. So, in the end you agreed with two of my points, ignored the rest, and you still can say you don't agree with my conclusion? At all?

Good one. I'll concede that this is one for the "SH might not have had wmd in 2003" column. I still think though that the "did have wmd" column is still much heavier. Again, it wasn't up to us to prove. It was up to him to prove.

Good. Let's go with this. The police gave him a gun in 1980. Later that decade, he uses that same gun to kill some despised cousins of his who live up north. He uses a knife to invade his neighbor's house in 1990. In 1991, the cops eject him from the house, destroy his knife, and make an agreement that he'll turn in his gun or allow the verification of its destruction. For 12 years he offers no proof or cooperation to show the gun is gone. He lets gang members stay at his house and remains involved in criminal activity, killing family members and threatening more neighbors. In 2003 the man is approached by a cop. They chase him; he doesn't pull a gun on them. They corner him; no gun is seen. They take him down and search him; no gun is found. Is it reasonable to assume that he had one when they approached him? The answer is 'yes', only because it's a heck of a lot more reasonable to assume he has it than it is reasonable to assume that he hasn't. Especially when it wasn't up to the cops to prove he had the gun before taking him down. It was up to him to turn the gun in, knowing that he wouldn't get taken down if he had just lived up to his agreement. He gambled that the cops would just forget about him. But then, are you saying that the take down was the cops' fault?

I never said, nor do I believe we toppled this regime because it was unpleasant and he was a bad boy. I'm trying to refocus on the fact that SH knew that if he didn't allow the UN to verify the destruction of his wmd, that we could respond with military force. It was up to him to prove they were gone, not up to us to prove they were still there. SH led us on the path to war when he could have chosen peace.

Follow this line of thought, and help me poke holes in it, if we can: - Without dispute, Iraq had WMD and production programs in the late 1980s. Ask the Kurds. - At the end of Gulf I, SH agreed to destroy his wmd, his production programs, his aspirations for more, and allow the UN unhindered access to verify it all; knowing that military force was a consequence of last resort. - Through the 12 years between 1991 and 2003, SH threw any roadblock and hurdle he could in the way of the UN inspectors in their verification mission. - Even on the verge of the 2003 invasion, SH refused (or made half-hearted illusions) to abide by his agreement to allow verification. - SH's history shows that he took power by any means necessary and he kept power through recent decades by any means necessary, fighting or killing all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he showed no signs of simply giving it up through 2003. - SH knew that the only way to stop the invasion would be to prove that wmd and production programs were gone. He didn't. - Why hinder the inspectors and risk losing his power if he really didn't have wmd anymore and could prove it??? - After all this, the world would be naive if we didn't conclude that he still had wmd. So, I conclude that, of course he still had them. All evidence (short of seeing warehouses full of them) points to 'yes', and no evidence points to 'no'. - But let's play with the 'take' that SH really didn't have wmd anymore in 2003, but simply chose not to convince the UN of this as not to appear vulnerable to his neighbors. Then I'd say that if you rob a bank with a finger in your jacket pocket, you've still used a "weapon" to threaten your neighbors, and you're still a bank robber. - But there's nothing in SH's history that leads anyone to believe that he would lower himself to outsiders and get rid of weapons he felt he should have. So, even without satellite photos, I can't see anything in the above that convinces me that Iraq in 2003 was weapons-free. Again, SH brought this war on himself. We told him 13 years ago exactly how to avoid this war, and he specifically chose the path which led to it.

I think some here are missing the point. Whether or not SH actually still had wmd in 2003 and if so how much, is secondary to the fact that the primary justification for invading iraq was SH failed to allow the verification of the destruction of wmd and programs they had (ask the kurds if you don't believe he had them). SH's agreement in 1991 was that he would allow the UN to verify the destruction of his wmd or face consequences possibly including military force. The inspectors weren't there to hunt for wmd (since such a hunt could easily be made impossible), their job was to verify and document. His "bribing the UN" plan failed. Bush called his bluff. SH brought this war on himself. All he had to do was abide by his 1991 agreement and he'd still be in power and his murderous spawn would be alive today. Comes down to it, we didn't have to prove that he still had wmd. SH was supposed to prove he no longer did. (ed to remove response name from subject)

Just gonna tie two thoughts together, and then ask a question; respectfully. Growing up, I guess i never understood from my parents, teachers, clergy, or prayer why blind faith is in itself virtuous and something the christian god wants us to have, when he/she obviously has the power to make himself visible to us. To me, this really seems to be the core belief and test of a christian (and some other faiths too), and my personal unsurmountable hurdle. "Look, just believe, ok?" I've heard that if you believe you need no proof, and if you don't believe, then no proof will be good enough. That statement attempts to sound logical, I just don't buy it. Even the story of Thomas seems to have proven that statement wrong. Pajarito asks how many would still not believe if the christian god made himself visible (literally) to us. The answer I submit is that close to all would be believers then. I don't question the Bible because i lack respect for its contradictions, i don't believe in it because it's never made enough sense to me. As soon as i thought i was getting it, it falls apart again. And trying to understand history, i'm suspect of the circumstances of how it was created. The TaoTeChing makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm hardly an eastern philosophy nutjob. It seems like a solid guide for living my life and respecting others and the world around me while i'm here, and until i return to the soil. I read it 18 years ago and it was like a lightbulb went on in a dark room. And i've read it, and its many translations and interpretations hundreds of times. But that's just me. And yes, it contains some contradictions too. But it's my hobby and it's a guide. So yeah, if i die and meet St Peter at the pearlies, if he asks i'm just going to have to shrug my shoulders, explain that i did the best i could on my spiritual quest with the tools i was born with, and accept whatever consequences await me. But until then, i will treat my world and those in it with respect and admiration. And give it some cowbell.

Don't wonder too much. Probably close to all of them. Recruiters usually spend most of their time finding ways to get people into the service. I can't see they have much incentive to find reasons to keep people out. Especially highly motivated very bright people like your hub. Sorry guy, I gotta vote 'no' here. On major life decisions, the spouse holds the security council veto privilege. That's the trust bond you both have with each other. (ed to add: hey, on the bright side, she lets you jump...)

lol. i'm with ya there. and for those (ie. me) with even less attention span than that, there's always PBS and Discovery channel. Edited to add: almost forgot. one more here (ie. me) republican atheist for bush. but yes, the christian right drives me nuts sometimes too. just IMO. taking nothing away from other's beliefs here.

Some believe some 'thing', some believe some 'one', and some believe chemistry, energy, and several hundred million, if not a billion or so years of natural selection. Darwin's On the Origin of Species offers very logical explanations for these things. That said, to each his/her own. Isn't freedom great?

Back off Edwards. Just back off ok? He's so young dreamy and cute in a southern twangy aww shucks sort of way. And he cares so much about the little guy. So please, please don't cloud this all with facts. My a.d.d. will simply not tolerate the long discussion thread that this is about to turn into. But then, who was it way back when that said the VP post wasn't worth a bucket of spit? So unless botox is fatal, we won't need to worry about mr. edwards.

That one's ready for the cover of next month's Parachutist...

nice watch! (congrats!)

It's...

John and Ken rock!

--we'll see if this one gets moved to speakers corner-- An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. No it isn't. Yes. it is. It's not just contradiction. Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. But that's not just saying, "No it isn't." Yes it is. No it isn't. An argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of any statement the other person makes. No it isn't. Yes it is. Not at all. Now look... --ding-- Good day. What? That's it. Good day. It was just getting interesting. Sorry, the five minutes is up. That was never five minutes

Muslim extremists fight when they feel outsiders are trying to control them. Yet to these same extremists, France should have its rules dictated to it by outsiders? You live in France, you live by French rules. You don't have to like them or agree with them, you are only expected to abide by them. And if not, then use the system provided for changing them. And if not, then consider civil disobedience, which no, doesn't include murder. Looks like these kidnappers have painted themselves into a corner.

I don't think you're misremembering. I think maybe just not fully considering what 'class' can mean in america. People aren't stuck in the same class they're born into, like in some other countries. People can jump classes from one generation to the next. (i can't believe i'm needing to explain this to another american.) And in clinton's case, he was from humble beginnings personally, but his boys nation, georgetown degree, his rhodes scholarship amongst other achievements made him a local hero and there were plenty of people back home in positions of power willing to watch his back. So even at draft age, he'd already achieved a class status which gave him advantages that the typical lower-class arkansan didn't have. So you don't believe class played any role in service avoidance in the 60s? CCR's "Fortunate Son" is one of my favorite songs. Please don't tell me it's a lie...

I said it was easy? Clinton's avoidance of military service extended far beyond his rhodes scholarship. And he, like Bush, received preferential treatment. Bush's connections to get him the texas ang assignment were also not improper. Shady and unethical in both cases? Probably. But not illegal. But Kerry stepped up and served. And that deserves respect. But my point (contrary to the implication of this thread's title) is that service avoidance was not a partisan issue. It was a class issue. I thought most of us knew that already.

So what you're saying this means is the best performance comes out of the best preparation? If so, that makes sense that way. But on the first hand. The only time I've heard this term is in team sports. I can't think of it in any thing other than in football terms. Meaning, the best way to defend (ie., keep the other team's offense from scoring more than you) is to keep the ball out of their hands and run up the score yourself. So the only phrase I've ever heard is: the best defense is a good offense (ed to add: and to our non-american english speakers who spell it "c" instead of "s" i'd only have to say "the best spelling error is an american spelling error".)

yeah, that's what i'm finding. difference can be huge. so for those of you with slow scores (like me), cheer up and blame the machine... Dell P4, 1GHz, 512mb ram, WinXP, JavaScript running on MSIE 6x: i ran it a few times and got averages of 0.20-0.21. Unknown processor, 333MHz, 128mb ram, RedHat, JavaScript running on Mozilla: i ran it a few times and got averages of 0.28-0.29 no beers were consumed between tests off to get one now though... cheers.

It should be no surprise to anyone that well-connected people found ways to avoid service in the 60s. Clinton himself used tactics and legal gymnastics to stay out of service that would have scored him very highly in Athens. (even excluding the crap 'debunked' by snopes) And had plenty of people at home watching his back to boot. Just like Bush, just like Quayle... This is not a one-sided issue. Dems and Reps had their hands in creating and using huge loopholes in the rules. IMO, anytime my nation decides, after a real assessment of need and reasoned debate, that a draft is necessary, then it must include ALL of its citizens who are of able body and mind to do it. Male or female, rich or not, students or not, spouses/parents or not, connected or not, conscientious objectors or not (find alternate service). If anyone has a problem with including everyone in this pool, then that would probably indicate that we're not ready to declare a draft to be necessary.